Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Glenn

  1. Whelp, that's that. The cache has been locked without me asking. Which means that I can't delete the bogus log entries. So they are there for good.

    And some people wonder why I took a "vacation" from Geocaching.

    Since I'm sure that someone from HQ or a VR is reading this and you've took it upon yourself to remove my ability to do so; Please remove the log entries from the following cachers: sha1tan, Vatvedt, and titi89.

  2. 2 hours ago, StefandD said:

    It's always been accepted as far as I know.

    But logging a cache more than 12 years after archival? I wouldn't accept it and delete the last logs (after contacting the cachers of course).

    I see in your cache that somebody already posted a log in 2014 as well. I think you should have taken action by then.

    If you really don't want anybody post logs any more you can ask your local reviewer to lock the cache.


    I believe that 2014 entry was back-dated but not to far that it was back-dated before the cache was archived. I really wish there was a way to tell the difference between an made close to the find date and one that was back-dated. My archived caches get so few visits that a few slip though. After all the cache IS archived for a reason.

    Like I said above I don't mind legitimated back-dated logs but from what I understand locking the cache would prevent this.

  3. 2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

    Nope. No change.  I could see if a family member was creating an account, and back-dating their find, explaining why in their log as well.

     - But (your NY one for example...) folks are "finding" it many years after archival.  You did let the one in '14 slide, so maybe the others this year think "it's okay with the CO" and did the same.

    I'd delete, and ask for the cache to be locked with an email to HQ, the "Contact Us" at the bottom of all forum pages.

    I can understand back-dating too. But these aren't back-dated finds. They are NEW finds.

    I don't really want to have the cache locked because I'd like people who have actually found the cache in the past to be able to back-date a log entry.
    Does HQ have an option where cache entries AFTER the archive date are automatically blocked/deleted but entries that are properly back-dated can be made? This would be a very helpful feature.

  4. I'm the owner of an archived webcam cache. The cache has been archived for 13 years yet recently I have had premium geocachers making current (as in this year) found it logs. I haven't been keeping up with Geocaching policy and I am wondering there has been a change and logging an archived cache as found after the archive date is now accepted policy especially since these are premium members who are doing it.

  5. ...I had a cacher post a DNF on my cahce the other day. Seriously, its a really simple 1/1 park and grab. But in light of what I had read here, I thought I would see about contacting her and offer some guidance in her new found hobby (no finds according to her profile). But of course, there is no way to contact her...


    Yet another story of someone who couldn't contact an intro app user to give them encouragement and advice. These stories are becoming far too common!


    ...I figured I might be able to make a difference to the next one that comes along. What I did is I went back and edited the description of my cache. I changed the "short description" to say...


    "If you are new to Geocaching, then please go to www.geocaching.com and read up on this great activity before setting out to seek your first cache. You will learn more of what it's all about, how to seek a cache, proper caching etiquette and more. You may also contact me through my profile and feel free to ask any questions you may have!"


    I see you went back are read some of the later posts. I'm glad you did! I think is an excellent idea. I'd even go as far as to encourage Groundspeak to add this as a standard note (like the one that reminds people of the terms and conditions) to every cache page until they provide a way for cache owners to be able to send messages to intro app users.

  6. As far as intro app users...how are you going to know they are intro app users? Search everyone's profile that searches for your cache? And as I mentioned, it doesn't matter if they are using a free app or the website. I have the paid for app on my phone. My wife has the intro app on her phone. She caches with me and every once in a while she and my daughter will do it without me while I sleep during the day (work at night). Is she killing the hobby because she uses the intro app?


    Hello, welcome to the conversation. I'd like to refer you back to page 1 of this thread where we discussed exact issue then quickly moved on more constructive conversation. The OP made a very accusatory post about all intro app users in his opinion ruining the hobby. When you read the first page you will see that the only person with that opinion was the OP. After his initial post the OP has not commented in this thread. Please don't judge a book by it's cover or this thread by it's title.

  7. I am against awarding icons to the hiders of one-shot lab caches. For mega-event related Lab-s, OK, they do require a lot of work, so the hiders should be awarded with the icons.


    It can be argued that caches with ratings less than 2/2 don't require a lot of work. Should Groundspeak remove those from our hide counts too?

  8. Interesting. I tend to prefer the map screen over the compass screen (based on amount of time used). But it doesn't have to do with whither I'm using a smartphone of a GPSr. It has to do wither the device has a differential compass or an electronic compass. If it has a differential compass I use the map screen exclusively. If it has an electronic compass I may start with compass screen and then switch to the map screen as I get closer. Also, based on some of the comments about map screen resolution, I don't seem to use the map screen like some others on here do. When I'm within a couple hundred feet of the cache and using the map screen I don't really care about any of the landmarks on the map. In fact if the maps where all gone and there were no landmarks on the map making them completely blank it wouldn't make a difference. At that close of a distance it is all about getting as close as I can the cache symbol on the map to the symbol that indicates my current position.

  9. I was thinking the other day, what keeps a geocacher from getting angry, going rogue and stealing caches? Nothing. There's not much you can do about it. People don't need the app (whether free or not) to do as the OP described here. They can log on to the website and get the info and do it. Has nothing to do with an app.


    This isn't a good comparison because of the frequency of occurrence and intent. I don't have statistics but it's clear that there are far more clueless intro app user than there are "rogue" geocachers. Also what a "rogue" knows full well what he is doing is wrong. A clueless intro app user doesn't know that what they are doing is against geocaching societal norms or that their actions are having a negative impact on someone else's enjoyment of the game. Contacting a "rogue" geocacher will yield nothing all of the time. Contacting a clueless intro app user (which is often not possible due to Groundspeak requiring verifiable contact information for everyone EXCEPT intro app users) will, in most cases, yield positive results.

  10. So the opportunity to produce something free of those constraints is appealing BUT the comparatively short notice, the fact it would be archived after only one finder and the fact it won't even show up in my hides down the line are all things that put me off investing a lot of time and effort.


    I don't think it would take very much time or effort to try out some of the ideas that have been floated in the forums but we were unable to experiment with because the guidelines didn't allow it.


    I see this as an opportunity to test out using QR codes to sign the log book. There aren't any proximity restriction nor are there any restrictions on location. I can now place that sock drawer cache that I've always wanted to place.

  11. So in other words, a lab cache is like an abstarct container as apposed to the physical containers we associate with geocaching. So the confusion comes in the wording and using cache in the name when used on the site given the auto perception. Let us not forget that cache has more meanings outside the box of geocaching.


    Sounds a lot like a virtual cache to me. I know people want virtual caches to return. So why not give these virtual style lab caches a test drive?


    So depending on your point of view, your definition of a lab cache can vary from person to person. And more so when one starts to speculate what another means or has in mind. I think Jayme H has done an outstanding job to try and get us to understand what Groundspeak means and defines as a lab cache, with many of us missing the mark becasuse we are focused on the negative percieved outcome of the "I <3 Geocaching" experiment. If we could think outside of our small narrow minded boxes, I think there may be a little less confussion over these lab caches.


    I think the confusion come from the fact that lab caches aren't a defined type of cache. A lab cache is whatever the current cache experiment is. It has the potential to be anything the Lackeys have dreamed up.

  12. AdamGiles, you might want to ask this question in the region forum for the area that you planning on placing the cache. The reason that I say this is because different cultures have different ideas of how far is a long way. For example here in the USA where I live it isn't uncommon to know someone who's commute to work is 100 miles one way. I've got friends in the UK who thinks Americans are mad for traveling that far for work every day. The distances people are willing to travel is highly influenced by both resources and culture.

  13. I think it would be wonderful if Groundspeak would make attending and/or hosting CITO events become official achievements such as with finds. For example, if there was a geoachievement for attending 25, 50, 100+ CITOS, or hosting 10, 50, 100+ CITO's with milestones and coins, it may start a movement among the geocaching community to participate much more with these types of events.


    I don't think having achievement levels based on number of CITO events visited would have good results. I think it would encourage some people to attempt to show up at as many CITO events as they can. If some one is trying to attended as many CITO events as they can then how can they possible be doing any actual CITO?


    If I was a CITO organizer I would want people to stick around for the clean up part of the event. I wouldn't want people to show their face for a couple of seconds, not helping with any of the clean up, and then running off to the next CITO event. CITO should be about improving an area and not about increasing ones find count.

  14. The discussion on antenna are not over which antenna is better but over which antenna is better in a particular situation. A quad helix has higher gain in the direction it is pointing. This may make the difference in whether or not a signal is received thru heavy tree canopy. On the other hand the unit has to be held with the antenna pointing up to be most effective. The patch antenna is less directional. Units with patch antennas work best when held flat (so the surface of the antenna is pointing up). So simply how one holds the unit has a difference as to how accurate it is.



    Walking toward a cache, a unit in your right hand might not only be held differently than one in your left but you might have trees, or even your own body, blocking the view of certain satellites on one side while there may be a clear view from your other hand.


    This more than anything else IMO affects accuracy. Most people tend to hold their GPSr close to their body. The human body is very efficient in blocking the weak signals sent by the GPS satellites.


    If you look at the radiation pattern of the two antennas you'll see that they are very similar. They both have roughly a 9 db gain in the direction that they are pointing. Construction differences can affect the gain but this is usually less that 1 db difference. The two things that a helical antenna has going for it is that it when it is held properly it will have a little more gain towards the horizon then a patch antenna does. Again, take a look at the antenna radiation pattern charts. This allow a helical antenna to hear satellites that are near the horizon better resulting in a better GDOP. The other thing a helical antenna has going for it is that it is circularly polarized where as a patch antenna is linearly polarized. For a patch antenna to receive the most signal that it can it has be in the same orientation as the signal that it is receiving. Since it is receiving multiple signals simultaneously from objects that are constantly moving on an object that is constantly moving and which itself could be moving, well, good luck with that. Some of the signal will be disadvantaged because of their polarization. However seconds later those same signal may become stronger and other become weaker as the orientation of the satellites and/or the receiver changes. Helical antennas minimize this because they are circularly polarized. You don't have the effect of signals fading in and out with a circularly polarized antenna. This means that with a helical antenna the processor has a much better chance of maintaining a "lock" on a satellite where a patch antenna would constantly be loosing and reestablishing a "lock" on the satellite.

  15. the longer I left it on, and the more the reported accuracy improved, the further away it ended up. Is this a reason why my friends with the 60csx usually got to the cache faster when I used this as my primary device? Or could at be that the search is secondary for me and they had a sixth sense about where caches might be?


    I suspect you are relying too much on your GPSr. I suspect your friends are spending more time using their eyeballs to find the cache than you are.


    The Garmins reported an 11 or 12 foot accracy, the iphone showed 16 feet.


    I turned the Oregon back on (using WAAS and GLONASS both times). In light of the three other opinions, it revised its reporting and now it also agreed with the iphone, acknowledging that it could be 10 feet off. At least with the West.


    It is clear that you don't understand what the accuracy reading is telling you. The accuracy reading does not tell you how far off the coordinates are. If the GPSr could calculate this then all it would have to do is compensate for the error and you'd get dead on position fixes every time!


    What the accuracy reading typically is telling you is that the position that it currently showing you is based off of position fixes where 50% of those fixes are within' a, whatever number it is showing, foot radius of the currently shown position.


    The accuracy reading isn't accuracy in the sense of being correct or precise but it is rather accuracy in the sense of data integrity.

  16. I have found almost half of my caches because of "dumb luck." Thought it doesn't take away from the thrill of the find, I would rather the find be more because my skill is increasing rather than I just happen to stumble upon it while doing the drunken bee dance.


    I always seem to find the caches that I'm looking for in the last place that I look for them. Perhaps this method could work for you too?

  17. I agree email addresses should be validated but think the problem is bigger than cache owners not having the chance to tell a new cacher they are doing it wrong.


    We are in agreement here. I was representing that not validating email addresses like they do on the website is ONE of the issues. I never meant to claim that it was the only issue.


    (Yes, I know I'm replying to myself.) I wonder why Groundspeak doesn't think it is such a big deal to validate the email address of those who use the intro app but at the same time they enforce email validation on the website. If the intro app works fine without email validation then why can't we get rid of email validation on the website as well? (I'm just thinking out loud. Groundspeak please don't do this!)

  18. I agree email addresses should be validated but think the problem is bigger than cache owners not having the chance to tell a new cacher they are doing it wrong.


    We are in agreement here. I was representing that not validating email addresses like they do on the website is ONE of the issues. I never meant to claim that it was the only issue.

  19. What is called accuracy is often labeled as Estimated Position Error. The manufactures have some leeway as to how they define EPE, so you can't always compare the EPE of one unit to another.


    The EPE is a computed number that depends on the geometry of the satellites used to compute position (referred to as Horizontal Dilution of Precision or HDOP) and a value that is transmitted in the message from the satellite that predicts the ranging error (URE). Units can use WAAS signals or other augmentation to reduce URE.


    So if the smartphone and handheld manufacturers use the same formula for EPE, any difference you see is due to the units not seeing exactly the same satellites (effecting the HDOP) and whether or not the unit is using WAAS or other augmentation. CR's antenna argument is that the larger antennas in a handheld unit might "see" more satellites and thereby get a better geometry with lower HDOP. On the other hand a smartphone with a G3/G4 connection may be able to get better augmentation data than from WAAS, or the handheld might be better in areas without cell coverage because it has WAAS and most smartphones don't.


    It has less to do with the size of the antenna and more to do with the polarization of the antenna. Patch antennas are linearly polarized. If the transmitter and receiver both have linearly polarized antenna and one of them is tumbling, like satellites in space have a tendency to do, then the signal strength will increase and decrease as the polarization matches and then doesn't. To overcome this GPS satellites use circular polarized antennas. This reduces the signal fading in and out. In same circumstances it eliminates it all together. A helical antenna on a GPSr has about a 3db increase in signal strength over a patch antenna. What that means that whatever signals a patch antenna can "hear" a helical antenna will hear the same sign but twice a strong. Sometime this means the difference between receiving a signal and not receiving a signal from a satellite.


    The difference in antenna is more pronounced when you first turn you GPS on. A GPSr with a helical antenna (and all other factors being the same) will "get a lock" and download the almanac data quicker than a GPSr with a patch antenna. This is because your GPSr only receives. It can't ask the satellites to retransmit any data that it missed because the signal faded out in the middle of the transmission and it got corrupt data. If your GPSr misses a portion of the transmission it has to wait until the almanac data transmission repeats and hope to get the portion that it missed during one of the repeats.


    ok, I could understand that, however, why then do they label it as being accuracy if what you say is true? Not that I am saying you're wrong, I'm just speaking from my POV of having limited knowledge and use of GPSs. I do want to dive into them more technically, especially if I can get a buddy of mine to lend his name to doing a more in depth study than the experiment from the OP. I would not mind being the gopher tech in such a study.


    So what number should I look at for percision then?


    If you are talking about what number you should look at in order to compare the precision of two different GPSrs. There isn't one that the GPSr itself can produce. Any self calculated precision is only going to be a guess. A highly calculated guess but still only a guess.


    The position data that your GPS presents to you seems to not move around much if at all especially when you are standing still. This is a "trick" of the programming. If you could see the raw data you'd see that your GPS is actually "jumping around" quite a bit. The software smooths these jumps out for you. It also uses them to calculate accuracy. Because the GPS really can't "know" which of the many position fixes it calculates to where it actually is. So it calculates and then gives you a best guess of your current position and an estimated error for that moment in time at that location.


    GPSrs typically use one of the following methods to guess their accuracy. Take a look at the link for details. I've briefly describe the methods below.


    CEP (Circular Error Probability)- CEP is defined as the radius of a circle centered on the true value that contains 50% of the actual GPS measurements. So a receiver with 1 meter CEP accuracy will be within one meter of the true measurement 50% of the time. The other 50% of the time the measurement will be in error by more than one meter.


    DRMS (also called RMS, 1Sigma) - The square root of the average of the squared horizontal position errors with 65% probability.


    2DRMS - Twice the DRMS accuracy, with a 95% probability.


    R95 - The radius of a circle centered at the true position, containing the position estimate with probability of 95%.

  20. Generally speaking, the threads become too contentious far too easily these days. People will tend to avoid posting after a few of those kind of confrontations.


    Oh, ummm :unsure:. Sorry about that.

  21. Has anyone noticed that with version 2.15 batteries live seem to be 1 hour if that. eXplorist GC

    Any info would be helpful


    Make sure you are selecting the proper battery type in Tools -> Setting -> Power -> Battery type. It shouldn't have any affect on battery life but your battery meter will read incorrectly making you think that you have more or less time than you actually have.


    If you use non-rechargeable batteries you'll get the longest life from lithium batteries, sometimes called camera batteries. Pay attention to the mAh rating and don't trust the mAh rating for any none name brand battery originating from China.


    If you use rechargeable batteries you'll get the longest lift from eneloops. But remember rechargeable batteries don't last forever. They wear out over time and need to be occasionally replaced.

  22. Gotcha. The same applies to someone who just creates a disposable hotmail or gmail address because they don't want to get spammed by the site they just signed up for, and don't see any reason they would need to be contacted.


    Someone who creates a disposable email account or just doesn't respond to emails is one thing. Someone is never even given the option to provide contact information is complete different. The issue isn't people that don't want to be contacted. The issue is people who wouldn't mind being contacted not even realizing that it is an option. Not even realizing that there is a face, not a corporation, behind each and every cache that is place.


    Looking at things from the other side, so to speak, it's easy to see why someone using an app could expect the app to tell them everything they needed to know to play the game. If someone subsequently emails them to tell them they did it wrong, how are they to know whether they are dealing with a person who has something useful to say or a precious ego who doesn't like the newbie hunting their cache? After all, if the information was important the app would have told them about it, right?


    Geocaching has never been a solitary hobby and as long as cache owners are people it never will be a solitary hobby. Cache owners spend their own time and money to make and maintain the geocaches listed here. Geocachers will, and in some cases must, interact with cache owners.


    Now, if Groundspeak would like to put me on their pay roll as a Cache Hiding Lackey and then make contact between Cache Hiding Lackeys and Geocachers forbidden as part of company policy then I'd be okay with that. However, since Groundspeak isn't paying me to list my geocaches with then nor are they providing services where their employees maintain my caches. Then I don't find it unreasonable for them to provide me, a cache owner, with a way to reach out to those that find or attempt to find the caches that I have listed on their website.


    As for people who would rather not be contacted. I've stared hobbies that I though were going to be enjoyable but I quickly discovered either took too much of my time, were too expensive, or required interactions that I wasn't comfortable with. By segregating intro app users from the main geocaching population Groundspeak is doing both groups a great disservice. Imagine finding out about event caches after a couple months of geocaching with the intro app. Then when attending your first event no other person is willing to talk to you after learning your cacher name because rightly or wrongly, the community thinks that you have been digging up cache sites, leaving lids off caches, and moving caches to new location. This is only a hypothetical situation and I'd hope it would never happen but cache owners are people too. They can't be treated like they don't exist and then be expected to continue to maintain their caches and hide new ones.

  23. Up to a point, but let's not pretend that having your nice new "spammer49485@hotmail.com" address validated is going to stop anyone who wants to spoil the fun for others.


    If someone want to circumvent the "system" they are going to find a way. It's a given. But those are not the type of people we are talking about here. We are talking about people who find this great hobby but don't quite understand it. They have miss step with someone else caches. The cache owner just want to contact then to get things correct with their cache and help the person understand the hobby better.


    Attempting to reach out to someone and getting no response is okay. At least an tempt was made. But not having any way to contact someone just isn't right.

  24. Thanks for the reply Glen. I've transferred two .loc files to the geocache folder. After ejecting the drive I restarted the GPSr. I'm assuming I should see the caches listed under the geocache menu, but I do not.




    I have bad news and good news.


    First the bad news. I download a .loc file and placed it in my Geocaches directory and had no joy. I then placed the same .loc file in almost all of the directories on my eXp GC and still no joy. It seems that the eXp GC (ver 2.15) can't read .loc files. WTF?


    Now for the good news. There is way. You can use program, like GPSbabel, to convert the .loc files to .gpx files. Then put the .gpx files it creates in to the Geocaches directory on your GPSr.

  25. Can you give a better description of how you are attempting to transfer caches? There are a number of different ways to transfer caches.


    The method I prefer is by direct download. Assuming that you know how to successfully download files to your PC from the internet and find where they are stored on your PC. The keys to making this successful is to ensure that GPSr is properly connected to the PC and showing up as an external storage device. Then making sure that you are putting the .loc or .gpx (premium member) files in to the proper directory, the one called geocaches on the GPSr. Lastly make sure that you aren't overloading the GPSr with caches. There is a 10,000 cache limit when using .gpx files and IIRC this limit much smaller when using .loc files.

  • Create New...