crr003

ejmct, This is what Garmin replied when I asked about battery saver: "Power-save mode works by detecting if you are following a steady course/speed, if you are then the receiver switches off for a few seconds. The screen is updated as normal, based on this course and speed. When the receiver switches back on the run-up position (a DR or Dead Reckoned position) is compared to the actual position, if they match the receiver switches off again, if they don't the receiver stays on until a 'steady state' is detected again. The battery save mode is not really recommended for slow moving applications like walking, due to the slow speeds. " Don't know about the other questions - I've got a Suunto Vector for all that

ejmct, This is what Garmin replied when I asked about battery saver: "Power-save mode works by detecting if you are following a steady course/speed, if you are then the receiver switches off for a few seconds. The screen is updated as normal, based on this course and speed. When the receiver switches back on the run-up position (a DR or Dead Reckoned position) is compared to the actual position, if they match the receiver switches off again, if they don't the receiver stays on until a 'steady state' is detected again. The battery save mode is not really recommended for slow moving applications like walking, due to the slow speeds. " Don't know about the other questions - I've got a Suunto Vector for all that

Rubbertoe, Thanks for the offer, but I'm trying to loose weight quote:Originally posted by Rubbertoe: quote:Originally posted by crr003:If people followed the "rules" we wouldn't have this thread. I guess Halloween treats should be cancelled too? Send me your mailing address and I'll send you some food and we'll see if you eat it. - Toe. --==< Rubbertoe's http://home.columbus.rr.com/rubbertoe/webcam/index.html, http://community.webshots.com/user/rbatina/, and http://home.columbus.rr.com/rubbertoe/index.html >==--

Rubbertoe, Thanks for the offer, but I'm trying to loose weight quote:Originally posted by Rubbertoe: quote:Originally posted by crr003:If people followed the "rules" we wouldn't have this thread. I guess Halloween treats should be cancelled too? Send me your mailing address and I'll send you some food and we'll see if you eat it. - Toe. --==< Rubbertoe's http://home.columbus.rr.com/rubbertoe/webcam/index.html, http://community.webshots.com/user/rbatina/, and http://home.columbus.rr.com/rubbertoe/index.html >==--

You miss my first point - if everybody played by the rules, we wouldn't have this problem. Rules do matter. I did read the cigar thread and I agree that food/tobacco/alcohol etc. shouldn't be placed (although I've seen all of these in caches). Now if someone is ignorant of, or ignores the rules, then the question of risk arises. If you find a cache that has been recently placed and there is a can of pineapple rings with a valid use by date (actual example) this could be classed as low risk. (No I didn't eat it - I don't like pineapple ). Depending on how risk averse you are, you could throw the thing into the garbage or eat it. Personal choice. So I think we are actually in agreement - don't put these things in the cache in the first place. quote:Originally posted by Cache Canucks: quote:Originally posted by crr003: I think seneca's post (albeit from the cigar thread) is germane If by 'germane' you mean that the issue of 'risk' is relevant to this forum, I agree. That the comments are any less cavalier when discussing food items than when discussing cigars, I would think not. By the way, if you check the cigar thread, you'll find that the overwhelming majority was AGAINST putting cigars in a cache. In either case (food or tobacco), placing these items in a cache is clearly against GeoCaching.com guidelines ...or doesn't that matter? [This message was edited by Cache Canucks on September 07, 2002 at 01:52 PM.]

You miss my first point - if everybody played by the rules, we wouldn't have this problem. Rules do matter. I did read the cigar thread and I agree that food/tobacco/alcohol etc. shouldn't be placed (although I've seen all of these in caches). Now if someone is ignorant of, or ignores the rules, then the question of risk arises. If you find a cache that has been recently placed and there is a can of pineapple rings with a valid use by date (actual example) this could be classed as low risk. (No I didn't eat it - I don't like pineapple ). Depending on how risk averse you are, you could throw the thing into the garbage or eat it. Personal choice. So I think we are actually in agreement - don't put these things in the cache in the first place. quote:Originally posted by Cache Canucks: quote:Originally posted by crr003: I think seneca's post (albeit from the cigar thread) is germane If by 'germane' you mean that the issue of 'risk' is relevant to this forum, I agree. That the comments are any less cavalier when discussing food items than when discussing cigars, I would think not. By the way, if you check the cigar thread, you'll find that the overwhelming majority was AGAINST putting cigars in a cache. In either case (food or tobacco), placing these items in a cache is clearly against GeoCaching.com guidelines ...or doesn't that matter? [This message was edited by Cache Canucks on September 07, 2002 at 01:52 PM.]

If people followed the "rules" we wouldn't have this thread. But then again I've been happy to take sweets (candy) from caches. I guess Halloween treats should be cancelled too? I think seneca's post (albeit from the cigar thread) is germane: quote:Originally posted by seneca: quote:Originally posted by Cache Canucks:What is it that makes anything you find in a cache container safe to consume...?!? What is it that makes you think anything you find anywhere is safe to consume? Life is a risk. Relatively speaking, somehow I don't think there is a very high risk that a cigar in a cache is going to be laced with cyanide. I think the maniac's preferred modis operandi would be to simply place tainted food on a supermarket shelf (which doesn't stop me from shopping). Wouldn't you agree that there is a much greater liklihood that you are going to be done in by a disgruntled restaurant employee on his last day - with a pepper shaker full of arsenic? (or perhaps you also won't accept the risk of eating at a restuarant?) Go on - live dangerously and take a puff....mmmm. _You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)_

If people followed the "rules" we wouldn't have this thread. But then again I've been happy to take sweets (candy) from caches. I guess Halloween treats should be cancelled too? I think seneca's post (albeit from the cigar thread) is germane: quote:Originally posted by seneca: quote:Originally posted by Cache Canucks:What is it that makes anything you find in a cache container safe to consume...?!? What is it that makes you think anything you find anywhere is safe to consume? Life is a risk. Relatively speaking, somehow I don't think there is a very high risk that a cigar in a cache is going to be laced with cyanide. I think the maniac's preferred modis operandi would be to simply place tainted food on a supermarket shelf (which doesn't stop me from shopping). Wouldn't you agree that there is a much greater liklihood that you are going to be done in by a disgruntled restaurant employee on his last day - with a pepper shaker full of arsenic? (or perhaps you also won't accept the risk of eating at a restuarant?) Go on - live dangerously and take a puff....mmmm. _You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)_

When I posted the above reply, the system replaced what I actually typed with ***. So in response to the other thread on censorship, yes it does seem to exist. But now this calls into question my theory about British English - maybe Bear & Ting were using the British to bypass the censorship filter? Anyway it's still bum/***.

Upinyachit, This thing's gone a little off topic for me, but I'd just say that I think your interpretation of Bear and Ting's posts might be a little off. They seem to be using British English words in there - arse and bum. (Good job my mother can't read this ). "Too bad you have such a bad-arsed (US=assed) attitude" "You get your scrawny little bum (US=***) back out here and do it yourself" So I would translate the latter comment as only meaning for you to get your *** back out there, rather than a slur on your family. IMHO Still, I'd rather have someone comment on what to do with existing vacation caches.

Upinyachit, This thing's gone a little off topic for me, but I'd just say that I think your interpretation of Bear and Ting's posts might be a little off. They seem to be using British English words in there - arse and bum. (Good job my mother can't read this ). "Too bad you have such a bad-arsed (US=assed) attitude" "You get your scrawny little bum (US=***) back out here and do it yourself" So I would translate the latter comment as only meaning for you to get your *** back out there, rather than a slur on your family. IMHO Still, I'd rather have someone comment on what to do with existing vacation caches.

if there's special equipment needed rate it terrain 5. Explain in the cache description what's required to get there and any specific dangers. Other than that it's up to the cacher to decide to quit on it or not. Someone will go for it. IMHO

2 deg is 184 feet error after 1 mile. But as other people have said, if you use a compass to "home in" from a couple hundred feet, it doesn't really matter. Unless you're in Arctic/Antarctic. But then the compass wouldn't work anyway

2 deg is 184 feet error after 1 mile. But as other people have said, if you use a compass to "home in" from a couple hundred feet, it doesn't really matter. Unless you're in Arctic/Antarctic. But then the compass wouldn't work anyway

Good news - the country count is back up to 142 Check out the latest vacation cache - GC866F Libya

Good news - the country count is back up to 142 Check out the latest vacation cache - GC866F Libya

if you're following the vacation cache thread, I'm thinking someone has submitted to the advice of the group and removed a cache placed on vacation that can't be maintained. Is that feasible?

OK clear now - I didn't read back far enough!

So; if we're agreed that you shouldn't place a physical cache if you aren't going to maintain it, what is the next action on exisiting vacation caches (if any)? This topic seems to be merging with the "rat on a rulebreaker" thread - Quote of part of BrianSnat's post in the "rat on rulebreaker" thread: ".....If we want Geocaching to continue as a viable sport, we'll have to police our own ranks. If someone places a cache in an inappropriate area it is our duty to let them know. If they continue to flout our written and un-written rules, then we should bring the issue to the attention of this Geocaching community......" So is the PC thing to do to email the owner of a suspected vacation cache and ask her/him to put a note on the cache page for the next finder to retrieve it, and then archive it? Maybe a broadcast post to all email accounts about the dangers of vacation caches? I'm assuming here that being able to maintain the cache means being able to get to it within a certain period of time after it's logged can't find or reported as trashed (period to be defined?). This seems a little excessive though. Personally I like the idea of posting a note if there's anything wrong with the cache telling the next person to bring a pencil/log book etc. (assuming you don't bring a basic "repair kit" with you), and if it's trashed, pick up the pieces anyway. Isn't one of the mottos "Cache In Trash Out"? I'm looking at this from a non-US-centric (??) point of view, which I understand is the minority view, but for travelling cachers the opportunity to find in other countries could be limited if vacation caches are stopped. Of course I understand "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one" (Spock)

So; if we're agreed that you shouldn't place a physical cache if you aren't going to maintain it, what is the next action on exisiting vacation caches (if any)? This topic seems to be merging with the "rat on a rulebreaker" thread - Quote of part of BrianSnat's post in the "rat on rulebreaker" thread: ".....If we want Geocaching to continue as a viable sport, we'll have to police our own ranks. If someone places a cache in an inappropriate area it is our duty to let them know. If they continue to flout our written and un-written rules, then we should bring the issue to the attention of this Geocaching community......" So is the PC thing to do to email the owner of a suspected vacation cache and ask her/him to put a note on the cache page for the next finder to retrieve it, and then archive it? Maybe a broadcast post to all email accounts about the dangers of vacation caches? I'm assuming here that being able to maintain the cache means being able to get to it within a certain period of time after it's logged can't find or reported as trashed (period to be defined?). This seems a little excessive though. Personally I like the idea of posting a note if there's anything wrong with the cache telling the next person to bring a pencil/log book etc. (assuming you don't bring a basic "repair kit" with you), and if it's trashed, pick up the pieces anyway. Isn't one of the mottos "Cache In Trash Out"? I'm looking at this from a non-US-centric (??) point of view, which I understand is the minority view, but for travelling cachers the opportunity to find in other countries could be limited if vacation caches are stopped. Of course I understand "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one" (Spock)

quote:Originally posted by Dapper Dan:Also, once they get a big bite of your soft underbelly, dab a little fingernail polish on the bite. Let it dry, and leave it there until it comes off on its own. That seems to suffocate the little varmit and stop him from moving to a new area to inflict still more misery. Any particular color? Now this is something I haven't seen recommended in the "what do you carry in your pack" threads. Where's majicman when you need him?

thanks - I guess it would be more correct to say then that absolute GPS time does not equal UTC time, but the displayed GPS time equals UTC time (assuming current data including leap second info are being received)? quote by EraSeek The Global Positioning System (GPS) epoch is January 6, 1980 and is synchronized to UTC. GPS is NOT adjusted for leap seconds. As of 1 January 1999, TAI is ahead of UTC by 32 seconds. TAI is ahead of GPS by 19 seconds. GPS is ahead of UTC by 13 seconds. quote by st_richardson My current local time via... Atomic clock: 9:43:05 GPSr: 9:43:05

quote:Originally posted by EraSeek:The Global Positioning System (GPS) epoch is January 6, 1980 and is synchronized to UTC. GPS is NOT adjusted for leap seconds. As of 1 January 1999, TAI is ahead of UTC by 32 seconds. TAI is ahead of GPS by 19 seconds. GPS is ahead of UTC by 13 seconds. TIA is International Atomic Time and began Jan 1 1958. It does not include Leap seconds and is used by systems that cannot handle leap seconds. UTC is Universal Coordinated Time and IS the standard around the world! It does use leap seconds to adjust time when UTC gets out of sync with UT1 (time based on astronomical position). Atomic time is the official time now, being more uniform than planetary movements, but it does need to match up with the the dips and bobs of the Earths movements every now and than. I found a web site http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpstt.html describing this but then implying that every 12.5 minutes the leap second correction is transmitted to the GPS. Also, the Casio GPS-Watch manual also implies this correction. So, is GPS time and UTC time the same (it seems to be from the later posts)???

I've just had a quick look and found 10 caches that appear to be "vacation" caches - i.e. no owner to care and feed. My error could be assuming the cacher has not employed a local to maintain the cache. Anyway, those caches that have been visited have had good reviews; "nice place" etc. These are not US state caches, they are in foreign countries. Should these caches, which have brought pleasure to visitors, be archived? If so, how do you sign up to be a Cache Auditor and do you get a badge? Seriously, if the group concensus is that all caches must be maintained by the original hider (unless a locum can be arranged), then some stricter approval process is required. Personally, if I'm passing through country X and I see one or a few caches, I'm going to try and get them if I've got time, and I'm grateful to the placer if they're there or even missing - it gets me out to see something I wouldn't have normally seen. I would agree though that in some of the US states where there are many caches, placing vacation ones might be unnecessary.

I've just had a quick look and found 10 caches that appear to be "vacation" caches - i.e. no owner to care and feed. My error could be assuming the cacher has not employed a local to maintain the cache. Anyway, those caches that have been visited have had good reviews; "nice place" etc. These are not US state caches, they are in foreign countries. Should these caches, which have brought pleasure to visitors, be archived? If so, how do you sign up to be a Cache Auditor and do you get a badge? Seriously, if the group concensus is that all caches must be maintained by the original hider (unless a locum can be arranged), then some stricter approval process is required. Personally, if I'm passing through country X and I see one or a few caches, I'm going to try and get them if I've got time, and I'm grateful to the placer if they're there or even missing - it gets me out to see something I wouldn't have normally seen. I would agree though that in some of the US states where there are many caches, placing vacation ones might be unnecessary.