OldGimmer

I'm using ViewRanger ---- Brilliant.

Those of you who followed and, in many cases, contributed to the original thread of my proposal to set up a British Isles wide Multi-cache (BIG-Quest) project may be wondering what is happening with the project. The answer is "Not very much" The vast majority of this inactivity is down to me. For many reasons I find that I cannot devote as much time to this project as it deserves. Some of this is that I tend to spend a considerable time away from home, but another major contribution is that I am not really an avid Geocaching fan. I am certainly interested in the activity, and enjoy finding caches on my travels. But it is not a major factor in my life. Additionally I lack the experience in cache-setting and the necessary skills required in running a project such as this. I still think that the project is an exciting one, (the interest shown by my original posting supports this), and should be progressed for the sake of all who are interested. In view of this I feel (very sadly) that it is in the best interest of the project that I hand it over to someone else, or preferably a team of people, who can develop the idea. I will willingly act as part of a new team, but do not want (or have the time/inclination) to head it. I have spent quite a lot of time thinking this through the project, and will gladly share my ideas with whoever takes over. I also have registered BigQuest.org.uk and BigQuest.co.uk and will arrange the transfer of these domains to the project when necessary. So. I hereby throw the project open to offers. Are YOU interested in taking it over? If so contact me at BigQuest.uk@gmail.com or post in this thread. (Whoops - Edited to correct email address to BigQuest.UK@gmail NOT BigQuest@gmail.com. Please don't forget ".uk@") I wish to thank those individuals who have already played an important part in this project. In partcular to Bambology for the effort and expertise he contributed in the implementation of the Counties Database.

Sorry that I haven't contributed much lately. I have been extremely tied up with prior commitments, but I have been giving it a good dose of thinking. More very soon.

This is indeed correct. The drop-down will only show those without an email address on the database. This maybe the case however there are still many things to finalise before we can start the challenge. One major thing is permissions from Groundspeak to manage the final caches ourselves via the website (which also needs to be inplace before it can all start). Sorry for my absence over the last few days. It is true that England is virtually all sponsored and I too want to get that off the ground as soon as possible. But as Bambography says "There are still a number of thing to do first. I am currently composing a letter to Groundspeak (GS) outlining our project and how we propose running it. There are a number of "admin" issues that we need to clarify with them. One of the main ones is to find out if we can supply the co-ordinates for the "Final" caches from our own i.e. external website. To be able to do that would be a big help. Additionally being able to access "Raw" data for maintaining a database of completions would also be very useful. To have a chance of GS agreeing to this we have to put forward a viable case, hopefully in a professional way. Part of this is to put forward a good image. With this in mind I have delayed contacting GS just yet, until: - 1 - we have a finalised list of counties and that they are sponsored (Now OK); 2 - we have our website in a usable form (Very close); 3 - established a set of guidelines (Again close); 4 - agreed how the the stages will be organised (still needs some work) 5 - we have a good team of people supporting the project and that it will be viable in the long-term. The last point is very important. There are a few very good people, besides myself, actively involved, but more are very welcome. Is there anyone with good experience of using a secure database linked to a website, possibly using PHP and/or MySQL. If so we need you. I hope to put forward modified Guidelines, proposals for regions and how we decide where the final caches are placed in the next day or so. If these are accepable (at least to most people) I will be able to use that as part of our proposals to GS.

Just a quick post before I set off for our Weekend away. Having looked quickly through the recent posting I see that there is quite a degree of comment about some of the Draft Guidelines. Mainly 1, 11, 12 and 13. That is Type and location of the caches. Can I reiterate that these are "Draft Guidelines". They were floated to see what people's responses were, and are very much up to discussion and amendment if it is felt that better ideas are forthcoming. They reflect my personal ideas, and they may well be totally out-of-line with the general caching community. As I have said before my Geocaching experience is fairly limited. Also they are "Guidelines" not "Commandments". They are not set in stone, nor do I imagine ever will be. They should always be flexibility to amend them as we progress. They are (will be) only for guidance. The final decision on exactly what type of cache, and where it is located, will be totally the decision of the cache-placer. Having said that; It seems to me that the majority of the posters on this forum seem to be happy. It would seems to me (but I haven't actually counted) that there are about equal numbers of posting supporting the original guidelines as there are opposing. But, again from a personal point of view, I still feel that making finding a cache much more difficult than in the current draft is not in anyones best interest. Fine, I can see that it is nice for a cache-placer to set what they see as an interesting puzzle. But it too easy to forget that, for this series, many of the people attempting to find it may have travelled a long way and do not have a great deal of time, or much local knowledge of the area. This may mean that the cache is actually much harder than the setter anticipated. Also they may only be able to justify one trip to the area, so it is imperative that they stand a decent chance of logging a find. I, personally, would be a little peeved if I travelled all the way from Yorkshire to (say) the South-West only to find that a cache, whilst probably fun normally, was not possible to find in the time I had available. Not all people are "Caching fanatics". I personally use caching as an addition to my travels around the world. not as a reason to travel to somewhere. This series would obviously be different!! Anyway, anyone is welcome to submit alternative guidelines. If you can provide alternative versions please post them. I am perfectly happy to go with the majority. If we do get several, or even lots of, alternatives I will collate them and we can discuss them all, and if necessary have a vote (Does anyone know if this board has a mechanism for voting. I seem to remember seeing one somewhere.) Finally, and this has been raised before I would welcome your thoughts on how we decide who gets the task (honour) of setting the regional/national/final caches. I know some discussion has been made so far, but I haven't had chance to absorb all the recent postings. Do we do it by nominations followed by a vote? Invitations to experienced cachers? Pull names out of a hat? Person nearest the centre of the area? Over to you. So. Post alternative guidelines Please only post those you want to change from the original draft or add totally new ones. I am greatly aware how long this forum is becoming, not helped by my long postings. Post your ideas for Person and location for the Regional/National/Final caches

Hi Folks I'm sorry that I haven't contributed much to the discussion over the last couple of days, but I have been, as the Australians say "A bit Crook". I'm feeling much better now, but unfortunately, to compound matters, I am away visiting friends until Sunday evening from later on today, the result of a long standing arrangement. I have just started looking back over the recent posts and see that we have our first offerings for logos. Also there seem to be number of very interesting postings. I can't comment on these yet until I have chance to read them in detail. If I can grab access to computer over the weekend I will try to add something to the discussions.

I don't see why not. Bambography has already said that he should be able to set the cache-owners record to "Found" by default so that your Progress record would be correct. It would be a pretty big "downer" if being willing to set a cache ruled you out of the whole series.

I have a couple of ideas, however if anyone else has any they wish to submit, when we have a few for consideration we'll have a vote or let OldGimmer make and Executive Decision or something like that.... Let's have your Logo Design ideas! The executive decision is to have a competition! Particularly for the logo, but possibly for the whole cache page layout. Bambography is already working on a page layout, but perhaps you have ideas as well. So! Can we have entries for designs from anyone who wishes to submit something. When we've had a number of entries we'll put them up to a vote If you are graphically challenged like me, try sending a sketch or description. Possibly (hopefully) will offer to create a proper graphic from such entries. To give you some ideas, here is the Alaskan page from the USA Series, showing the US Logo and general page layout and contents. All their other states have pages to the same design.

The idea of Traditional style caches only has been included in the project virtually from the start, and the majority of posts have been in favour of this, with some feeling for Offset caches also to be included. That seems sensible where the cache-placer want to take the seeker to somewhere interesting e.g. a monument or similar, but it is not allowable to place the actual cacahe at that site. In such cases an offset is more appropriate. The US scheme also recommends Traditional caches only, in Regular sized containers. They don't allow anything else in their guidelines. I'm sorry that you think that limiting to Trads and Offsets trivialise the quest. Most posters seem to think that the idea of collecting all the caches, Regional, National or overall, is a definite challenge. Also a number of cachers have made very valid points that, considering the distances involved (and the time commitment made), it would be very frustrating to find that what was assumed to be a fairly simple puzzle-cache turned out to be impossible to crack when at the site. If you want puzzle caches , sneaky hides etc. why not add those to your visit to the area where the Quest cache is placed. There are lots of caches around, there will, almost certainly, be others near the Quest cache site.

After 2 long posts, this is a quicky. Several people have made offers of help via the postings. Thank you very much for this. But with there being so many postings, backtracking to find these offers is very difficult. If you can help, in any way you feel is useful, then drop me a PM please. In it, let me know what you can offer to the cause. There are 2 or 3 of us involved with the "Admin", but I'm sure more is better. Thanks

A Very Good Question I would expect all cachers taking part in this quest to act responsibly, and keep any code numbers they have found confidential, just as they would for any other puzzle cache. Also as in Draft Guideline 9, the cache owner would be expected to monitor log postings for "Spoilers". Anyway what good does it do to release the code numbers to others? It may mean that they finish the series before you do! Because the code numbers do not directly lead to the final co-ordinates it would be possible to issue new numbers to caches if the codes for them become common knowledge. That would then mean modifying the records of anyone who had already found the cache legitimately. However this might not be a trivial task, it depends how we manage to keep the records. If everyone who logs all their caches as they find them, and then either separately logs them with Big Quest, (or if some way can be found to extract that info from the Geocaching site) it should be fairly easy to update their records with the new code value and/or email the cachers with the replacement code. I had hoped that once all the codes for a region / Country/ British Isles had been found the cacher could simply enter the code on the BigQust site, or email the site, and have the co-ordinates sent to them. probably after a check that they had actually logged all the sites. However this is currently against the Groundspeak rules. They don't normally allow real cache co-ordinates to be issued by any other system except their site. But they may allow it in this case (Heres hoping). The DeLorme series of caches in the USA allow the owner of the "final" cache to supply real co-ordinates to a legitimate cacher, after their logs for claimed finds are checked. This is very similar to what we want to do, so there is a chance that we will also be allowed to do it. I am in he process of trying to put together a e-letter to them to see if they would give their approval. One thing I think they will need to be sure of, before agreeing to the request, is that this is a serious project. But, judging by the interest shown on this board I don't think that that will be difficult. Failing getting that approval I am working on a system, which I think will be fairly secure, where the co-ordinates for "final" cache are "Hidden in Plain View" within a largish number grid, published with on the final cache specification page. More on that later, if it is required.

Since posting the Possible Guidelines Draft 1 in Post 245 on the Discussion Thread I have sat back, watched and read the comments. Thanks for all the well thought-out and well-presented comments, some I have used below. From these my current thoughts are. My apologies in advance for its length. 1 Traditional style caches ONLY This seems to be split fairly equally between Trad only and Single Offset as well. But no Micro/Nanos. One comment I saw seems appropriate. “Keep it to trads, let's face it a county should have enough interesting places for one extra traditional cache to be placed? there is nothing stopping someone from placing a multi in that unique place separately. Some of the best places in counties have already got a cache placed within it, so in my mind having anything more complicated than a traditional just makes the quest a lot more difficult to complete.” If Offsets are to be allowed how then do you define and offset multi? Is it exactly as Groundspeak does ie. “Offset caches are a variation on multi-caches. They are listed as a multi-cache when selecting a cache type. They are not found by simply going to some coordinates and finding a cache there. With the offset cache the published coordinates could be of an existing historical monument, plaque, or even a benchmark that you would like to have your cache hunter visit. At this spot, the hunter looks for numbers or information already appearing on the marker or on some part of the marker or site (geocachers NEVER deface public or private property). The geocacher is then able to manipulate these numbers or information using instructions posted on the cache page to continue the hunt.” or in some other way. I suspect that some/most are thinking of including the details of the offset within the cache description e.g. “walk 230 yards at a bearing of 134 degrees.” Whatever, I agree that the idea of using an offset where you are wanting to take the cacher to somewhere interesting, but need to have the actual hide some distance away, is fine. But I also think we need to limit how far away the offset hide is. The distance should be clearly seen in the cache instructions, or if the offset is as in Groundspeak’s definition then it should be simple task to work-out the final co-ordinates (No puzzles such as “Now take the cube root of the number found” etc). Several people have mentioned setting a time limit. I rather suspect, but may be wrong, I think they might mean a time estimate. If so, how do you do it? One person (me usually) will need maybe 45 minutes to find a cache that others may find in 5. If you really do mean a limit, who is to enforce it? 2. One cache only per county Seems to be generally acceptable 3. Regional groups of caches to be created, e.g England - Southwest, West, North, East etc. These treated as separate sub-quests Again generally accepted. I agree that the regions do need defining fairly quickly. I'll try to come with ideas. 4. Log all caches to gain access to co-ordinates of Final, Regional or National Cache (as appropriate) Generally accepted 5. Difficulty no more than 2.5/2.5 Generally accepted. I like the idea of the "HandiCaching" rating. How about adding "Where possible, each cache owner should consider applying a Handcache rating to their cache" 6. Common Naming Structure e.g BIG Quest - West Yorkshire Generally accepted 7. Use standard layout on Geocaching.com listings site via centrally supplied HTML Generally accepted 8. Each cache to contain unique code number, cacher to collect them all for region or overall Generally accepted 9. Cache owner to monitor logs of his cache to prevent spoilers disclosing code number Generally accepted 10. Cache owner to be prepared to maintain cache in long-term or be prepared to allow adoption Generally accepted. Perhaps following this scheme suggested. " "We would have to see if we could arrange some sort of system for a forced adoption if the requirement came about? How about some sort of disclaimer on the cache page saying that if the cache was about to be archived by a reviewer due to not being able to get in touch, then a forced adoption would be allowed without any further permission??" Is that is legal under the Groundspeak rules? 11. Each cache to be placed fairly centrally within area of the county (to avoid boundary disputes). 12. Cache to be placed in a location that is environmentally representative of the county or region, whilst still attempting to satisfy (11) 13. Final, Country and Regional Caches to be located reasonably close to centre of the area, where possible, or close to a location which is significant to the area. These guidelines seems to have caused the greatest number of comments. My thinking on this was that it would average out distance for people travelling to the cache. For example if a cache is placed close to, say, the nortern boundary of a county then it easy for cachers living to the north to go to it, but is extra distance for those to the south. In addition by placing a cache fairly centrally it then there is no doubt that it is the representative of that county. It is only a guideline that may be considered by the prospective cache placer, the final decision about any cache up to the cache placer but should be, I think, for this particular series, "That is that is in an interesting place, and it is a good representative for its county". Placing it well within the boundaries goes part-way to that. Again quoting a posting "I think this is important as I think there is an amount of balance to strike. If you were to complete the entire BIG Quest cache, then you're obviously a person who likes a challenge (and has time, money... ) but the thought of say going around half of the counties to get a small tupperware box stuffed in a nameless hedge somewhere... there is no point of that! Surely each county / regional / whatever should be trying to be near something unique to that area that you wouldn't get elsewhere? Otherwise what's the point of that journey?" Thanks to those people who I have quoted, and to everyone for their comments up to now. Keep them coming. By the way, has anyone done the maths for this? I make it that there 47 counties in England (of which only 4 remain to be Sponsored), 30 in Scotand, 22 in Wales, 6 in Northern Ireland and 26 in Eire. Making a grand total of 131 caches. Aiming to get them all will be a truly BIG Quest. Does anyone else like the term "Sponsor" for the cache owner?

Can I have your responses to the following "Draft Guidelines" Version-1 (12/3/07) 1. Traditional style caches ONLY 2. One cache only per county 3. Regional groups of caches to be created, e.g England - Southwest, West, North, East etc. These treated as separate sub-quests 4. Log all caches to gain access to co-ordinates of Final, Regional or National Cache (as appropriate) 5. Difficulty no more than 2.5/2.5 6. Common Naming Structure e.g BIG Quest - West Yorkshire 7. Use standard layout on Geocaching.com listings site via centrally supplied HTML 8. Each cache to contain unique code number, cacher to collect them all for region or overall 9. Cache owner to monitor logs of his cache to prevent spoilers disclosing code number 10. Cache owner to be prepared to maintain cache in long-term or be prepared to allow adoption 11. Each cache to be placed fairly centrally within area of the county (to avoid boundary disputes) 12. Cache to be placed in a location that is environmentally representative of the county or region, whilst still attempting to satisfy (11) 13. Final, Country and Regional Caches to be located reasonably close to centre of the area, where possible, or close to a location which is significant to the area. Over to you folks..... Try to be gentle with me.

Magic Chris Thanks very much, it's one giant leap for geokind.

Disadvantage 3. Requires permission from Groundspeak. We don't neccesarily need permission from Groundspeak. If the claim for completion of all the required caches, via the key number, is done via the BigQuest site this won't be necessary. It would be nice to do it via the Groundspeak forums , but not vital. Its rather like contacting another member to confirm the answer to a puzzle cache. As to "What happens if the "Key-master" goes missing, I expect that several people will be privy to the loaction(s) details, all having access to the web-site, his is not meant to be operated only by one person.

Updated map 14:30 12th March 2007

OS United Kingdom Administration Thanks for the link. The illustration appears to be just a wall map, using a large scale of 1cm =10Km with no obvious grid markings. Defining exactly where a boundary exists from it would be hard, almost as hard as deciding what we will finally define as a county. Also it shows the multitude of small administrative authorities etc for Manchester etc. Thanks anyway. I did have an OS counties only map, but can't find it. It was a download from the OS website. Memory Map has the boundaries, but it also shows the borough boundaries, so you'd need to know which county any given borough is in. Found it, but ........... it has all the unitary authorities. So not much help. Again, no grid markings. Ah well............ I have seen that one, looks good, but isn't quite. Thanks again, and Ah Well...... also. By the way...... Get to bed it's almost 1AM. I'm going now. Night-night

OS United Kingdom Administration Thanks for the link. The illustration appears to be just a wall map, using a large scale of 1cm =10Km with no obvious grid markings. Defining exactly where a boundary exists from it would be hard, almost as hard as deciding what we will finally define as a county. Also it shows the multitude of small administrative authorities etc for Manchester etc. Thanks anyway.

My initial idea for possible coding system, is similar to CrazyL200's but, I think, a little more secure. Each cache is allocated a 3 digit number prefixed by one of five random letters, A to E. These numbers are totally random, coming from one of several web-sites that provide random numbers. The codes are distributed randomly around the caches. The letters DO NOT indicate an area or region. Examples are A275, C834, E409 etc As each cacher collects codes from different caches they simply add the new code to any value they have in the appropriate group. Eventually, when they have visited all the caches they will have a value in each box. e.g ---A------B-----C-----D------E 5492 -2558-1962-3195-2047 This value, taken overall, is the key to unlock the final cache location (rather like a Microsoft activation code). The Geocaching.com web-page for the final location will, ideally, have some code (or a link to a site with the code) which uses the value as a password to the real co-ordinates of the final cache. Alternatively, the cacher forwards the value to a BigQuest co-ordinator who then supplies the co-ordinates to the claimant. Probably at this stage a manual check is made of the claimants record before the co-ordinates are supplied, particularly for a FTF. Advantages 1. The co-ordinates are not simply generated from the addition, or similar of codes, The codes generate a value that is essentially a password or key. 2. By breaking the code into groups it is harder for someone who may have most of the code numbers to guess what the final value will be. If a simple addition of all collected values was used the correct value would become easier to guess as more and more caches were completed. 2. If regional targets are set, e.g England, Scotland, Wales etc. different values would apply to each region, the total of all of them unlocking the Final Cache location Disadvantages. 1. Slightly more complicated than the cacher simply adding a new value to a single total. 2. Making sure that only the correct final value is generated by completing all caches, either overall or within a region.

Can you point me at these definitions please? I've had a look around the OS site and can't see anything like that. The definition of county boundaries is proving to be elusive. It would appear that counties, as I've always known them are no longer officially recognised for many things governmental. They have set up lots of new "administrative" areas, many of which cross over old county boundaries. E.g Greater Manchester covers areas of what I would consider Lancashire, Cheshire and possibly Derbyshire. These include things lke Unitary Authorities etc. I suppose what they are doing is to set up admin areas with similar populations, but this leads to several geographically small, but highly populated areas. Not my idea of a "County" The nearest seems to be what are called the "Ceremonial" counties of England, with similar for Scotland and Wales. Details of these are listed in "Wiki". Unfortunately even these seem to have variations, so I won't put the links in here, or on the webpage, until I have had chance to read them more fully and get some more understanding

Sorry. I must have missed it on the map, but it is there in Rutson's List, which is really the definitive list at the moment. I haven't had chance to update the map since yesterday. I've been rather tied up today. Hopefully tomorrow. The BigQuest website now exists............ just. I hope for rapid developments on that next week.

Looking ahead, we will need some sort of system of "codes" or "keys" that people will have to collect, probably as a number contained in the cache itself. These will be "processed" in some way to arrive at a "pointer" to the final location. I have some ideas myself as to how this may be done, but if you have any ideas of your own let me know. Mainly based around the idea used by MS and similar as a multi-section activation code. Pretty obviously the system will have to be secure, so if you don't want to give too much away you can drop me a line via my Profile.

Whoops! I have already registered BigQuest.co.uk. Just waiting for Nominet to confirm the registration via my ISP. Hopefully we will have something, for starters, up and available in a day or so.

First attempt, Quck and dirty, but does give a good idea of what has been taken. Map as at 13:30 9th March 07[/url]. I hope it works! I will try to get it as an on-screen image ASAP. It does work . Many thanks to Bambography For some reason "Midlothian" isn't listed but Lothian and Falkirk is. Rutsons list gives Falkirk and Midlotian as separate items. Any offers for which is correct? Edited to make map visible.