Thot

It seems like I read somewhere that to claim a find on gc.com it's necessary to sign the log, but I can't find it now. I assume there are exceptions for unusual situations, but is there some kind of rule about signing the log?

bump

bump

Done it

A couple of years ago I started a poll to learn the ages of geocachers. It turned out to be popular and over time collected almost 10000 answers, giving a good feel for average ages. The website that I used for the poll went belly-up within the last few weeks. So, I am starting over. This time I'll take screen captures periodically so we don't lose all the results. So, I'm asking everyone to give there age one more time, so we can again have some idea of the pattern of geocacher ages. So Click Here and enter your age anonymously. Then look at the results to see the pattern. Also, post something here saying you did it so this thread won't slide off the radar screen.

Okay, let me rephrase that. Joke wasn't the most accurate was to say it. Let's try this: Mine was sarcastic hyperbole. I think he was making a serious argument.

That's what I thought when I saw your post about lamp posts. Lemme see if I can find it... Yup. I'd call that statement drawn to the extreme, and therefor, pretty darn absurd. Mine was a joke. I don't think his was.

If I find a cache, and there's a note inside from the owner saying that I have to post my on-line log in the form of iambic pentameter, well, it's a little to late to not hunt it, isn't it? I agree that any special requirements need to be stated in the cache description for the reason you say. You can't eliminate a cache if you don't know what it is. I believe that's called reductio ad absurdum. Virtually anything carried to the extreme becomes absurd

Well, at least it makes sense now. Thanks for the replies

I just tried adding a needs maintenance attribute as the eleventh and it won't accept it

I see. Thanks for your reply. I've wondered about that too. Does anybody really use that attribute? I occasionally make a needs maintenance log but I would never notice a needs maintenance attribute so I wouldn't think to add it.

This is a curiosity question, but I've been wondering about it for a long time The cache page provides twelve spaces/blanks/positions for attributes, but only ten are permitted. This forces there to be at least two blank spaces. Why not allow twelve and use the allocated space?

But that's one of the reasons this change was made....it was putting an undue burden on the reviewers, who are part of the "system." The reviewer riviouveur made this clear on p.2 of the original thread in this post. Or don't they count? I read it. I don't understand how publishing caches they don't think will ever be found puts an untoward (maybe I should have said great) burden on them. There are challenging caches that will have few if any finds -- should hard caches be eliminated too. Like I said, we can make them all drive-up LPCs

While we are passing rules about deleting logs. I want a rule that says you can't delete a find for no valid reason. The other day a guy deleted my find because I mentioned in the log that the cache description didn't describe the cache. It was like a description of an entirely different cache. He put extreme emphasis on the container type and it wasn't that kind of container at all. He stated condition of the hide (sheltered from weather) -- it wasn't. In short ever aspect of the description was wrong. I wasn't unpleasant about it, I simply explained that these descriptions were incorrect, so other cachers would know. He deleted my find without any notice or explanation. He told a friend that my comments didn't reflect well on his hide. It was a skirtlifter. Simply because He's the owner, he's free to delete a find for any whimsical/capricious reason whatever, but I can't require someone email me and tell me the exact place the found the cache so I can come replace it if need be. [i have a cache people, for some unknown reason, keep moving to places that aren't good.] I don't really have such a requirement, but if I understand the new rule I couldn't delete a log for the cacher's willful refusal to comply with a stated requirement of the cache that I need to properly maintain the cache. If I still have all the right. The solution is, when the person doesn't do what you asked, delete the log and say it was because you didn't like his attitude or his caching handle, not because he didn't comply with the ALR

The same and all the associated arguments and suggestions on how to keep them have been said many times about virtuals too. We all know how that has worked so far. Those of us that liked moving caches, virtuals, and locationless caches were all told to get over it or go elsewhere. Well, I guess it is time for the fans of required ALR's to do the same. I've been watching this steady retrenchment for years now. Instead of encouraging new ideas and concepts it there seems to be a march toward minimalism. This one seems utterly unnecessary. No one is forced to hunt any particular cache or even go caching at all. I thought gc.com was originally a tool to facilitate caching not a mechanism to control, regiment and restrict it. People should be allowed to manage their caches however they please so long as it does not create an untoward burden on the system. I guess the way of the future is to require all caches to be micro skirtlifters that can be done without leaving your car. That way the numbers people are not delayed by having to actually do a cache.

Found the log count. I'm on my way. Many thanks to pilotsnipes for devising this

What is the limit for a wide screen?

Okay, I may have blundered my way through the first question. I've got something that resembles what I want. Interestingly I had to modify the narrow screen code -- modding the wide screen had no effect, yet I have a wide gadget. This really is a terrific macro. If I can increase the number of logs I can probably abandon my palmtop.

I also, have not read all 18 pages of this thread, so these have probably been asked before. 1) Is there an explanation somewhere for how I can change the one-line name/description? I've been using a different one-liner I made during the GPX export that suits my way of thinking better than the default in the macro. This is the one I use in GSAK 2) Apparently, there's a limit on the number of logs. I like lots of logs in case I can't find it. Is there a way to increase the number of logs to the total I keep in GSAK?

Thanks. I'll look for that, but the one that's probably the most important to me is when creating new caches.

Please provide for entering coordinates (when creating a new cache, when adding coords to a log, etc.) in a format that is the same as the format they are presented to the user. The format they're presented to the user on the cache page is a string like this N 29° 35.362 W 095° 08.987, but they must be entered in Hemisphere, then Degrees, then Minutes. If they could be copied and pasted in as a complete string they could be copied directly from GSAK or some utility that imports them from the GPSr. An increasing number of utilities are allowing input and output in this format. It would go a long way toward simplifying and speeding up coordinate entry and, importantly, reducing errors. Clerical number entry is prone to error -- new caches often have bad coordinates because of these clerical errors. If there is a desire to retain the Hemisphere, then Degrees, then Minutes method, please provide both options.

This board has a list of Houston caches voted best by members of the Houston Geocaching Society. The winners for this year are listed here. The winners (and nominees) for 2007 are listed here 2007 may be the better list to look at because it was the first and covered all caches to that time, whereas since then it has been limited to caches placed since the past year.

Here's another example There was no reply to my original post. Are there plans to correct this?

When you click the thumbnail on the a log listing on the main travel bug description page it shows the small downsized image shown on the log page. Why not the full size image? Was this an oversight?

I assume this has been reported because it's been happening since last week, but I didn't find it in a Search. Here's an example from about an hour ago http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...1e-be9e1daf632c The encryption for cache logs is screwed up. The ][ don't assure plain text. I've checked this in Firefox 3 (my regular browser) and IE6. I run XP Pro