Steve Brown

Here's the answer I received in an email today: This solved my problem. Steve Brown

What does it mean that Spoiler Sync I fully integrated with GpxSonar? I can't figure out how to view the photos with GpxSonar. I imported them into the same directory as the GPX file on my PocketPC. The photos do not show up in the html generated by GpxSonar. Help? Steve Brown

The Possum Trot Orienteering Club is hosting the Prairie Center Caching Event on April 2, 2005. It's your chance to grab 20-40 event caches.

This is a different event than the one Donna is talking about. It will be held on April 2, 2005. I am coordinating this event for the Possum Trot Orienteering Club. It will be a fun 3 hour timed competition. Steve Brown

You have illegal characters in the tag. You have a x'1D' character between the equal sign and the "http://", and another one between the end of the URL and the closing ">". You are right. I knew those characters were there, but it appeared to me that gc.com was putting them there when they rendered my file. Thank you very much. Problem is solved. Steve Brown

GC9876 Works correctly GCKNXH Does not work. Steve Brown

Last week I added this to one of my pages: <A HREF="http://ptoc.org/dev/kcopoly.asp?gcid=GC9876">gcid</A> As you hover the mouse over the link it looks like this: http://ptoc.org/dev/kcopoly.asp?gcid=GC9876 and it works fine. This week I added this to one of my pages: <A HREF="http://ptoc.org/dev/kcopoly.asp?gcid=GCKNXH">Click Here</A> As you hover the mouse over the link it looks like this: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/"http:...id=GCKNXH" and IT DOES NOT WORK. Can anyone help me make this link work? Steve Brown

I guess I'm a lurker because I'm too busy caching or getting ready for our next Geocaching trip. Last weekend we went to Tulsa and found 76 new cache sites. We have graduated to totally paperless using Pocket Queries with GSAK, HP ze4430US laptop, GPSmap76CS, and a HP5555 PocketPC. We've come a long way from the reams of paper and inkjet ink that we use to use. We have many large binders full of our paper with notes from the good old days. I still miss my paper, but paperless is faster, cheaper, and easier. Here's kind of how we do Paperless Caching. It changes every week as we learn new, faster, and better ways of doing it. We're hoping to go to Omaha, NE this coming weekend. It looks like a goldmine of fresh caches. -------------------------- http://mysteve.com

We have 3 garmin GPSr's and by far we like the 76S best. We've been caching since 2000 with garmin units and love them all. We also use the 76S on mapping projects with our local orienteering club.

quote:Originally posted by scooterj:Oh it just keeps getting BETTER. WHAT THE HELL is with this mentality of making sweeping sudden changes that screw nearly everyone over and ruin years of hard work on our caches, with absolutely no warning, no acknowledgement, and no plan for transitioning all pre-existing work to adapt to the new system? Then, just sitting back and doing nothing about it, refusing to recognize that this has been a terrible idea and that things should be returned to the way they were. This is NOT a way to run a business. Please excuse any typos, I am livid as I type. I did not spend the last 2 years setting up 28 of what I consider to be very nice caches if they are going to continually be broken by sudden, unannounced, arbitrary fits of administrative paranoia. Absolutely ridiculous. ScooterJ, I could not have said it any better. I found 37 of our last 2 years worth of caches broken last night. GC.COM has just killed my spirit. We went out this past weekend and repaired some of our caches and I was posting the repairs last night when I discoverd that 37 caches had been trashed. It took me over an hour just to disable them. I built a website to validate the answers to our virtuals and now GC.COM has stripped out all my tags for the text boxes for answers. I would hate to know how many hours I spent building these pages and making them work with my validation program. I don't know if I can get up the courage to go and try to make them work again. I am just beside myself. You would think they are trying to protect a gold vault or something important. They are just lunch boxes.

I love the idea. Too bad this is not a poll. Steve Brown

Would you consider adding the MPiTS factor to the "Post a New Log" page? It would allow the cache finder to rate the cache for Mosquitoes, Poison Ivy, Ticks, and Stickers/Stick Tights. It started out to be the PiTS factor, but after having so much trouble with mosquitoes, I added the M for the M-PiTS factor. This is an example that I use to post after my signature for each cache we find: MPiTS factor for this cache today is 5:0:0:9 M = Mosquitoes (0-9) Pi = Poison Ivy(0-9) T = Ticks(0-9) S = Stickers/Stick Tights(0-9) Would you like to see this feature added to GC.com as a drop down select to rate the cache for each of these? [This message was edited by Steve & Mary Brown on October 09, 2003 at 08:36 PM.]

quote:I do agree that yes the answer should not be found easily. Perhaps the originator of this thread can come up with a better question to ask that the answer can't be easily found. I would love to have that opportunity. Steve Brown

I know this is a very touchy subject, but I've been caching since before there was a geocaching.com (see Missouri's First cache GC37) and I feel like I understand the sport/game as well as anyone. Mary and I have placed a lot of virtual caches before the new rules and not had any complaints from them. In fact we've had many, many happy cache hunters find our virtuals. Now we can't get one approved. By the new rules none of our virtuals would have been approved. We have just completed three days of cache hunting in Manhattan, and Junction City, Kansas. Most of what we found was virual caches that came about under the old rules. We took 202 pictures and shared them with many people at work today. We told everybody, "This is what caching is all about". Flowers, plants, trails, history, turkeys, deer, beautiful views and on and on. It was an absolute wonderful weekend made possible mostly with old time virual caches. We are very disappointed that we no longer can decide what makes a great virtual cache. Someone who has never been there or saw what we saw, experienced what we experienced now makes the decision of what's good and bad about virtual caches. It's very disappointing that we have no control any more over what we want to make a virtual cache. It's just too strict. Why not let the cachers decide what they want to hunt or not hunt. It they don't want to hunt virtuals, then don't hunt them. It really seems like my latest attempt to get a virtual approved (GCGZWP) meets with the rules. Why do you have to hike to make it a virtual? Why do I have to put a micro container? I provided a way for the finder to validate their find with me. I don't want to make it a multi-cache. I want it to be a simple virtual. It has great historical aspects. “Certificate of Accomplishment” has nothing to do with my validation of the cache. That's just an added plus if the hunter wants it. The rules are not a win-win situation for the hider or finder. I'm sorry for going on and on. Please forgive me. I'm just hurting over these rules.

I know this is a very touchy subject, but I've been caching since before there was a geocaching.com (see Missouri's First cache GC37) and I feel like I understand the sport/game as well as anyone. Mary and I have placed a lot of virtual caches before the new rules and not had any complaints from them. In fact we've had many, many happy cache hunters find our virtuals. Now we can't get one approved. By the new rules none of our virtuals would have been approved. We have just completed three days of cache hunting in Manhattan, and Junction City, Kansas. Most of what we found was virual caches that came about under the old rules. We took 202 pictures and shared them with many people at work today. We told everybody, "This is what caching is all about". Flowers, plants, trails, history, turkeys, deer, beautiful views and on and on. It was an absolute wonderful weekend made possible mostly with old time virual caches. We are very disappointed that we no longer can decide what makes a great virtual cache. Someone who has never been there or saw what we saw, experienced what we experienced now makes the decision of what's good and bad about virtual caches. It's very disappointing that we have no control any more over what we want to make a virtual cache. It's just too strict. Why not let the cachers decide what they want to hunt or not hunt. It they don't want to hunt virtuals, then don't hunt them. It really seems like my latest attempt to get a virtual approved (GCGZWP) meets with the rules. Why do you have to hike to make it a virtual? Why do I have to put a micro container? I provided a way for the finder to validate their find with me. I don't want to make it a multi-cache. I want it to be a simple virtual. It has great historical aspects. “Certificate of Accomplishment” has nothing to do with my validation of the cache. That's just an added plus if the hunter wants it. The rules are not a win-win situation for the hider or finder. I'm sorry for going on and on. Please forgive me. I'm just hurting over these rules.

Thank you all very much. I've been using gpx2csv.pl for many months now to plot WP's on Street Atlas 2003/2004. I've not changed my PQ filters and it has worked flawlessly. I was just surprised when it failed today. Steve Brown

I seem to have received a bad gpx file today from the Pocket Query. I use gpx2csv.pl from Fixxymagic I parsed yesterdays gpx file fine, but todays file blows up the parser without any error. I'm wondering if I'm the only one experiencing this problem. Steve Brown

It was one of those things that was just there and we got use to looking at it. We miss it, BIG TIME. The other day I said something like, "Look honey, Wolfmann reached the big 500". It was fun to watch the numbers. Fun is what it's all about, isn't it?