Jaz666
-
Posts
780 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Jaz666
-
-
A lowley 50 caches withing 20 miles of Bradford since May 1st.
I shall have to get off my behind and place a 10 part multi to make up our numbers!
-
Congatulations to Dallan72 for hitting 1800 today, and at one of my series too!
-
The work around for those us that are too impatient to wait is to create a new copy of the query we are trying to get run. Schedule it for today in a few minutes you should get the PQ in your email.
I believe the work around is also making the original problem worse, as more and more people are using the workaround, more and more scheduled PQs are getting bumped off the end of the queue.
-
If that's the case, and the Groundspeak perferred method, then why not have a "download" function for existing pq's (for gpx files not just loc's)? If nothing else that should relieve some burden of transfering the file to an email server.
That could be a very interesting option (I say option, as we should be allowed to choose whether we prefer EMails or manual downloads).
I could see it working with a credits system, in keeping with the current system, allowing a maximum of 40 downloads in a 7 day period.
I've concluded that you can just about get away with running the same query twice in a row, but then you have to leave it at least 3 days before trying again.
Not having an up-to-date local database has caught me out a few times in the field recently.
-
Ta folks, and to everyone who's emailed me privately.
It's not all about the numbers.... It's not all about the numbers.... It's not all about the numbers.... It's not all about the numbers.... It's not all about the numbers.... it's no
-
Every now and then I work out a new set of dates, as when caches get archived it means you can squeeze a few more into each query.
In fact, I might as well do it again now.........
01 - 01/01/2000 - 06/08/2002 (499)
02 - 07/08/2002 - 12/04/2003 (498)
03 - 13/04/2003 - 11/09/2003 (496)
04 - 12/09/2003 - 18/02/2004 (498)
05 - 19/02/2004 - 06/05/2004 (492)
06 - 07/05/2004 - 23/07/2004 (495)
07 - 24/07/2004 - 06/10/2004 (497)
08 - 07/10/2004 - 01/01/2005 (495)
09 - 02/01/2005 - 02/03/2005 (497)
10 - 03/03/2005 - 08/04/2005 (491)
11 - 09/04/2005 - 11/05/2005 (486)
12 - 12/05/2005 - 24/06/2005 (494)
13 - 25/06/2005 - 06/08/2005 (480)
14 - 07/08/2005 - 14/09/2005 (494)
15 - 15/09/2005 - 25/10/2005 (493)
16 - 26/10/2005 - 09/12/2005 (490)
17 - 10/12/2005 - 20/01/2006 (490)
18 - 21/01/2006 - 15/02/2006 (499)
19 - 16/02/2006 - 15/03/2006 (498)
20 - 16/03/2006 - 10/04/2006 (489)
21 - 11/04/2006 - 29/04/2006 (492)
22 - 30/04/2006 - 20/05/2006 (498)
23 - 21/05/2006 - 12/06/2006 (498)
24 - 13/06/2006 - (384 and counting)
Phew, took the best part of an hour, bet the PQ server doesn't like me at the moment, but it's best one person does this so that many others don't have to repeat the same experiments.
You can see these dates squeeze about another months worth of caches out of the same number of queries compared to Andy101's list.
So another few days and number 25 will need to be created, and it won't be too long before the 40 PQ limit will no longer cover the whole UK (with a new query needed every 3 weeks, and decreasing).
Hope this is of help to someone.
-
The whole of geochat crosses their fingers for Ian!
-
Another followup on my experiments.
Created a new query (set to run once) Thursday night, arrived within 15 minutes.
Selected the query to run again this morning (Saturday, 14 hours ago), no sign of it yet.
(EDIT: Arrived after 22 hours)
I can understand Jeremy and the team are probably frantically doing maintainance behind the scenes to try and fix things, but I'm sure an official announcement in the announcements forum would be appreciated by everyone.
-
Anyone want to suggest the wording?
This would make a good soundbyte......
"A days-worth of mountainbikers can cause far more damage to a forest than a years-worth of Geocachers".
-
Now been 7 days since my daily query has run, so have given up with that one.
Now created a new one which I shall select just before I want it to run.
But..... If I still manually run this everyday, will it still get shoved to the back of the queue (and most likely not run)? We shall see [
] -
I'd say it's not all that common.
I've just gone through the logbook of a cache I adopted which was in place since 2002.
Only 3 cachers out of 70-something signed the logbook but didn't log online.
It also turns out this cache was visited by muggles on 10 seperate occasions, none of which trashed it in anyway!
-
Once weekly queries - working fine.
3 times a week - last due 2 days ago, no sign of it yet.
Daily - not working at all, last copied and ran on the 22nd
Would suspending the creation of new queries until all the older queries have been cleared out of the system be a sensible option?
-
Coz Nick's a UK cacher at heart, but in exile ;-)
-
I was thinking over the DSW paradox today whilst out caching (where I found another cache placed inside one, no I don't want to name and shame).
We are trying to get the message across to new cachers that it's not worth even looking for a cache inside a wall, as they won't have been placed there in the first place. Indeed, all new cachers get a friendly welcome EMail pointing them towards the GAGB guidelines.
The trouble is, there already exists a number of caches inside walls.
Eventually Mr and Mrs new cacher are going to come across one of these, and assume that the guideline isn't really rigidly enforced, leading to them examining walls more frequently.
I can see three ways we, as a community, could start to reverse the situation.
1) Name and Shame - report all problem caches to the mods - very bad idea, as this could lead to all sorts of arguments and bad feelings all round.
2) Community Education - if you come across a problem cache, politley send the owner a message requesting they rethink the hide. Perhaps a generic document could be generated for such a purpose.
3) Mass Email - The mods arrange for an EMail to go to all UK cachers.
I personally think Number 2 would work the best. By the time the message gets across the whole community (not just those who frequent the forums), we might have had time to get Groundspeak to implement "local guidelines" for our area.
Just my 2-pence-worth.
-
The best solution if you know you're not going to be able to log the TB movements online for a few days is to mention it in the logbook of the cache.
-
Very good post Pharisee.
Another point to discuss is in Deceangi's first disabling log entry on that cache, where he mentions caches shouldn't be placed in "spillage" from DSWs either.
As far as I'm aware, the GAGB have never stated this in their guidelines.
I can think of many many caches which would fall foul of this.
Personal opinion?
In or on DSWs - No thanks.
Next to/under spillage - Fine, but with warning on cache page.
-
That's good to hear - I'm halfway through solving it.
Rutson is out of the country at the moment, but I'm sure a few beers on his return will persude him to have a change of heart.
I want that smiley!
-
Yes please.
I tried following it for a little while, and then I went all cross-eyed!
-
Looks like I'll be popping my event cherry on Saturday.
I'm patiently waiting at the back of the reserve list for Camping!
-
ooooh, a new icon for people to get on their profile.
I can see these type of events becoming very popular!
-
I played around with custom icons a few nights back.
Giving icons a white background made them transparent for me, however sending the data over to the PDA caused "memory full" errors which wouldn't go away unitl I removed the custom icon.
-
Well I'll personally be counting the cache I apopted this month, as it's a new ammo can with new contents, new log book and new location - essentially a new cache carrying on the tradition of the ruined original.
Anyhow, Adam, if you're thinking of changing the points system in the future, how about a single point for the new "discovered it" TB/Geocoin log?
-
I believe personal attacks are only welcome in this thread if they are directed at the reviewers (like any of us would).
It seems some people are taking the chance to stick the knife in where it is not needed, therefore the thread should be closed.
-
I had a negative experience with one of my caches.
It's hidden in an area that was constructed in 1997, with the walls made to look like they were much older.
A multi-stage micro was placed in a gap at footlevel (with enough info given on the cache page telling finders where to look, asking them not to pull stones out of the wall).
However, despite the fact that the entire wall was mortared, an over cautious cacher took offense and went straight to the mods (without contacting me first). A quick email had the situation resolved with the mods. I've never worked out who it was, as they just left a scribble in the logbook (I've since re-done the multi).
So yes, some caches do appear to need to be educated on the differences, but what is even worse is those cachers who place their cache nearby to a DSW, but don't give any indication on the page that the cache definitely isn't placed inside it.
]
Is The Site Slow Or Is It Dropping Requests?
in Website
Posted
Have noticed this for a long time now, assumed it was a problem my end, but.........