8Nuts MotherGoose

It was fun to think about while it lasted. And there is still nothing to stop you from trying it and reporting it on this forum. The farther north/south you are, the closer the sequential passes are. ScroogieII would be the best guess at doing it first. The first pass would pass to his SE/E going up and to his W/SW going down.

AH, YES. THE REASON IS ALWAYS IMPORTANT. elyob's ISS Waymark was declined because it was not the same visible pass. The ISS was observed by the first person. The ISS then passed through daytime before it was observed by the second person. A VISIBLE PASS IS A SINGLE PASS THROUGH THE NIGHT SKY WHILE THE ISS IS REFLECTING SUNLIGHT. When the ISS enters Earths daylight sky it is no longer visible and the visible pass ends. When the ISS enters Earths shadow it is no longer visible and the visible pass ends. Look at the Heavens Above Web site: "Visible Only" is always checked. If you check All, you will also see all the daytime passes and the Earths shadow passes. So, to answer your question - No, a 90 minute Waymark with yourself is not possible. BUT... to throw one more question at you - During that 90 minutes, did the ISS enter the Earths shadow while traveling over the southern hemisphere, thus ending your dream visible pass?

Has everyone noticed Venus in the evening sky? It is currently the 3rd brightest object in the sky behind the Sun and the Moon. It will be shining brightly at mag -4.4. It has also reached it's highest elevation in the sky at sunset. Here in Texas it has an Elevation of 45° from March 10 to April 9.

The Category Leader has been camping out in the woods for the past week. No internet access of any kind. Now catching up on all the news. I was also too foggy to see anything on the morning of March 14.

I have been planning my trip since the 20 year Event was announced. BUT... Spouse has medical issues that might require surgery followed by recuperation time. We are in a "Wait and see" period. I will not be making the trip unless she is fully recovered and can take care of herself. - A "15 Year Waymarkers Anniversary Event" would be great. It wouldn't hurt to see if HQ would allow it near a Mega or their 20 year Event. Or even a weekday between major Events.

Darn! I'll be on the north side of Austin, TX on March 14. There is an early morning pass, NW to SE, but I'm a few seconds too close to Oklahoma City to get a partner there.

I have a River Confluence Waymark where the photo was stolen and used for an Earthcache at the same location. To add insult to injury, the Earthcache question to answer came from a Lewis & Clark Expedition plaque nearby that I had Waymarked. I guess I can't complain though. I've used many Waymarks to find answers for Puzzle caches, Multicaches, and Virtual caches.

02/02/2020 Palindrome Day. I just submitted my Palindrome Waymark for review. A group of us retired folks are going to have a Flash Mob at N26° 12.189 W98° 12.162. We'll make sure the "level's level." We'll roll a couple cooking pots and watch the "pots stop." Everyone will put their name into an empty drawer. The name that is drawn will receive a "drawer reward."

Just saw this post. I live near your Coordinates of N26 23.423. Looking at a map, the line is between the coast north of South Padre Island to just south of Roma, TX, where the coordinates are just inside Mexico. Most of the line area is farm land or brushy ranch land. I don't have a Passport to get into Mexico so that's out. Driving the beach 21 miles north of South Padre Island in my 2-wheel drive pickup is out also. I did it once and got stuck once. Got unstuck with some help from 3 men but swore I would never do it again. I could get a photo of a wind farm with lots of wind generators located east of Highway 77, which is slowly turning into Interstate 69. Texas is the largest producer of wind generated electricity.

A perfect morning sky. A few hazy small clouds that didn't stop the ISS from shinning through. A hotel employee stepped out and joined me for the observation. He was watching me on one of the security cameras.

I've never had any luck finding a partner in Illinois or Indiana. Still cloudy here now after two days of rain. It's suppose to be a Sunny Sunday so I'll be awake.

Aransas Pass is about 6 miles inland from Port Aransas. My less-expensive hotel is in Aransas Pass for the early morning ISS observation. Port Aransas is on the Gulf of Mexico where I'll be for a CITO and an Event the previous day. I'll probably be half-way between, on the causeway, where it's dark for the ISS observation. I'll be looking over Corpus Christi light spillage that's 20 miles away.

Thank you, oh mighty Waymarking Admin.

That close to the coast, I may have fog or low clouds. Lets hope for wind from the north.

I'll wait patiently.

The morning of December 22 is a pass from Texas to Ohio. I will be in Aransas Pass, TX. It will be at Max Alt at 06:15:35 at 47° to the NW. It will pass Oklahoma City at greater than 45° to the SE It will pass St Louis, MO at greater than 45° to the SE It will pass Toledo, OH almost overhead before hitting too much daylight.

Thanks Max & 99. I created the Waymark the day after I received the photos. Still waiting for approval. MotherGoose is from Alabama and still cheers for the University of Alabama. She says, "ROLL TIDE!"

It's in the email.

If anyone is interested - I just created a Notepad file that can quickly be changed to get all 360 Palindromes for any whole degree Latitude / Longitude combination. Replace a, b, c, & d individually with the proper numeral to get the final coordinates. Nab 00.0dc Wcd 00.0ba Nab 10.0dc Wcd 00.1ba Nab 20.0dc Wcd 00.2ba Nab 30.0dc Wcd 00.3ba Nab 40.0dc Wcd 00.4ba Nab 50.0dc Wcd 00.5ba Nab 01.0dc Wcd 01.0ba Nab 11.0dc Wcd 01.1ba Nab 21.0dc Wcd 01.2ba Nab 31.0dc Wcd 01.3ba Nab 41.0dc Wcd 01.4ba Nab 51.0dc Wcd 01.5ba Nab 02.0dc Wcd 02.0ba Nab 12.0dc Wcd 02.1ba Nab 22.0dc Wcd 02.2ba Nab 32.0dc Wcd 02.3ba Nab 42.0dc Wcd 02.4ba Nab 52.0dc Wcd 02.5ba Replace a with 3, replace b with 9, replace c with 7, replace d with 2. If Longitude is over 100, replace W with W1. N39 00.027 W72 00.093 N39 10.027 W72 00.193 N39 20.027 W72 00.293 N39 30.027 W72 00.393 N39 40.027 W72 00.493 N39 50.027 W72 00.593 N39 01.027 W72 01.093 N39 11.027 W72 01.193 N39 21.027 W72 01.293 N39 31.027 W72 01.393 N39 41.027 W72 01.493 N39 51.027 W72 01.593 N39 02.027 W72 02.093 N39 12.027 W72 02.193 N39 22.027 W72 02.293 N39 32.027 W72 02.393 N39 42.027 W72 02.493 N39 52.027 W72 02.593 This continues down for 60 lines.

Just to save you from searching every Madison County in the USA. This is in Huntsville, Alabama. Go for it. I live about 900 miles away and don't plan to travel there any time soon.

Do it to it. Thanks.

I think I've got the photos on an external hard drive. Unfortunately, While transferring photos to the hard drive, I overfilled it. Now it just spins and doesn't do anything. Computer repair shop wants $100 in advance to work on it with no guarantee they can fix it.

OH, NO! I just ran through all of the Waymarks in the Category and I don't have one. I remember taking photos of five different Quadrivia intersections in one town. Four were at the Courthouse Square. And I remember where it was because it is only 2 miles from my Mother-in-law's house. In the photo East side Square and West side Square are not labeled.

Yes, you are right about the new Waymark submitted in the Category. I can understand mine needing to be moved to the proper location. But when I put the coordinates to the parks parking lot entrance that I used, why did the reviewer choose to move it to a parking lot entrance on the other side of the park that I was never at? The web page I listed showed my parking area as part of the park, but it didn't show as part of the park on HIS Google map. Then he changed the web page on the Waymark so now that map doesn't show it either. My original Web Page listing did show it as part of the park, and still does if you go to the original web page I listed. It's rather funny also: After I changed the coordinates, My Waymark page map shows my parking lot as part of the green colored park in the upper right corner so I resubmitted it. But that wasn't acceptable. The cache I listed on the Waymark page says in its write-up that it's located in the Park. But that wasn't acceptable. If you do a search for nearby caches, and then show on map, which is Google map, it shows my parking lot and the cache as part of the park. But that wasn't acceptable. If you do a Google search for the Park and Town, and then show on map, my parking lot is not shown as part of the park and neither is the cache. I guess that was acceptable proof for denial. As we all know, acceptance is at the whim of the reviewer.

I received an email the other day on one of my Waymarks, WM1Z36, that was created and approved in 2007: Your Waymark, Scidmore Park - Three Rivers, MI, has been denied for the following reason: Please verify/correct coordinates and resubmit. The coordinates do not appear to be in the park. Yes, somehow, the coordinates were 2/10 mile off to the Northwest. I changed the coordinates to a point near one of my other Waymarks on an island in the park and resubmitted. I received an email: Your waymark, Scidmore Park - Three Rivers, MI, has been denied for the following reason: I'm still not happy with these coordinates. These appear to be on an island that doesn't even show as part of the green area of Scidmore Park. "Coordinates should be taken from an entrance to the park or area, or some other access point." I would expect the coordinates to at least be in the green area shown on Google Maps as Scidmore Park. OH! The Category does say I should post coordinates for the park entrance. I change the coordinates to the entrance on the island from the main road where I parked while visiting the park 12 years ago. I also explain that on the Geocaching map, the island is in green and the web page on that Waymark also shows the island as part of the park on the map of the park. I resubmit. I receive an email: Your new waymark, Scidmore Park - Three Rivers, MI, has been approved. And the Reviewer posted a note: 1.) This category is not concerned with Earthcaches; we're interested in traditional geocaches, so you can remove that cache listing. 2.) The geocaching map(?) ends up taking me to a Google Map. 3.) If there's a webpage specifically for the park, then that is what the web link should be. We don't want to have to hunt around the city page to find the park page. 4.) I'm not saying this island is not part of Scidmore Park. The point is the coordinates are not at the entrance to the park. This looks like a beautiful park and I'm not trying to exclude it in any way. I'd just like it to conform to category guidelines and specifications. I'm tired of the back and forth, so I'm adjusting this waymark appropriately. I can find two entrances to the park & parking lots. I'm picking the one on the mainland part of the park, mostly because it looks like you're in the park and the bulk of park resources are there. I'm replacing the city link with the direct link to the park web link. I'm eliminating the earthcache reference, as it doesn't apply in the field. I've inserted the traditional geocache, located on the island. Web page was an Optional item - Reviewer didn't like it and changed it. Traditional Geocaches was an Optional item - I listed an Earthcache because it was the only one in the park in 2007. Reviewer didn't like it. He removed the Earthcache, which is still in the park, and listed a traditional cache that was placed in Nov, 2012, five years after I created the Waymark. I get a bit upset when time after time people don't list anything in optional items in the Waymarks I review, so when I create a Waymark I always try to fill in the optional blanks. Now I get raked over the coals by a reviewer who doesn't like what I listed. Makes me re-think doing that in the future. Back in 2006, Waymarking was new and misunderstood by many. There was traditional Geocaching, where you go out and find containers and increase your find count, and there was all those NEW caches with no container that you don't get credit for finding. When this Category was created, and they listed the optional "traditional Geocaches", I'm sure they also meant all Geocache Types as we know them today. But times and interpretations change.