Andronicus

But is passionate about geocaching Longest Slump 419 consecutive days without a find from 14/07/2013 to 06/09/2014 OK, I think this is crossing the line into "creeping". Really, while some red flags seem to pop up here, what on earth does the consecutive days without a find matter. I think I am going to turn off my stats. This is too creepy.

Maybe a sign at the likely entrance(s) to the area would work for the few weeks around the event.

The "serves no purpose" argument I think is misguided. It is just as purpose-full as any other part of the reporting system. It lets the CO know that people are interested, and are attempting to find it. It lets other cachers know that in the dark, you will probably need a flashlight. I'm not all that bent out of shape by someone logging a DNF for a non attempt, although I personally don't think a DNF should be logged if you didn't even look! I feel it should be reserved for actually looking for the cache and not being able to find it. Otherwise, a note would serve to keep a record of your visit without putting up a blue face that might indicate a problem of some sort with the cache. However, that's just my opinion and I'd much rather see DNF icons, and then, when I check over the cache page, read that it was a non attempt, than have people not post DNF at all!!! Exactly. Don't post a DNF if you didn't look. It only serves to cast a negative light on the cache. People who post a DNF if they hit 'go' on their GPS 10 miles away, got a flat, then went home are being obsessive to the detriment of the cache. This can lead to the cache getting archived down the road while still being there. I received notice today of an archived cache, http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC18BB6_roller-coaster-road-cache Looking at the logs, I see no reason that cache should have been archived. Sure it had two DNFs and hasn't been found in years. Look at the last 2 DNFs, they admit to not looking thoroughly. Read down further, it has had other DNFs as well then found by others. Just two DNFs can get your cache archived without anyone asking for maintenance or archive. The bolded text "Irks" me. We all need to get out of our minds that a DNF somehow "casts a negative light on a cache". That has to be one of the crazyest things I have ever heard. I do however agree with you that a DNF is not appropriate if you didn't even look. Walking by and deciding not to look doesn't really seem like a good reason to log a DNF.

The "serves no purpose" argument I think is misguided. It is just as purpose-full as any other part of the reporting system. It lets the CO know that people are interested, and are attempting to find it. It lets other cachers know that in the dark, you will probably need a flashlight.

Except that won't work with IOS...which is what the OP must be looking for. Does iOS not have bluetooth? Not being an apple guy, sometimes apple's complete lack of intercompatability shocks me.

From a different thread... Agreed.....once mine was a month old. I think the problem here are the masses brought by the Mega. Its O.K. for mobs to do most power trails but for other caches, especially classic ones , its horrible. Nothing worse than a trampling, attention drawing mob at a cache site. Here is a novel idea, have a mega but no actual caching. Have fun, eat, and socialize with folks you may never see again.....but no, the area must be blanketed with caches. When I attend an event I don't care if I don't find one cache, I like to meet the people. Shortly though, we're all alone as everyone left to get the caches....it is what it is. Again, the problem was the Mega. I rest my case!

Wow...what's that, a three + year old device? It's a senior citizen in tech years! I got it 2.5 years ago, just before the GS3 came out. It still works fine, but I want the GS4 Active. Unfortunatly, I don't have $ to always have the latest phone...

Why wouldn't you post a DNF for that? DNFs do not subtract from your find total. They are just records of your experience for you, the CO, and other to read. If you did it, why wouldn't you want a record of that? here is a typical DNF log in this case

Surely deleting a log if you've previously removed the cache would be entirely within guidelines. If the cache page says "the cache has been removed. Do not look for it." then anyone leaving a throwdown deserves to have their log deleted, and anyone finding the throwdown clearly didn't find the cache as placed by the CO. Additionaly, adding a piece of paper with their signature is not the same thing as signing the log. GS would not (IMHO) reinstate a log in this situation.

Well, it depends on your app, as well as the phone type. You have a G5, so you can do what I sometimes do. Use my phone app (CacheSense) on my GS3 to download caches near me or wherever I have the map on the phone displaying. Use OTA cable to connect phone to Garmin GPS. Export GPX from the app to the Garmin. Turn off phone or go airplane mode, and use GPS for navigation/caching. A little clunky, but I then have the best of both technologies available. Some or most of the 3rd party geocaching apps support import/export of GPX files. The Groundspeak app does not. It will only fetch raw PQ's from the web site and does not support exporting. You just blew my mind! You transfer caches via GPX directly from your phone to you garmin GPS using USB? Can you give me some more info? (I have a GSII Skyrocket HD). I use both phone and a gps both work great for me! If I could get more information on this process it would be great! I just recently bought a Samsung Galaxy s5 active and I love it! But this my opinion and personal preference! Well I am not sure of the details, but I just bought off ebay a µUSB to miniUSB OTG cable. I plan to figure it out once the cable shows up in the mail.

I noticed that the list of GPSr I use is gone from the My Account screen. I was trying to use that today.

Looks nice. The biggest issue I see is that they don't publish their sensitivity values. If you can find those, you are good. They should be in the high -150dBm range, into the -160dBm is exceptional. I used to use one of these http://www.gpscentral.ca/products/usglobalsat/bt-821.html That was when I had an early smartphone without a great GPS.

In my own personal experience, having two handheld GPS's and 2 different smart phones - The handheld GPS's have always been more accurate. What handheld GPS do you use? This is clearly a case of Anecdotal Fallacy! Do you have any metrics to back up this "experience"? I have found over 120 benchmarks (here we call them Brass Caps). I have found that consistantly, my phones are within 5m, but more often within 3m of true. As for Handheld GPSs, I have a Garmin eTrex Legend H, and two Garmin eTrex Venture HC. All of these have Garmin's "High Accuracy" chipset. They are also very good, but do not result in any better accuracy. What they do do better is sencitivity (i.e. under heavy tree cover). So based on the above anecdotal evidence it would be reasonable to assume that the dedicated GPS would be more accurate under heavy tree cover due to better reception under those conditions. You are mixing up accuracy and sensitivity. Two very different issues. If this is a huge deal for you, for very cheep ($45ish) you can buy a bluetooth GPS puck that you tether to your phone. It will have better sensitivity and accuracy than you Garmin.

In my own personal experience, having two handheld GPS's and 2 different smart phones - The handheld GPS's have always been more accurate. What handheld GPS do you use? This is clearly a case of Anecdotal Fallacy! Do you have any metrics to back up this "experience"? I have found over 120 benchmarks (here we call them Brass Caps). I have found that consistantly, my phones are within 5m, but more often within 3m of true. As for Handheld GPSs, I have a Garmin eTrex Legend H, and two Garmin eTrex Venture HC. All of these have Garmin's "High Accuracy" chipset. They are also very good, but do not result in any better accuracy. What they do do better is sencitivity (i.e. under heavy tree cover).

First part is correct (assuming by boost you mean reduce), second part isn't. While A-GPS assists with the initial fix accuracy is generally far better from the GPS receiver in a smart phone than any data it gets from cell towers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_GPS A handheld GPS has no better accuracy than a phone. The one thing it may have is better sencitivity (only GPSrs with a High Sencitivity GPS chip). This allows to maintain a lock while under heavy tree cover. All the other issues with smartphones are easyly overcome. This is really the only BIG advantage. (actualy, a smartphone can use an external bluetooth GPS puck to get better accuracy and sencitivity than a handheld GPS) Under tree canopy the phone is at its worst locating GZ but its screen is at its best....you can see it. Out in the sun the sensitivity improves but you can't see the screen. IMO most phones are about useless on the trail as GPS devices unless you want to go blind....I'm told there are now some viewable in bright sun but the majority have a long way to go. You must be living in the past! The current generation of phones have bright displays that are usable in daylight. Here is a quote from a recent review of the Samsung GS5 For the full article comparing the verious current generation phones see this link http://www.phonearena.com/reviews/Screen-comparison-Galaxy-S5-vs-iPhone-5s-vs-One-M8-vs-Note-3-vs-Nexus-5-vs-G2_id3652

I agree. He is probably fighting to keep the cache from being archived, and a little hot headed, and not thinking the situation through. If it was me, I probably would remove the whole cache for now; as well as delete logs. Removing the log will just result in someone being helpfull, and putting in a replacement log. I realize that removing the cache will likley result in a ThroughDown, but realy, what more can you do.

I am as annoyed by visit logs as the next guy, but I don't think I would like to disable the option. There are times when it is legitimate. Also, I am sure some smart app developer would make a "dip" sub-routine that would drop, then retrieve the trackable. Old apps used to do that before the "visit" option existed. I am sure it wouldn't take long for that sort of functionality to appear again.

Try here http://www.atlanticgeocaching.com/index.php/forum/index

My understanding is that the system assignes countries based on map algorithm. Maybe it needs a tweek...

Well, it depends on your app, as well as the phone type. You have a G5, so you can do what I sometimes do. Use my phone app (CacheSense) on my GS3 to download caches near me or wherever I have the map on the phone displaying. Use OTA cable to connect phone to Garmin GPS. Export GPX from the app to the Garmin. Turn off phone or go airplane mode, and use GPS for navigation/caching. A little clunky, but I then have the best of both technologies available. Some or most of the 3rd party geocaching apps support import/export of GPX files. The Groundspeak app does not. It will only fetch raw PQ's from the web site and does not support exporting. You just blew my mind! You transfer caches via GPX directly from your phone to you garmin GPS using USB? Can you give me some more info? (I have a GSII Skyrocket HD).

Already have one in mind There was a cache across the street from my house that I always used to "dip" (aka Visit) my TB in before sending them off. Unfortunatly, that cache was arcived, and there is a new one that I have DNFed 3 times. Can't really dip a TB in there until I have found it...

You seem to be living in the past. The 'modern' ones like the Samsung Galaxy now even have IP ratings. Then there is the ruggedized Samsung Rugby. Battery life is not a problem with most Android devices because you can easyly and quickly swap out the battery. As for stand alone GPS functionality, the new Garmin Montera line runs Android. So, it have the exact same functionality as a phone. You could even use WiFi tethering to get all the usual spontanious mobile caching benefits of a phone. The two worlds really are getting closer and closer togeather all the time.

Here is a good link with some valuable information. Note that tort law is civil. There can also be a criminal aspect to tresspassing. I have never studied that, so can not comment on the criminal aspects. http://www.lawteacher.net/tort-law/lecture-notes/trespass-to-land.php Especialy relevent, scoll down to the section "MISTAKEN OR NEGLIGENT ENTRY"

Well, that one in particular was archived after the property owner complained, and it did have a line in the description that it had permission. So it's not really a different story. There were a few by the same CO that were archived right off the bat for being on posted land http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4MRBB_new-hampshire-9th-state-of-50 But then new ones appear with permission stated on the page, and then they get archived by a lackey for not having permission. Hmm. http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4RCX4_colorado-38th-state-of50 http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4RQBZ_utah-45th-state-of-50 This isn't about most hides where the general public is allowed, but places that have signs prohibiting entry, but the cache page says go ahead in anyway. How often does this occur? Would you feel confident going someplace posted, with the cache owner saying its fine? In the end, all geocachers are responsible for their own actions, but does that include knowingly posting inaccurate information on a page? Does anyone accept responsibility for that? Time to review Tort Law. The trick with torts is that they are different in every jurisdiction. As a basic concept, the tort of Tresspass is as follows: Intentional Tresspass: Intentionaly going onto private land. (full stop) This tort does not care if you know it was private. It doesn't care if a fellow geocacher told you there was permission. Unfortunatly, that is about all I can remember off had. All my layman law books are at home, so I can't look it up right now. Maybe try googling it.

That would definitely take more commitment to cache for the full 24 hours and more willpower to limit yourself to 1 cache per hour! Would be impossible to verify too, wouldn't it? I've actually only done it once, with 43. I have two days of 23 apiece, and a few others in the high teens and low 20's. 2 points. 1) you could require a photo of the logbook with something that displays the time. Of course, you could spoof that, but only hardcore cheaters would do that. 2) I don't think you could get a challange published that required no more than one cache per hour. The general challange guidline that you can't have requirements to not find caches would likely apply.