Jump to content

Rebore

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    333
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rebore

  1. The following question came to my mind while reading this thread:

    Problems occur after more than three months after a cache is published. The only "maintainance" that happens is that the listing is archived by the owner and (remains of) the container is (are) removed as soon as possible. Would that count as "resposible cache ownership"?

  2. 13 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

     

    If you would allow me to respond and not answer for me,  there is the ignore users feature here in this forums and there is an option to block users from communicating in the message center.

    I'm sorry, I thought I remembered a comment from you plonking NYPC and it seemed to fit. Have a good day.

  3. 2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

    Try bringing up the cache map for Beijing, zoom in on one of the parks with a lake in it, then switch between the map and satellite view. 

    Chinese laws demand an offset between maps and satellite images, if I remember correctly. Here is a picture of Google Earth from the Hongkong border with the streets layer enabled (Hongkong requres no offset):

    7f1508a9-7e60-47ef-8493-202fdb6214cd.png

    ETA:

    Quote

    It turns out that all maps that are legally created in China must use the GCJ-02 coordinate system, which according to Wikipedia, uses an encryption algorithm that offsets the map by different amounts for different locations. Google has followed the regulations and partnered with Chinese map provider AutoNavi to obtain the data and always shows the map data using the required GCJ-02 datum.

    source: GE Blog

  4. 13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

    Sorry to be off topic but what do you mean by blocked?  Can you actually block people on this forum?   

    You can ignore users, but you will still see what they wrote if somebody quotes them. Hover over the profile pic and you'll see the option.

    • Upvote 1
  5. 1 hour ago, The_Goldies said:

    Despite the age of this topic, it was found via a google search for attribute numbers.

    Today we tried downloading a GPX of a cache and the attributes were not numbered within the text file. So, does anyone have any idea where there is a publicly accessible list of attribute numbers?? Nothing else on search results seems to point to anything that answers this.

     

    I see this on a random cache listing I had opened in a tab:

    <Groundspeak:attributes>
            <Groundspeak:attribute id="14" inc="0">Recommended at night</Groundspeak:attribute>
            <Groundspeak:attribute id="9" inc="0">Significant Hike</Groundspeak:attribute>
            <Groundspeak:attribute id="8" inc="0">Scenic view</Groundspeak:attribute>
            <Groundspeak:attribute id="32" inc="1">Bicycles</Groundspeak:attribute>
            <Groundspeak:attribute id="15" inc="1">Available during winter</Groundspeak:attribute>
            <Groundspeak:attribute id="23" inc="1">Dangerous area</Groundspeak:attribute>
            <Groundspeak:attribute id="39" inc="1">Thorns</Groundspeak:attribute>
            <Groundspeak:attribute id="55" inc="1">Short hike (less than 1km)</Groundspeak:attribute>
            <Groundspeak:attribute id="19" inc="1">Ticks</Groundspeak:attribute>
    </Groundspeak:attributes>

     

    • Helpful 1
  6. 20 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

     I believe that there IS a limit UNLESS an explicit maintenance plan is documented.

    So if there ISN'T a maintenance plan, presumably they ARE flat out refused - yes?

    And presumably there is a set distance beyond which the question of an explicit maintenance plan is raised / an explicit maintenance plan is required if the placement isn't to be flat-out refused - yes?

    You didn't mention a maintainance plan in the post I replied to, hence my answer. I think the distance limit you would like to know is in the hands of the reviewer and varies, and I think that's a good thing

    • Upvote 1
  7. 14 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

    So presumably there IS a distance limit beyond which an explicit maintenance plan is required, yes?

    Yes, but there is no limit like "You are not allowed to place a cache xxx km from your home coordinates". You claimed they were "flat-out refused solely on the basis of distance from (presumably) the prospective CO's home coordinates. ", which is not true.

  8. 3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

    At the outset of this thread I raised the spectre of vacation caches because they seem to be flat-out refused solely on the basis of distance from (presumably) the prospective CO's home coordinates.

    I'd still like to know if that's the case or if other factors come into play and, if it does come down to distance alone, what that distance is.

    As far asI know there is no distance limit on vacation caches, you just have to come up with a reasonable maintainance plan. A friend of mine placed a cache in South Africa (about 8000km away from home) and didn't even know a cacher there, but one of his guides agreed to look after it in case something goes wrong. 

    Of course "The next cacher should maintain it" won't be accepted as a reasonable maintainance plan.

  9. 54 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

    The CO here is presenting intentionally fuzzy coordinates. 

    Well, I wouldn't be sure of that and I wouldn't post "corrected" coordinates within that margin of error. How do I know that my GPSr is showing more accurate coordinats if they are well within the fuzziness of our devices? Of course you could use Google maps to pinpoint the right lamppost, so other cachers using the satellite view know where to look. But that's not how the game is inteded to be played and you don't know if the coords from Google maps are more accurate - they just fit to the image.

    There's a local old-school cacher in my area who is still useing the 15 year old GPSr bought back then, because it simply still works. No way that it comes near to the precision of nowadays devices.

  10. 9 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

    The coordinates didn’t necessarily put you in the “wrong” spot to search, they put you in the middle of a “search zone” with 6 possibilities each 20’ or so away

    As niraD pointed out 10ft/3m is within the expected accuracy of civilian GPS devices. Counting together the positional error of the hiders device and yours this means a search radius of 20ft/6m. So Traditional sounds fine to me, even if you have to check six spots worst case. Typical needle in the haystack hides require more work.

  11. 18 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

    Nope.  Now, he's not really demeaning you with regard to the NM log, but he's certainly being dramatic.  Let him archive it, although it's my guess he really won't.  Sadly, there's really nothing you can do except to swing by the cache (repeatedly) and post a NM log if you're close enough to the cache to do so.  You could always offer to adopt the cache, but that's going down a different road.

    He could also log NA or contact a reviewer directly explaning the situation.

  12. 17 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

    My inclination is to assume my waypoint was off a smidge and adjust the coordinates to match the satellite image. But I realize I have no good reason to assume Google’s coordinates are any more reliable to the last decimal place than mine, just because that’s how it’s labeled on the “picture” from space.

    Trust your GPSr. It will show the estimated positional error (EPE) so you know how reliable the reported position is. Google might be more precise in urban areas, when other sources (wireless access points and/or GSM transmitters) are available, but I wouldn't count on that.

    • Upvote 1
  13. 9 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

    Biggest single mistake: putting the interesting caches behind a paywall.

    Hey kids, look at all the easy caches!

    How long does easy stay interesting?

    I guess you are talking about the official app. Count in PMO caches that are often just PMO to keep the "Hey, this sounds like fun and it's free (but I*m not really interested)" people away.

  14. 11 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

    What's an app?  I'm GPSr/website only.  Old curmudgeon.  Don't need no stinking cell phone.  I still pay for 'rotary service'.  

    Whenever somebody tells me "There's an app for that", I show them my old Sonim XP3 phone. There's a lifetime guarantee promised by the manufactorer and I will use that if it breaks. :)

  15. The current "tick a box to log NM" is also a step in the wrong direction in my opinion. I'm waiting to see a combo of "Yay, that's another find for me!" followed by "This cacher reported that the cache needs maintainance." logs. Great info for the owner.

    I decided to log NM on a cache I DNF after I saw other cachers fail to find it and remembered some teardown already visible at the spot, but this is only possible when you opt for the old logging page. Dumbing down this hobby to the lowest common denominator won't help to get more people on board, it just disgruntles many of the veterans.

    • Upvote 1
  16. I found it.

    32 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

    The way I see it, it does send a message to COs that if you leave the container someone else will enjoy finding the archived cache, and get a reward for it.

    Might be just me, but I don't see a found it log as a "reward". It's jus the proper type of log for what has happened. I found it.

    • Upvote 3
  17. @justintim1999 I think you are fighting against windmills. Even if I ignore all the consequences of your proposal I don't see how that would make things any better. Why do you think the behaviour of careless owners would change if coordinates are obfuscated or the listing gets automatically locked once it's archived? I don't follow your "Allowing a find on an archived cache is encouraging owners to leave geotrashes behind" argument.

×
×
  • Create New...