purple_pineapple

woo hoo! Does this mean I have to go on a journey? As I said, when I get the time, and GSAK back, I can study the numbers in detail and update the list properly. Its probably a Xmas project! Putting a roof on our bathroom is higher up the 'To Do' list at the moment.

any chance you could split it to two lists? One <20 and one 20+? nice fast way to filter the 'longer ones' from the shorter ones generally so I know which list to grab depending on the time i have available? i'll think about it! a lot depends upon how many <20 rings there are. Unfortunately, I'm without GSAK at the moment, so it'll all have to wait anyway!

i believe BigWolf's TomTom macro for GSAK will do pretty much the whole job for you - including icons...

Hi, I still use your bookmark list and find it very useful. Can I promote my own circluar walk of 5miles roughly taking in 20 caches? Wisley Wander 20 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...c9-d5a584fbda4b Thanks and happy caching Yorkie30. you certainly can - and I will add it to the list. However, I will be updating it significantly, as the number of 10 cache walks is rather larger these days, so I'll probably up the number to 20 anyway! This will require a little bit of free time which I don't have at the moment (for example, the ceiling collapsed in our downstairs bathroom last evening - just 3 weeks after I redecorated the whole room! pah!) Keep the ideas coming, as I'll use this thread to help me update the list! Cheers Dave

our best shot is rhs right hand side lhs left hand side mtt multi trunked tree bot base of tree dsw ??? but maybe didn't see wire rtb round the back ooh, good effort! dsw is actually quite well known, although we haven't had a forum discussion on it for a while now... Although I like the image that "didn't see wire " formed in my head! rtb is well known in our little corner of surrey - a peek at some of our placed caches will explain all!

This would be a very good idea as I think the problem generally stems from ignorance, especially on the part of new cachers. A few of these have popped up near me recently and when I emailed the owners politely pointing out the problems cause by plastic bags, they said they hadn't really thought about it and had no idea it was discouraged. Nobody here has mentioned custom-made camo bags yet. I have used them on occasion and they do keep the cache box nice and clean for the first year or so, until the pull-string breaks, but I have had one or two disparaging remarks in the logs, although most people do seem quite happy with them. I would be interested to know the general feeling out them. I'm fairly ambivalent towards camo bags. However, I do feel that their sole purpose is camo, rather than waterproofing. While they do this very well, I personally will always try to camo the container itself, with paint and tape and so on. My own opinion is that the bags wear out relatively quickly, so all you are left with is a soggy piece of cloth, possibly ripped, and maybe full of snails. My own camo'd boxes have lasted 4 years in some cases, without any problems. As you say, while new and/or kept in good nick, they do keep the box clean!

I'll second Marty's response - head straight to the SEcaching forum! We're an active and friendly bunch and have lots of joint caching trips. We're in reigate ourselves, so not far at all, and we may be out this weekend while babysitting three large dogs for the weekend - will let you know! there is also a monthly Surrey meet - next one is Dorking in January (we're skipping Xmas) so pop along if you can! All we do is sit in a pub and talk!

Ivy Covered Tree (thought by some, with a warped sense of humour, to be the ideal hiding place for a camo'd micro) P AH! Thanks. Why didn't they just put that, then? By the way, a nano on a cattle grid beats a camo'd micro any day! Talk about needle in a haystack ................ or how about a nano near a cattle grid, with a deliberately ambiguous clue, such that we spend an hour carrying out a fingertip search of the entire cattle grid, before we found it somewhere else! cheeky wotsits... oh the memories.... grrr edit to keep on topic... We also use in (often only in our personal notes); rhs, lhs, mtt, bot, dsw and rtb. Bonus points if you can decode them..!

And don't forget to get every member of your caching team to sign! I will be adding notes on to some of my cache pages, and possibly also a 'Write Note' on some of the relevent caches in the area...

But are they the same diameter as the film pots ? If they are the 'medical sample' pots they are too narrow, especially when trying to remove logs in cold weather with cold fingers ! Re : the spare box [from an illicit physical cache for those who wish to know] Merstham Maffia say they wish to use it on a forthcoming 5/5 which I eagerly await !!! By the way have you logged your recent escapade I set yet ? i thought they were about the same diameter - give or take a few mm. I've got plenty, so I'll get some to you somehow for evaluation! MM and us are planning a number of 5/5 caches, hunting down suitable containers at the moment! Will be logging your latest as soon as I've caught up with a few other logs first - maybe tonight!

You mean this one Cache Rings ? I think there are a few more that can be added to it now. almost certainly! I'll sit down and update it when I get a chance, and probably become more demanding with the number of caches to qualify. Its my list and I'll include what I want to!

def use something else - Andy, I can provide you with some excellent film pot sized containers with watertight screw top lids - just say the word! I'll try and return your 'non-cache' box as well!

Polar bear?

I think it depends on who made the film pot and the protection afforded by the hide. IIRC so far I've only found eight 35mm film pot caches. I was FTF on one, so can't comment on its weather-resistance etc. Of the other seven at least two didn't use a baggie. Of those seven, only one contained a soggy log (which was still signable with care). That log was in a baggie, so I suspect that a previous finder had signed it during a downpour and put it back wet, which would make for a soggy log no matter what the container. While I agree that there are better-quality containers for micros (e.g. 60ml specimen pots at 25 for a fiver off the Bay), my limited experience suggests that 35mm film pots are perfectly adequate if used with a little thought where a micro is appropriate. Geoff true enough, although I've always been of the opinion that a cache should be watertight in its own right, without the assistance of plastic bags, either inside or outside! the only film pots I've found to be mostly waterproof are the (I think) Fuji ones, that are clear and have a recessed lid. I have one cache that uses this, because the dimensions require this particular type of film pot. The cache is also essentially submerged! All my other micros use a polypropylene specimen pot, which are much more watertight and weatherproof. having said that, I appreciate that not everyone has a ready access to free specimen pots!

I don't mean to pick you out, but I've not worked out how to multiquote and it's 3am. As far as I agree partially to what you're saying, YES, there are a lot more 35mm caches around. HOWEVER there is an also INCREASING number of HIGH QUALITY LARGE caches. I for one will never plant a micro unless there is a valid reason for having such a small cache, it is my aim to always plant the biggest funest (yes that is a real word, shut up) cache I can. I know for sure, that there are other people who have this philosophy. I'm tired of people moaning about s***e micros all over the place. If it really matters, don't go and find micro caches! Lead by example, and get out there setting "good" caches. Some people just don't know any better. Adopt a newbie and lead by example. [/rant] I think this is a brilliant idea, I'm going to talk to my local stations and ask if I can stash an ammo box at each one. I suspect that many posters are effectively of the same opinion, even though it may not look like it! Mandy is objecting to micros flung out for the sake of it, generally in a pointless location. Generally, if a location is worthwhile and all that can be placed is a micro, there is less of an issue. You have the right idea in planting the biggest and or funnest cache you can. At the end of the day, that is all anyone wants! Regarding fire stations in particular, if its a worthwhile location in its own right, then place a cache. The difficulty with such series (which is a shame) is that others feel obliged to place one at EVERY station, which isn't necessary.

I agree with you and AFAIK that was how the macro was intended to be used. However, Kai Team on the GSAK forum has mentioned some users abusing the macro and hitting the site up to 80.000 times in one month. Its those people that are to blame for this and not Groundspeak! Quite - I've also heard of people using it to update large (1000s) databases, every day - essentially running the macro 24hrs per day. As has been said many times - it was created in order to help update archived caches automatically - all other caches can be updated using PQs. It was never intended to replace PQs... Dave

Oh - forgot to add - got OS 1:50k Wales and Southern England on the oregon - which does make a bit of a difference off road..... Or OS 1:25K covering same (actually larger) area on the mio! I confess that having used 1:25 on the mio, and as paper maps before, I would hate to return to 1:50K. I'm in the same position as Terry - and I'm sending mine to PDAhut for a repair estimate. Mios (new and old models) are hard to find at the mo, although I believe various IPAQs do exactly the same job, and can be found on e-bay for a reasonable price...

Hi Weston Wanderer. This happened to me once. I did a reset on the Oregon - turn the unit off, press and hold the top left hand corner of the screen, then power the unit back on while still holding the top left hand corner. It will ask you if you want to delete all user data - tap yes. I then reloaded the GPX files and all has been fine since. Might be worth a try..... Another cause of 'missing caches' that I discovered is the source of the GPX file is 'shared' in any way... Let me explain... If you use GSAK to load th oregon, and some of the caches in GSAK have, at any time in the past, been obtained from a PQ that isn't yours (maybe you shared a my finds PQ before joint caching, or a friend provided you with a GPX for a holiday destination) then there is a tag set in GSAK that says 'Geocache Found' for any that your friend has found. GSAK calculates your found count correctly using your logs, but this tag could be sitting there for any caches found by your friend, and you may not notice. When you import into the oregon, the device uses this tag to determine found caches, and lists them instead under Geocaches Found, and they don't show up when you search for nearby caches. The easiest way to check (and this is how I noticed when it happened to me) is to look at your found caches on the oregon, and see if there are any that you haven't actually found! hope that makes sense! Dave

Nope. The point was cache quality is going down, due to numbers and percentage of micros. I actually proved that the number of micros planted each year has been going down. Hence lower quality != higher micro numbers. That is all you are going to say - simply rely on your own sentiment and use my words as an excuse not to examine the evidence? Firstly, the point I was making was about the stats - I have already stated numerous times that I was merely using micros as an example of a perceived measure of quality, and not my own perception either! Secondly, yes thats all I was goign to say as I really didn't feel like continuing a discussion that was starting to veer off topic and I wanted to 'sign off' with an agreement with your earlier statement that you can "spin stats any way you want". I'm not sure where I'm relying on my own sentiment, nor am I using your words as an excuse not to examine the evidence - I wasn't aware that I was obliged to contunie the discussion. Finally, my quote was an attempt at a light-hearted joke at the expense of statistics in general, which you appear to have misunderstood. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Ok.. these are cumulative totals and include caches that have been archived. 'Micro' refers ONLY to caches where the cache size is listed as 'Micro'. It only refers to UK caches. up to 31/12/2003 208 micros out of 2,973 total caches... 7.0% up to 31/12/2004 724 micros out of 5,689 total caches... 12.7% up to 31/12/2005 1,733 micros out of 10,417 total caches... 16.6% up to 31/12/2006 3,757 micros out of 18,107 total caches... 20.7% up to 31/12/2007 7,496 micros out of 29,065 total caches... 25.8% up to 31/12/2008 13,493 micros out of 45,388 total caches... 29.7% up to 21/10/2009 20,552 micros out of 65,579 total caches... 31.3% Very roughly... the micos have been increasing at the rate of about 4% per year. No disrespect, but statistics can be made to prove anything... e.g. I'm sure you've heard the one about car insurance and red cars.... anyway. What these statistics need to be compared with is percentages of other cache types too, then lined up against each other to determine percentage of year on year growth. Probably a few other factors could be thrown in too, e.g. urban vs countryside vs % land ownership in the UK. Of course it really should be observed against a larger set of what is normal YoY growth for all caches. There's lots of ways to look at these numbers, I'd say if there are more urban than countyside caches then that would skewer the stats for a start. although I remain pro-micro - IN THE RIGHT LOCATION... I'm not sure that these stats can be altered in any way... there are currently 31% of all UK caches are micros (I checked, and same results for only 'active' caches) therefore, other cache types will have decreased as a percentage. I'm not working it out for all of them, as I have work to do, but I would hazard a guess that the decrease will be split across all types, with the biggest decrease for multis. Obviously, actual cache numbers will have gone up for all cache types (except grandfathered ones)! I agree that the proportion of countyside micros would be an interesting stat to work out, but if you can find a way of doing that, I'll be impressed! We could go on for ever - we could eliminate certain seriesesess which are heavily micro based (and easy to filter out in cache searches, and see if that brings the totals down - I suspect it would... Maybe I'll try when I'm bored! Dave Ok just as a quick example, I can actually prove to you, with the stats above, that micro growth has decreased by up to 2/3rds in the past year and 75% overall since 2004.... 2003 - start 2004 - YoY micro growth as a percentage of the whole = 81% 2005 = 31% 2006 = 24% 2007 = 25% 2008 = 15% 2009 = 5% So you see, number of micros have gone up (as have all types cache), but the growth of micros has gone down significantly. That took me all of 5-6 minutes. Doubtless if someone wants to spend more time and more numbers we can spin these figures anyway you want. ETA: just to make the interpretation clearer - it was a rush job. but the percentage of caches that are micros is increasing... which is surely the point? Anyway, as you say, you can spin stats any way you like, and my all time favourite quite fits nicely here... "Statistics are like bikinis - what they reveal is interesting but what they conceal is vital"

Ok.. these are cumulative totals and include caches that have been archived. 'Micro' refers ONLY to caches where the cache size is listed as 'Micro'. It only refers to UK caches. up to 31/12/2003 208 micros out of 2,973 total caches... 7.0% up to 31/12/2004 724 micros out of 5,689 total caches... 12.7% up to 31/12/2005 1,733 micros out of 10,417 total caches... 16.6% up to 31/12/2006 3,757 micros out of 18,107 total caches... 20.7% up to 31/12/2007 7,496 micros out of 29,065 total caches... 25.8% up to 31/12/2008 13,493 micros out of 45,388 total caches... 29.7% up to 21/10/2009 20,552 micros out of 65,579 total caches... 31.3% Very roughly... the micos have been increasing at the rate of about 4% per year. No disrespect, but statistics can be made to prove anything... e.g. I'm sure you've heard the one about car insurance and red cars.... anyway. What these statistics need to be compared with is percentages of other cache types too, then lined up against each other to determine percentage of year on year growth. Probably a few other factors could be thrown in too, e.g. urban vs countryside vs % land ownership in the UK. Of course it really should be observed against a larger set of what is normal YoY growth for all caches. There's lots of ways to look at these numbers, I'd say if there are more urban than countyside caches then that would skewer the stats for a start. although I remain pro-micro - IN THE RIGHT LOCATION... I'm not sure that these stats can be altered in any way... there are currently 31% of all UK caches are micros (I checked, and same results for only 'active' caches) therefore, other cache types will have decreased as a percentage. I'm not working it out for all of them, as I have work to do, but I would hazard a guess that the decrease will be split across all types, with the biggest decrease for multis. Obviously, actual cache numbers will have gone up for all cache types (except grandfathered ones)! I agree that the proportion of countyside micros would be an interesting stat to work out, but if you can find a way of doing that, I'll be impressed! We could go on for ever - we could eliminate certain seriesesess which are heavily micro based (and easy to filter out in cache searches, and see if that brings the totals down - I suspect it would... Maybe I'll try when I'm bored! Dave

I think what you're really saying is that you can't be bothered having a look through the listings for something that might appeal, because you're not that interested in caching. Not that quality has gone down. No. I think CSC was right in what he said. I certainly haven't lost interest in caching - in fact my annual find rate continues to rise. But there aint arf some dross out there to filter through now to get to decent caches (IMO) You can't seriously still think overall quality hasn't fallen, can you? Even if you don't see it as a bad thing? out of interest, and I might do this myself, has anyone worked out the proportion of caches that were micros back in 2005 (eg), and what that proportion is now? I say micros cos its the only way I can think to measure what people perceive as poor quality. I personally have no problem with them!

happy birthday indeed! Thats nearly as old as some of our forum posters...

My point was simple. All else being equal, it discourages visitors if your cache description is difficult to read; and you have to expect them to assume that the cache is as poor as the description. yeah OK, I'll let you have that point! In the absence of anything else with which to guide me as to whether I want to do cache A or B, I will resort to the description! Even so, it would be content first, and then writing ability! Write, I really must get on with some work! So is your break period over? you don't think Mary has time to play on the forums do you?! Dave

My point was simple. All else being equal, it discourages visitors if your cache description is difficult to read; and you have to expect them to assume that the cache is as poor as the description. yeah OK, I'll let you have that point! In the absence of anything else with which to guide me as to whether I want to do cache A or B, I will resort to the description! Even so, it would be content first, and then writing ability! Write, I really must get on with some work!