Bob Blaylock
-
Posts
214 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Bob Blaylock
-
-
No, you cannot see archived caches when searching based on zipcode, state, etc.
The only time you see archived caches in search results is when you do a search based on caches found by a particular username.
And that is why the blurb at the bottom explains that archived caches are shown in red.
But where the blurb indicates that archived caches are shown in red, it is incorrect on searches where, in fact, archived caches are not shown at all.
-
When I do a search for caches near my home coordinates, there's a blurb at the bottom that indicates that archived and disabled caches are show, in red strikout and grey strikout respectively. I do see disabled caches, but not archived caches, though I know there are some that ought to appear. For example, I see this disabled cache in my search results, but I do not see this archived cache.
Aside from any issues as to whether or not each of this types of caches should be shown, there seems to be a minor bug here in that the site works differently than it claims to work.
I am wondering if there is a way that I can do a search, and have archived caches show up on that search? Also useful, would be to be able to search and have both archived and disabled caches excluded from the displayed results.
And someone correct me, if necessary on this point: What I think I understand is that a disabled cache is one for which there still remains hope that it will be repaired/replaced/whatever; while an archived one is one that is deemed to be permanently gone or unavailable; is this right?
-
On most of the cache pages, there is an image of a map. If you click on that, it'll take you to a MapQuest.com lookup of that area. In many cases, you can get enough information by zooming on the MapQuest map to find a cache without any other guidance.
-
…but geez... why work so hard to place a new one when your old ones have not been replaced?
A very obvious answer to this question is leaping out at me, demanding to be posted.
If you placed a cache in what turned out to be a bad location, and, as a result, it promptly went missing, then to replace it would only be to repeat the mistake that led to its demise before, and would surely lead once again to the same result.
Rather than wasting time and materials to repair or replace a bad cache, wouldn't it be better to simply realize that that cache was a bad idea, learn from the mistake, and put your efforts and materials into a new cache, elsewhere, where you will hopefully avoid repeating the mistakes you made in the earlier cache?
-
For me the dividing line is found in the use of GPS units...
A virtual cache requires the use of a GPS unit to find a waypoint.
Perhaps the cache owner should have the option of having the map display and mapping links omitted from the page. In cases like this one, they make it too easy, even for newbies. Don't know what can be done about this one, it's a very famous restaurant; and anyone who is in any way familiar with the general area would know exactly where it is without using GPS or maps.
-
When I bought mine, I really didn't have much idea what I was going to use it for. I bought it because I wanted it, even though I wasn't aware that I had any practical use for it. I like to think I'm usually more rational than this, but very often, I'm not — especially when it comes to buying neat gadgets that I really don't need.
I think I first realized a practical use for it when, one day, I had a difficult time finding my car in a parking lot. It's a parking lot with which I am very familiar, and I don't usually have this problem; but on this occasion, I had become rather confused about just where, in this parking lot, I had left my car.
My GPS was on, at the time., and after a while, I realized that if I looked at the track, I could probably figure out where my car was. It worked, and within minutes, my car and I were happily reunited.
Since then, I've tried to make a habit, whenever I park my car anywhere that there is any question at all about my ability to find it again, to set a waypoint on my GPS so that I can easily find my way back.
Being a type II diabetic, it's important for me to get a fair amount of light exercise. Alas, I have been quite lax about this, lately, but when I do anything about it, what I do is to go for a long walk. My GPS gives me a way of knowing how long a walk I've had. When my life is otherwise in better shape than it currently is, I try to make a point of walking at least a mile each day.
-
This isn't entirely on-topic, and it's not entirely off-topic either; but I had to tell this story.
This took place about ten years ago. The Internet existed, then, but it was nothing like it is today, and most of the world didn't know about it, much less have any kind of access thereto. The computer-based method of communication that was most popular back then was what were called Bulletin Board Systems, or BBSes. In more sophisticated forms, these BBSes existed in loose networks. Not realtime networks like the Internet. The way these worked is that during the wee hours of the morning, the BBSes that participated in a particular network would call one another, and pass messages around, so that by the next day, a message posted on one would appear on all that carried that forum. The biggest of these networks was something called FidoNet.
Of course, back in those days, these sort of things were populated mostly by your stereotypical computer nerds — young men who were very intelligent, in general, but entirely lacking in any social skills, and desperately lonely for opposite–sex companionship. I was probably one of the more extreme examples of such a person.
As you can imagine, the few female participants in these forums tended to attract a lot of attention.
In a FidoNet forum, devoted to fans of Rush Limbaugh, a young woman named Seanette Pierce managed to attract quite a bit of attention, not only be being female, but by making remarks about her dissatisfaction with the dating prospects in her home area.
In what can only be described as either a miracle of an extreme sort; or else a remarkable defiance of statistical likelyhood; I was the one who most succeeded in attracting Seanette's attention to myself, and convincing her that I might make a good romantic prospect for her.
After a great deal of back-and-forth communication, Seanette travelled about 800 miles to visit me. A year later…
There's a lot more to our story. For some of it, click on the picture.
-
Forgive me for asking, but what is CSI? As you can probably tell, I don't watch much TV.
Original TV show, as described by others, set in Las Vegas: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0247082/
[This is the one which had an episode that is being discussed here.]
There are two spinoffs.
CSI: Miami http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0313043/
CSI: New York http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395843/
[As of this writing, no episodes of CSI: New York have yet been aired. This
show is to begin next season. A recently-aired CSI: Miami episode provided
a “crossover” to the new CSI: New York series, introducing the main cast and
setting it up. A similar “crossover” episode of the orginal CSI series was similarly
used to set the stage for CSI: Miami a few years ago. That episode was based on
one of the more blatant misfacts I've ever seen. A person suffering from diabetic
ketoacidosis is in no condition to be going on a cross-country crime spree.]
-
I've read from time to time about caches being destroyed by non-cachers. I was wondering if anyone has any stories about incidents of massive cache destruction. A possible scenerio being someone that, for what ever reason, takes it upon themselves to rid an area of all known caches. And if so, ever run into the perp in that process of destroying a cache?
I'm very new to this. My second find was The Lompoc Goodie Box, which had very recently been trashed. The box and its lid were left near the original location, with its contents scattered about and ruined. The log book was actually left on top of the lid, in a manner suggesting that the vandal wanted it to be found. Many very rude messages and images had been left in the log book, in pink ink.
I repaired things as well as I could, and have notified the owner.
-
I have found, so far, that wherever I am asked, on this site, to enter latitude/longitude pairs, I am given the choice to enter them as just degrees; as degrees and minutes; or as degrees, minutes and seconds. But wherever latitude/longitude pairs are displayed, they are displayed only as degrees and minutes. I would much prefer to see degrees, minutes, seconds; that's how I keep my GPS unit set most of the time. As I am entering coordinates by hand into my eTrex, I would prefer not to have to configure it first for degrees,minutes, enter the coordinates, and then set it back to degrees,minute,seconds.
-
I received a Garmin Extrex yellow today and think it is faulty. When the unit is switched on, the LCD display is "off centre" to the left by about 3mm, i.e. not perfectly centred.
Also, the black "frame" on the front of the display isn't symmetrical - the left side is a couple of mm narrower than the right.
Could anyone with this unit please have a look at theirs and advise me before I return it?
Mine's exactly the same way. I hadn't noticed this about it until now, but I think I have to agree with the other posters who've indicated that this is entirely normal and proper for this unit.
-
[somehow, I accidently posted the same message twice. I'd delete the extra copy, if I could see how, but I cannot. Anyone with the power to do so, please feel free to delete this post, leaving the previous one intact.]
-
My Garmin eTrex displays, on it's “Sky View” page, a claimed accuracy. Once it gets a good lock, this is usually a number in the high teens or low twenties, of feet. However, I have had experiences which make it clear that the readings are not always withinthe stated degree of accuracy.
For example, on one occasion, as I left my car in a large parking lot, I marked a waypoint to help me find my way back to my car. At that time, my eTrex was claiming an accuracy of 13 feet.
Later, I returned to my car, with my eTrex still claiming an accuracy of 13 feet. However, standing in the exact same place where I was when I set the waypoint, my eTrex was now claiming that I was about sixty feet away from it.
What I suspect is that this claimed accuracy is not an absolute limit on how much error may be present, but rather a statistical thing, that perhaps it calculates somewhere that there is an n-percent chance that the error is less than the number which it displays.
Terrain Not Accurate
in General geocaching topics
Posted · Edited by Bob Blaylock
This is not Politically Correct, but I think it has to be said.
The vast majority of us have full use of our eyes, ears, appendages, and other major body parts. Clearly, the baseline for what any of us would reasonably assume about anyone seeking a cache that we might place is going to suppose that any seekers will be similarly abled at least.
I do not think it is reasonable to expect most of us even to know what is accessible to people with certain handicaps. Those of us who aren't familiar with the use of a wheelchair are not going to have a good understanding of its limitations. Those of us who are not blind are not going to understand the limitations of those methods that blind persons uses to compensate for their lack of sight.
And even where we discuss persons in wheelchairs, what do we mean? Do we mean a quadraplegic in an electric wheelchair that is controlled by jerking his head; or do we mean a relatively healthy, athletic paraplegic in a specially-built wheelchair with large wheels all around, that would easily be capable of going where the aforementioned quadraplegic cannot?
I don't have a lot of experience with handicapped people, but I have seen, in my limited experience, a fairly wide range of different object that can be called “wheelchairs”, used by people with differing levels of disability; and representing a very wide range of ability to access rough terrain.
I don't think it's possible to come up with an objective, usable definition of “handicapped–accessible”; and even if it were, I very much doubt of any but a tiny handful of us would be qualified to judge whether a given terrain met this definition.
I propose that whatever the default terrain definition is, that it assume a person who does not have any unusual handicaps, and that in order to set a lower terrain rating than that — indicating that the cache is “handicapped–accessible” — that some special procedure must be established and followed to specifically determine that it meets that definition. I don't know how this procedure would work, other than having a person with the specified level of disablity make a personal visit to the cache site.