jeremyp

quote:Originally posted by washboy: quote: Tim & June: The problem is I think they are going to refer to this, and us as "bizarre" Journalists, in all media, are notorious for distorting (or perhaps I should say "selecting") the facts in order to create a good story. I couldn't care less if I'm regarded as bizarre by the public at large for my habit of skulking around in bushes and hedgerows - not to mention my geocaching activities Bad news boys and girls: most people I have spoken to about geocaching reckon that it is bizarre. "Nerds" and "anoraks" are words that have featured in discussions I have participated in about geocaching too. In that sense, the programme producers are probably right. Having said that, who cares? Other people's opinions don't alter the sport or our enjoyment of it. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

I think we're getting too wound up about the rules here. Firstly, I think there have always been good and bad caches - well there have since I started. If people want to raise the quality of caches, they should make their feelings known in the cache log (politely of course!). If planters get truthfl feedback, they'll soon start improving their caches. Secondly, there is no hard and fast rule about how close together "too close" is. The SP series are all quite close together and yet make a nice afternoon's caching - or would if they weren't so easy. I could envisage a situation where two caches are a few yards apart but separated by a fast flowing river that you have to go ten miles to cross. There are two virtual caches in London that use the same inscription as their clues (actually that does go a bit far). ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

And the bit that you need to enter for the search covers even more addresses than 50. Anyway, the home coordinates in my profile pinpoint my house pretty accurately ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

quote:Originally posted by Dan Wilson:Would have made it a new subject but that would be cache advertising So now it's OK to advertise caches as long as you hijack somebody else's thread is it? ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

quote:Originally posted by Pharisee:Just in case anyone is interested, Garmin have released V2.50 for E-trex thingies. I'm only on 2.28, what happened to all the numbers in between? ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

Oh no I can't take any more of this. It's not punny any more. In the words of Edmund Blackadder in a telegram to Charlie Chaplin: "Please, please stop" ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

quote:Originally posted by washboy: We shouldn't be too upset that geocaching.com is US-centric. After all, it's a free service to us and an excellent one, at that. We're not yet compelled to contribute to funding it. Please read el10t's original post. Nobody is complaining about the free service. It's just that there is an option to donate money to geocaching.com. To make us paying members feel our money is well spent, Jeremy is adding some extra services. Unfortunately, so far some of the extras have been a bit US centric which means that some Europeans are questioning whether we should have to pay as much to become members as the Americans. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

We have benchmarks - well trigpoints now. It took me so much time and effort to get it to its current limited state of functionality I almost hope it never gets implemented on gc.com. I sort of agree with the general point though. I'm not going to ask for my money back because I viewed it as a donation to keep the site running, but I think renewals next year should be cheaper for non-USA people. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

I generally go by the rule, if it is illegal for a child under 16 to buy it in a shop, you shouldn't put it in. From your description it sounds like the picture was borderline acceptable from the point of view of being acceptable to be displayed. But borders are different for different people. There are plenty of things that could have been in the cache not offensive to anybody, therefore you did the right thing in a) removing it pointing out that there are a lot of people who have a problem with this stuff. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

I once heard that the Dutch traffic police had 911's for pursuit work, but I can't believe they can afford them in Edinburgh. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

quote:Originally posted by Nia: quote:Originally posted by el10t: quote:Originally posted by Tim & June:So, a better resolution is to simply ban anybody from using GC.com unless their name is el10t. Not a bad idea. I certainly can't see any problems with this - seems very workable to me. Rich _mobilis in mobili_ But who will plant new caches for you to find Tech-no notice We'll have to get up off our backsides and plant that sequence of caches that I had the brilliant idea for about a year ago and yet are still sitting in el10t's living room. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

This post is about censorship by moderators, not Mr Lovelock. I have a real problem with what the moderators did. For those who never saw the DodgyDavid post, it did not (in my opinion) fall foul of any of the UK caching Guidelines as set out by Moss Trooper. The post did contain a link to a commercial web site (*not* Mr Lovelock's). However, Dodgydavid's post was critical of the web site as it had some blatant untruths on it as well as a link to RL's site. DD obviously thought that this might be of interest to cachers. I would not in any way describe DD's post as advertising. At the time the thread was locked, the only reply on it was an intelligently written piece by Huga setting out his point of view wrt publicity in general. Had the thread degenerated into the name calling squabble that RL related threads usually become, I would have supported the moderators action in locking it. Had there been a "blatant advertisement" on it, I would have supported them in censoring the text to remove the advert. As it was there was neither of these things. Furthermore, a lot of the people who didn't see the thread assume that those of us who did and are complaining about the moderators actions in this one instance are RL supporters which is definitely not true in my case. If the moderators just delete stuff there is no way the rest of us can tell if they are doing a good job or if they are going too far. I just think that the moderators over-reacted and need to know what we think. I am totally convinced that it was done in good faith, but people can do things wrong in good faith and if everybody else just keeps quiet they'll keep on doing the same thing. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

quote:Originally posted by Team Minim:I suspect there is some kind of ecological rule akin to simon Gs "reverse pike analogy". If there are too many public caches in an area then should some be members only, if there are not enough caches in an area, do not allow members only ones, Where there are too many geocachers encourage caches to be members only. The only problem with this idea is who decides how many "too many" is. I suspect there are as many different opinions as therer are cachers. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

quote:Originally posted by Moss Trooper: I honestly thought that the thread was put up so that we as geocachers could email the web site in question and put em straight. That's exactly how the post did read. It went something along the lines of: quote:After all the effort people have put in to publicise geocaching and create nice geocaching sites etc (mentioning specifically Mark "The Cat's" efforts), this appears... (link to site with review that implies RL invented geocaching). I don't think you need to apologise. Does this mean that posts with links to sites that have links to banned sites are now banned? If so, I think things are getting a bit out of hand. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

Somebody was using geocaching to promote his commercial business. There was much debate about whether he should be allowed to do this. Actually "debate" is probably the wrong word to use. "Open warfare" would be better. Any thread touching on the subject degenerated pretty quickly. The moderators took the view that it would be better not to talk about it. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

I'm sorry to read your post dodgydavid and I have to say I do sympathize. I thought the moderation was overzealous especially as the tone of your post was critical about the content of the link you posted. Perhaps the moderators can explain how many levels of links are acceptable before you get to... well, we all know. I've posted my views wrt Huga's response elsewhere. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

I was going to reply to a post from Huga about publicity on another thread, but it got locked for unrelated reasons, so I'm posting on a new thread instead. There is a viewpoint that publicity for geocaching is bad because it'll attract the attention of "unsavoury" people namely those that think it is more fun to trash geocaches than to take part in the sport constructively. I do not think that trashing will be a serious problem for some time - if ever. Firstly, you need a GPS receiver to do it systematically. The odd cache is going to be discovered by accident and vandalised every now and again. That's the luck of the draw. How many vandals are seriously going to buy a GPS receiver just to trash caches? Surely it's cheaper just to go for phone boxes? The second problem with systematically trashing caches is that it takes a lot of effort. Each time I go out caching I spend maybe an hour researching and route planning to decide what to do. Then I'm out driving around in my car for the best part of a day and walking an average of about three or four miles. All this to find and log three or four caches. I really don't think that the average small minded vandal mentality is going to have the kind of patience you need to do all that. Finally, I get very uncomfortable about the idea that caching should always be a small exclusive club. Considering that only a year and a week ago I was outside the club (darn it: forgot about my anniversary!), I find it distasteful that I should seek to deny this sport to other people. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

quote:Originally posted by Geo Weasel:Newbury is good too but its no firther than Winchester in terms of accessibility really, so Im more up4 Winchester in the respect that all you people that live there wouldnt have to travel and its no more dfficult to get to than Newbury....but then hey I aint the driver so I cant really vouch a true opinion For anybody North of the M4 and not too far East it's half an hour nearer and fractionally easier by train. Or how about Oxford? ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

For me, January would be much better. As an alternative to Winchester, how about Newbury? Or Salisbury (not quite as accessible of course). ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

When we organised the last Winchester event, it proved impossible to find a pub in the city that would allow children in it. That would disbar the organiser and possibly Dan and Pid from attending. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

Normal Typhoo made in a pot with real tea (not teabags) and not strained so you have to remember not to go right to the bottom of your mug (cups are for wimps). You only get an Oooo with Typhoo! Actually it doesn't have to be Typhoo, it's just that that was the brand my mother always bought. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

quote:Originally posted by Team Blitz (Michael): You don't ACTUALLY need the info from the notice board until the last cache Yes, but you don't know that until you get the clue for the last cache. quote:Besides, a techie like you, u take a pic of the notice board!!! I did that, but the writing was illegible on the tiny LCD screen of my camera. And you know as well as I do that there is one bit of info you need from the carpark that isn't on the notice board. (If you think I've said too much, let me know and I'll edit the message.) ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

quote:Originally posted by el10t: Might have been easier by hand - just solve the set of simultaneous equations provided by plugging in the values of n. No coding required Rich _mobilis in mobili_ Solve five simultaneous equations by hand? Nah, my software had matrix inversion and multiplication code in it, so it was a snip to put in the right matrices to get the computer to do it. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

I have done some research (well a Google search). Have a look at this URL: Urban Legends Reference Page. Technically, you can't even sing it in a restaurant without abtaining a performance licence. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

quote:Originally posted by The Northumbrian: Why not contact jeremy Irish The site owner and ask his views? Does this sort of thing not take up more of the server or whatever space and then cost more to run the site, I think thats why we were asked if we would like to become paying subscribers back in march. if it turns out that it does affect the site and the download times of viewing the pages we might find that our subcripions may be increased the next time we pay. I know nothing on the subject of servers or how these sites work, but not to old to learn more and getter a better insight as the the workings of such things. Nige If it's a MIDI file, it'll be quite small. The only way I know of to upload files to geocaching is to pretend it's a photograph. A MIDI file is probably much smaller than the average jpeg that most of us put on geocaching pages and logs. Having said, that it would probably be better for Michael to put the sound file on his own site and link to it from geocaching. That way, it would use no extra bandwidth on the geocaching site. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching