Jump to content

pppingme

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    1238
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by pppingme

  1. I think the point is that this cache was hidden with the intent of it being accessed from the highway. Assuming the other access was not private property, if he put on the page "Please do not access this from the highway, parking can be found at ______", it would be a different story. Instead he instructs searchers to pull onto the shoulder and put their flashers on, thus encouraging what is quite likely possibly illegal behavior.

     

    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?

  2. It's quite obvious that there was no discussion to be had. The OP has the position that they are right and wants to have people agree.

     

    I won't agree and feel it's of no concern whether the cache stays or leaves but do feel that the OP has stepped WAY over the line and violated the spirit of geocaching.

     

    IMHO

    No, you just happen to be WRONG when you pointed out imaginary things in the pics.

     

    This cache is clearly against the law, and all people want to debate is can the law be circumvented, not if the cache is actually appropriate.

     

    Its no wonder LE's are going around blowing stuff up all the time, because common sense and applicability of the law wasn't applied when the cache was placed.

     

    I've stated nothing but facts, you on the other hand saw a picture and wanted to apply an imaginary scenario to it.

     

    Maybe I should just forget getting an opinion here and call the bomb squad and tell them I see people hanging around at the end of this bridge, which happens to be the only way to cross a major river for 30 miles in either direction. Maybe instead of ridicule, they might take the situation seriously.

  3. The cache location is accessible from off the highway.

    No, its not, that's the point.

    Nonsense

     

    Here you can see a distinctive path over the hillside. It looks to be a vehicle trail

     

    And here you can see a VERY obvious path behind the guard rail.

     

    And if I was inclined I could show you how it would be easy to drive a car behind the guard rail, thus removing you from the highway and traffic.

     

    There is NOTHING out of the ordinary or against the guidelines in regards to this cache.

    Oh, so now your condoning trespassing onto private land, of which there are NO ROADS that lead to anyway, thus most likely causing property damage, and even after the CO states the proper way is to illegally stop on the highway?

     

    Wow, nothing like a contradiction.

     

    There is no legal way to access this cache.

     

    Oh, and the fact the guardrail is there because there is a large and dangerous drop-off at that point.

     

    This isn't about making a cache a terrain 5 cache when its clearly about a 1.5 p&g, which happens to be illegal to park.

  4. This isn't just about safety, there should be some legality question in there somewhere too. I know when I'm doing a high terrain or difficulty cache that there may be some safety issues involved, (this one is rated 1.5/1.5), but this is stopping on a 4-lane highway. I can't say for sure in other states, the the only reason you are allowed to stop on a major highway here is if you are having some kind of mechanical difficulty (engine, tire, etc), or something along those lines. Resting (your not allowed to pull over to rest, and will get a ticket if you do so), recreation, etc aren't allowed reasons.

  5. I came across a recently published cache (only has 2 finds on it, and one of those commented on its location as well), which is on a 4 lane major highway and requires stopping on the highway. There are no nearby exits, pull offs, side roads, and no other way to approach this cache without stopping on the highway. Its on a guard rail on the end of a bridge.

     

    Initially I posted a DNF on it stating that I didn't think this type of cache was allowed and I just didn't think it was safe to retrieve.

     

    The cache owner deleted the log because "I gave away the position of the cache" and because "he had retrieved caches that he though were much more dangerous". I didn't even get out of my car to attempt it, so I'm not sure how I gave a spoiler.

     

    Is this really allowed just because there isn't very specific language in the guidelines that don't say its not appropriate to stop on a major highway?

  6. They have been messing with time zone issues and how they relate to field notes time stamps recently, so I could see some room for overlap there.

     

    The best way to handle this is to delete field notes (or save them somewhere else on your computer if you want to keep them) after you've uploaded them. This is guaranteed to eliminate duplicate notes.

  7. We should be far harsher on those cell phone folks for having even 1 glitch and far more forgiving of the little guy.................

    Thats not even close to what I said.

     

    The harshness should be on the guy with the larger profit margin, and far less complex system, no reason for mistakes, yes, that would be gs.

  8. Bundled Uverse-$152 a month-some glitches

    Smart phone with all the bells-$82 a month-some glitches

    Groundspeak-$2.50 a month-some glitches

    Uverse-Hundreds of Millions, if not billions, in equipment, copper, and other infrastructure

     

    Smart phone-100,000 per tower, spaced no more than 3 miles apart, 10 to 100 million in each city, billions across the country

     

    Groundspeak - a few servers in a rack, and rental of a 19 inch by 32 inch floor space in a data center

     

    Not hardly comparable, oh, and of the three, gs has the highest profit margin.

  9. The name is considered misleading by some, but the option "Is Active" does what you are asking.

     

    Oops, I misread what you posted, I had PQ's stuck in my mind for some reason.

     

    This is a much requested feature and the response from GC seems to be "maybe it will put pressure on cache owners to fix their caches", I don't buy it, but whatever.

     

    They do show up with a grey icon, but beyond that, there's no way to filter them out unless your doing a preview of a PQ, but for general searching, nope, just stuck with the grey icon.

  10. If your searching by zip code, it just converts that to coordinates and searches from that as a center point.

     

    Depending on what page you do it from, it probably only returns caches that are within 25 miles of that (is that what your seeing?).

     

    From almost any query like that, you can usually append &dist=xxx to get a larger distance, so for example:

     

    http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?lat=41.1773654&lng=-80.9760556

     

    defaults to either 25 or 50 miles (sorry, can't remember which), but if you want everything from within 75 miles just append it with &dist=75:

     

    http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?lat=41.1773654&lng=-80.9760556&dist=75

  11. 11424: Attributes included in GPX files.

    Added ability to set version preference in user profile; default is still the original (old) version

    This is poorly documented, so does 1.0.1 mean attributes? If so, something on that page should clarify this

     

    Probably more like

     

    1.0 (standard gpx)

    1.0.1 (with attributes)

     

    Or a note on the page.

     

    Or am I even looking at the right place?

  12. Attributes are an option not a requirement. There is nothing to "enforce".

     

    If a CO can't set the attribute properly, why would you think they would select the correct type?

    So your saying its a laziness issue?

     

    I just looked at your two most recent caches and neither have any attributes. What does that mean?

  13. The attribute is there, but its not consistently used.

     

    I just ID'd a little over a dozen night specific caches in my area, and only 2 or 3 of them had the night attribute set. In addition I found several that had the attribute improperly set when it shouldn't have been.

     

    Since attributes don't carry into pq's (yeah yeah, I know, they are "working" on it), most users, including cache owners, think they are useless and don't mess with them.

     

    There are three reviewers in my area and NONE of them enforce setting attributes for any reason. I think even if the reviewers gave feedback that cache owners might start using them, but they don't.

     

    Attributes just aren't used like they could be.

     

    I'd say only 1 in 4 caches published in my area have attributes set, so 3 out of 4 cache owners aren't using them.

  14. ...Of course, to make it more fully useful, it'd be nice to have the ability to see a list of all users who have recently viewed your caches. This would help to find & ban users who may be creating a new account every time you ban them.

    Of course there are probably 1/2 dozen ways to view a cache page without actually going to the cache page.

     

    Google caches them, they are in PQ's, non pm pages can be viewed without being logged in (minus coords), coords for any cache can be figured out without being logged in or viewing the page, oh, and as already mentioned, what your asking for is already there for "pm" caches.

  15. All it would take is for the user to create another account, cache no longer hidden...

     

    Just to clarify, this feature would only work if the cache was a "Subscriber Only" cache.

    Info isn't that hard to find on PM (sub only) caches. I've documented here in the forums before how you don't even have to be logged in to find the coords for a PM cache.

     

    Also, I think you'd be surprised how many people actually have 2 pm accounts so they can pull more pq's and things like that.

  16. That kind of post processing of uploaded files will add quite a burden to a simple upload and storage program.

     

    Also keep in mind some puzzles are solved by using exif data.

    Its not a simple upload and store. GC does do processing to reduce size and some things like that, to strip the exif data at that same point would not be hardly any burden. Assuming they are using some 3rd party tool to do this (and I highly doubt they wrote this themselves), then its probably already an option of that tool.

    It is a simple upload and store if your photo was within thier parameters - mine always are.

    But they still would have to run it through the image tools to make sure its "within their parameters", so the tools are called either way.

×
×
  • Create New...