Tidalflame

I might allow for more local searches in the future, but you're right, it would take a bit of work. Canada would have priority though =P

Oh, I didn't realize you could select multiple states/countries. Woops. Well, I'll edit that. Anyway, this thread isn't about Pocket Queries... check out the script and tell me what you think!

Why? o_O

Er, last time I checked, females could pee outside too.

A very informative second post. I wonder if that law includes adults doing maintenance on playground equipment?

Not true. The only real limit on the GC.com GPX is the max number of caches returned (500). The GPX file is only limited by distance if you limit it when setting it up. I'm pretty sure the maximum radius is 500 miles. If you select "From Origin" there's a little box which says "within radius" - I tried to put 1000 miles but it was saved as 500. If you select a country or state, it only searches within said country or state. Is there some other way?

Unfortunately for the homeless in our community, most rights are reserved for taxpayers. You're joking, right? 'Cause otherwise that's one incredibly ignorant thing to say.

To what point do you refuse to provide details about your hides? If you had a cache that required a boat to be found, would you put that on the cache page? I'm hardly suggesting that you need to provide exact details about the best route as well as every single possible hazard along the way including heat stroke in summer, hypothermia in winter and a rash from poison ivy plants. Nor do I believe that the hider is always responsible for underprepared finders. I'm merely suggesting that you provide an idea of major hazards specific to your caches - you know, "don't try this if you're not willing to scale a 1000ft cliff" - so that people don't drive to the middle of nowhere only to find that they're unprepared or unwilling to do the cache. If you honestly think that wasting your time on a cache because the hider didn't provide any details whatsoever about any equipment that might be required to find the cache is "just part of the game," well, you must have a lot more free time than I do.

I like those maps that people have that show where they've cached, but I don't really like the big gray/red ones for a number of reasons (the Canadian provinces one is extremely squashed and inaccurate). I think there's another one somewhere, but I couldn't find it, so I decided to write my own. Take a look and tell me what you think. Basically, you choose a GPX file to upload, fill out the rest of the settings, and hit "Go!" The script will plot all your cache finds on a map. It may not work with outdated GPX files... there are more detailed instructions on the page. If you only cache in one place, it's not going to look like much - just one big blob, basically. However, if you've been to lots of different places it could be kind of cool. Big thanks to PhotoDuck for helping me with this. I was going about it the wrong way... =| If you find any bugs, please post here or send me an e-mail (from my profile). Here's mine, by the way... I haven't been to too many places =(

Hey, calm down, I was just messing around. I didn't seriously bear any ill will towards you with that post. I'll admit that it did sound a bit nasty... But you can't say that you didn't imply that you took the photo (and thanks, photographer was the word I was looking for... don't know why I couldn't come up with it at the time.)

Since when are schoolgrounds not public property? Up here they are, anyway...

Obviously it's your decision as to whether or not you're willing to take the risk to find the cache... I was merely pointing out the differences between the two situations. There are different types of danger. There are things that are statistically dangerous but not overly dangerous to those who know what they're doing, and then there are things that are dangerous no matter what. Eh, I'm having trouble articulating my thoughts... Let's say I put a cache in between the rails on a Skytrain track. Is that more dangerous than a cache on the side of a cliff? Maybe, maybe not... Is it a suitable cache location simply because I'm not FORCING people to go there? (And keep in mind that while I'm not forcing to go there, I'm most certainly encouraging them.) I have to admit that I've sort of lost track of the point I had since I found out that this cache is a hoax

Hey, well we're at it, why not move all non-traditional caches to their own seperate site so that Geocaching is only about the traditional caches... after all, they're the only caches that should really be called caches. Some people don't like micros, and some people don't like multi-caches... lots of people don't like puzzle caches... once we get a seperate site for each of these, everyone will be able to play the game the way he or she likes without buggering up our listings here on Geocaching. I don't know about you, but I sure hate having to scroll past all those other cache types when I'm only looking for regular-sized traditional caches. If you noticed the sarcasm in there, I'm sure you can tell that I'm not a proponent of this new "solution." Jeremy - and everyone else who was involved with this - you guys rock, but I absolutely do not think this is a good idea. Nothing personal, of course. I don't see what's so hard about coming up with guidelines for virtuals. What's wrong with these: - it must be in scenic location/location of historical significance/culturally significant location - it must be physically or legally impossible to place a physical cache in said location Doesn't that pretty much cover things? I really can't be bothered to visit an entirely seperate site just to find virtual caches. My problem? Yeah, probably, but I think lots of people will agree that it's too bothersome. I think moving all that stuff over to Waymarking is going to make Geocaching much less interesting than it currently is. Finding different cache types is, I think, one of the things that makes the game interesting, even if there aren't always physical caches.

Haha, instead, make it say: "Sorry, you have no friends. "

That'll make a great story to tell at events in the future!

Had it been me, I wouldn't have left. I would have told her that if she wanted to call the the police on me for minding my own business in a public park, she could do so immediately so that I could present them with my argument when they arrived. Otherwise, she could've let me leave peacefully without following me or taking down personal information. Not that I'm suggesting the way you handled it was wrong, because it wasn't. I just would have reacted a bit differently.

That's, er, odd...

Yup, me too. I just copy my GPX file onto my Pocket PC and I'm ready to go. How sweet it is... =)

I think they were called "travelling caches" and some are still active out there. I reside in the West coast and I've never seen one here. On a business trip to Georgia last year, I almost got my hands on one, but someone beat me to it, rats! There's one up here, it's pretty cool. I really hope it never goes missing, because it's a lot of fun.

Here's what it says, by the way. And some other stuff which I can't be bothered to type out, especially since much of the text is so small I can barely read it. I think you need to register to get the full view.

Rock climbing isn't the safest activity either, but should all caches on cliffs be archived too? No, but there's a difference between something like rock climbing (it's dangerous, but you're in control of the situation and it's not too risky as long as you know what you're doing) and, say, wading through toxic waste which could cause sickness or cancer. I'm not necessarily saying the cache should be archived... I mean, if people are stupid enough to do it, whatever, that's their choice. But I do think that there is a pretty big difference between caches like this and cache that require you to scale cliffs or whatever else.

I like caches that take me to interesting locations, challenge me, maybe make me do something a bit stupid and dangerous, and reward me with good trade items.

That's a pretty oversimplified way of looking at things. If the owner doesn't provide any information on what's required to get to the cache besides nondescript terrain/difficulty ratings, how is anyone supposed to know what they're up against? It is the responsibility of the cache owner to make sure that potential finders have at least some idea of what they're walking into. Obviously nobody's forcing anyone to do something they deem too dangerous, but if you neglect to inform potential finders of the risks involved (I don't mean obvious things like "You could get in a car crash while driving to the cache," use common sense), you're wasting people's time if nothing else. It's just discourteous, in much the same way that misrepresenting the cache type/size/location would be.

Lavasoft Ad-Aware will probably get rid of that for you. It's a great, free anti-adware program. Oh, and if you're using Internet Explorer... don't. Get Firefox.

There are lots of things you can do with Pocket Queries... go ahead, give it a try. It's only $3 per month, and you don't have to buy more than 1 month, so it won't cost you much if you don't like the extra features... and I'm pretty sure you will!