rdw

Is anyone else getting empty geocaching.loc files from the website? I first got this trying to bulk download a page of search results. It goes through the normal routine of having to click "Open" twice then opening up ExpertGPS. But instead of the listings showing up, I get an empty file. Same thing happened when I saved the file to disk, then opened it manually. Then I tried to download info for a single cache from the details page, but got the same results. I have poked around in the settings, but have found nothing obvious. The only change since it last worked is my ISP. I just moved and the software for the new ISP came on an auto-installing, take over the computer, screw up all your settings type of CD-ROM. If anyone has hints or suggestions, please let me know. rdw

Well, troll or not....... Uhh, forget it. rdw

You can get a replica of the Mount Washington marker here. I didn't notice the real thing when I was up there last summer, but I was not aware of NGS markers back then. I searched ebay, but didn't see anything but replicas. If I ever found what appeared to be a real marker, I would bring it to eBay's attention. I can't imagine that it is legal to sell them. I did see on the NGS website situations when it was OK to keep the marker, but I can't find that section right now. Basically, you could take it if it was damaged beyond repair and you had submitted eveidence to that effect, such as a digital pic. rdw

Take it outside. The GPS needs a clear view of the sky to receive the satellite signals. The first time you start it up it will take a while before it is ready, 5 minutes or more. When it is ready, it will say something like "Ready To Navigate." If you tell us what kind of GPS you are using, we can give you more specific instructions. rdw

I'm still reading it, but this adventure is great so far. I wish for a geocaching adventure only a tenth as interesting as this. And to think of all the people who say "scavenger hunts" are no fun. Silly, silly people. rdw

quote:Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite: I hear the forest service isn't going to allow anyone to whiz in the woods. Never Squat With Yer Spurs On That's gonna be mighty tough on the animals. Alot more stressful than being watched. rdw

quote:Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite: I hear the forest service isn't going to allow anyone to whiz in the woods. Never Squat With Yer Spurs On That's gonna be mighty tough on the animals. Alot more stressful than being watched. rdw

I wonder how well an audiotape recorder would take a steaming hot central Illinois summer. Likewise for a digital recorder, which has the added risk of being more expensive. It is worth a try though. You would probably have to host the files elsewhere. Also, you may want to encode the file to MP3 to save storage space and transfer times. rdw

These guidelines look good. I have seen a number of crappy (or at least uninspired) locationless caches pop up in recent weeks. Jeremy's rules of thumb will help to weed out the chaff. There are some good ideas out there and probably even better ideas which are yet to be discovered. Hopefully, this will please both the pro- and anti-locationless factions. rdw

Good idea... except that there is little reason to visit the cache page since the log text goes out in the found emails. A "last visit" display could give a false impression of the owners involvement. rdw

quote:Originally posted by Renegade Knight: These buggers are more work than I thought. Certainly more work than my traditional cache. You aren't kidding. Don't Know Much About History has been a major pain in my a$s. Three major requirements: Coords, pic, text. But many people can't get all three into the log. I spend tons of time checking logs and hounding people to meet all of the requirements. I get the impression that other locationless cache owners are having similar problems. quote:Should morons who are arrogant, rude, and condesending be blacklisted even if they post a valid find later? I'm thinking they should. Should "close but not quite" finds be allowed. Or should whatever the heck people think meets your criteria be allowed on the honor system? The last is a lot less work on my part. No and no. The requirements are the requirements. On the other hand, it is your cache. rdw

All you (or Jeremy) would have to do is limit the accuracy of the given coordinates. If the coordinates are only given to 3 decimal precision, it doesn't matter how accurate your GPS is. Perhaps you could give higher precision coords for microcaches, etc. rdw

Go for the surface disk since it is the primary marker. The other markers are there to survey the location of the surface disk. rdw

Go for the surface disk since it is the primary marker. The other markers are there to survey the location of the surface disk. rdw

The errors are almost certainly the +/-6 seconds scaling accuracy from the maps. The best way to be sure is to find a horizontal control station and see how close the coords are. The horizontal marks are not scaled off maps, but rather are surveyed to within inches. These will probably be very close, at least within the error range of your GPS. rdw

This is one of my favorite warnings to remind people about. Here is a snippet from PID KB0180: quote: KB0180 *********************************************************************** KB0180 DESIGNATION - RR MARK 1 KB0180 PID - KB0180 KB0180 STATE/COUNTY- IL/COLES KB0180 USGS QUAD - MATTOON WEST (1984) KB0180 KB0180 *CURRENT SURVEY CONTROL KB0180 ___________________________________________________________________ KB0180* NAD 83(1986)- 39 28 13. (N) 088 26 17. (W) SCALED KB0180* NAVD 88 - 218.228 (meters) 715.97 (feet) ADJUSTED KB0180 ___________________________________________________________________ KB0180 GEOID HEIGHT- -32.14 (meters) GEOID99 KB0180 DYNAMIC HT - 218.102 (meters) 715.56 (feet) COMP KB0180 MODELED GRAV- 980,047.2 (mgal) NAVD 88 KB0180 KB0180 VERT ORDER - SECOND CLASS 0 KB0180 KB0180.The horizontal coordinates were scaled from a topographic map and have KB0180.an estimated accuracy of +/- 6 seconds. This warning shows up on most vertical control stations. Vertical control markers are not concerned with lat and long coordinates, so they just pull them off USGS 24K maps. Horizontal control stations have obscenely precise latitude and longitude coordinates. rdw

This is one of my favorite warnings to remind people about. Here is a snippet from PID KB0180: quote: KB0180 *********************************************************************** KB0180 DESIGNATION - RR MARK 1 KB0180 PID - KB0180 KB0180 STATE/COUNTY- IL/COLES KB0180 USGS QUAD - MATTOON WEST (1984) KB0180 KB0180 *CURRENT SURVEY CONTROL KB0180 ___________________________________________________________________ KB0180* NAD 83(1986)- 39 28 13. (N) 088 26 17. (W) SCALED KB0180* NAVD 88 - 218.228 (meters) 715.97 (feet) ADJUSTED KB0180 ___________________________________________________________________ KB0180 GEOID HEIGHT- -32.14 (meters) GEOID99 KB0180 DYNAMIC HT - 218.102 (meters) 715.56 (feet) COMP KB0180 MODELED GRAV- 980,047.2 (mgal) NAVD 88 KB0180 KB0180 VERT ORDER - SECOND CLASS 0 KB0180 KB0180.The horizontal coordinates were scaled from a topographic map and have KB0180.an estimated accuracy of +/- 6 seconds. This warning shows up on most vertical control stations. Vertical control markers are not concerned with lat and long coordinates, so they just pull them off USGS 24K maps. Horizontal control stations have obscenely precise latitude and longitude coordinates. rdw

I found this a few months ago during a benchmark hunting phase. Monumented 1935, nothing since. Until I found it. It's a railroad spike embedded in the top of a small railroad bridge. (Tracks are long gone, if you were worried about my personal safety.) rdw

I have found around a dozen benchmarks and submitted reports for most of them. One was a railroad spike embeded in a bridge that had not been recovered since 1935. I found another one that was reported missing in the mid-80's, but was sitting in perfect condition right where it should be. All of my recovery reports are shown in their database. rdw

I have found around a dozen benchmarks and submitted reports for most of them. One was a railroad spike embeded in a bridge that had not been recovered since 1935. I found another one that was reported missing in the mid-80's, but was sitting in perfect condition right where it should be. All of my recovery reports are shown in their database. rdw

quote:Originally posted by EraSeek: I suppose I'm the guilty party for starting all this with my Cache of Palindromes cache http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=8235 , so maybe I can be of some help. I don't know. Your cache does start with coordinates. I'd like to think that my cache, Don't Know Much About History, is where the downhill slide started. There were a few before mine, but they seemed to explode soon after mine got started. quote:Creativity is very important to the vitality of Geocaching. But we must also stay focused on what it is we are doing. When I have put caches together there are certain elements I try to focus on. Creativity, WOW!locations, education, innovation. But they must still fit within parameters. Those parameters are: The process: Coordinates > GPS > The find. NOT The find> GPS> Coordinates. (The latter is not Geocaching.) The FIND can be virtual or physical or even a set of coordinates, but it must follow the process and must be PHYSICALLY visited, and must be visited AFTER the cache is posted.The Game is not on till the cache is posted. Only one find per cache element. You must meet the cache placers requirement to log a find. Process? I'm more interested in the ends than means. Admittedly vague, the ends are getting out, finding something, and having a good time doing it. I'm pretty happy with the results so far. 120+ logs, a few outside the US, most of them interesting. 24 people are watching it, so other people are apparently interested in it. Having said that, I have spent alot more time than I hoped hounding people for proof pics, cooordinates, and marker text. But most people have complied with my requests and I've only had to delete a few entries. rdw

First thing I noticed: This was a person who has never found a cache. This person may not be familiar with GPS inaccuracies that a more experienced cacher would know how to handle. They would not be familiar with the force either. Second thing: The previous group didn't have a problem, and had a wide age range. Third thing: This topo map shows this as a fairly smooth hill, not a cliff that you could accidentally fall from. Moreover, the crosshairs suggest the cache is near the bottom of the ravine. $h!t happens. If you have a bunch of kids with an inexperienced leader searching for a cache in a steep area, does it really suprise you that one of them might have an unfortunate fall? It doesn't suprise me. And it's not all that terrible an injury. You could break a rib if you tripped over a stump and fell on perfectly flat ground. The adult leading the group has the ultimate responsibility of knowing when to say when. The previous logs do not suggest that this is a particularly hazardous area. Even if it was, it's still the finder's responsibility to know whether he is up to the task. I see no reason to archive the cache because someone had a bad experience with it. rdw

You can submit a recovery report through the NGS website. I have done this on several I have found, including one that had been reported lost, and my recoveries show up if you search the PID. I would be weary of submitting it through Groundspeak. Idiots could easily screw up the official records (false recoveries, etc.) just for "fun." Forcing them to use the official channel would hopefully make pranks less likely. rdw

Couldn't you just have a link to the USGS datasheet? It does give a lot more info than Groundspeak. rdw

Couldn't you just have a link to the USGS datasheet? It does give a lot more info than Groundspeak. rdw