Jump to content

chrisrayn

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by chrisrayn

  1. That was a very helpful article. It cleared up quite a bit for me. The real question is: Do I really want to spend an hour averaging on three or four separate occasions for one locale? :-s Decisions.
  2. Yes. Would you like some acai berries? (not spam) Of course! But only as long as it's AcaiGogo - The Brazilian Secret to Health! What's great about AcaiGogo is it's perfect for the geocacher on the go. Why lug around tons of bottles of other Acai juice products? How will THAT help me on a 5 terrain? No, I use the convenient, easy to pour AcaiGogo drink mix packets, so I can get my valuable anti-oxidants and still cross creeks and climb mountains. Mmm...and so tasty too! And with 30 packets at only 19.95, I'd be INSANE not to buy it! Live grand, live vibrant, live long with AcaiGogo. (not spam)
  3. Hey, I was wondering, specifically for any of you who use the Garmin GPSmap 60csx (but any opinions of those who own other GPSrs are welcome), have you found the waypoint average to actually seem LESS reliable? I was averaging a waypoint last night for the first cache I want to hide. I averaged 3 different times and came up with three different waypoints. However, using the walk-up method, I achieved the same waypoint reading 5 different times at a timespan covering 2 hours. I also used the "grid" method. I stood directly north and south of the location and achieved a matching West reading, and stood directly east and west of the location and achieved a matching North reading. In the grid method the North and West readings matched my WALK-UP readings as the center point of my axis, NOT my averaged waypoints. So are multiple walk-ups a better idea? I'm tempted to use my five matching readings rather than the 3 completely-different averaged ones. It just seems smarter. What do you all think?
  4. I am curious who they was. That be even gooder english. Uncalled for. It would be a full-time job to patrol the forums for bad grammar and mis-spelling. You would need a team of 20-30 to check cache pages and logs! Keep the TB moving! You sure that'd be enough? Moor then enough.
  5. I am curious who they was. That be even gooder english. I thought it was pretty obvious that the pronoun referred to the people who gave permission to place the cache. Much more betterer. GRAMMAR FIGHT!!!
  6. Thanks for all the help, everybody! And, by the way, those of you who took offense to the word "geriacrobatics," I just wanted you all to know that's sort of what I intended. It had the intended effect of all of those posting in this thread to be proud of their age and tell me of tree climbs they had accomplished. Now THAT is the information I was really looking for in this thread. :-) I'm sorry I had to go about it in a shady way, but knowing now that many 50+rs climb trees on a regular basis, I'm thinking of scaling my 4.0 terrain back to a 3.5. I'm quite tall, and I had to stretch a bit to get to where I ended up, and I found it's only about 15 feet up on sturdy branches. So, thank you all for all your help! And, luckily, I found out my cache is roughly .12 miles from the nearest one, making it doable for me. :-) If I offended you, I humbly apologize. I have a mere 170 caches and am still learning. I am a padawan to your master Jedis. :-) I can't even imagine climbing a tree where I would need equipment. :-s
  7. Just out of curiosity, why? I did a 4.0 recently that was MUCH harder, involved walking a rotten log across a creek, BUSHES of poison ivy, and thorny vines that literally formed impenetrable walls. Is it because of the potential fall damage? And should I include information about the climb in the hint and the title? Something like titleing it "Such great heights" and the hint "Terrain rating sure is up there..." or something like that? I considered both the fall hazard and the fact that you stated short people would have a more difficult time of it. I figured rate it for the most challenging possibility and erred on the side of caution not having seen the tree. It may only be a 4. K. That sounds good. I may get a shorter individual to act as a guinea pig if I can. I also need to see if I can accurately just the distance down from the spot in the tree. Thanks everybody!
  8. Just out of curiosity, why? I did a 4.0 recently that was MUCH harder, involved walking a rotten log across a creek, BUSHES of poison ivy, and thorny vines that literally formed impenetrable walls. Is it because of the potential fall damage? And should I include information about the climb in the hint and the title? Something like titleing it "Such great heights" and the hint "Terrain rating sure is up there..." or something like that?
  9. I'm thinking about putting a cache pretty high in a tree. The tree isn't impossible to climb, but it is quite difficult. I'm 6'2" and relatively limber, and it takes me about five minutes to get up to the cache location. It's a sizable oak tree with a near-stairstep formation of branches. I'd say for someone 5'6 or less this would be pretty difficult. I'd say the cache location is around 20 feet up, if I had to guess. Very little foliage to contend with, no vines, no poison ivy, and the area around the tree is well-mown. I don't know how difficult I'll make it to Find yet, just the terrain. What number would you give the Terrain difficulty for something like this? I think what throws me off is that many older folks do this, and I've never seen a 50+ climb a tree before. If you are a 50+ and have, in fact, climbed trees to achieve caches before please accept my humble apology for your exceptional geriacrobatics. :-)
  10. Those are definitely awesome. And hopefully, judging by my avatar, you can see exactly WHY I think they're so amazing. ;-)
  11. What I recommend is look around in craft stores, dollar stores, K-marts, pet stores, outdoors outfitters, etc. These things are out there, possibly even at the till in some gas stations. I just spent a few minutes looking at the "deals" on eBay and .. uh .. think I need to go fleece some suckers. I seriously underestimate what people are willing to spend on containers on eBay rather than just look around in their local stores and be pleasantly surprised what they can find and make a few small modifications to. What are being passed off as Bison tubes are in most cases NOT Bison tubes at all, just cheap knock-offs. I do have some genuine Bison tubes and the fit and finish of them is considerably finer, with actual seals which haven't cracked, yet. Yeah, but I looked at their website and if you buy 1 bison tube for 2.50, they charge you no less than 9 dollars for shipping. Seriously? :-/
  12. Hey, I was just satisfying the posters curiousity... What I like about these is that they appear to be machined from billet aluminum as opposed to the cheap pressure extruded method. The walls will be thicker and the threads look better. Plus, their O-ring looks better than the cheapos on Ebay. No offense to those selling the cheapos. I bought some and am satisfied. Bittsen, you always satisfy me. ;-) No, but seriously, I'll check out leevalley tomorrow. You showed me exactly what I wanted. Thanks for the help! Now go tell the same to the other guy who just posted the EXACT SAME TOPIC AS ME in the same day. :-)
  13. I can't speak for the others, but I think that I posted thoughtful responses that I hope clearly stated the reasons for my skepticism and gave you ample opportuntity to answer my questions. WOW, a premium member comes in here to ask an opinion of a service and you go off on him? And you accuse ME of jumping to conclusions.... All you had to do is stay on topic and respond. Why did you feel the need to say what you did? Personally, I don't see the "service" as anything I would use. 1) "Premium Member" only means that I paid the subscription fee. Nothing more. 2) I have never ever accused you of "jumping to conclusions" 3) I was on topic. You are not. 4) I felt the need to say what I did because I felt the need to say what I did. I don't need to answer to you about that reason. CAT FIGHT!!!
  14. Uh oh, I found something that is not good http://www.leevalley.com/gifts/page.aspx?c...,53217&ap=3 BRASS! And their bison tubes appear to be nachined, not stretched aluminum. That would make them 10X better than the Ebay ones. Those look pretty good, but I was thinking more along the lines of the ones that are a size between these and the pill fobs. They look like this: Anybody know of any good prices/good quality/bulk orders for these types?
  15. My apologies...I just REALLY like using that picture whenever I can. :-/ I probably shouldn't have, in retrospect. But it still makes me laugh. :-/
  16. And where do I get the better quality, stainless steel bison tubes? I don't know how to tell the difference based on an image. And I think I know what you're talking about on the cheap quality bison tubes...I recently had to replace a tube here recently with a pill fob because the threading broke off IN the container. :-s So yeah, I'd like to buy better product. lol
  17. Everyone? Here's some metadata from the web site mentioned... handle: LiveCaching #members: 1 type: public sorry, karl, but
  18. You didn't write that your address was at "hotamil.com" did you? Because That could be a problem...just kidding. You need to tell us a bit first... You HAVE paid for premium membership? You HAVE set up notifications to receive news concerning nearby caches? You HAVE gone to account settings on your profile and CHECKED - Allow HTML in my email messages? - Inform me of features and changes to the website? - Send me a weekly mailer of new caches in my area? You HAVE checked that there are no typos in your Primary Email Address under those same settings? You HAVE added "geocaching.com" to your Safe List on ALL of your email accounts? If your answer to all of these is yes, then I don't know what to tell ya. Hope this helps though!
  19. Hey everybody...just wondering if anyone has bought the smaller bison tubes, not the fat pill fobs from Wal-mart, anywhere and had a good experience buying them. I found this ebay buyitnow: http://cgi.ebay.com/12-Micro-Cache-Contain...id=p3286.c0.m14 ...but I don't know if this is a good price or not, or a good product. Anybody have any experience with this and can point me in the right direction? thanks! chris
  20. Um, well yea, apology accepted. Lame. Karlwireless Nah...I kind of see what he's saying. knowschad hints toward what I was thinking. I've got 170 finds and still don't feel experienced enough to hide anything...it just wouldn't feel right for me to put anything out into the community without knowing the full scope of what hiding is. I think I'll have a true feel for all of this after about 400. Maybe I'll hide a couple before then, but not many. It's just hard to respect an idea, regardless of how good it might be, if it isn't seasoned. That's not necessarily closed-mindedness, just solid rationale. I mean, I didn't even SEE a nano until around my 70th hide. And I've still only seen around 3. One was an absolute booger of a hide and that's the one that's going to inspire my subsequent hides. I barely remember my first 12. It's possible it's a great idea, but I'd want all the details to be fleshed out by seasoned vets. I asked on the forums what new GPS I should buy, and got a lot of "Oregon" responses, but when I asked the people in my state who had multiple-thousands of finds, they all said Garmin GPSmap 60csx because of how solid it was, and I know I made the right choice. Many probably just won't jump on board until you've at least gotten your feet wet, but that's just common sense.
  21. If there were such a thing as a state insect...yes, fire ants would be such here in Texas. I found an ammo can that somehow became infested with them. Remember: In Texas, "waterproof" don't mean "antproof." :-)
  22. I try to go completely paperless with my 60csx. I don't usually plan trips with little spirals...I do the opposite. I go find as many as I can without paper, and then I look up my DNFs and how to find them later. I have like a 90% find rate on the first try, and like a 90 percent on the second try, maybe a 95 percent. I find that to be a lot easier than planning stuff on paper that I don't really need to. I love caching; I don't have to get everything right the first time. :-D
  23. Yeah, I found my first 4, I think, without a GPS. It may have been more. At that point, I heavily caught the fever, and after like 2 or 3 days I bought a geomate, figuring that would be best for someone like me. Then, after about 70 finds, I upgraded to a Garmin GPSmap 60csx, and I've been doing that since. Muuuuch easier. But yeah, it's possible...just more difficult.
  24. Does the 60c average waypoints like my 60csx? I've never actually used the function since I haven't placed any yet, but it seems like that Might do the trick. However, I've a had a trick for locating some of these that has been working for me...like if I go into heavy forest cover, I'll keep track of the easiest way in...the satellites only catch a signal every once in a while for lesser GPSrs, so I'll remember that when I reach GZ, it may actually be somewhere I've already passed and that their GPSrs just never caught up. I've found 4 just by backtracking about 50 to 100 feet. Of course, I'm new at this with only 160 finds, so take all of that with a grain of salt. :-)
×
×
  • Create New...