Kodak's4

If watertight is a requirement, you might consider a Pelican case. The Pelican Micro 1010 is 4.5x3x1.75 inches, pretty small. The are unfortunately expensive, but it will be completely watertight. So watertight that it has a purge valve to let air in/out when the barometric pressure changes. I've used Pelican cases for camera gear, and if you close them at 5000 feet, you can't get them open at sea level because of the change in air pressure (until you use the purge valve). They are gastight. Pelican 1010 at REI

quote:Originally posted by basher_boy:Second, is that they really need to have support and practice to help them develop this skill in a manner that is helpful to geocaching. There is no doubt that they can be trained to sniff these things out (remember they have been trained with ~90% accuracy to detect cancer in humans, and with 99% accuracy to detect things such as drugs, and produce). We've been using clicker training to train Kodak to do everything from sit on command to close up doors when we ask, and now to hunt caches. A small 'clicker' is used to mark when the dog does the right thing. The click is followed up with a reward. To train a dog to sit, take a clicker and a handful of treats. Call the dog, and show him/her the treats. Eventually, the dog will sit. As soon as the dog sits, click the clicker and give the dog a treat. It won't take long before the dog figures out that the game is 'sit'. You won't need to force him into position, just be patient and wait until he does it on his own. As you train the dog to do more stuff, the dog gets better at what we call 'the clicker game'. I trained Kodak to find rubbermaid tubs by getting out the clicker and treats, then throwing a rubbermaid tub on the floor. Natural curiousity led him to sniff it - click. Then I moved it around. Each time he touches it, he gets clicked. In three minutes he had the idea and on subsequent sessions, I'd *hide* the tub and he'd have to search for it. Ammo cans were next. Kodak finds them easily, I suspect they are very smelly. Even outdoors he homes in on them like he's got ammo can radar. So far we've spent about an hour and a half in lots of short sessions, and he's reliably searching for (and finding) stuff in our backyard, even when it's covered/hidden. The biggest problem is that a one year old golden is pretty easily distracted. He knows what's in the yard, so he doesn't get sidetracked. In the field, it's all new and it's pretty hard to get him to stay on task. Anyone else working on this? What techniques are you using? -Paul (of Kodak's 4)

quote:Originally posted by 3fros: Don't have a dog yet, but we are thinking of getting a basenji. While we're on the subject of dogs, I've been wondering if anyone has been able to teach their dog to sniff out tupperware containers, trash bags, or ammo boxes. Yes. I've got Kodak pretty reliably finding both rubbermaid tubs and ammo cans. Ammo cans seem to be pretty easy, they must be very stinky. Rubbermaid is surprisingly easy. My dad says he bets the dog can smell the outgassing plasticizer. Now, getting him to sniff one out in the field (as opposed to during training in the house or backyard) is a slightly different matter. We're still working on getting him to pay enough attention when there are a lot of distractions. But he's a Golden, and he's a year old, so it's pretty hard work for him. -Paul

quote:Originally posted by Byron & Anne: On of the appealing things about geocaching is the lack of "rules". If a person chooses to play the game by finding and not logging the find that's entirely up the them. There is no way to enforce a requirement like that. I also don't believe that a person should be critized for how they play. This is an open game, open to all comers. The fewer "rules" the more will play. More players mean more caches to find. The more restrictions placed on players the fewer players and the game soon ends. Buchroo Banzi -- I think you should be welcomed with open arms and encouraged to continue to play as suits you. http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/7301_400.jpg The problem I see with this attitude is that the current scheme is this: cache hunters get rewarded by finding caches placed by the cache hiders. In turn, the cache hiders get rewarded by reading the logs written by the people who have hunted for caches. In my mind, hunting for a cache and not giving the hider the satisfaction of reading a log entry is just as selfish as writing up a very enticing cache description, complete with clever puzzles, and making it public at www.geocaching.com, but not actually bothering to go hide a cache box. After all, I'd get the fun of planning the cache, and it's only a convention that the cache planner actually hide something people can find. If I don't want to follow the rules, who has any right to complain? It seems like a small thing, I know. But small things have a way of adding up, usually badly. If you don't do your part as a cache hunter (by signing the log book and making an online log) hiding caches becomes less fun. If it stops being fun, people will stop hiding them. And then you won't have any to go hunt. In an area where geocaching is pretty established, there's probably not much harm in not posting logs. In an area where geocaching is struggling to be established, it might make quite a difference in how many caches people bother to hide. And, in the end, I view the online log as just another way to say Thank You to the cache hider. Sure, there's no way to force someone to say thanks. But it's certainly polite, and it's nicer to live in a world where people say please and thank you, even if it's not a legal issue. Yesterday, I spent a very pleasant six hours hunting geocaches, for a total of nine finds. It took me less than 15 minutes to log all nine finds, working from notes that I took on the way. It's not like making online logs is an onerous burden.

quote:Originally posted by RedwoodRed: quote:Originally posted by Ridgerunner4: Okay, folks...help me out here. I'll start off. 10. At the corner table in the Cantina in Mos Eisley 9. The Lincoln Bedroom at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Hey, you're excluding people. That's a Members Only cache already.

quote:Originally posted by DisQuoi: I think that this cache is a very clever use of geometry. It provides three coordinates and you have to derive the coordinates of the center of the circle that passes through each point. But in the hints it says, _There are actually TWO points on the earth's surface that are equidistant from the three given points. Fortunately, one of them lies in an ocean, and thus cannot be used by the flatlanders. _ Is this true? I've always thought that there is only one circle for three given points and one center for a given circle. Yep, it's true that three points will determine a unique circle. The problem you're having is that you're thinking about things being planar (e.g. Euclidean Geometry) when you should be thinking about things being the surface of a sphere (well, actually, the earth is an oblate spheroid, but you get the same result). So in the end, the result is that the three points determine a unique circle, and depending on what you decide is 'inside' and 'outside', there are actually two centers. Don't believe it? Try this thought experiment. Pick a point on the surface of a sphere. Now, find the point that is farthest away from that point (e.g. on the other side of the sphere). Now, if you draw a circle with the first point as the center and a small radius, it's clear that the first point is the center. Now, gradually increase the radius. When you hit the point where the radius is 1/2 the circumference of the sphere, it will be an 'equator' with the two points as the 'poles'. Increasing the radius even more will make the circle 'closer' to the second point. Hard to describe in words. Easy to demonstrate with a marking pen and a handy sphere (try a toy ball). When I worked out the Flatland 3 cache, I expected people to do the math. To my great delight, people have come up with all sorts of clever ways to find it, including just going out into the field with all three points in their GPSR and wandering around until the distance to all three is equal. You try to come up with a hard puzzle, and clever people will come up with simple solutions! -Paul

quote:Originally posted by worldtraveler: Has anyone considered training a dog to home in on the scent of ammo cans and tupperware? Just think of it! Those last 200 ft. that can be so difficult would become a piece of cake (except for hydrocaches, of course.) No more "drunken bee dance" frustrations, no more concerns about signal drop due to tree cover, no more challenge... no more fun? Ah, never mind. Worldtraveler Actually, I've been working on this for the past week or so. Kodak can now pretty reliably find Rubbermaid tubs no matter where I hide them. I'm guessing he does it by scent, although I don't really care if it's scent or dog ESP. Now we'll move on to ammo cans...

quote:Originally posted by worldtraveler: Has anyone considered training a dog to home in on the scent of ammo cans and tupperware? Just think of it! Those last 200 ft. that can be so difficult would become a piece of cake (except for hydrocaches, of course.) No more "drunken bee dance" frustrations, no more concerns about signal drop due to tree cover, no more challenge... no more fun? Ah, never mind. Worldtraveler Actually, I've been working on this for the past week or so. Kodak can now pretty reliably find Rubbermaid tubs no matter where I hide them. I'm guessing he does it by scent, although I don't really care if it's scent or dog ESP. Now we'll move on to ammo cans...

quote:Originally posted by Alan2: So here’s my suggestion. I don’t know enough about web pages. But after reading the posts over 6 months, I know there are brilliant technical people out there who do. I don’t belong to any other hobbyist group. But I’m sure others out there do and can contribute organizational standards. And others can handle setting up a non-profit organization. I’m willing to contribute my time to help get this started in whatever capacity I can help. If others are interested please contact me at alank2us2002@yahoo.com or better yet respond to this post in the forum so others can see your thoughts and ideas. Thanks. Alan when I read this, the drift I get is this: a) you don't like the idea of Jeremy having so much control You don't know how to make a website like this one, but you're sure there are other people who do. c) you don't know how to set up a non-profit org but you're sure there are other people who do. d) You don't know how much money it takes to run a website like this, but you're sure there are other people out there with money. e) You really want the people (, ©, (d) to get together and put together a website and non-profit to replace www.geocaching.com. Your contribution will be that you'll tell them how to do it *right* instead of the way Jeremy has done this one. Is there no one else besides me who percieves the terrific irony of all these people who are using the web site, discussion forum, servers, and bandwidth provided by Jeremy and Groundspeak, Inc. to complain about how Jeremy and Groundspeak are going to be the death of Geocaching? Get a clue. If you don't like this website, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use it. Go try Navicache, or better yet, go build your own website. It will be bloody hard work for virtually no pay, and in all likelyhood if you get something as good as www.geocaching.com together, you'll be treated to a bunch of people using the resources you provide to complain about how you're hijacking the sport. I don't think people realize just how much Jeremy and Groundspeak have done. This is a terrific website - great functionality, great UI, it's fast. As far as I can tell, availability is 100% except for announced downtime. It's under continuous development and it's continually getting better. Jeremy listens to requests for new functions and seems to implement the good ideas promptly. If people have problems, support response is swift and friendly. What, exactly, do you see a non-profit site doing that this site doesn't do? -Paul

Ok, it's time to 'fess up. How often and how do you use the hint when hunting a cache?

Count us in, too. Jeremy, the amount of work you've put in to keep all this ticking along must be immense. We've had a lot of fun geocaching, and we expect to have a lot more fun in the future. And... we're perfectly aware that without your efforts, we wouldn't be able to do it. Thanks. -Paul (of Kodak's 4)

Count us in, too. Jeremy, the amount of work you've put in to keep all this ticking along must be immense. We've had a lot of fun geocaching, and we expect to have a lot more fun in the future. And... we're perfectly aware that without your efforts, we wouldn't be able to do it. Thanks. -Paul (of Kodak's 4)

quote:Originally posted by TheRealDesertRat: Thier are other wasy to support Geocaching.com. There is no need to charge us to go out and find caches. If this is the case, maybe those of us who do not want to apy the $30 a year,(which would be better spent on hiking boots)should get together and form non-members only caches. Does this make sense, well niether does members only caches. If someone wants to donate money, I agrese with that, I would even donate money, but if you try to bribe me into it with members only caches, that is just going to make me mad. WE really need to remember that we are placing these on public lands. Let's not be ridiculous, some of us can't really afford $30 a year. I know that sounds obsurd, but then again you maybe you aren't working you way through college without help. -The Real DesertRat Do it. Go build a website, publicize it, promote it. Go buy a bunch of servers, go buy the bandwidth. Don't whine about it. Do it. And when you've done it, tell us how much it cost. I really want to know. Don't forget to tell us how many hundreds of hours you put in to get it all running, too. -Paul

quote:Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin): The X/X choices are long, I agree. How about these: Easy Cache Brain Cache (Puzzle) Brawn Cache (Endurance) Impossible Cache (Puzzle, Endurance) ' My family seems to be happy going out to find just about anything, but we seem to have the most fun doing the brain variety.