larsl

Would it be possible to add the PQ names in the query files? That would make things easier to organise. The (so far unused) global <name> tag in the GPX files could be used for this. Having the search parameters in the GPX file would also be nice.

Doh. Of course date ranges is a much easier way to do it - and it requires no tweaking, except adding new date ranges when the old ones fill up. Thanks for the pointer.

Let's say that I want to create a PQ that gives me all caches within 100 km from Stockholm. That is not possible, because there are more than 500 caches in that area. I could try to use three or four PQs with different centers to try and patch together the whole area, but it would be a bit tricky - I would have to use some trial and error to see where to place the centers to get the best cover with the least overlap. But if there was an option to search for all caches inside an annulus (the area between two concentric cirlcles) I would probably get away with two PQs - one that searched for caches within 50 km from Stockholm (that can be done with the current PQ interface) and one that searched for caches that was between 50 and 100 km from the same center. If both these searches returns less than 500 caches I can be certain that I have all caches within 100 km, and if one of them starts to return 500 caches I can just change the radii to make that search area smaller, and possible add another annulus outside those two. And there wouldn't be any overlap in the searches. This would be a very nice improvement to the PQs, and all that's required in the UI is a new field "Not within radius of" which could default to 0. Another option would be to have just one radius field and a radio button that selects if the PQ should search inside or outside that radius - that would require more thinking by the user to make sure that it had all the caches though.

Finding loopholes and shortcuts in multis and mysterys is the fun part. =)

If that's the case (which it probably is since subtracting a four-digit number from 16.272 would give a negative value) the problem is very badly phrased. I'd send a message to the cache owner and ask him/her to clarify it. EDIT: Or maybe the last four digits in the phone number is 00AB where A and B are some arbitrary digits? If that's the case maybe you should subtract AB from 16.272. You can't know that without actually looking for the number.

If I have an idea for a mystery cache (for example) I usually start a map program, load some maps and GPX files with the caches in that area, and try to find a spot that is reasonably far away from the nearest cache and also has the terrain that I want to hide the cache in. I prefer to hide caches at least a couple of hundred meters from the nearest buildings (a few kilometers is even better). On a good topographical map you can also see hilltops and ridges that might have a nice view, or places where you maybe can hide a cache somewhere in a steep slope so the finders will have to climb a bit to get it.

Not really, it's a small (although a bit annoying) detail. I could probably even set up a file handler in Firefox to do the conversions automatically. PQs are a lot more enticing, if I decide to become a premium member it will most likely be because of them. Interesting, I didn't know that.

There are no GPX links unless you're a premium member (at least that's what I assume, I've never seen one but I hear people talking about it on the forum). I just don't understand why the LOC format is needed at all when GPX is the standard interchange format for GPS data. Sure, it's a one-liner to use GPSBabel to convert the LOC files to GPX, but I don't really see why it should be necessary.

Is there any chance of providing a GPX download link on the cache page instead of (or in addition to) the LOC link? I don't mean Groundspeak's extended GPX format, just a simple standard GPX file with a single waypoint. It would contain exactly the same information as the LOC files but in a standard format.

This was the idea behind opencaching.com - several different listing nodes, regional or otherwise, where any node can get info from any other node. A listing node for a small country could probably run on a private web account without any problems. The project doesn't seem to be very active any more though.

Monoculture is never good for longevity...

I disagree. I think terracaching.com is a lot like geocaching.com, except the sponsors thing. There is no way to download database excerpts except paying and becoming a "Premium Member", and you're not allowed to publish downloaded cache info somewhere else. Navicache.com on the other hand provides a search interface for downloading XML files with cache info, descriptions and logs to everyone, and you are allowed to use the downloaded information for something else like a map site or even another geocache listing site (if you also let others do the same thing with caches from your site). I'm posting all my caches on navicache.com first and list them here later when someone has got the FTF on Navicache and a couple of months have passed.

I was FTS on a cache that I still haven't gone looking for (N00b Haxxor, although I plan to do it at some point in the future). In most mystery caches the fun part is solving the problem - and it can be even more fun to figure out where the final location of a multi cache is without actually visiting any of the other steps (this is quite possible for many of the "math" type multis). I don't think there is any need for a special log type - just log a note saying that you've solved the puzzle. If the owner cares he can ask for the solution or remove the note.

For batch jobs the "convert" tool from ImageMagick is great. It's a command line program so it can be used in scripting - if you know a little Perl or Python or some other scripting language you can easily write something that downloads the latest pictures from your camera and converts/resizes all of them to a web-friendly format (you could do it automatically when you plug in your camera).

Yes, all you need is a cable (and some software that knows how to talk to the eTrex, but you can get that for free on the net). Don't get the expensive cables from Garmin though, there are alternatives that are much cheaper.

If you have map data already, or can get free data somewhere (probably depends on where you live - different countries have very different policies regarding land survey data), you can use the free and open source program Quantum GIS to create a new GPX file and draw routes, tracks, and waypoints in it. You can also download and upload to a GPS device. http://qgis.org

I'd just like to mention that QGIS isn't really based on GRASS - it has an input module for GRASS data and an UI for some of the analytical tools in GRASS, but you don't need GRASS to use QGIS. If you build it from source yourself you can even turn the GRASS modules off altogether if you don't have GRASS installed. I use it with shapefiles, GPX files, and all sorts of raster maps. http://qgis.org (it's free)

It means that there is a X% chance that you are less than 18 feet from the waypoint, where X is the level of confidence used in the eTrex Legend, probably something like 95 or 99 (does anyone know?). The waypoint is almost certainly not where the actual cache is since the hider also had an uncertainty when he placed the cache, and unless you know this uncertainty you really don't know how far away the cache is likely to be.

No, you can't add error approximations like that - the total error will be smaller than the sum of the two errors (assuming that you are using the same level of confidence).

...but remember that this only works when the three waypoints are so close together that the world is approximately flat between them, and even then it doesn't give an exact result.

I've placed a few micro caches in the woods. If someone mailed me and asked me to remove one of them so they could put their own cache there instead I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't place a cache if I thought it was completely "lame", and I don't think anyone else would either.

My TB Petersen has been stuck in Posankka outside Turku since November. A log by the cache owner from February 6 says: "TB was frosen inside the old box. So now I have it when I got it out! Will return it soon..." And a log by the same person from February 27: "Kätkö huollettu ja vaihdettu microon. Jos se häviää kolmannen kerran niin joudun poistamaan koko kätkön. TB palautettu." Can someone who understands this translate it for me? I see that a TB is mentioned, but I don't know if it says "returned TB to cache" or "the TB was destroyed in the ice" or "my neighbours dog ate the TB".

1) I was not trying to justify copyright violation, I just thought the wording was strange. 2) Copyright violation is not, legally speaking, stealing.

That doesn't sound right - record stores, book stores etc don't own the copyright to the material they make available (for a fee). And I don't own the copyright to the material on CDs I've bought - does that mean that I can't sell them or give them away (without keeping a copy)?

Why do you want more people geocaching? Are you sure that would be a good thing?