Jump to content

Team Van Dyk

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    180
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Team Van Dyk

  1. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=301915
  2. It used to do this (pre-iOS6) when you would click "View on External Map" (it would launch Google Maps). Since iOS6 switched to Apple Maps, this functionality doesn't work anymore. I would consider this a bug that they should fix in the next iteration (i.e. clicking "View on External Map" should launch Apple Maps with the cache location pinned). --Matt
  3. If you don't think every view of every cache is already logged by whomever does their analytics, I've got a bridge for sale. Allowing what the OP is requesting would just be a function of making that info (which, again, GS certainly already has) selectively available to the CO. I suspect the real issue here is privacy, but that would militate towards eliminating the audit log altogether rather than expanding it (as is being requested here).
  4. My two cents: TPTB shouldn't bring back virtuals, but rather, should spend some significant time reworking and better-integrating Waymarking. As for Virtuals, I would suggest that the problem isn't so much with the criteria; true that in a post-"wow" world (suggesting that they be brought back without "wow" is just silly), qualifying virtuals would be few and far between. But, that's good. If they were to be brought back, they *should* be few and far between. I would also have no issue leaving that up to the subjective determination of my reviewer; that's what they're there for. No, for me, the real issue is the one raised above concerning park access. In a world where Virtuals exist, there will be no real caches in national parks; they'd never allow it. So, do I think there's an internal problem with post-"wow" virtuals? No. But, there's a big enough political reason not to do it to not do it. As for Waymarking, conceptually, at least, Waymarking (with a few tweaks here and there) are exactly what people are clamoring for. Problem is that the site looks and functions like some 14-year-old kid designed it in 1996, AND it's too segregated from the Geocaching site. I'm not a web designer or a systems engineer or a user-experience professional, so unfortunately, I don't have any great ideas on exactly how to fix it. But, I do strongly believe that it can be fixed. Overhaul the site so it functions more like the Geocaching site; maybe integrate it into the Geocaching site like had been done with Challenges (only make the integration a little deeper); make the Waymarking "finds" "count" in some way (maybe like challenges did; or maybe like benchmarks do); etc. But, I really think Waymarking is the answer here. It's an underutilized resource that (I think) could pretty easily be brought back to life to fill this void.
  5. Thanks to all that replied. It's a little late for this, but the Summer got away from us. Here's the powertrail we put out: http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=3f6aea9d-93d0-4855-bb8c-760facb27642
  6. Thanks all for the input! It is a multi-use, paved walking/biking "trail", so I won't stay married to the "same container" notion (the "base" container will probably be matchstick holders with a few decons and an ammo can or two mixed in). I'll get as creative as I can with the hides and look for good spots instead of being tied to 0.1 rule. Thanks again!
  7. Great suggestions re the name. Thanks!
  8. Let me start by saying that I'm not usually one for power trails. I tend to find and hide caches with higher-than-normal D-ratings. But, we took the kids out a few weeks ago on one and they *loved* it, and there's a linear park (about 3-1/2 miles or so) that would be perfect. So, I'm giving some thought to how to go about doing it. That raises two questions: 1. Placement - What is the easiest way to go about placement? Is it like hiding any other cache only I have to factor in the proximity restriction for not only other caches, but the previous one in the series as well? Or, is there a better, more efficient "trick" to it? Also, is it customary to have them as close to .1 apart as possible or is it okay to leave myself a little breathing room in case I inadvertently run into a proximity problem and need to relocate one (and want the flexibility to do that w/o having to rework the rest of the trail)? 2. Containers - What's the ideal container for this kind of thing? Is it customary to use the same container for the entire series? This is a pretty heavily-traveled multi-purpose trail, so i think I'm going to be limited in how big I can go (Decon is probably at the upper end), but is there something between a film can and a decon that works well for these situations? What have you seen? Finally, I appreciate any helpful thoughts you might have on this, but I would please ask that this not turn into a thread railing against power trails. So, if the sum and substance of your post is going to be, "power trails suck and are ruining *my* game", please just move along. Thanks! --Matt
  9. This part of it has been somewhat shocking. Giving the fanbois from a certain fruit-themed computer company a run for their money.
  10. Why charge anyone for something that really is not that important? Not important to you, maybe, but you can't speak for everybody. Well I don't care to pay more for something that can be had for free. There are plenty of solutions available to address the issue that do not involve me paying more money. Perhaps you need to look around a bit and you will discover the new maps are a non-issue. Attention Everyone: The change does not bother JHolly, and as such, should not bother the rest of us. Check. Got it. Thanks for your productive contributions to the topic. --Matt I did say you should probably look around a bit and there is a viable solution available that does not involve opening the wallet. The solution is available in this thread and another forum. Just look around. Great. I'm happy that you've found a "solution" that works for *you* and the way *you* use the site and/or the browser *you* use. I'm assuming that means you'll stop trolling this thread. You've more than made your point. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=290410&st=150&p=4972708entry4972708 http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=290410&st=150&p=4972772entry4972772 http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=290410&st=400&p=4975022entry4975022 http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=290410&st=400&p=4975186entry4975186 http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=290410&st=500&p=4976586entry4976586 http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=290410&st=500&p=4976587entry4976587 http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=290410&st=500&p=4977163entry4977163 http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=290410&st=500&p=4977181entry4977181 http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=290410&st=500&p=4977191entry4977191 Thanks!
  11. Why charge anyone for something that really is not that important? Not important to you, maybe, but you can't speak for everybody. Well I don't care to pay more for something that can be had for free. There are plenty of solutions available to address the issue that do not involve me paying more money. Perhaps you need to look around a bit and you will discover the new maps are a non-issue. Attention Everyone: The change does not bother JHolly, and as such, should not bother the rest of us. Check. Got it. Thanks for your productive contributions to the topic. --Matt
  12. A well thought out post but there is a bit of information that is missing. We don't know exactly what the additional cost both for Groundspeak, and for it's patrons would be if they chose to reinstate Google maps as it was before. I've seen some pretty astronomical figures. There have been a few people that said that they'd pay more to get Google maps back, but how much more. If GS increased the PM rate to $35, there may be some that would grumble about the increase but most would probably re-up. If it went up to $40 a month, there may be a few existing customers that might not think it's worth it. Suppose, in order to get Google Maps back it went up to $50 a month or more. Personally, I might choose to drop my PM if it went up that high. We've seen quite a few threats from people that they're not going to renew their membership due to the change in the mapping page. What we don't know is what the impact might be for those considering a premium membership. How many have chosen not to pay for a PM because the mapping page doesn't have a Google maps satellite view option. How many potential PM members would Groundspeak lose if the monthly cost was $50 a month? ...hence the suggestion of making it an elective add-on. GS eats some, raises the base PM cost marginally (which they should've done a long time ago, frankly), and/or put most (or all) of the cost on folks who choose to have access to Google Maps as an elective add-on to their existing PM account (for an additional fee, of course). This not only would reduce the number of people with access (thereby, presumably, lowering the total cost), but also put the majority (if not all) of the cost of it on the people using it. Any one (or combination) of these approaches would be a far better move all around than just eliminating it entirely unnecessarily. --Matt
  13. Agreed. I use this one, though (clipped to my bag). http://www.spacepen.com/trekker-2.aspx
  14. People are making this Google Maps issue far too complicated. A vendor that provides a core service has decided to raise their rates (from $0 to "something more than $0"). The fact is that Groundspeak has profited on that vendor service having been provided for $0 for a number of years. The decision to remove it is 100% motivated by maintaining that profit margin. Make no mistake, this is not "evil Google's" doing; it's Groundspeak's. Statement's by Groundspeak that they had no choice and their "explanation" are pure hogwash. There are 3 legitimate ways of solving this problem (I am treating "remove the service" as an illegitimate option since there is clearly not a viable alternative): 1. Pay for it out of existing revenue. This will reduce profits in the short-term, but will maintain the viability of one of the website's core features (which will have the long-term benefit of not driving users elsewhere). It's almost like a capital investment (but not really). 2. Pass along the cost to users. I, like many, I would imagine, would gladly pay significantly more on my premium membership to have access to Google Maps. 3. Related to #2, reduce user access. If you don't want to (or think it's unfair to) force PMs to subsidize the costs incurred by paying for the required license from Google, you could make it a PMO service. Or, if you're not comfortable raising the rates on all PMs to pay for it, you could make it an "add-on" elective service for PMs who want it. Some combination of all 3 actually makes the most sense. Cash flow and profit would be disrupted significantly at the outset as you'd need to wait for premium memberships to come due before you could raise the rate, but after a year, you'd be in balance with where you want to be. Let's face it. $30 is a steal for a PM as it is, and Groundspeak is too worried about protecting its profit margin here. Everyone's going to need to kick in here, but removing Google Maps altogether and replacing it with a half-baked, half-as-functional, but "free" replacement is a short-sighted and irrational decision. Sure, by the grace of the internet, we haven't had to pay for it yet, but we should've long ago. You get what you pay for. --Matt
  15. Inadvertently updated to this version as part of a sync. How, exactly, does one roll it back to 4.5.6? Thanks! --Matt
  16. Same here, but I don't know as if it is active yet.
  17. While this will almost certainly help iPhone 4S users with accuracy, I'm curious whether standalone GPSrs will be able to be similarly equipped with a simple firmware update or if it is a hardware matter that would not help existing/legacy GPSrs. Anyone know? http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/19/apple-expands-iphone-4s-gps-capabilities-with-glonass-support/
  18. Agree with all of this except 4 & 6. With respect to ability to store caches,the storage capacity of most smart phones vastly exceeds the storage capacity of most GPSrs; with 32 gigs of space on my iPhone I shudder to think how many caches I could store on there. I've got thousands in my app right now and I'm not even aware of a limit. Point is, this is not a point in favor of GPSrs (or a point against them). With respect to 6, the official geocaching app supports entering multiple waypoints for multis/puzzles/etc and has for some time. Both have their pros and cons. Phones give you satellite imagery and access to the cache photos (both are store when the cache is stored, so no network required), access to the full database of caches instantaneously with no pre-planning required (when in network), unlimited access to prior logs (when in network), logging ability (both cache logs and trackables logs) (whether in network or not), and, above all, convenience. GPSrs give you, when it boils down to it, battery life, durability, and above all, accuracy. Which is best depends on the type of caching you're doing and, for that reason, many cachers who are really into it have both.
  19. As we are new to geocaching, we were using an iPhone 4 with the Geocaching app on the Southern Gulf Islands (the ones in British Columbia between Vancouver and Victoria) a couple of weeks ago. Once we got out of a 3G cellular service area, the app was no longer usable. We also had data roaming turned off to avoid paying nearby expensive US cellular service charges. If you will always been in areas with good 3G cellular service, the iPhone 4 with an app will work fine. For areas outside of a cellular service area, look at satellite-based GPS like the Magellan or look at a Bad Elf for the iPhone/iPod Touch. My Bad Elf just made it through Canada Customs and is sitting at CanadaPost, ready to pickup and try out on my iPod touch 4G. B. One point of clarification here. You can load and save caches into the iPhone app via PQ or saving them to a list. I rarely, if ever, access the network from my phone when I'm caching with it -- sucks up the battery. I usually disable network in the settings first. When you do this, you save battery because the phone is not accessing the network, but you have full access to the caches saved on the device in the same way you would on a GPSr. I'm not saying a GPSr isn't a better idea; I think it is. This issue of being out of range, though, isn't a differentiating factor. --Matt
  20. Really? As someone who owns and has moved a fair number of trackables, I find the expectation of "near-real-time reporting" absurd. Trackables work just fine even when people take a week or more to log their movements. I don't expect anyone to log caches or trackables while they're still on a vacation. I don't even expect them to log caches or trackables right after they get back from vacation. Such expectations would be absurd. Yes, really. The attitude that the logging of a given TB needs to come to a screeching halt to accommodate folks "getting around" to logging the TB is just as inconsiderate as the attitude that if it's not "dropped" immediately, it's not logged fast enough. If you don't "drop" for a whole week, think of the backup your causing -- particularly for a popular TB in popular caches. Heck, it could be 3 cachers down the line in 2 days and you're still 5 days from logging the drop! This problem is worse the longer it goes. Similarly, is it really fair to your fellow cachers (some of whom go to specific caches to retrieve TBs that are reported in inventory) to let them believe that a TB is in a cache for a week or more after you've, in fact, taken it out? Point is, the finger pointing on who is and who is not being inconsiderate goes both directions on this one. If you give a head's up with a note or something, that's one thing. If not, it's just as rude as grabbing it immediately. --Matt
  21. This right here is just as big of a problem (if not more so) than folks grabbing too quickly. There are cachers in this area (and I'm guessing this isn't terribly uncommon elsewhere) who do their logs on a weekly or even a monthly basis. For basic cache logs, that's not really an issue since no one else is depending on near-real-time reporting of when you found a cache (FTF folks excluded). However, TBs do rely on near-real-time reporting of where they are in order to function correctly. For logging TBs, it's just as inconsiderate to sit on it for days/weeks/month as it is to grab it minutes after it was placed in a cache. Somewhere in the middle between "old timers" (and their monthly logging exercises) and "young punks" (and their smartphone instantaneous grabs and misspelled "TFTC" logs) is the reasonable answer. I recall having this conversation before, but my general practice is this. If the TB I am retrieving is in the cache's inventory, I log the "retrieved" immediately. If the TB I am retrieving is not in the cache's inventory, I wait 24 hours for the prior cacher to "drop" it there. If it's not "dropped" in that time period, I "grab" it and "visit" it in the cache I retrieved it from. In my book, 24 hours is long enough for a part of the game (the only part, for that matter) in which the timing of one's reporting actually impacts other "players". I've not seen any bugs with notes attached like Gitchee and DoubleBent are talking about; but, if I did, I'd wait the requested period instead of the 24 hours I default to. --Matt P.S. As I recall, I got killed for this sentiment the last time this came up, but it is my opinion, and I'm comfortable with the fact that "everyone has one".
  22. Gerber Suspension Butterfly Multitool. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B000EDPT9K/
  23. For what you want (making the finder retrieve from the bottom and not the top), a pulley system is probably your best bet. Depending on how yor set it up, you could provide no string on the cache end, but rather, magnetize the container so the finder has to pull it down using a strong magnet walked along the outside of the pole.
  24. pH strips? Yeah, thinking about taking those out. By an odd coincidence, I ended up having 3 caches in a 1-month span require testing water. Wasn't prepared for any of them so threw a bunch in the bag thinking maybe this was a "thing" I didn't know about. Haven't needed them since.
×
×
  • Create New...