Jump to content

rjb43nh

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    398
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by rjb43nh

  1. I'm actually gearing up to compensate for the leapsecond, coming midnight on June 30th. You can get more info at: wired.com. Although GPS time is currently offset from UTC and other commonly used local time zones by 15 seconds, most people will never notice when another second has been added to the time scale at the end of June. Your GPS actually displays UTC (Universal Coordinated Time or Universel Temps Coordonné in french) corrected for local time zones so you don't see this 15 second difference. Those of us who have atomic based time standards that are accurate to parts per billion or better (yes, there are quite a few), will see the difference and I'm sure a number of them will be videotaping their GPS satellite controlled clocks change when the second is added. Time-Nuts are more geekier than geocachers! :D
  2. Not totally correct. If the longitude of the point you're looking for at XXX distance is the same as the original waypoint's longitude, the latitude line you draw will be tangent to the circle and there will be a unique point. The 2 cases this will happen is when the points are either directly north (0°) or directly south (180°)of the original.
  3. I always carry a camera but don't always post photos. I did include two photos in the cache I hid 5 days ago, check them out at My Dog Angus (GC37ZEH)
  4. I’m surprised no one has added something to the effect that “power trails aren’t really geocaching”, or would that be covered under “I found 234723485723482 caches in 24 hours.”
  5. The geochecker gave me a big success and I've added this to my to do list. I have done several other caches like this in the area. Check with the CO for hints.
  6. You asked the wrong question. The question should be can Mr. Smith watch Sven’s videos and find caches from those ‘spoilers’. Remember that in post #217 Sven said-“nothing is revealed in the video to say where the cache is anyway so nobody could find it.” It has already been shown by the video posted on June 8th that the GC code was clearly displayed, to which you replied: “blah blah 1/81?” By quickly checking a few other videos and comparing log data I identified 3 more caches from spoilers posted on 10-04-11, 08-11-11, and 06-24-11. In one of the videos Sven shows the owner’s logo making the connection really simple and the title of another was a dead giveaway. So make that 4/81 and counting. I’m sure any local cacher with little effort could match most of those videos to the respective caches. Just because you can’t see any connection by using simple clues others can see doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Cache title, type, D/T rating, Sven’s logs, etc., all give a resourceful cacher information to deduce which cache is being featured in the video.
  7. First, please learn how to quote correctly because that isn't what I posted ( I don't have perseveration), and you and Sven should have learned by now that not being truthful in what you post is a big part of your total problem. Second, for you to continue to act childish isn't helping your image either and you could end up in timeout with Sven.
  8. Sven was given the chance to comply with the TOU as Groundspeak sees them and he refused thereby breaching the contract so from that line of reasoning alone he is NOT entitled to a refund. Beyond that, GS doesn't have to give a reason. His attitude, arrogance, and his own duplicity got him into this mess. If he had have been truthful about what he did he might have gotten more support here in the forums. He and you just keep digging the hole deeper.
  9. You are obviously trying to miss the point. What Sven said he did and what the facts show he did are two diametrically opposed things. Sven’s own words say that “nothing is revealed in the video to say where the cache is anyway so nobody could find it.” That is clearly not so. Whether the CO gave permission or not isn’t the point, and I made that clear. The point is what Sven (and you) are saying is not fact, by his own words in those two posts. Please answer the question, and no double talk, if the video clearly shows the GC code (which Sven also denies multiple times) is it possible for any geocacher to find that cache? That is a rhetorical question, by the way. Next?
  10. I’ve read this entire thread and found it interesting. I also just happened to be looking at YouTube geocaching videos this morning for another reason and saw a caching video by Sven’s persona there posted on June 8th of this year where he not only showed the container but also what is clearly the GC number for about 7 seconds, although, as he intimates, he didn’t personally write the GC number there. Where the GC number is shown, no matter who put it there, I’d say that would clearly make post #118 false. Post #217 is worded such that (the old Clinton; “that depends on what the meaning of ‘is’, is”), although his video I saw doesn’t directly give you the location, anyone who has the ability to look up GC numbers can easily find the location, making post #217 false as well. I looked up the GC code shown in the video just to check and the cache shown does not belong to Sven. I did a screen capture of a frame of that video in case it 'mysteriously' disappears after this post and he claims otherwise. It appears Sven isn't being completely honest in his claims and knows it. Point and match to Groundspeak.
  11. That post pretty well sums it up but I’m not sure that the word “spoilers” is completely correct in this case but that’s the “is” is conundrum. The first question is, can GS prevent the YouTube videos from being posted, and the answer is no. The second question is, can they ban a member for posting what they ‘feel’ are spoilers on another site, and the answer is clearly yes. Whether anyone agrees that the decision is justified or not appears to be the main divide in this thread. It would appear that the only way for Sven to get out of time out is to comply with CS’s request to remove all videos they deem to be offensive from YouTube whether he agrees with their decision or not. This has nothing to do with free speech but rather house rules trump everything else.
  12. As the cache owner of the nearby “Lots of Zeros” (GCK35Z ) at N44° 00.000 W072° 00.000 and “Lots of Zeros –Part Deux“ (GCTXBVN) at N43° 00.000 W 071° 00.000, I know that coordinate numbers like this are possible-but they are not at all common.
  13. Although some people may find it revolting, that's a current photo.
  14. The owner has removed the "no co-FTF" language from his cache. I would hope that the bogus find logs and other childish comments that don't belong as logs will be removed by those that put them there.
  15. I haven't logged a Co-FTF since 9:45 this morning. And by the way,
  16. Try this link GCSHOW To see it.
  17. There, I put the word you were searching for in the sentence, above. Also, I cache for pleasure, not treasure. Whether 990 is possible for you or not is a rhetorical question that you've answered by deciding you don't want to do power trails. As to others who have done power trails and have done more than 990 in a day, they know it can be done, and legally. Earlier this year a friend and I did the RT66 power trail, caching only during daylight hours, and had a good time caching. Two of the hours we signed by pen 71 logsheets, the minimum we did was about 58 per hour. An organized group of cachers could certainly do better than we did and at a minimum of 58 per hour they could find almost 1400 caches in a 24 hour day. YMMV, as they say.
  18. My first topic is I believe you to be wrong. My second topic is Groundspeak states you’re wrong. First, “the rest of us” you refer to doesn’t appear to exist. Please read the posts to see that. Second, the reviewer has stated this is a guideline violation and I agree. I don’t have to. I just have to point to the reviewer’s informed decision. And I have pointed out to you many times, the reviewer, who is the authority here, not you, has stated they are right. Who’s going to win this one? Well we all know how well that worked with virtuals. This ain’t gonna happen. Feel free to continue tilting at windmills but I’ve got to get ready to go caching tomorrow, maybe finding some great multicaches. Feel free to continue without me.
  19. Just to make it clear, I’m not talking about previous caches or hypothetical caches, I’m talking about the single cache (or series of caches according to you) that you referenced in post #1. You can quote the guidelines from now till doomsday and say what you “think” they mean but the only opinions that count are those of the local reviewer and Groundspeak, and I happen to agree with their decision. It’s may be your opinion that I’m wrong but the cache has been denied because, as submitted, it doesn’t fit within the guidelines. As the final decision of the reviewer states-"As it stands today, your cache fits the definition of a "Multi Cache"; that is to say that one stage leads to the next, and it must be completed in sequence in order to reach the "Final" stage/cache. I would therefore be required to consider this cache/the remaining caches to be "Stages of a Multicache" and would hence request that changes be made to the listing to reflect that.” Now Team Goju and you have two choices; you can make the necessary changes to make the caches conform to the guidelines as a multicache; or you can continue to post here, which you’re more that welcome to do, but it will not get that cache published. Your continuing to argue the merits with me and others, while quite civil, are not productive. Unfortunately Team Goju has apparently put a lot of time and effort into this cache but that cannot be a consideration in the approval process. Maybe next time you have a grand plan it would be wise to run it past your local reviewer to make sure there aren’t problems with the cache that you’re overlooking. Whether you or I think Groundspeak is right or not is also immaterial, it is their sandbox and you can play by their rules or not play at all. That is between you and TPTB.
  20. So are they in different domains where you can't find them or are they together in the same spot where they confuse you? If you can’t find the connection or links, ask someone who possesses more knowledge, like Keystone, I'm sure he'd be glad to help. I think you’re starting to get the point. There is no division, they are all part and parcel of the rules and guidelines that determine whether a cache gets published, or in the example in your post #1, gets denied. You’re never going to convince Groundspeak of your misinterpretation of the guidelines no matter how you try to twist them to fit into your own universe. So which is it? Does the 1st cache lead to the 2nd, 3rd , etc., as you said in one post or are the waypoint cords listed and can be done in any order; or can you get the final cords via PAF and only do the final. If all previous daisy chained caches aren’t signed will the final log be deleted? Please make up you mind. Just like to let you know that your attempt at wry humor wasn’t overlooked. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has feathers……..
  21. Nope. You're twisting my example around. The second set of things are not "laws". The knowledge books are not guidelines. I nor anyone else has indicated anywhere when submitting a cache that we agreed to the knowledge books. Perhaps you missed Keystone's explanation that the Knowledge Books ARE part of the guidelines. It makes no difference where they are located (or hosted) as long as they are official and there is a reference leading to them so any open-minded reasonable person can find them. For example, if you read a synopsis of a course, it doesn't mean you have completed the entire course. Or using your logic one could do the first stage of this proposed "multi" and claim to have done the entire cache because the waypoints aren't physically in the same location as the first and therefore not related. I did no such thing. I said they're not a bonus. A continuation doesn't mean it's the same cache. Just like a sequel to a movie is not the same movie. A sequel to a movie is one in a series and you are not required to see the first before you see the final in the series. This cache series was denied because you have to do previous specific caches to get the final. Again, I can create a multicache where the stages can be done in any order without relying on the other caches just like a power trail. Since multicaches are in the guidelines and power trails are not therefore a power trail should be listed as a multicache. You must be trying really hard to misread what others are posting to misconstrue pertinent points. Show me one multicache you've created where you can find the final WITHOUT doing the waypoints. Please only list published caches, not some hyporthetical off the wall example you dream up. As I pointed out (but you choose to ignore), a power trail has separate caches that can stand on their own and no other cache is required to do any one cache, your "multi" has linked waypoints and none of the waypoints can stand on their own. Even if you're not required to do the waypoints in an exact order, you still have to do the waypoints before geting the final so there is a required order. Oh, and power trails don't need a separate category because they are traditional caches that are clearly covered by the guidelines (and Knowledge Books) and just happen to be close together. They meet all the guidelines where your 'multi" clearly does not, as has been pointed out by Groundspeak by denying it and Keystone here in his good explanation of the rules, guidelines, laws, and Knowledge Books.
  22. Wrong. It’s like you agreeing to abide by all traffic laws and then you are charged with violating an actual law that you didn’t know about, or thought didn’t apply to you. As they say, “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” So you admit that these stages are all a continuation of the main part and not separate caches? Simple answer-a power trail is a collection of caches that stand on their own and can be done in any order, one or more, without relying on other caches. A multicache requires other caches to be done to get to the final and the logbook. As you described this multicache in your post #1, “...a cache series where one cache daisy chains into the other”
  23. It isn't just natural areas that can be mistreated by cachers. I had to archive one of my caches that brought people to a replica of a 1743 fort. The cache listing had background on the fort and a link to their webpage. Here is the log I wrote when I archived the cache.
  24. I don't have a Magellan but my Garmin has the same type of feature. If I press "MARK", the GPS enters my current location, but it isn't saved at this point. I can then use the up-down arrows to highlight different data areas on the screen. If I highlight the data field that has the coordinates and press "ENTER" to select the coordinate field, I can now edit the coordinate information before I save that waypoint. You should also be able to edit the name of the waypoint before you save to make it meaningful to you. I'd guess your Magellan has a similar procedure, just don't save the default location but edit the info then save.
×
×
  • Create New...