crr003

Well, I'm really on the periphery of all this, but on the main forum page it does say "Talk Geocaching in the United Kingdom", so I don't see what the issue is. How would you know whether to start a thread on GC.com (UK page) or G:UK? Wait for the iron fist in the silk glove of the Moderator to come down I guess. (I'm only bitter 'cos I started a thread when Everton beat Arsenal 2-1 and it was deleted (fair enough really ) Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

quote:Originally posted by worldtraveler: dadgum! Could have used this tip a couple of weeks ago Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

That settles it then - no more cache placing for me. Did you hear the one about the guy who put his new mobile home/RV in cruise control and left the driver's seat to go back and make coffee? The vehicle crashed - he was awarded over $1M (can't recall the exact amount) and a new mobile home. Or the woman who tripped in a store and sued them for big bucks? But she tripped over her own kid! These are apparently true - what the h?ll is wrong over there? Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

welch - I think your concerns are laudable. I guess where I come from the onus of safety rests with the seeker, not the hider. A perfectly safe path in summer could be a much riskier test in winter etc. - the hider can't cover every scenario. But if there's a clear need for specialized equipment and/or a warning, it should obviously be stated. Maybe for people who just download and go we need a new rating - Difficulty/Terrain/Danger - maybe a skull and crossbones for danger? But then again, one persons perception of danger is not another's. Eventually if these concerns are raised too high it won't be long before some "clever" lawyer/attorney starts suing if there's an accident on a cache hunt because the exact condition wasn't covered? Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

quote:Originally posted by Matt1344:...... Am I being too weird here? It truly is a marvelous site . . . Yes - in my opinion. My only real cache hide is near a waterfall. No safety rails etc. It's a well known spot and 99.99% of the people going there aren't going there becausee of Geocaching. Absolutely no problem to go over the edge if you so desire, or if you are careless. (Cache is actually located no where near the actual waterfall). Just add a comment to the description saying keep pets and kids under control? Nil Satis Nisi Optimum [This message was edited by crr003 on February 07, 2003 at 08:36 AM.]

quote:Originally posted by Markwell:What welch is talking about has started happening since the prevalence of pocket queries. People without PDAs get their list of waypoints and download them to their GPS....... Sorry - I would think if you're going after a terrain 5 without looking at the cache page and seeing why it is a 5, you're looking for trouble/disappointment anyway! It seems your two stage approach is to let the cacher get to a safe location and then see the real location from a safe place? Wouldn't that be the normal situation anyway - you'd find somewhere to park and then attack the coords? Maybe not. (Now I've got this image of an SUV flying off a cliff!) Like worldtraveler says - just put a warning on the cache page. Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

quote:Originally posted by bratleyPA:Is there a way to convert degree coordinates into utm coordinates? Go this site - http:/www.mentorsoftwareinc.com select "downloads" and then "freebies" The MGRS Conversion Utility does what you want. Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

quote:Originally posted by welch:.......As for a repealing required cache, its sounds ok. I personally would probly not give the exact location upfront (if I were to set up 'your' cache). The reason being someone who thinks they are superman could just plug in the coords and show up, they deside they can get the cache without the correct gear... Maybe just give the coord to a somewhat nearby parking area(or other fairly safe location), and in the description descibe what would be needed (aren't there ratings for repealing?), and request people email you for the correct location. That way you could question them a bit about their experience. .......... Far too complicated IMHO. It's terrain 5 per Clayjar; give the proper coordinates and state in the description you consider it needs abseiling/rappelling equipment and skills. Why put the onus on the hider to judge if a prospective cacher has the required skills to attempt it? Say the hider "approved" the attempt and the cacher fell off and died - what kind of guilt is the cache owner going to have to live with? There's a similar sounding cache in UK - one log shows that it was found by free climbing - no equipment used. Peoples' skills vary - let them make the decision to attempt it or not. What's next - "before you can attempt my cache please email me your capability to walk and a doctor's certificate that you won't keel over and die"? Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

quote ------------------------------------------------ What are you implying here , Do you think I am a troll because I have no stats. ------------------------------------------------ Not really - I'm just wondering why you haven't "officially" done anything in nine months, except post to the forums? Have you tried geocaching? Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

quote:Originally posted by ?:Dear Mr Huga, I agree with Jeremy on this one, if all you guys did was talk about plastic tuppaware and GPS all day long it would be way boring ....... talking about GPS and tuppaware, when are you going to use the former to go out and find the latter? Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

quote:Originally posted by Anders:I tried to apply the Leica software to my location. Seems to fit in pretty well with what the Vista thinks of it, too. Now one can probably by backward engineering figure out what mask angle the Vista uses. Need to know everything. Anders When I've used VisualGPS my Garmin 3+ will show me using sats till they fall off the map. Kerry once commented that recreational receivers have the mask angle "opened up". Interested to see what the Vista does. Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

quote:Originally posted by Kerry:....... I'd be going with either leica's Satellite Availability http://www.leica-geosystems.com/gps/almanac/ ....... Cheers, Kerry. I never get lost everybody keeps telling me where to go Just had a look at this - way too cool. When I figure out what it all means I'm sure it'll be useful! There's some really clever looking stuff out there - I sit and watch VisualGPS when there's nothing else to do (sad). Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

quote:Originally posted by Pharisee:Scruffy camo jacket, funny hat, green wellies, muttering gibberish at his ‘phone’ that’s being held at arms length, poking about under bushes with a long stick. Believe me… I don’t need a patch to let people know I’m one can short of a six-pack. They’ve already made up their minds about that from 100 feet away. They rush past holding their kids tightly and find another path if they’ve got to come back that way. John Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability. Now that's too close to be funny I wear Berghaus kit myself, but a couple did catch me talking to an electricity pylon last week. Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

I'm a bit more discreet than that! Last week a dog came running up to me and the owner said to the dog, "He's got nothing for you to eat, and he doesn't want to take your picture with that camera either". Now I am considering mounting an antenna on a flat cap and running the cable down through my coat. Maybe that would be a problem. Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

I'd like one on my anorak so the Mod Ants could identify me easily. Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Descriptive logs too - "Found it" Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Garmin III+ Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Well, you've found four so it seems to work Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

quote:Originally posted by hartclimbs:.......... I'm very new at this, but I've logged as "notfound" a couple caches I didn't even get within a 1/4 mile of. I'm not sure that counts (or does it count if you drive to the parking site and decide it's too cold to hike?) but I thought the stories were funny - so shared them. ........ Some programs like Watcher use the found/not found icons to calculate the chances that a cache is still available - if you throw in spurious "not founds" you're degrading the usefullness of the program. (Not being within 1/4 mile hardly means the cache is missing). Hey - why bother using found/not found icons at all? - just post a note and comment whether you think you found it or not if you care to - if there are no accepted found/not found criteria then let's make it totally PC and non judgmental. Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Nigeria Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

quote:Originally posted by BrianSnat:Signing the log is the criteria I use, with an IF. If, for some reason, the log is missing or it is impossible to sign, I would still count it as a find as long as I found the container. I found the log and contents of one of my caches encased in a large block of ice recently. Someone had left the lid off, it filled with water and froze. No way I'd expect someone to have signed that log. _"Paternalism is the greatist despotism" - Emmanual Kant_ I was making the assumption that if the log book was physically incapable of being signed (wet, full, missing) the cacher would substitute with a new log book or a piece of paper. I guess the idea is to leave some proof you were there. Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

quote:Originally posted by Anders:I couldn't care less about my number of finds vs. no find. I think the fun of caching is that you get to see a lot of different places, which you probably wouldn't have seen, if it wasn't for the cache. Then it's fun if you do find the cache, but if not, well... There is a cache not too far from where I live. I've been there a couple of times, but couldn't find it. I know it's there, because others have found it in between my visits. But the place was very nice (an old water-powered sawmill), so I enjoyed it anyway. There are other caches to find. I checked my own ratio of found vs. not found, and realized that it's exactly two to one right no (56 found, 28 not found). What's yours? Anders You're correct - getting out and seeing things is important; it's the reason I started Geocaching - it gave me a reason to get out there. The 'Powers That Be' included a "Found It/Didn't Find It" choice on the log page. I'm just trying to see if there is any consensus on the forum as to what constitutes a "Found It" selection. 35 Finds, 2 No Finds (one of which would have been logged as Find by some members) Nil Satis Nisi Optimum [This message was edited by crr003 on January 17, 2003 at 03:46 AM.]

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot:........ 763 finds / 7 (ultimately) not found; approximately 99%. There were 22 caches I didn't find the first try and succeeded finding on my second attempt. ............ Just a question as you are a obviously a major league player - how do you decide to finally log it as a Not Found? Sounds like you give it two attempts and then log it NF. My philosophy has been if I give it a good search on the first attempt and can't find it, I log it NF. Subsequently if I find it on another visit I leave the original NF and add a Found log. Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Liechtenstein and Nepal the latest - 160 Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Liechtenstein and Nepal the latest - 160 Nil Satis Nisi Optimum