Pantalaimon

I would like to take a moment to thank ralann for his posts. I won't say any more than that.

I figured since you were quoting me, it was tongue-in-cheek. If not, I agree that there may be bigger fish to fry.

I agree its not hard, but people usually don't learn the lesson until after they've done it once or thrice. Let me ask it this way, if you don't want a loophole such as this closed, are you, or have you, used it in the past to find a cache? If not, what do you care? Would it be particularly difficult to close the loop?

I was using "hacked" in a colloquial way. I think my point was a little clearer than you made it out to be. For the record, however, I'm not against people using the information they're given to be the FTF, I simply think that the loopholes such as this should be closed by TPTB. if they are closed then some of us will figure out how they encode the url's and then the secret will be out again. I think that fixing this should be right after the iraq forum in priority I'd seriously reply, but your last line seems to imply that you were just arguing for the sake of arguing.

I was using "hacked" in a colloquial way. I think my point was a little clearer than you made it out to be. For the record, however, I'm not against people using the information they're given to be the FTF, I simply think that the loopholes such as this should be closed by TPTB.

To play devil's advocate of sorts, I think I disagree with point 2. Why is it okay to find a cache before its approved? Might geocaching.com argue that the approval process is a somewhat vital condition precedent to finding a cache? Otherwise you might be searching for a cache "buried under some railroad tracks in the middle of a National Park." Personally, I think all loopholes like this should be closed, and hunts should not be able to be begun until the listing is official. I'm probably biased though, because when people used to type in URLs with increasing geocache numbers until they hit an as-of-yet-approved cache in their area in order to be the FTF, I would go insane. Especially when I was out there, on Easter morning, hunting for the newly approved cache... which s/he logged two days ago because s/he "hacked" the system. Luckily that loophole has been closed, it facilitated my release from the asylum.

I'm confused. That thread seemed perfectly civil. Was it that CACHE that started the bad feelings? Was the person with the problem above not able to find the cache? More info please.

That was a good one.

I don't mean extremely helpful or essential with regard to doing one cache, I mean with regard to planning, say, a three hundred mile trip on which you want to do caches along the way. I used to pan the major route I was going to take, and pick off some caches from the map along the way. Now, I don't see a way to do that that is not super time intensive.

I got it back now. Ignore my subsequent posts. Any comments on the first one? And thanks, Sputnik

I know this is becoming a conversation with myself, but I just wanted to post to myself that the "old maps" linked to in several threads are not really "the old maps." They are a useless part of the old maps. They only allow for scrolling, and they do not allow any other function, including linking to a cache from the map. Where the old maps replaced with the new maps because the old maps were drawing too many resources, or can the functions of the old maps be replaced for non-Members who wish to use them?

Just so I can figure out if I'm off base here: Do others agree that panning a map to see the caches around your hunt location is a function that is extremely helpful (maybe essential) in planning a geocaching trip?

Keystone, Today is the first day in a while I've been planning a geocaching weekend. I decided I'd use "the old maps" so I could see what was in the area of my hunt, because the "new maps" were recently locked down for scrolling or panning. Now, with regards to your post, just so we're clear. The maps you reference above are not "the old maps." They are a small useless portion of the old maps. The maps you refernced do not show you the names of ANY caches anymore, and they do not even allow you to link to a cache through the map. What good, I ask you, is that? In fact, why are they even maintained? I'm beginning to think you were not attempting to respond helpfully with the above post, but rather you were responding tongue-in-cheek. What is particularly telling is the line "scroll away." Because scrolling a view of the state looking generally at how many caches there are is all you can do with these maps. The second quote above was my original post here, but I'm retracting it because I jumped the gun. I was wrong about the old maps, and I apologize to Keystone. I was going to just remove the post, but I figured some had already read it. Sorry again Keystone.

And you know what, now that I'm trying to use the old maps, I find they are useless. They no longer display the names of the caches ANYWHERE. And you cannot even link to a cache by clicking on the icon.

I know that some may view this request as a super-ridiculous waste of time, but I was wondering: With the old maps, the new caches that show up are partly green instead of blue. Is there any way to make the caches you've found partly another color? I understand this would be at the bottom of the importance list, right below, say creating an Iraq forum. But I was curious how much trouble it would be.

This is the first I've heard of someone complaining of a log that was TOO lengthy... and its not even their cache! I say you are doing exactly what you should be doing, and then some. Keep up the good work and may you never log another DNF (meaning that I hope you find them all, not that you should stop logging them!).

Ouch.

Here is the thread in which the issue arose, and after which the map was locked down. I wouldn't really call it "donat[ing] to the cause" if you're doing it only for a particular service.

I gotcha. I was just commenting about the part where you said "Assuming it’s not showing up in any new-cache reports local area cachers will have to stumble on the fact that it exists." I just meant there are other ways to find it.

Is this a thinly veiled insult? It couldn't be. I must be misinterpreting. To be clear, are you saying that the question referenced above is not an expression of the characters' anxiety over the state of the world? Since its the first you've heard of this interpretation, it must be a "cliff note conclusion," right? I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, Jeremy. We were simply discussion theories on why you might reply with the simple cryptic question, in quotes. When your answers are so brief (and obscure) people are bound to have different interpretations of their meaning. Perhaps it would have been more civil to simply expound on your meaning, rather than take a shot across the bow. Regardless, I suppose this discussion should be moved to the OT Book Club forum.

Possible. However, from some of the posts I've seen him make, Jeremy seems particularly well read to me to not know who John Galt is. Also, I doubt he would have put his question in quotes, were he not eluding to the more obscure meaning of the question. Edit: Wait, I take that back. I no longer think your premise is possible, that quote isn't even in this thread. Surely you must be joking. - P Edit II, the Return of Edit: Your reply should be, "No, I'm not joking, and don't call me Shirley."

I wouldn't ever even begin to guess what Jeremy's (or anyone else's) point is on any given topic. My post was due to the fact that my understanding is that the phrase "Who is John Galt?" is typically used to express hopelessness or despair over a particular issue. Again, while it was unclear to me exactly what Jeremy was expressing hopelessness or despair over (if indeed that was his intent), it appeared to me at the time that he was applying it to the post in general, and thus my reply.

I see no reason for hopelessness or despair. Some might view portions of this conversation as very relevant discussion about the future of geocaching (with a lowercase "g"). Edit: Typo

Shows up when I put in your zip code.

I can't believe you quoted a Kevin Costner movie to make your point. No points for you! Edit: Typo