Dave from Glanton

This is a question posted to Moote... I've re-read this thread a couple of times and it seems to me that unless you're specifically asked to lower your rating by the cache owner then your system is pretty binary in nature; a cache gets the full 5* rating or it doesn't. I can see how you feel it is good to reward people who go to the bother of placing caches rather than those who simply "take, take, take". However, how do you reward somebody who has really, really gone out of their way to place a humdinger of a cache versus someone who has just placed something fairly unremarkable? Isn't that being a bit unfair on the cache hiders who go that extra mile?

but some of us are dreaming of a white Christmas...

I moved from the city (Newcastle) to up here in rural north Northumberland over 10 years ago and something which still blows me away is the view of the night sky, free from light pollution. Being out at night in the countryside is undeniably a great experience - the night sky, the and the nocturnal sounds. I haven't been night caching but I have been out in the medium-sized hours of the morning a few times, going to somewhere to bag some sunrise photographs. The only problem I've had is that a torch moving across a field in the dead of night can attract attention from someone thinking I'm out poaching.

This should suffice for me...

I rate all the caches I visit, and the ratings are nearly always from a personal/subjective viewpoint. I usually rate >50%, as I have enjoyed the caches that I visit. However I would tend to shy away from giving a full 5* rating for a cache unless I really thought it was something truly outstanding. If you give away 5* ratings too easily, then how do you show appreciation of something that is way, way better than anything else when you do find it. The GC:UK rating system, unlike Spinal Tap, doesn't go up to eleven.

Your poll doesn;t include my personal favourite type of cache: easy

All far too complicated. That's why they invented the catch-all "Blighty"

"in the north"!?!?!?!

This might be a case of arguing about semantics, but I can't say I agree about it being "more" (or in any way) acceptable. Some countries may have a tradition of using painted markers for other purposes, but surely the idea of hiding a cache is just that...to *hide* it. Not to put it somewhere and then advertise its presence with a sign....or an obvious pile of stones...or a neatly arranged pile of sticks....or....I'll get my coat

Congratulations to all

Like WLW said, "The person who placed this cache is just criminal waste of DNA" is out of order. "This cache is rubbish" may be true, but it's not exactly constructive, especially if the cache in question belongs to a newbie. "This cache is rubbish because...." or "This cache would not be rubbish if...." are better alternatives.

I do a lot of non-cache-hunting walking and the reason that I initially bought a GPS was not do much for locating things but to work out exactly how far I'd covered in a day. Of course, I hadn't had it very long before I discovered caching. For the day job I sometimes get involved in installing GPS/mapping equipment in vehicles. Once or twice I've had units that had trouble getting a fix, and I found the skymap feature on my Etrex useful for assessing whether the problem was likely to lie with the equipment or simply because satellites were likely to be out of view/obscured by buildings.

Just a thought... I wonder if it's a Mystery/Puzzle cache which requires other clues to be solved in order to find it (e.g. which requires the searcher to find some TBs in order to get enough info to locate the cache)? If the cache setter wanted to keep the final cache hard to find then they probably wouldn't provide enough info in the cache web page in order to be able to find the cache without solving all the clues first - in which case it could be hard to "reverse engineer" it and locate the cache's web page though a search.

Maybe true to say that it would work but when coding in html (Or any other language) every opening should have a closing, This all comes from the early days of computer programming keeping your code neat. It's not my fault I stick to the rules Milton (aka moote) Not wanting to turn this into Geek-war or anything, but... See the W3 spec which says (in 9.3.2) that for <br>. the end tag is forbidden. (as you might have guessed, I do this for a living and need to get out more)

Personally, I'd say bad form. I remember there was a discussion here a few months ago about a cache which had a lot of DNFs, and the owners had systematically deleted these en masse on the grounds that "they made the cache page look untidy" (or words to that effect). As I recall (but my memory may be hazy, so feel free to correct me), the general consensus here was that a valid DNF has as much right as any other log to be on the web page. It's part of the cache's history, and gives future visitors a bit more of an idea as to what to expect. So yes, bad form, but not bad enough to let it ruin your day.

This is not needed on GC.com because they have some tool which corrects malformed html. I don't think </BR> is needed anywhere...tool or no tool! Agreed <p>some text</p> gives you some text in a basic paragraph <br>inserts a line break within that paragraph. so... <p>Blah de blah<br> de blah</p> <p>Dem de dum de dum</p> ...should render as... Blah de blah de blah Dum de dum de dum

Apparently, it writes underwater aswell Hmmm... wonder about the cost of developing paper that works under water Another camera-related tip: when doing several caches in one day I take a quick photo of my entry in each log book. That makes it easier to remember what to put in the log when logging the find on PC back at home.

Sounds good to me

Moving Target Although it's suddenly got a bit more difficult since somebody failed to follow the instructions on one of the bugs and moved it to Luxumbourg

Definitely interested I'll keep an eye open for that one then - I really enjoyed that last one you organised in Newcastle back in January

I have a series of TBs, each of which carries a partial clue to the location of a final physical cache )'Moving Target'), somewhere in the UK. On each bug itself and on also each bug's web page there is a clear request that because of the purpose that the bug serves, it should not be taken outside of the UK. Yesterday I got a log message saying that someone had picked up one of these bugs and has taken it to another country Obviously I'd like to get the TB back into circulation in the UK as soon as possible and am going to request that the cacher sends the TB back to be via snail-mail. So here's my question - should they be expected to pay postal costs (because they didn't follow the instructions on the TB) or should I pay the costs (because it's my TB)? Your thoughts????

My usual letter is along the lines of the following, with a copy of the Geocaching info leaflet (available for download as a PDF from GC.com)... I am writing to you with regard to your land near <wherever>. Currently I take part in an activity called Geocaching. In case you are unfamiliar with this activity, I have enclosed a leaflet which provides some more information. Within the UK, geocaches are very often placed in areas such as National Parks or on common access land, although cache setters may also seek to place caches elsewhere. In all cases, caches are only placed provided that the consent of the landowner can be obtained. A cache is typically a small container (such as a Tupperware box) containing a log book and a number of ‘trinkets’ for swapping by cache finders. Geocachers are very careful to respect the environment and the rights of the landowner. For example, seeking permission from landowners, rules such as never digging to place a cache, and initiatives such as “Cache In, Trash Out” whereby cache hunters are encouraged to collect any litter which they find in the area around the cache. Whilst walking in <wherever> recently, I spotted a site which I thought would make a good site for a cache. Therefore, I am seeking your permission to place a cache there. Whilst placing a cache here may encourage more people to visit the area, I do not believe that any increase in activity would be detrimental to the area – a cache may be visited once every few weeks (or even once every few months). I would be most grateful if you could grant me permission. If you require any further information, then you may contact me either at the above address, or by telephone on <whatever>. Many thanks for your time. I look forward to hearing from you.

There's this one, but judging by the name I think it's warm rather than cool

If your site uses FrontPage extensions, then there may be a problem. However, if you;re just using FrontPage as a convenient way of authoring 'vanilla' HTML then that should be fine. If you don't want to mess around with FTP clients (personally I'd recommend WS-FTP), then you can (if you're using a more recent version of Windows) set up your ISP's web server through "My Network Places". Uploading files is then as simple as dragging and dropping between windows on your desktop.

a local cache for local people??