M-T-P

1) Binder style option available like you had originally. 2) Ditch the notes page or at least get the hole alignment thing resolved. 3) Keep the top matter on the first page only. It isn't needed at the top of every single page.

I agree, the PDF version now isn't any different or better really than just the normal cache page print-friendly view.

That brings up a good rule of thumb. When swallowing magnets, always swallow them in pairs and wait two hours before swimming!

Could you elaborate on your statement? I know a number of Palm users who are perfectly happy with them. GeoBC I use a Handspring Visor (Palm clone) for Geocaching because it runs Cachemate. However, I use a Toshiba Pocket PC for EVERYTHING else because it is so easy and powerful. I just wouldn't trust myself taking it out in the field geocaching. GSAK and a new program called CacheMaps are really handy together. On long caching trips, I take my laptop and sync cables with me. Now, using CacheMaps, I can pull up Expedia or MapQuest roadmaps with cache markers on them even when I'm offline and don't have an available wireless signal. Cachemaps basically loads your LOC files from GSAK or directly from GC.com into its internal database. Then, it allows you to fly to your caches and pull up an online map which is then cached in its memory for use offline. Right now, the offline caching is limited to a few map services, but he is planning to add many others soon including my favorite Google maps. You can already access Google maps and many other in online mode, but just not yet in offline mode. M-T-P

As long as the finders know about the NO DIGGING rule...

I've accomplished mostly the same thing using GSAK macros. I simply created a filter that I call "Recently Archived" that looks for ones that haven't been updated from a GPX file in the past x days (mine is 7, but you could use longer or shorter depending on how fresh your PQs are) and ignores my finds and hides. My startup macro simply runs this filter and deletes all waypoints in the filter results. This does NOT delete caches that haven't been logged in x days, just those that are not touched by an updated GPX file - archived caches. Basically, instead of listing caches that have been removed my macro assumes that the absence of caches from a GPX file implies that they have been removed and dumps them from GSAK too. If you want, you could have GSAK move them to another database if you'd prefer, but I just get rid of mine completely.

I've got a few specific and general comments. One, the "notes" page seems to always have holes on the left regardless of the number of pages. If the notes page is on an odd page, it works ok, but if the notes page falls on an even page it should have holes on right so it prints fine. If you really want the notes pages to be on a page by itself each time, then you need to finish the odd pages with a black page or something. This is what the guy with the upside down notes page was demonstrating to us. Print and fold the link to WWP below to see what I mean. In addition, why 4 comment boxes instead of just one or two longer ones? Two, HTML code is showing up in weird places and multiple TBs don't appear properly. For example on Woodway Witch Project, the two TBs print like "One-Thousand Dollar Bill California Raisin "Boom Box"" There needs to be some seperator between the names and the escaped characters need to be fixed. Three, can the top matter be left off subsequent pages? Do we really need to see the Difficulty, Terrain, Date, Size, Attributes and TB list on pages 2, 3, or more? Remove this stuff on secondary pages and you'll have a lot more room for long cache descriptions and log notes. That 18 page one someone linked to earlier might only be a dozen pages if you use all of the page instead of 2/3 of a page each time. Four, the mystery cache icon prints with a black image background which looks bad on the PDF pages, but the others I've checked look fine. Five, if this is really going to be used for a small binder, should the cache name be moved to the fold margin so it will be visible as people thumb through the cache notebooks?

Oh shoot. Thats the one I meant. Sorry about that.

Replace the line that says: $body = replace("[GCCODE]", "$cacheName", $body,true) with: $body = replace("[DESCRIPTION]", "$cacheName", $body,true)

I'm got a couple of questions about this comment. I have modified the existing ge.txt macro to display in GE only those caches that I've marked with the user flag. I've also made a few more changes like showing the cache name in GE instead of the code. Are these type of changes things that could be done with a pre-script or some other method like you mention? If so, specific suggestion? Secondly, the GE.txt macro changes the sorting of my list and then defaults it back to "natural". However, I like my list sorted by distance from a location most of the time. Is there a way to make the macro set sorting back to whatever it was at previously instead of having it change manually to "natural", "distance" or something else? Basically, is there a sort "previous" function? John My changed file can be viewed here. It uses a previously created "user flag = set" filter created for the CacheMaps macro.

Button icons? Is there a way to create or specify graphical buttons for macros instead of just the lettered ones?

Subject: Totals Don't Match Clyde, I've got a strange problem that I just noticed. So far, I've found 118 caches and all 118 show up as found on GC.com and all 118 show up in GSAK. However, my yellow "found" total shows 120. If I double-click the 120 in the total box, it does the thing where it filters to show only those caches and it says "118 Shown (out of 572)". So GSAK knows that I've only found 118 caches, but why would my total show 120? I've tried rebuilding the database, purging ALL logs, and rebuilding the database again, but nothing has worked yet. I think my debug ticket number was 670, but I don't recall for sure. I'm also afraid I don't know when this first started, it could have been this way for quite a while and I just didn't notice until now. M-T-P EDIT: Nevermind. A while back I wanted to rewrite my log entry completely on a couple of caches so I completely deleted my old log and relogged a new find. GSAK showed two finds on both of these caches while GC.com only showed my newest one. I removed these two from GSAK and reloaded them from my PQs and all is well again.

No they are saying that perception is everything. Hiding the truth is deception! Hiding multiple physical containers as a multi so it deliberately appears to landmanagers as a single icon is "deception." Land managers don't care how many icons are on their property, they care about how many physical caches are on their property.

So, aren't you saying "deception is everything?"

I second this sentiment! Desktop widgets the display one or more of my PQs would be perfect!

Most hamsters also like eating eggs. I highly recommend soft boiling a few and placing them in the container with the hamsters. This will definately remove ALL traces of "ammo stink". M-T-P

Just bushwhack.

My only night cache hide makes use of the top of a solar-powered sidewalk light. It is well hidden and impossible to see during daylight since the light is charging instead of elluminating. At dusk, the LED light comes on and is easy visible.

On the third day of Christmas, my true love sent to me: 3 French Geocoins, 2 Fishing Waders, and a camoed mirco cache in a pear tree.

Gee, no angst here. Hearing that just makes me all warm and fuzzy about reviewers.

By a community-based, self-policing membership body. Discuss it in the forums and put it to a vote.

Ding, ding, ding, ding!

Well stated. The only one to fully interpret its own statement is Groupspeak. However, I still like the idea of "community-based and self-policing". Doesn't a plea from the masses count for anything? Please note that I am not arguing that the cache isn't against the current guidelines (read "rule" if you are hung up on the linguistics). Nor am I saying that the approver acted inappropriately by denying the cache based on his interpretation of these guidelines. I am saying that I too disagree with the interpretation of the guidelines in this situation and think the cache needs to be re-evaluated. In addition, I think the guideline itself needs to be re-evaluated and/or exceptions made in potentially grey areas like this one. Just because a guidline is new or was recently changed doesn't make it any better or any worse than a guideline that has been in existence for years. Finally, in a legal environment, the "intent to commit a crime" weighs heavily on the interpretation of a law. Clearly the intent here was to promote geocaching and orienteering even though the avenue for its promotion could be considered against the guidelines. -------------- Response to different post begins here --------------- In response to "Calling rules 'guidelines' might make them seem less onerous, but it doesn't change the fact that they are rules," call them laws for all practical purposes. A law seems even more formidable than a rule, but even the enforcement of laws relies on the interpretation of that law. Whether you say "guidelines," "rules" or "laws" doesn't change the fact that they must be interpreted to be enforced and that many people may interpret them differently. Semantics is just semantics. The "golden rule" of Groundspeak seems to be "our goal is to give people the tools to help others share and discover unique and interesting locations." The event in question clearly seems to fall under this higher standard.

Please allow me to bring this into the conversation from another one of Groundspeak's websites. "Groundspeak's slogan is 'The Language of Location' and our goal is to give people the tools to help others share and discover unique and interesting locations on the planet." Based on this company statement, I think the guidelines affecting this event cache really need to be re-evaluated. Just because there is a policy doesn't mean it’s a good policy or that it can't ever change and/or exceptions made. Now, I know this next statement comes from Waymarking.com and not Geocaching.com, but I think the overall attitude of democracy should apply to both. "We expect the process of category creation to change with time, but in the beginning the categories will be carefully chosen by Groundspeak with the guidance of the growing Waymarking community via the discussion forums. In the future we would like the category maintenance to be completely community-based and self-policing." Could the rule interpretation of GC not also follow a similar standard? Can we not be "community-based and self-policing"? If so, I think the overwhelming consensus is this: 1) The cache might go against the current guidelines. 2) The spirit of the cache definitely goes along with the spirit of both Groundspeak and Geocaching.com. 3) The majority of community members who have posted on this topic think the cache should be allowed or at least re-evaluated instead of just written off because of a technicality. Jeremy, I publicly ask you to reconsider your original stance and look at the larger issue - does this cache follow the spirit of geocaching and the overall goal of Groundspeak? If the answer is yes, then does a temporary exception to the policy need to be made or does the policy itself need to be re-evaluated?