cr4zybilly

Gasp! I'm doing the best I can where it's within my power to make the choice to use Free software. Thanks for the snarky replies. I think I'm done asking for technical help in this forum.

that really equates to "can't run". starting up a whole instance of a huge operating system (which you'd really have to pay for too) in a resource-hogging VM, just for an operation that takes only 5 seconds? no thanks. and i won't even comment on WINE - it's a nice toy, but that's about it. Not to mention you've got to bend your ethical standards to run non-open source software. If there's a way to do it using only open source software, I will, even if it means sacrificing some functionality. I don't expect everybody to act that way--but it's what I believe and I'll do my best to follow that. Gotta say, I appreciate GPSBabel being open source--that's a great project with some serious hackers behind it.

Well, actually it does mater--I don't want to/can't use GSAK, since I'm on Linux. The intent behind the original question was to figure out the best way of running a pocket query against my finds. Looks like I'm stuck downloading it by hand.

Ah, but is it the engine doing the log checking or the radiator? And by 'radiator' I mean "something else besides GPSBabel itself." Starts to get over my head pretty fast

Ah..that's what I'm looking for. Tricky. Hm...I wonder if GPSBabel can do that? I'm guessing no.

Just about anyway you come up with will violate the TOU. Bummer. How's GSAK do it?

Is there a way to script getting the 'My Finds' PQ automagically? I'm working on a little shell script (in Ubuntu) using gpsbabel (which works great, btw) and would love to not have to deal with making sure I keep a local copy of my finds each time I get a new PQ. Any ideas? Thanks!

I hid a multicache the other day. Now that it's been up for a while, I realized that it'd work better as a single w/o the unnecessary (and easily muggled) first stage. Is there a way to convert the cache to a traditional, or do I just need to delete it and put a new one out? If I do the latter, what do I do w/ the 10 or so logs that are already on it (considering that I'll be leaving the final stage, which will become the only stage, as it were)? Just email the folks and let them log it?

Yeah, that was my original hesitation--I don't really think it's THAT hard. It's just a tricky (who knew there was such a difference between 'hard' and 'tricky'!) If it was just an honestly difficult cache, it'd be one thing, but there's just one trick and once you figure that out, it's not that big of a deal, which is why I'm not really sure about it

Right on--good point. Maybe something in the description is a good idea...

Ha. Around here, the trend is the opposite--the best hiders underrate their caches I climbed the tree w/o any tools and once you get up there, it's pretty obviously. I think I'm going to go for 3.5 terrain, 2.5 difficulty with not much in the description, but a hint that implies it's up high. Sound alright?

I'm still pretty new at hiding and could use some advice on rating a cache. I put out a micro (film can covered in camo duct tape) in the crook of a tree branch today. The tree's an easy minute or so walk on a flat gravel trail from the parking lot, maybe 150 yards or so. But the crook of the tree is at least 8' up. I had to climb up into the tree to get it in. I'm just under 6', so it's definitely out of reach of the average cacher (although somebody who's REALLY tall might be able to grab it). You can't see the cache from the ground at all, from any angle; however, there's not very many other likely hiding places--if I came up on this cache, my thought would be 'well, it's this big tree somewhere'. If the cache was on the ground, I'd rate it no more than 2 on terrain (maybe 1 or 1.5--the tree is almost wheelchair accessible). As it is, I hate to rate it more than 3.5 for such an easy walk, but unless you're a decent tree climber, a geotool (ie. stepstool) will be absolutely necessary. Doesn't that put it at at least 4? And considering you can't see it from the ground w/o the tool, how does that affect the difficulty? Any thoughts?

I say hide 'em like you want to find them. But rate them appropriately. Sometimes I'm in the mood just to get out and hike or to grab some easy micros. In that case, I'm hoping for easy finds. Other times, I want something more rewarding/challenging. What I DON'T like is getting to a cache that's rated 2/1.5 and finding out it's a micro hidden somewhere on one of 5 cedar trees. Now, if I knew the same cache was a 4 difficulty, I'd be ok w/ that--there's more payoff that way. But if it's rated low, but it's a tough find, I'm hesitant to spend a half an hour looking for something that very well might be gone.

Well, I got out last night and used the suggestions--it worked out great, I made sure I kept the cache at least .11 or .12 miles from the existing. Unfortunately, I'm an idiot--one of the caches I put out is too close to a SECOND cache. I didn't even think to keep track of it b/c it's at least a .5 hike from that cache to the only bridge across the creek, and then back to where I hid the (rejected) cache. Doh! The good news is that I've got an eye on another spot--I'm debating going out on my lunch hour to move it. Probably a really bad idea--I don't think anybody wants me to come back to work all itchy from a bit of bushwacking. Figures

Ha...I just assumed it would track distance traveled (which I assume it does with tracks and all that). I didn't even think about using 'navigate to'. Duh! I'll give it a go, maybe this weekend. I really don't know how the trail runs as far as distance goes--it's a long thin oval with one cache already at the front of the trail head. I know one at the far end would be fine and that was my original plan, but I got to thinking that if one ammo can in the woods (albeit in the middle of town) is good, wouldn't two be better! So the question is whether I can a) squeeze two in or find good hiding spots where they ought to go. Looks like I need to hit the trail and find out!

Anybody know a good way to determine distance between caches in the field? There's a local park w/ a loop trail through the woods that I'd like to place a couple caches along. Looking at the map, it looks like it's going to be pretty close on whether or not the caches will be .1 miles apart as the crow flies. Of course, I could use my GPSr to determine distance between the caches on the trail, but I'm pretty sure the guidelines refer to distance as the crow flies. I'd hate to put the caches out and then get back to my computer only to find out they're too close together. Any thoughts on a good way to figure out that out in the field (fwiw, I've got a PN-30). Thanks!

I'm going to be in Cincinnati for a day or so of vacation in a couple weeks. Any particular caches I need to make sure I hit? I'm not looking for anything particularly challenging, just want to make sure I don't miss anything special. thanks!

Gotcha--I'll do that. The weird part is that on my PN-30, I can see the maintenance log, but the new coordinates are removed. Doh!

These were the two that did me in: GC11VE9 GC13H4G The latter I was lucky enough to stumble onto with a a little geosense. The former, though, involved nearly chest high poison ivy and copious bugs, so I didn't really have much chance to look anywhere but the original coordinates. It looks like both of those were 'maintenance done' logs...Thanks!

I just counted about 25 chigger bites from my caching trip this weekend. And I thought I liked bushwacking. That crap is gonna have to wait till the fall...

I was in the field this weekend and realized, on a couple caches, that the CO had updated the cache coordinates. But my PN-30 still had the old coordinates in it, even though, it also had the CO's log saying the coordinates were updated. I'm using GSAK to load PQs onto the unit...clearly I'm missing something--anybody have any good advice about making sure I get the the most up to date cooridinates before I head out the door?

I think making a FTF certificate and putting it in the cache for the FTF'er sounds like a cool idea--seems like that'd be fun to collect.

Nice--good to know. I will say, one of these, definitely needed maintenance (log was SOAKED), so I'm going to go ahead and log that. The rest, I think, don't really warrant much of note

I carry mini-leatherman (with scissors) extra logs zip lock bags a rag compass mini-notebook water bottle baby wipes (which I always forget about) flashlight tweezers pen If I had to go out w/o only one thing, it'd be a flashlight. But I find having extra logs and ziplocks is always nice--you can always drop one off in a cache w/ a wet/full log and mark it 'needs maintenance' so the owner can put the kind of log he wants in it, but there's something there till he gets out.

What's the normal etiquette for a 2nd visit to a cache? Log it as 'found', or a note? Or nothing? I was out w/ some friends on Saturday. We were in a park where I'd done half the caches and they'd done none, so we hit them all Should I log the caches I revisited with them as a 2nd 'found' or some other way? Or do I not log them at all? I'm not interested in bumping up my numbers--I'm just curious what the established convention is. Thanks!