pppingme

In most cases its simply because the logger forgot to click the tb/coin in their original find log (and probably even included text about it in their log). Since you can't go back and edit a log to add a tb/coin drop, you are forced to start a new log. Since you already described dropping the tb/coin in the original log, to do it again in a note is just redundant and that does clutter the page. Since only 5 logs are in pq's, I'd rather not have redundant stuff in there that was most likely a logging mistake (forgot to click the tb/bug before saving) anyway.

Just playing with some quick numbers, it looks like 2 days worth of PQ's (10 pq's in all) will get you everything in CA from 9/2000 (first cache in ca) to 4/2004. Load that into GSAK, then I would think it would be pretty easy to figure it out with a simple sql query (maybe ask on the gsak forum for help with the sql statement). With that I would think it would cover almost every county, then the few that may be missing would probably be pretty easy to find by hand. I'm thinking most counties would probably have something by April 2004.

The PQ generator has been crashing on a regular basis recently. It will sit there until someone restarts it.

The way you are typing your coords, they appear to be in Degree Minute Second format The site typically uses Degree Minute format Here is your coords converted to all three common formats: DMS: N 34 07 05.80, W 118 18 01.00 (degrees minutes seconds ddd mm ss.ss) DM: N 34 07.097, W 118 18.017 (degrees minutes ddd mm.mmm) D: 34.118278,-118.300278 (degrees ddd.dddd)

The ignore list "fixes" were taken WAY TOO FAR. For PQ's, as of now, even if you DON'T select "are not on my ignore list" (meaning you DO want ignored caches to show) ignored caches still don't show.

I don't think you read them ALL... There are only 2 possible outcomes. I've already left, so retracted or not, I won't know until I get back home. I haven't left yet, so "retract" .gpx gets imported into my list, gets filtered (because its no longer active) and the cache never shows on my gps. The whole retracted caches isn't a valid argument against .gpx's, actually, it supports sending them.

Its interesting that all the arguments presented here could be arguments FOR including a .gpx in the notification. The better answer here is to just include a .gpx, all info is present, notes, attributes, all of it. As noted, people have already implemented work arounds, so gc may as well do it the best way and include a .gpx, that gives coords (what the users want) and includes the "must read info" (what gc claims they want).

Sprint has a reputation of blocking short codes, and that is the message you get when they are blocked. Call 611 from the affected phone and bug them to remove the block.

Yes, but it also spams the cache pages with the name of my list, which is what I'm trying to avoid.

Looks like pasting the link manually or just emailing the link may have to be the answer. But, at one time, didn't the "I want to share this list with others" control if it showed up on the bookmark list tab or was there another option? I just seem to remember this being possible at one time. It just seems bad form to create a list and a side effect is to spam every cache page with your list name just because you want to share it. I rarely use bookmarks but am doing something that basically falls into the road trip planning scenario. Not that I care about other people finding my list, but just trying to avoid plastering a useless list name to a bunch of caches.

How do I share a bookmark list (so others can see it on my profile "bookmark lists" tab) but not have a link on every cache page? This doesn't seem to be possible. When I check "I want to share this list with others" I see no effect (and the list doesn't show up on the bookmark lists tab). Its only when I also check "Make public (show on bookmarked listings)" that it shows on my bookmark lists tab. Is this not possible? What does the first option actually do?

append it to the url

In most cases, simply adding &f=1 will filter out finds, owned and ignored caches. Looks like they aren't constructing the url correctly.

Not a straight answer, but here is a good indication: http://www.cacherstats.com/Denmark1.html Looks like a little over 1000 have found at least 200 caches. These stats don't include anyone that has found fewer than 200.

I propose "Touchstone's Law" as the point in any future threads that devolves to the point where someone threatens to call the bomb squad on someone's cache. I expect that the existing laws against calling in a knowingly false bomb report will take care of anyone who does this quite nicely! Nothing was said of a false bomb report, those words were inferred in by others. This thread is so full of misquotes and taking things out of perspective its sickening. It really is a wonder that LE is as cache friendly as they are.

So why isn't every guardrail cache archived? Do ANY of them have permission? This isn't about a guardrail cache, this is about stopping on a major highway to retrieve a cache.

Since you are mentioning your username/password and talking about being or not being logged in from your web browser, does this program log into the site and do stuff? (Sorry, I don't know anything about this program). If that's the case, most programs that do that broke with the last update on 1/12/2010, since the layout of almost every page on the site changed extensively.

This. In his latest log he has demanded that "it should be archived immidiately (sic)". Yep, violates the spirit. There is definitely more to this story. Oh yeah, it couldn't just be an illegal cache that could tar the name of geocaching.

Because the owner acknowledges its there, no further need for speculation on the subject I didn't say these were no parking signs, your assuming. There are signs on almost every highway entrance in this state that specify the rules of the highway, such as no stopping, no non-moterized vehicles, and about 6 others such rules.

I am not adamantly defending the cache placement as much as I am disappointed that a self appointed cache cop is out there and begging for us to give him backup. I am speaking out against that behavior which I feel violates the spirit of geocaching. The complaintant has gotten his wish. The reviewer posted a note on the cache page, bolded for emphasis which is the reaction of a squeaky wheel getting greased. And the cache remains in play. If I were the cache owner I would delete the argumentative notes from the cacher with the axe to grind but leave the reviewer note. So you, just like the cache owner, want to hide the fact that the cache isn't legal, and just hope you don't get caught?

Whoa!! So you're telling me this is what Missouri Rt 13 looks like today, and the screen shots myself and Bittsen posted are old? That changes everything! (Seriously). What you have there is a full-blown 4 lane limited access divided highway. Is it a 65 MPH zone? I can't believe someone would even think it's OK to place a cache there, newb or no newb. This thing'll be history tomorrow. And there will be mournful cries of "The self-appointed Geocaching Police win again". Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not real sure why google has such old images up (13 was actually moved east about 1/2 mile, and the "old" 13 is missing from the images, so right through there somewhere is a line where they updated). The "drive by" images are more accurate, and show the "interstate quality" of the highway. That whole area is quite a bit different than what the overheads show. The first (and only legal) access to the south (the only way to approach this cache, get on south of the cache and head north) is where 13 crosses 224. None of those side roads temporary roads, and other things that were in place while it was being built no longer exist. Where the guard rail is, there is one more "bump" in the landscape to the north, then it becomes a bridge and stays that way until you are over the river.

Here is where your road your so sure about USED to exist, clearly gone: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39....,45.12,,0,10.12

As I said in a previous post, the entrance to the highway immediately before the cache, in both directions, is not an on ramp. It's a T-intersection. The cache in question may be close to a bridge but the statutes clearly state "on" a bridge, not "near" a bridge. If the reviewer reads the statutes, there would be NO reason to archive this cache. I'm sorry that you disagree but your argument doesn't hold water. If you are looking at google overhead views, you are looking at images that are years old, and those don't exist anymore. This is a 4 lane controlled access highway and has been for several years. The google images I saw don't even show this as being paved yet, still under construction.

Fixed So you just want to keep circumventing the real issue here (the law) in an attempt to do what? Put a bad name on geocaching? If you say so. I was just reading the statutes Stopping, standing or parking prohibited. 300.440. 1. Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or official traffic control device, no person shall: (1) Stop, stand or park a vehicle: (a) On the roadway side of any vehicle stopped or parked at the edge or curb of a street; ( On a sidewalk; © Within an intersection; (d) On a crosswalk; (e) Between a safety zone and the adjacent curb or within thirty feet of points on the curb immediately opposite the ends of a safety zone, unless the (traffic authority) indicates a different length by signs or markings; (f) Alongside or opposite any street excavation or obstruction when stopping, standing, or parking would obstruct traffic; (g) Upon any bridge or other elevated structure upon a highway or within a highway tunnel; (h) On any railroad tracks; (i) At any place where official signs prohibit stopping. (2) Stand or park a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except momentarily to pick up or discharge a passenger or passengers: (a) In front of a public or private driveway; ( Within fifteen feet of a fire hydrant; © Within twenty feet of a crosswalk at an intersection; (d) Within thirty feet upon the approach to any flashing signal, stop sign, or traffic control signal located at the side of a roadway; (e) Within twenty feet of the driveway entrance to any fire station and on the side of a street opposite the entrance to any fire station within seventy-five feet of said entrance (when properly signposted); (f) At any place where official signs prohibit standing. (3) Park a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading merchandise or passengers: (a) Within fifty feet of the nearest rail of a railroad crossing; ( At any place where official signs prohibit parking. 2. No person shall move a vehicle not lawfully under his control into any such prohibited area or away from a curb such a distance as is unlawful. Please tell me which ones of these say it's illegal to stop for a moment to retrieve a geocache from a guardrail? I have bolded the one that makes ALL the difference. By specifically indicating highway on a bridge or in a tunnel, it would indicate that stopping on highways may be legal. Further analysis says "unless posted as no stopping" signs. In the absence of no stopping signs and the absence of a bridge and/or a tunnel, it appears to be OK to stop there. Since the signs DO exist at every onramp to the highway... Oh, AND This is on the starting edge of a bridge across a major highway. So, there are two clear points against the cache.

There is no landowner question, its clearly on a 4-lane highway and the cache owners instructions clearly state taking illegal actions to retrieve the cache. Others have quoted the specific state laws in this thread. Its not an issue of land ownership, its an issue of legality. There is NO LEGAL WAY to retrieve this cache.