Morseman

quote:Originally posted by Team Blitz: Lets just cut the crap, and get to the jist of things: 1) Organisations like CC's FC's etc are not particularly wanting to deal with people on a one-by-one basis. It costs ££, and such peoaple are NOT organised. Ok, if that's the case, which organisation do I join to get my planning application considered? Which organisation do I join to lodge a complaint or request to my council to get anything else done? CCs up and down the country are contacted every day by individuals on a variety of issues. Perhaps what should have been created was the GAoH (Geocaching Association of Hampshire) so that HCC could negotiate with an "organisation"? --... ...-- Morseman

quote:Originally posted by Countryside Manager HCC: In the absence of such an agreement, it is likely that cache placement will not find favour with landowners, and they are likely to reject requests to place caches, or actively find caches and remove them. Are you saying that if a non-member of, say, the Ramblers Association tells you that, although they are prepared to abide by the law they wont commit themselves to abiding by any guidelines put forward by the Ramblers Association to their members, because they are not members of that organisation, that you will then refuse to talk to the Ramblers Association? Because that's what I think you just said. --... ...-- Morseman

quote:Originally posted by Omally: This makes it clear that whoever gets onto the committee will be the ones to make any adjustments necessary to the "constitution" (which I'm sure is part of being on a committee), therefore if anyone reading this who doesn't like what has been put on offer: why not stand for election yourself and make that change? We all have the right to do that, so why the over long threads? Labouring the point seldom does any good. Unfortunately, whilst appearing to be a good point, it suffers from the experience that I, for one, have of committees and similar organisations. For instance, consider a recent AGM of a very large organisation. According to reports, the meeting voted against a proposal, but the Board had enough proxy votes to make that irrelavent. Also, the idea of reforming from the inside makes people have to join something they dissagree with to stop it. The choice of wording in these things is everything. Saying that you intend to be "the" voice for a whole group, whether members or not, was IMO a bad move. A better choice of words, again IMO, would have been "a" voice, or even just "one of the voices for...". In reality, it can only represent those who are members. I still would not have considered an organisation such as that proposed to be a good idea though. --... ...-- Morseman

quote:Originally posted by Icenians:This cuts both ways. Have an association by all means but don't claim to be THE SINGLE voice! Having once been a member, for many years, of another group who claim to represent a whole hobby (the Radio Society of Great Britain - or RSGB) plus having served on many committees for various issues (both hobby and professionally), I have to say that my immediate reaction to anyone wanting to set up such an organisation is count me out! I'm sure people start out with good intensions, they may even initially believe that it's for everyones best interest. However, I am now inclined to the point of view that, at best, organisations like this are irrelavent and, at worst, they get hijacked by people with a particular axe to grind. I have a theory, probably not original, that if you want to stop something that you don't like, then the best way is to form a committee to come up with rules to govern it. --... ...-- Morseman

quote:Originally posted by golddust1000:OK, admit it. Who's at work right now looking at this forum when they should be working?? As my job was made redundant at the end of December, and I'm surfing the job market websites (whilst downloading an Insurance form for Professional Indemnity) I guess I'm my own boss now. So, I gave myself permission to use my own time and computer to access this site. --... ...-- Morseman

quote:Originally posted by jstead:"Also I would like to suggest that most digital cameras have an option to show the date on the picture. This could do maybe instead of flags or whatever." - McDehack Cheaters could change the camera date! Also, my little l'espion camera doesn't have the facility to record the date/time. My new HP850 does, but I can't find out how to get it printed on the picture! The bottom line is, as ever, it's easy to cheat, but what would be the point? I come back to my "it ain't the Olympics" point that I keep making. --... ...-- Morseman

quote:Originally posted by The Good Shepherds:OK, this is the idea... it's kind of like a cross between virtual caching, geodashing, and "the photographer's cache". Sounds a bit like Geodashing. Except that Geodashing takes place all over the world and, although it's not a requirement, many players do upload photos of the dashpoints they visit each month. But, hey, this month not so many geodash points in my area, and I've visited most trig points in the area as well, so I'm still interested. Any news of when the website is likely to be up and running please? --... ...-- Morseman

Since I have two caches which involve two different types of trig point (one a traditional pillar and the other a bolt) then I guess I have a vested interest? Well, my opinion is that it makes no difference to me whether people look for the trig point pillar number on the web for the following reasons. 1. The one using an actual trig point only gives you half the clue (in fact, the cache got trashed by someone who didn't even do the clues to find it - they just found it by accident!) and 2. the second cache point doesn't have a Flush Plate on it, so the number you need to find to solve the clue to the actual cache is nothing to do with the trig point, it's close by. So, personally I have no objection to the numbers being available to anyone else. Anyone would think this was an Olympic Event the way that these discussions go sometimes! --... ...-- Morseman

quote:Originally posted by Teasel: Jeremy's waypoint names come from Chris&Maria's file, which contains duplicates eg see UKTP0009 and UKTP0010 (Not a criticism - I'd put money on there being lots of duplicates in my database too! Removing them is harder than it may at first appear!). Duplicates aren't a problem for the merging process, but it would cause problems if I'd tried to align the two numbering systems. To have ensured that the trigpoint numbers in my database were similar to Chris&Maria's numbers where appropriate would have been very difficult, and there are at least four other naming schemes out there as well as Chris&Maria's (though, naturally, C&M's are the best known within the geocaching community). All in all, it seemed a _lot_ less work to come up with a new numbering scheme. One problem I found with the "UKTPxxxx" format was that my Garmin GPSIII+ cut the last two numbers off, which meant that I had to keep swaping about when trig points had the same first two numbers. It wasn't a great problem, but I did have to keep a track of what the real numbers were when I reloaded points I'd already visited. --... ...-- Morseman

quote:Originally posted by Motley Crew: quote:Originally posted by Stu & Sarah:

quote:Originally posted by McDehack:For another _SHOT_I did not think that there were _DISPOSABLE _digital cameras on the market yet Perhaps we should consider the image that we are projecting to the rest of the geocaching community? I know, far too over exposed now. --... ...-- Morseman

Geofume What you do when you've been tramping round a wood searching under and round every tree, then you decode the clue, which says "It's hidden under a tree". --... ...-- Morseman

quote:Originally posted by The Wombles: The base for the first triangulation of the country (in 1794) is marked by http://www.follies.btinternet.co.uk/ordnancetxt.html near Old Sarum, Salisbury. The original reference point was apparently an old canon, cemented upright, upon which the survey equipment was mounted. The canon is still visible today. Dave That's not quite true. The cannon was placed a little while after the start of the 1st Triangulation, witnessed by King George III, on Hounslow Heath in 1784. Sir Joseph Banks, President of the Royal Society, supervised the laying of accurately made glass rods, encased in wood for protection, with each end open to allow the next rod to be accurately placed next to it. From this the first baseline was created and a line from King's Arthur and Hampton Poorhouse was used. The third point, used to measure the angles from each end of the baseline, was a point at St. Ann's Hill. The ends of the line were marked by wooden posts, but these rotted, and old cannon were used instead sometime later. In 1791 the Ordnance Survey took over the Trigonometric Survey. (All taken from The History of the retriangulation of Great Britain 1935 1962 published by the Ordnance Survey) --... ...-- Morseman

quote:Originally posted by jstead:On the other hand properly encrypted spoilers can save the day if one really has got thoroughly frustrated for one reason or another and has travelled a long distance or is short of time. Some of the encrypted clues are amongst my pet hates. For example, you are stood in a forest or woodland, with the GPS display bouncing you about from 1 metre away to 30 metres away and you have looked at the base, in the branches and any hollow tree trunk in a 100 metre area. Then you decode the clue to find thjat the cache is "hidden beneath a tree". Well well, I think, who would have thought of that? Then there are the ones that really rub salt in the wound by saying that the exact tree is in the picture. Now, ladies and gentlemen, consider that there's no way of printing off a picture without looking at it, if only to ensure it printed, which then spoils the fun of at least trying to find the cache without the clue! So, please describe something about the tree if that's where you decided to hide the cache. Thanks. --... ...-- Morseman

quote:Originally posted by Teasel: quote:Originally posted by Firth of Forth:I'm about to replace some stone copings, and was told by the stonemason that one had a OS marking on it. Does anyone know whether these are still used? Ooooh, make sure you keep the plate! (If you don't want it, I'll happily take it off your hands for you, saddo that I am!) It might not be a plate! The original triangulation work, the 1st Triangulation of the UK, didn't use concrete pillars, it was before concrete came into common use. Marks were made on solid items, like gateposts and corners of buildings. In fact, as well as the trig points, 'benchmarks' were made on corners of buildings as during the 1920s and 30s. These were local marks made when making or checking maps. The marks oten consist of a set of 4 lines chiseled into the stone. A solid horizontal bar, with three others forming an arrow pointed to the centre of the bar, chiselled below it. You might have a bit of a post and packing problem. --... ...-- Morseman

quote:Originally posted by The Scout:I've just bought a Palm Tungsten (from Staples, excellent price) and I would like to know what mapping or Geocaching related software can be recommended. (I already use Mobipocket to read the cache download from GC.com) I use a program called Geoclipping available at http://home.earthlink.net/~rschoolf/geocaching.htm --... ...-- Morseman

quote:Originally posted by Slytherin: 99.99% of caches that get trashed are found by non-geocachers because they aren't hidden well enough. I'm always amazed that Major Oak survives as well as it does, given that other caches that, IMO, were better hidden and further off a very well beaten track seem to go missing. I suppose that could be tempting fate, but Major Oak has existed for quite a while, very close to a very well used footpath and often in plain view of the path! Of the caches that I've placed, one went when a clearance team went through (being a nature resurve, the clearance was more on the context of a hatchet job, IMO) one got bulldozed under when a new path was put through, one has been taken twice (despite my care at making sure no one saw me place the second cache and hiding it away from the original site - the second replacement survived two weeks of not advertising it's replacement - We'll see if it survives the weekend!) and my latest effort was apparently found by kids scrambling round the rocks, but I can't find the one called "A Walk to Visit Carl" even though I've seen all the picture clues and searched high and low amongst the rocks where it's supposed to be. (Hey - anyone notice the new Graemlin?) --... ...-- Morseman

quote:Originally posted by Sel: quote:Originally posted by Morseman: It was, however, parallel to the point given, so human error had crept in making the possition parallel to where it should be, but offset to the north of its actual place. Oh, you were doing so well expalining yourself right up to the end there. A position cannot be parallel to anything, it's a matter of geometry. But I see what you mean, I'm just nitpicking your semantics now -- Why'd ya have to go and make things so complicated? Sorry, I couldn't resist it. The roads were parallel to one another, which is what I meant in the original post. I did consider making the last paragraph, on parallels, longer and even more incorrect but decided to spare everyone more pain. --... ...-- Morseman

quote:Originally posted by Sel: quote:Originally posted by Morseman:Another is due to map making errors, and errors by the Ordnance Survey in specifying where the Trig point was. I 'found' one recently where the location given was on a road parallel to where the trig point actually was! I hate to be pedantic, but how can a point have a road parallel to it? You need two lines for parallel conditions, not a line and a point...? Appologies for the poor use of the English language. There were two roads, running nearly parallel to one another. The Trig Point database, which is I belive based upon information gathered from a variety of sources but mainly from the Odrnance Survey records, put it in a location just off one of the roads. The pillar was, however, actually just off the other road and about a half mile south of the location given A fact I could work out as the name of the point was (I'm going to make up a name here, as I can't be bothered to log off and go and get the real name ) something like "Morsemans Reservoir" - The reservoir was off one road, the location of the trigpoint was wrongly given as off another road and was in the grounds of an observatory. It was, however, parallel to the point given, so human error had crept in making the possition parallel to where it should be, but offset to the north of its actual place. Phew! --... ...-- Morseman

quote:Originally posted by Tree Hugger: I suggest that non-geocachers who are posting on the geocaching forums go away and put their own house in order before telling us how to conduct oursleves. Whilst Tree Hugger may, or may not be, a troll name to be fair to the TMA people their site was Spammed by someone from the UK Geocaching group in the first place. Otherwise they would have continued to be blissfully unaware of the existance of Geocaching anyway. --... ...-- Morseman

quote:Originally posted by Lance Ambu: Isn't true that some trig points are not where they thought they were since the advent of GPS systems? - is this what you mean by active and passive trig points. By the way if it invoves climbing snowdon then I'really not that keen. If you compare the location of a trigpoint with the display on your GPS receiver there are a variety of reasons why it might not be where you thought it should be. One reason might be the accuracy of your GPSr - two or three metres out is not uncommon, more in areas of poor reception such as wooded area, deep valleys, built up areas where the reception from satellites on the horizon is obstructed. Another is due to map making errors, and errors by the Ordnance Survey in specifying where the Trig point was. I 'found' one recently where the location given was on a road parallel to where the trig point actually was! The original work to retriangulate the UK would have accurately place the trig point in the system, but human error has probably crept into the records of where it actually is. A fact I have used in the cache Precisely Bolsover. You don't have to climb Snodon to visit a trig point, there are over 6,000 of them across the UK. Some are right by footpaths and roads, others are a bit more of a walk. Not all are on publically accessable land. Which makes the 'hunt' a little more interesting. If you have the OS Landranger maps, look for a blue triangle with a blue dot in the middle. These are sites where a trig point pillar is likely to be located. Oh, and professional GPS receivers can be adjusted, using either passive (a place you can actually stand on, GPSr in hand) or active (these transmit a correction signal a bit like WAAS in the USA) which allow the more expensive, professional systems to be adjusted for errors caused by the problems of the satellite system mentioned above. Hope that helps? --... ...-- Morseman

quote:Originally posted by jeremyp: For me, not to be involved in the "official site" is extremely disappointing (feels like a kick in the teeth in fact). However, there isn't room for two sites and they have more time and resources so their site will inevitably be better than mine. I have therefore taken the decision that as soon as they have full functionality, my site will go down. I'm sorry to hear that Jeremy, The intention of starting a discussion forum on G:UK was not to start a rival system, in the same way as the Amateur Radio forum does not imply starting a competitor to the RSGB. I'm sorry to hear that bad feeling has been caused by the decission of a couple of people involved with G:UK to set up another Trigpointing site. And, as I have said in the G:UK forum, personally I would not want to have to re-input my logs to another site anyway. --... ...-- Morseman

quote:Originally posted by Wood Smoke:Hi All, When I was at the top of Snowdon the other day, someone came up to the trigpoint with a GPS and reset it to the correct location. Does the trig point on Snowdon have a plaque on it saying that it's part of the Passive Station network maintained by Ordnance Survey? If not, then it's one of the thousands that OS have abandoned and are no longer maintained. They will, in the main, still be within tollerance of most GPS units. However, did the person check their GPS using OSGB-36 or WGS84? It can make a difference. --... ...-- Morseman

quote:Originally posted by Tim & June:Michael Blitz Copyright 2003 Tim & June. All rights reserved There, now Michael can't even use his name. Tim & June (Winchester) See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong ! I did hear tell of someone who set up a business, using their own name for the name of the business. Then, sometime later, they made it a Limited company, still using their own name. Another company bought out the company and now the original person cannot start a new company using their own name. The details are more involved in that, including the original person joing a group who had financial difficulties sometime later, which is why the company with the persons name got sold on to yet another company... --... ...-- Morseman

quote:Originally posted by conedxf & family: quote:Originally posted by jeremyp: I thought it was one particular billy goat that butted the troll into the river and lots more had already crossed and been eaten. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching A quick search found the following synopsis http://www.sterlingtimes.co.uk/bill_goats_gruff.htm Billy Goats 3 Troll 0 Can we hear your rendition of the song ? Best wishes Mark Is this the bridge? Link to a picture of the Troll Bridge --... ...-- Morseman