Cptnodegard

Yeah, but in all fairness it has a battery and a whole wifi router in it. This isnt exactly what it's meant for, normally you'd buy this and a 32GB SDHC card, fill it up with videos and stream from it Besides, I'm always more forgiving with pricing on universal accessories

I read this topic where someone is wondering how you can transfer GPX files from an iPad to a GPS receiver. The thread never gave an answer and had a lot of confusing guesswork so I decided to do a video to show how to do it. Now, this requires an accessory called the airstash. It's $99, and it's a battery powered SD card reader that lets you access the content over Wifi. It creates its own Wifi network so you don't have to be near anything, you just need the AirStash and an iPad, iPhone, etc. Should also work with Android though most of those devices can do this directly so that's sort of a moot point. How does it work? Well, I made a video to show you. Again, I don't have an Airstash, but the only difference from what I'm doing in the video to what you would do is that the WebDAV account you transfer to at the end is on the AIrstash, not box.net. ANyways, here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHGcp4Y2ArM Hope it helps someone.

Fake rocks? Why use fake when you can use real

I feel at loss for words here, I have a hard time deciding if this post was meant as sarcasm or something like that, or if you're just, well, dense. Here are quotes from three seperate posts I've made in this forum, which supports the latter: I'm not trying to be rude, I genuinely don't understand how someone can post what you just did with those three examples in the same thread

I'm dealing with a multicache now where the owner, who's a very active cacher with 2500 finds, wont respond to my emails. I'm pretty sure the coordinates I have are correct, but the cache hasnt been found this year and on top of that the coordinates point to a trash can (which fits the hint, "trash") that's next to a bench that's used to distribute drugs. I don't want to stick my hands wildly into the trash can to see if I can find a small nano in there, especially when that's the case. It seriosuely makes me want to strangle the cache owner that he doesn't bother responding to emails like that when there's a serious issue like this

I give up. I've tried to explain the point of the thread being a discussion of something on a general basis and NOT IN ANY WAY A SPECIFIC INSTANCE. The "story" i posted was a hypotethical scenario and not in any way something that would happen. Yet some people (not all, some of those posting have actually understood my point) keep posting things that has absolutely nothing to do with the point whatsoever.

So, you do know understand that it is only physical stages of a multicache that you would need to concern yourself with, right? Question-to-answer stages are not included in the proximity guidelines. yeah I know that now. Someone thought it wasn't back in said thread, hence I was unsure.

To clearify further; when the orignal thread on the other forum was started, one of the questions were whether the 0.1 rule also applied to ANY step in a multicache- not just physical, but any step whatsoever. The scenario I posted with having caches removed was only valid in the worst case scenario from my uninformed point of view that no multicache step would be allowed within 0.1 miles of other caches, because that would have made it physically impossible to do a multicache at the museum because the caches are placed within 0.1 miles of most of the major outdoor exhibits. There's no way in hell I ever WANTED the other caches removed, it was just one possible solution if the rules were as bad as i feared (which they of course aren't) and the real point of this was the reviewer's reaction and what it means on a general basis in terms of similar situations, especially in terms of "blocking" cache placement by the land owner by placing "illagel" caches on the area.

If that is MDF (medium density fiberboard) it won't late the first rain. If it's partical board (like what is used for closet selves) it might last a little longer but will still decay quickly. For out in the eliminates it is best to use cedar or treated lumber. Great idea though. It's going to be sitting under roof at all times so it won't be subject to rain and things like that

I've already checked with the reviewer on that note and he had no problem with that part of it. After all we're talking about the outdoor part of a free, public government run museum. There is no commercial gain other than to show the museum, which is no different than caches put out by state parks or things like that.

(if this doesn't mean what I think it does, ignore this message) It means the only thing it could mean: A towel, it says, is about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitchhiker can have. Partly it has great practical value. You can wrap it around you for warmth as you bound across the cold moons of Jaglan Beta; you can lie on it on the brilliant marble-sanded beaches of Santraginus V, inhaling the heady sea vapors; you can sleep under it beneath the stars which shine so redly on the desert world of Kakrafoon; use it to sail a miniraft down the slow heavy River Moth; wet it for use in hand-to-hand-combat; wrap it round your head to ward off noxious fumes or avoid the gaze of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal (such a mind-bogglingly stupid animal, it assumes that if you can't see it, it can't see you); you can wave your towel in emergencies as a distress signal, and of course dry yourself off with it if it still seems to be clean enough. - Chapter 3, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams And a gentle reminder that Towel Day is May 25th. That's what I thought it meant

A surprising amount of people seem to be unable to read properly, but I'm glad the last few posters are. As I said, this is a hypotethical scenario because the rules don't make it necessary to have the other caches removed. The scenario was only viable if the absolutely worst case scenario was true that no multicache step could be within 0.1 miles of the existing caches, because they are placed at the two most "exhibit heavy" areas of the outdoor museum and would then have blocked all and every possibility of making a multicache there. The purpose of the cache in the first place is to make the museum a nice place to visit for geocachers by providing a cache that is fun to find and has a LOT of swag for children (this is the cache that will be used: http://andreasodegard.com/wp-content/uploa...che-teaser.jpg), compared to the other two that are traditional nano caches and more of a grown up filler cache. Even if the worst case scenario would have been the case I would have dropped the idea of amulticache and instead made it a regular cache somewhere outside the 0.1 mile radius so the point here is NOT this particular case, but the implications that this example brings. First off, premission. I think it's NOT the same to have permission in the first place as it is to not have the cache removed afterwards. In this particular case, both caches are placed on museum exhibits directly; one with a nail on something that holds an object, the other with a magnet directly on another. In the case of those two it's ok that geocachers grope them, climb them to look etc but that wouldn't have been the case with other exhibits nearby. One of them is also an exhibit that might be moved for maintanance or other reasons. If the cache owner had asked permission he would likely have been told to put them somewhere else at least in the case of one of the caches, but now that they are there no-one is going to force him to move them because the issues are minor. As I said, the point here is the principle, not the specific case. No one cares if they are there and I'm glad they are as those caches are what got me into geocaching- I don't have anything against the cache owner which is great and Iæm only interestied in discussing the principle. The same situation might arise if you placed a cache somewhere and the land owner would rather have had you place it somewhere else or not at all, but now that it's there it's not worth being "the bad guy" to force someone to remove it. Hence, giving permission is not the same as "asking for forgiveness", the latter is just easier. The second point was what this mean for people with private property. Even though the reviewer in this case probably isn't right and others wouldn't deny posting a cache after having others removed/moved, it does raise the point about making enemies this way. Personally, as I've stated, I prefer finding caches rather than placing them so unless there were very special circumstances I wouldn't care if someone placed a cache on my property, but I imagine this would raise issues with others.

I haven't been able to go far to cache yet so I tend to leave them or move them to a more often visited cache if it's in one that hasn't been found in a while. I have TBs myself so I know that looking at "foreign" caches where the TB is is always fun so moving one to just the next cache is always better than just logging as discovered IMO

(if this doesn't mean what I think it does, ignore this message) I bring various things... flashlight, leatherman, pencils, sharpener, tape, magnets, spare logs, prepared caches, spare batteries for GPS, external battery for iPhone, camera, band-aid (especially those special ones for heel blisters, learned that the hard way), water, Viliv S5 UMPC with Windows 7 (for GSAK etc)

A friend of mine who's not a cacher but for some reason joins me in finding caches sometimes picked up a 20NOK (about $3,5 USD) coin during the first time he joined me. I joked saying he's probably the first person ever to actually make money geocaching.

During a forum thread on a local forum where the topic was multicaches I said something in passing that made the local reviewer see red for no apparent reason. The result was that he said something that to me seemed extremely backwards due to the implications it would have. I work at a museum where there are two caches that are placed without permission in the outdoor area. Via me the administration is now aware of them and have no issue with them being there, so it doesn't matter in the slightest and I'm glad they're there. The topic in said forum thread was what the 0.1 mile rule applied to, only caches or also steps in a multicache. I wrote that if it applied to steps in a multicache, the caches at the museum would have to be removed because I'm planning a multicache on the musem that would take people on a tour of the museum park. This is a cache that both has permission (of course) and will likely be done in cooperation with the museum (add some swag from the gift shop, maybe hide the cache in a building etc). I didn't believe the rules would mean that was necessary and wrote it as an example of a situation which would then be very annoying if the rules were "that bad" (which they aren't, don't comment on multicache rules as that's NOT the point here). However, the cache reviewer almost seemed angry that I had suggested removing a cache to place my own, regardless of the fact that the two were placed without permission and regardless of the fact that it was a hypotethical scenario. According to him, if no-one has an issue with them being there, that is the same as permission being given. If I had asked the owner to remove the current caches to place my own sanctioned cache, it would have been rejected by him as the reviewer. I find this extremely peculiar because of the implications it has. Basically this means that if I own a forest or some sort of land and plan to place a cache on the property I own, someone else can place a cache there without my permission and thereby block me from utilizing my own land to place caches. This sounds outright dumb to me as it half way encourages placing caches without permission. I don't pwn any land and would frankly prefer to have other people place caches so I don't have the expense of placing them and can log them myself, so this is all hypotethical. I know that a single reviewer saying something doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things, I just wanted to see what other people thought of this.

Working on a new container

I signed up before I got a GPSr (while using an iPhone) to support the site. Now of course I also use pocket queries

As for swag for children, I don't know what the normal value of swag is in other parts of the world but over here I mostly come across balloons (that's seriously gross, who would let their kid have that?), money (coins, not GCs) and marbles. I've tried to put out stuff like unopened LEGO boxes to try to up that in my own caches, but people aren't expecting that for the "trade fair or up" rule. If I had a kid, I'd instead have created my own bonus system for him/her. Say, one dollar per cache the kid is in on finding. Find 10 caches, and he can pick a 10 dollar toy in a toy store on the way home. That way there would be no more gross balloons laying around my imaginary car that my imaginary kid would get god knows what from.

I don't get how people can whine so much about the size of containers. Yes, I like bigger caches better too, BUT: -The amount of normal caches haven't gone down, it's just the REALTIVE number that has changed. As such, complaining about it makes no sense because it only means that those that don't mind microcaches have more caches to find while those that do mind have a smaller number to find, but still a growing number. People put out caches using their own time and those that are so stuck up that they would rather not have the cache than have a microcache should find a more egocentric hobby. -Over here at least, there isn't a problem with caches being too close at all. In fact I'd love to have more caches just to have somthing to do without having to drive far. the problem is that the cost of a decent sized cache with container, sticker, swag, log etc is at least $15 and if it's bigger it can go to $40 if theres a FTF gift involved. I try to put out tupperware caches when I can, but I just got a shipment of 15+ microcaches from ebay that combined cost less than 2 tupperware caches, so until the cache density is much much higher I'm not going to go broke by spending hundreds of dollars on caches. Besides, a nano cache is much easier to hide and the micro/nanos ive found so far have often been much more satisfying to find than plastic boxes where the only real difference is that the tupperware containers have random crap in them. -If a cache quality boost is the goal, I'd much rather see cache CREATIVITY. Such as cryptexes, hollow rocks, figurines, fire alarms in the middle of the forest etc. Last time I was out caching I found 7, and the most interesting one was a nano hidden in a water pipe outside an old gas station. I can barely remember the location of the other 6 which were all tupperware containers with various marbles, stickers, business cards etc.

I "split" my website so I'd have an own section just for a geocaching blog, without having to actually install a second blog http://andreasodegard.com/category/geocaching/

Indeed, as I first wrote: GPX folder under Garmin

Stuff the GPX files from the query into the GPX folder under Garmin on the GPS and you're good to go

Found one such cache yesterday- the owner hasnt been online at geocaching.com for a year, and he only had 13 finds and one hide to begin with: the container was in decent shape though, but the location is so far away from where people normally go the cache hadn't been found in a year either. Figured i'd skip the NA as it's not taking up space other caches need and its still good.

Lol that's actually a good idea, though not something I'd do. I don't really have anything against them, it's just that they never write anything interesting in the logs and just run out to get them. Maybe I should just wait until I move and see if there are more people who care about writing logs where I end up. EDIT: That gives me an idea, wouldnt it be nice if you could set a mimnimum length a log would have to be to be approved? I'd certainly use that feature. Tired of seeing people who visit interesting caches sign with "Found it. TFTC!"