Frolickin

quote:Originally posted by Mopar:If it is in fact slanted to just south jersey, perhaps the name should be the SJGA? We from South Jersey do not consider anything north of Atlantic City to be in South Jersey. It's possible that themagician does not know of this thread, hence does not know there is discussion of a logo. Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

I was taught that all good logos are clearly recognizable when printed in b&w. If one looks at the McDonald's arch, Wal-Mart, and Chrysler, he will see logos that are effective, despite the medium in which they are displayed. My recommendation is to concentrate on a logo that will reproduce well in b&w. There are two logos that I would pursue, if I were so inclined: 1. NJGA, where the "J" is the map of NJ. New Jersey Geocaching Association would be printed smaller beneath it. 2. A map of NJ with a single geocaching-identified icon (the public domain G, for instance) Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

May 3 is the date for the get-together in Belleplain in South Jersey. 26 April is an interesting date for me. I will be in the Sandy Hook area and may be able to get away to log a few over there. Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

quote:Originally posted by Mopar:If you look at the end result where it spits out the actual rating, a 1 star terrain is defined as handicap accessible. That is too late in the process. Handicapped designation needs to be a separate category. Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

quote:Originally posted by Mopar:Just wondering where you found that description for a 1 star terrain cache? http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/ The above page is the page linked from http://www.geocaching.com/hide/report.asp Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

quote:Originally posted by Mopar:A 1 star terrain cache should be doable in a wheelchair, according to the ratings, so if there isn't a curb cut you just went up to a 1.5 star terrain, minimum. The ratings state: quote:Basically flat Most people would classify a city street as basically flat, thus provide a one star rating. The current system is inadequate to provide accessibility information for the handicapped. Heck, I just pondered my Founder's Avenue cache that you have completed. That has a terrain rating of one. The block has curb cuts, but it is handicapped accessible only in the sense that a wheelchair-bound person could nab it if he could get to the sidewalk. Even with the curb cut, it would be difficult. My father (bound to a wheelchair for essentially my entire life) would have been able to drive himself to the location. He, however, would have taken a huge risk in getting out of his car, into a wheelchair, wheeling himself to the end of the block in the street (that is a busy street), then up the curb cut. He could have done it, but not without some doing. If we are going to truly indicate handicapped accessibility to our caches, more thorough criteria will need to be used. Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Even one star caches can pose a problem for wheelchairs. Unless a sidewalk has a curb cut, it would take the most agile of handicapped folks to make it on to a city block without assistance. Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

quote:Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin): Today, actually, the guidelines were updated indicating that moving caches were no longer appropriate due to the logistical difficulties. I do not understand what the above means in reference to the following three approvals on 23 March. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=59375 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=59993 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=59377 Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Upon re-reading my post, I realize I had not illustrated my point well. Let me take another stab at this. The issue is can two virtual caches point to the same location? RK began this thread by pointing out an issue where two caches listed at GC.com pointed to the same location. One was archived. He wanted to discuss the merits of which cache should have been archived. That is a good discussion to have. In presenting the issue, it appears that those who have responded thus far seem to think that no two virtual caches should point to the same location. Correct me if I am wrong. I got to thinking why two virtual caches could not point ot the same location. To illustrate the issue, I offer you a slightly different scenario than what RK stated. Assume that I created a virtual cache for some location a year ago. For whatever reason, I posted that cache to some site other than GC.com (N.com, WWGC.com, a personal site, etc.). Further assume that today, user jdoe (forgive me if there is such a user) creates a virtual cache for the same location as the one I created a year ago. He posts his cache to GC.com. One can also assume that jdoe had learned of this location from having sought and logged my virtual cache posted elsewhere. So, now we have two virtual caches point to the same location. Can this be? Is it any different than the case for which RK presented initially in this thread? Physical Caches The discussion of physical caches recently has focused upon the .1 mile rule/guideline/policy/term du jour. quote:The approvers use a policy that caches placed within .10 miles of another cache will not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area. Cache Listing Requirements That guideline is in the interest of the game. Too many caches in a small area spoils the game (generally). But the guideline is hollow for it only applies to caches listed at GC.com. As long as each cache listed here is .1 miles from each other, the guideline is satisfied. Each listed GC.com cache, however, could be within inches of another cache not listed at GC.com, and the guideline would still be satisfied. The guideline, therefore, is not in the interest of the game, but in the interest of GC.com. So, when we try to determine whether or not two virtual caches can point to the same location, it would be helpful to have a guideline, rule, policy, term du jour that would hold up for the game at large and not just for those caches listed at GC.com. Inevitably, someone will tell me that if I do not like the way GC.com does things, I should take my caches elsewhere. This would not be the first time I have been told that. But there's the rub. In a case like this, I have. Then that cache has been duplicated. So what? one may ask. If I am to maintain the the area of the cache and I have obtained permission previously that jdoe did not, the location can easily be compromised through no action of mine whatsoever. That affects the cache I posted elsewhere. It affects me personally. And germain to the discussion, it affects the reputation of the game. So, can two virtual caches point to the same location? Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Someone creates a virtual that is not listed on GC.com. Many months (a year) later someone else creates the same virtual but lists it on GC.com. The only change is that a number gets added to a find count that does not represent all finds. Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

I was milling about in the local library recently and stumbled across a video titled Ghosts of the Pines. This is an NJN production. I think it was originally aired in 1974. For those of us who cache in the Pines, there were a number of familiar places highlighted: Hermann City, Weymouth, Batsto, Harrisville (McCartyville), and Washington. Ong's Hat was also discussed. There was a re-enactment of Joe Mulliner's trouble at Sooey's place. This video is but 30 minutes, yet is a must for those who seek the Pines caches and want to know a little history. Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

I think Oregon also does not permit self-serve. I am certain someone will correct me if I am wrong. When I was a boy, it was always interesting when we traveled to a self-serve state. Dad was in a wheelchair, ladies did not pump gas, so I was the one who learned how to pump gas. I liked it, but in those days, who'd smell like gas after you pumped it. Generally speaking, NJ gasoline is less expensive that PA and NY and we receive an additional service. This is one government regulation I support. Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

deleted

We just filled up for $1.47 at US Gas at the intersection of Rt. 40 & Rt. 77 in New Jersey. Of course, it was full serve to boot! Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

quote:Originally posted by NUGUNSLINGER:ive found some really cool stuff ($40 knife) in a level 3. How does one trade up for the knife? Leave a Grant? Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

I have three set up. Two were set up together and they arrive daily. The third was created later the first two. This third query rarely is delivered. Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

I saw no pop-up advertisements whatsoever when I went there. There was a broken link to an image on the front page. I also believe that for messages, the forum here will likely not be replaced. Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

quote:Originally posted by 9Key:Some of my reasons for non-approval are: + $6 to log a virtual? To log http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=35799 one must first pay a $7 parking fee then $12.50 for the tour to get you where you need to be. Granted, you could park a good deal away from this most likely for free, but it is Camden. Camden is where the federal courthouse is. When called for jury duty, the employees at the courthouse instruct you that parking in Camden is unwise. No one has to hunt this one. It is a virtual. It was approved several months ago, so I guess it will be considered grandfathered. If the guideline for approving virtuals has changed to consider the fee, then this is another example of it being confusing for those who hide to know what the current interpretations are. I know nothing of the cache that was proposed to start this thread, but the size of the fee is the first I have heard that would disapprove a cache. Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

quote:Originally posted by JoeCthulhu:I believe that the number that appears on your profile page on this site should take precedent over whatever the stats site has for you. The only correct number is the one in my private database . . . it accounts for all caches found, not just the ones listed and logged at GC.com. Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

quote:Originally posted by Dru Morgan:You know somewhere they are working on naked-humanclock.com right now. It's there . . . http://www.humanclock.com/naked.php Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

If ever there were a need for members, it is not too difficult to get in contact with one another. We all have e-mail accounts linked to our GC.com profiles. As I posted on the cache page, I am ridding myself of memberships so have little interest in a NJ Geocaching Society. Nevertheless, I would enjoy meeting everyone for a day of caching. Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

I loaded Pocket Streets today. It looks like this will be a help in the field. Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

I made the issue as clear as I could. It is still unclear to most who are posting. I'll stop pressing the issue now. Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

quote:Originally posted by mtn-man:_Frolickin said: “GC.com is positioning itself to be the governing body of a game. It is doing so without a mandate from the players.”_ That is your opinion. It seems to me that GC.com is just positioning itself as the governing body of this web site. I have never seen them attempt to mandate how caches are place on the other sites... never. I'll try to make this clearer GC.com can do whatever it wants. I stated elsewhere that Groundspeak is doing a masterful job. The issue, as I see it, is that Groundspeak's wonderful job is not necessarily in the best interests of geocaching. For me, geocaching has to be beyond GC.com. I provided an example of what I foresee happening: GC.com requires registration Registration requires one to enter coordinates A radius limit is placed on those coordinates unless one forks over a membership fee I believe this would be a horrible blow to the game. A lot of folks have suggested I take my ball and go play elsewhere. That, however, is simplistic and misses the point. Passing off this discussion further imbeds GC.com as the game geocaching. Just last evening in a different thread one posted: quote:But the more I thought about it, it's definitely worth the expense of becoming a CM simply to help keep the sport alive. What would happen if Jeremy started losing so much money on this site, and had to take it down before it took him and his comrades down? So, someone else sees that if Groundspeak were to pull out (financial difficulty or business model change, does not matter), the game is jeopardized. My solution is not for everyone to toss money at Groundspeak; my desire is to ensure the game can exist without Groundspeak. That is fundamentally different. Yes, Groundspeak can and will do whatever it chooses. My hope is that the players of the game will see beyond the commercialization and take control of the game so it perseveres as an open and free game. I have had some side discussions as people have written to discuss points of what I have been saying. One of the things that has come up is that I believe Groundspeak can position itself to be quite profitable while at the same time relinquishing control of the game. If it takes a leadership role of establishing something independent to be the caretaker of the game, it can concentrate on what it does best: web content and merchandise. For that, there is a market! If nothing else, let's at least debate the issue here. Dismissing it and saying go start your own site doesn't address the fact that if Groundspeak packs it in today or decides to charge to get data that the game is significantly affected for all players everywhere. Dismissing it as a non-issue saying that couldn't happen does not make it so. How does geocaching exist outside GC.com? N-cache and personal sites don't cut it--that has been made perfectly clear. So, it is all GC.com unless something is done about it. What do you propose? Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

I use an iPAQ 3870. I have, up to now, saved individual cache pages to a directory and then used them in the field. I have been playing around with GPXView the last several days and have found a replacement for saving the individual pages. Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose