LifeOnEdge!

RK, what do you mean by "new FTF's?" A First to Find is a First to Find. Its a one shot thing. The first person to find a (published) cache is the First to Find. This isn't something that renews. Did you mean a first time First to Finder? If so, the STF is definitely not the FTF, new or otherwise. What if they also had a FTF? Being second doesn't necessarily solve the problem. As I said, a First to Find is a First to Find. If its their first, "Congratulations!" It sounds like you don't care for persons who have more than one FTF. One has to wonder ... buy I'll be nice.

Raine, I am way past due for a lube, oil, and filter. I'm afraid this problem has reared its ugly head again. Is there anything you can do? Please? LOE

Here in Texas, we would just call them by their names: Julie, Trey, Candy, and Wayne. Texas' Top Four cachers: Mrs Captain Picard, TreyB, Moosiegirl, and The Outlaw. Geoherd is the term used/coined in Bell County, although I thought "hoard" was funny and quite appropriate from the aforementioned group.

There is a difference between battery saver mode and "battery saving features." Turning your electronic compass Off when it is not needed is an example. Making sure backlighting is Off or at a Minimum is an example. You can even disable sounds, saving some energy. None of these energy draining functions are needed when you are baking a GPS or waiting for it to settle under dense cover conditions. Of course disabling your WAAS is going to reduce your ability to get the best possible coordinate measurement. I would not reccomend riding the brake in a drag race either.

It has been a while since a reply was given to this thread, but I would like to add some thoughts of my own. Generally, the newer the GPSr AND the more expensive the GPSr, you will get better accuracy AND the faster information on coordinates from the unit. I have replaced GPSs to get these advantages. You will find that some units just are better than others, especially under trees, around buildings, etc. That being said, and assuming you don't want to upgrade just yet, there are several things you can do to get more accurate readings from YOUR GPSr. This is a good thing while seeking caches and especially good when are have hidden your own caches. Fresh batteries are a must. I have given up using anything except Good Quality Rechargeable Batteries. For the time and frustration they reduce, paying less than $50 will get you 4 nice batteries and a car charger. Plug it in your cigar lighter. Keep two batteries charging. Use the other two in your GPS, making sure you always have the maximum battery symbol, and you'll be set! Bake your GPS. Please don't place your GPS in the oven. Instead, take it outside with clear view of the sky, and leave it on a steady surface for 30 - 45 minutes. This will update or complete the catalog of satellite data in the unit for your location. Enable the WAAS setting. This will drain your batteries as a higher rate, but will also give you more accurate readings on site. "D" indicated for a satellite indicates that you have a good lock, helped by a ground-based system that increases accuracy. Check the satellite configuration. You want as many "birds" in the sky, but remember that satellites near the horizon OR directly overhead do not increase accuracy. You want as many as possible at about a 45 degree angle to the horizon. Your GPS should show an open bulls-eye diagram with two circles. This pictures the sky above you, as though you were laying on your back. You want several (5 - 8) inside the outer circle, but not near the middle of the inner circle. Satellites on the inner circle are okay. You will notice this pattern change, with better accuracy when more satellites are in view. Know something about your GPSs antenna. If you have a patch antenna (this looks like a stamp or chip (integrated circuit) that may or may not be visible through the case) you want to hold your GPS level with the ground. If you have a helical antenna (this looks like a thick stump) you want to point the antenna to the sky when under less than desirable conditions. When using your GPS, allow it to be on for a while (at least 5 minutes, if not 15 - 20 minutes) prior to taking data at the desired location. Make sure that you have some of the battery saving features in place to minimize unnecessary functions that eat up battery strength. On location, either your cache or approaching someone else's cache, let your GPS have a clear view of the sky and allow it a minute or two to settle down. You may notice how driving towards a cache site, the distance decreases as you drive, but once you stop it takes 20 - 40 seconds for it to catch up. Garmin eTrex units commonly overshoot your location and have to backtrack. I am sure you have noticed, on caches that take several minutes to locate, that your GPS unit eventually calms down and zeros in on where it wants you to go. This is a function of a lot of what I have described above. When determining your caches location, mark several waypoints. Take 5 minutes and mark one every 30 seconds, giving you ten points. If your unit (or a new unit you may buy) can average waypoints, let it take a two to three minute reading (120 - 180 data points) before clicking "ok." Always walk away from the cache and try to find it again with the newly marked point. If you have marked 10 waypoints, walk away (100 or more feet) and return to the cache, wait 30 seconds, and take a couple more points. Compare those waypoints with the original 10. You have probably started to realize, when looking for someone else's cache, some of that 50 - 80 feet error you saw was that cache owner's error in determining their cache's coordinates. As a new cacher, I commonly saw caches across the street from the posted coordinates. I tease those cache owners today about those very caches! If you find any or all of this information useful, contact me via geocaching.com and let me know.

Okay. Great. Since several, if not most cachers are seeing this, it would likely be resultant to a recent change in code to the cache page itself. The problem is NOT just with my computer. If you change the window width and observe, you will see the "Find all nearby..." links wrapped first minimally, then critically, then varying(depending on the cache page). I agree that sometimes this is no big deal. Other times it is a big deal. This indicates either a error, a design flaw, or possibly both. This problem is not seen if there is no hint OR if there are additional waypoints added to the cache page. In these cases, the map appears cleanly on the right of the page. While changing text size and widening windows will *sometimes* minimize this problem, that is not a solution. "I am not bothered by it, so why should you be?" is not a design concept. Since this is not per design (even though random changes sometime first appear to be "better") it obviously pushes on the links on the left, causing them to be needlessly wrapped, it would most likely be best to have the right side of this map pinned to the right margin of the cache page and not floating as it currently appears to be. I appreciate the confirmation of this problem and look forward to its correction.

Klossner, This is EXACTLY the thing I am seeing. Thanks so much for the screenshot. The map appears to the left of the decryption key regardless of font size, screen resolution, and window width. It used to appear below the decryption key and rarely impacting the text to the left.

Hynr, I am posting the problem for the powers that be to be aware of the issue AND to add support to the existance of the problem. I did not post the problem for critiques of my or anyone else's initial non-use of the Reply feature, where someone's non-money goes, what color I look best in, or how many days one should wear jeans before washing. While I appreciate your efforts, lets please stay on task here. All of your last set of comments above are obscure at best. 1) Have you seen the issue that I described? 2) If so, when did it appear and how often are you seeing it in the cache pages WITH hints supplied? 3) If not, there is no need to clutter the forum. I did not say this was the end of the world. It is, however, very annoying and not how the pages were designed. This issue here is: It was not this way three days ago, the cache page was not designed in this manner, AND it is quite disruptive unless I max out my window width.

Currently, on most cache pages (below the Additional Hints section and ONLY on cache pages with a HINT), the general map is displayed to the left of the decryption key. This causes the Find Nearest Caches links to be crammed and wrap excessively on the left side of the page. I see this on 100 percent of the cache pages with a supplied hint. Some others seem to see this, but slightly less frequently. I have discussed this with Eric at geocaching.com who claimed that the problem was only with my computer. Several other cachers have seen this on their own computers. I was getting somewhere yesterday with Eric, up to the point where he saw the problem and I replied in recognition of this. Since then, I have recieved no addition response from him. It was suggested that I report this in the forums. This must have occured with the most recent software update, but no one has complained as yet. What do we know about this problem and its solution? ____________________________________________ Regarding the following post by FamilyDNA: I didn't report this problem to see who could live with crowding. You don't rent a car and put up with a clogged fuel filter. I presented this as evidence that something has changed and inappropriately, in hopes that they will undo the last change that affected this area, work on a correct fix for what their prior goals were, and move from there. Obviously, I could reduce my font size and max out my window width and "live" with this problem. I could also run to work in the mornings. Neither is likely to happen! I hate to bring this up, but the $30 we pay per year is paid to avoid and fix issues such as these. When you are faced with read ing lines like these its gets annoying very quick ly. Its hard enough to make sense of the lines with the current width restrictions. Hopefully this post will open the appropriate person's eyes to this issue and initiate repairs.

Once my cache is submitted (and I am reasonably sure that no issues will appear that requires my attention), I enjoy sitting back and just letting it happen. In a similar manner to others new caches, I enjoy the surprise of mine appear active. Yes, it would be interesting, but isn't the random nature of not knowing more interesting/cool? -Pat

Make sure when you create this travel bug that it is perfectly clear to geocaching.com that the bug is REAL. IF for any reason they believe cachers are logging your bug virtually, it will be Locked! A guy I met online wasn't able to find a White Jeep Travel Bug, so he bought himself a REAL white Jeep, attached a travel bug dog tag and created his own White Jeep Travel Bug. He encouraged cachers to log this bug once they became aware of it. Geocaching.com pottied their collective diapers and the mess caused by this is not one you want the details of! My advice: Do not call this a Virtual Travel Bug!

See below!

You can Easily run a Pocket Query that eliminates members only caches. Oh Wait! That is a Premium Members feature. As well as Bookmarks, better map features, the list goes on and on. Premium member features are just that, extras. It takes manpower to bring these into existence. THAT costs additional money. If some members can't fork out less than 9 cents per day for features that are worth Every Penny of that, then so be it! You get what you pay for. Personally, caching is expensive. I figure that the average cache takes about 10 miles of travel find. Lets say that the average vehicle costs 25 cents per mile to operate, not including gasoline. Lets also say that the average cacher gets 20 miles per gallon and that gas is $2.00 per gallon. Both of these estimates are modest at best. If we stop there, neglecting all other costs, we have $3.50 cost per cache. Lots of things effect this cost. If geocaching.com costs us a minimal percent of the total cost ... lets say 3 percent (that is on the order of 1/3 of a typical tax on a purchase), we get approximately 10 cents per day. I don't know about you, but I find about 3 caches per day on average. That makes my per cache geocaching.com expense about 3 cents. If I take a wrong turn, or the road I need to use to get to my next cache is no longer open (closed, private, never really existed), my additional cost to detour to the cache will Easily cost 3 cents. It may cost me 30 cents here in Texas. If I choose to leave the car running because I want the air conditioning to stay on while I get a park and grab, that will Easily cost 3 cents, if not 5 times that. My point: Anyone NOT spending the Easy $2.50 per month for Premium Membership either really isn't a geocacher or doesn't really know what finding a cache costs! DON'T BE SO CHEAP !!!

Saturday, September 9, 2006 I know that I asked this not too far up the thread, but (even though there were a couple replies) I never got a response ... Jeremy, Who do I contact regarding the current bookmark lists that Do Not Work correctly? How can that/those person/persons be reached? I LOVE the bookmarks lists, but fail to see how useful a list is that can contain 500 items, but will only list the first 20. If I had a reputable contact inside geocaching.com, I have several worthwhile suggestions for bookmarking. I would list them here, but ... LifeOnEdge! Frustrated as All-Get-Out in Waco, Texas

How vain are we to not only expect something in our honor, but to also expect our fellow man to bow down to us as well??? How vail are we to not appreciate our fellow cachers to do all they can do to do what they do best? If I had a cache dedicated to me, I would honored by anyone rushing out and nabbing the cache. If someone wanted to wait for me, wonderful. I would expect that they wouldn't have to wait long before seeing *my* find log! I would hope that they "waiting" to read my log, instead of waiting for me to find the cache. As for someone waiting for me to go out and find they cache honoring me for the sake of allowing me a better chance at the FTF is just pretty lame. If the cache owner wanted me to be the first finder, no, they should NOT give me the coordinates before the cache is published. Rather, they should give me information needed to complete the find, which I could then "supply" to the cache in order to complete it. This would be the form of a mystery cache and I would be part of that mystery. If the cache owner did not stipulate or set things up beforehand, all bets are off. A published cache is fair game for everyone, especially for a standard cache. What is at issue here is fairness and the cache owners wishes. If anything, I would value a cache in my honor much more highly if the cache owner urged his fellow cachers to rush out ASAP and get the cache. Who among us would not come to tears if 12 of our friends not only beat us to the site and signed the log with well wishes, then waited in hiding (or in a semi-drunken mass) near the cache site for us???

I feel that our "found" caches should be indicated in several places. It could be as simple as a little red checkmark, located at appropriate places, that shows Us that we have found this particular cache. On the cache page itself, in bookmark lists, etc. It should be a simple thing to do since this is one huge database. After you find several caches that sometimes share similar names, it gets difficult to know for certain if we have found a certain cache. Lets say that its been a year since I found GCWXYZ cache that now has several posts on top of mine. I see the top page, but no indication that I have found it is present. Maybe there should be a specific place where a little icon appears: found by me, owned by me, bookmarked, ignored, etc. You would think this would be a Basic part of any cache page.

So You're the Guy whose salary I am paying to work on these things! I feel like I'm (finally) getting somewhere!!! I am glad to see that my monthly $2.75 is being put to good use! How about a different approach? Yet only slightly different. If it doesn't work for some people, it doesn't work. Software that only works some of the time has bugs. Most likely those bugs come from assumptions about how it will be used. I would suggest that someone see how it is being used, through testing, gather data, blah, blah, blah. I would be more than happy to let gc.com see what I am doing. Do you have a way you can observe? Something I could turn on when I'm bookmarking and off when I'm done? What about suggesting certain upgrades for standardization? Some helpful information: I personally am using a cordless keyboard. I have seen that there are times when I miss characters. Could I also be missing control characters, maybe something filtered or altered by the cordless keyboard that tells the bookmarks how to respond? In a nutshell, the number of listings I get per page seem to be slow in resonding. If I chance the number, it continues using the previous setting. Often, it starts with a different number than I have listed and requires both a change in the number listed per page and a refresh. I usually just choose 10, then 25, then 50, but when I go to different pages, it often lags, showing me the last page I viewed. Lately though, it has improved. I usually bulk delete from the highest listed pages first, then working my way down. Starting on page 1 and deleting a listing usually does not update the page of listings promptly. It does seem to be acting better through time, so someone is making headway. Thanks so much for the reply.

Jeremy, Who do I contact regarding the current bookmark lists that Do Not Work correctly? How can that/those person/persons be reached? Currently, as several posters have mentioned, bookmark lists do not work without painstaking manipulation of refresh, changing and then changing back the number of bookmarks displayed per page, going completely out of the bookmark list of interest and returning to it. It seems that if I only have 20 bookmarks per list (NOT the 500 allowed) and do not ever intend to page through the list, it works perfectly fine! There are several used cars that work perfectly fine while idling in the driveway. They too are useless when you put them in gear (in much the same way that Bookmark Lists are useless when you put them to use.) Is Anyone working on this problem?

Maybe it would fall under a waymark? Why doesn't geocaching.com just require that pocket snot be approved and published, and green Signal the Frog's son icon posted for a "pocket snot find" and those numbers be counted. This will make the Numbers Ho community happy and show the world who counts snot and who counts not. I for one would rather pal around with Captain Clorox and his purple friends than have the little green icon on my Geocaches Found list. As to the question of numbers counting: Of course the numbers matter to you and I both. If they didn't, we wouldn't go out when we can to cache. We wouldn't group unfound caches next to the one we really want and get those while in the area. When we fill our gas tanks, how many Smileys does that represent? And when we DNF, don't we recalculate the "cost" of a trip based on the total number of finds from that day and NOT the total number of caches that we visit (including our own)? Personally, when I look at some of the top cachers (not all) in Texas, knowing how some of their numbers get accumulated, I multiply by a factor of about .80 to see what a reasonable count is for that cacher. One of those very cachers is the head of the whining committee that suggests that these incredulous activities be allowed. Also, why doesn't someone suggest to geocaching.com that when a cache is archived, NO additional cache finds are allowed to be posted? This entire discussion boils down to the guidelines established by geocaching.com. I play the game under the same rules that all others play by, except for the creative ways that some others discover to log finds! If the current guidelines need revision, why aren't those revisions suggested and considered BEFORE individual cachers decide on their own what is right and what is wrong? Was it not in extremely bad form that relatively new cachers are making decisions about how to hold a mega event, where some of those decisions cause archival of some long-standing caches, and there is NO accountability to either those planners OR the cache owners themselves??? I think that it was best said that the integrity of game is what is being questioned here. We clearly see those who love the game, who hopes that it survives. We also clearly have seen that there are others who appear to love the game so much that any change to make the game "more fun" is acceptable and should be done WITHOUT approval. I personally do not believe that the court of public opinion matters to this last group. We sit here hoping that those with the most experience in this game step up and express concerns with this loss in integrity. I have seen several. At the same time, we see several from this group who seem to be the problem and NOT the solution. When I joined this game ten months ago, a find meant that I walked out and physically located the valid cache, signed the field log, and then posted an online log. At the same time, a valid cache meant an active, published cache "in good standing." This is possibly the real issue here. There are no guidelines that govern the cache post publication. Sure, there are guidelines that allowed the cache to be approved for publication, but following that date it becomes the responsibility of the cache owner and the local approver when contacted. We are now starting to see those needed guidelines being developed and enforced. Geocaching.com - We NEED to KNOW the RULES. geocachers - We NEED to FOLLOW the RULES. -period-

Ditto with Mozilla 1.7.12. Nudecacher As both these guys have indicated, following somewhat recent changes to the Bookmarks feature, Bookmarks just do not work properly. I have attempted to contact geocaching.com, but I really have not seen appropriate replies. I have certainly not recieved an E-mail reply that indicate that others are having trouble, gc.com has seen issues, and that they were repaired. Right now, except for a basic list of 10 caches, the Bookmarks feature is useless. A good thing gone bad.

I see your request, but without input from you as to why this would be useful, I would just have to guess. I "Ignore" mainly because I am tired of waiting for caches with issues to either be Archived or fixed in some way. I may reach the point where there are certain caches or cache owner's caches I wish to not show on my searches. What is a nice way of saying that I would boycott certain caches? Sidestepping the frustration gotten from certain situations. Or ones you just aren't interested in seeing at a certain time. Would seeing that people are ignoring your caches motivate you to take some action towards those caches? Would seeing that a certain number of cachers are ignoring someone else's caches give you some sort of specific information? I'm sure it can be done, but would would be the benefit?

Before I pose the question, I want to be clear that I am NOT criticizing this act, but would like to know how others see this. In my part of the country (look this up for yourself please) there are a growing number of cachers who go out with a buddy to cache. When caching turns to cache hiding, these buddies ride along to save gas and to also hide their own caches. In short, two guys go out and hide caches, each publishing their own caches. Those caches are approved and published and the race begins. Immediately following a first find post, the "buddy" logs his "find" and states that he was "ATHLN." Basically, this means that they were with the hider when the cache was hidden AND are posting a find for their effort. Not only is there pride for finding a cache before any others, there is a similar pride for being Second-to-Find. Also, it seems to be appropriate to hesitate some with posting a first find log, so that others are equally motivated as you were to go out and find the cache, hopefully to be first. This ATHLN activity blows both of these concepts out of the water. Third-to-find, when you were really the second one to find the cache is really deflating. Usually, the cache owner of a ATHLN team wants you to post a find as soon as possible, so thier buddy can slip in their find log. Tonight, I found a cache that had been published for 24 hours. I did not expect to be the first to find. When I open the log I see three posts. Two dated the day the cache was hidden (three days before today.) The third log was the cache owner's ATHLN buddy. I didn't know if I should claim a FTF, a Fourth-to-Find (which I would not have done), or what? I honestly don't know who was there, when, or how they found the cache. Now we are reduced to ALL these questions. I would have been so mad if I had rushed out there last night to get a FTF, only to see logs that were two days old! How do *you* feel about this? Is this new to you? Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Are *you* a ATHLN buddy with anyone? Personally, I feel this is completely in Bad Form. Why even count your finds and celebrate at times if you are playing like this? Should I even care? Please let me know your thoughts. LifeOnEdge! Somewhere in ... well ... the US

I would also like to add that, not only do you (most likely) not own the travel bug you find in a cache (you may own one someday and indeed find it in a cache at some point after you release it), but travel bugs are NOT trade items. You do not have to trade a travel bug FOR a travel bug. How would you ever get one without buying one, if that were the case? You also do not trade either FOR or WITH a travel bug. Since you don't own the thing and you are not giving it away (as you would property that you own), you can't "give" it to the cache and expect to "take" something in return. If you find a bug or have a bug to take either to an event cache or to a physical cache, great ... pick it up or drop it off. Thats what they are for. If you can't help it along, and you don't care to carry it for fun, leave it. Its like anything else. If you go to a cache and want to trade items with that cache, do so. If there is also a travel bug in that cache and you can help it move, pick it up ... but still take a trade item from the cache. Or if you have a travel bug that you want to drop off, don't take a trade item from the cache WITHOUT trading something of your own for that thing ... NOT THE TRAVEL BUG. Simply put: Trade items fairly and move travel bugs, just don't expect to trade with someone else's travel bug. And if it is your own bug you are "dropping" in the cache: Unless you are giving the bug away as a trade item (and you've made that clear), you still own a thing for a thing that you take.

I think thats a great idea. This is a good reason that a good part (and fun part) of caching is reading other caches. There are a handful of very good ideas out there. This could possibly even draw other caches to your cache and then to the events you post as upcoming. I would find that an interesting personal challenge. And as far as needing approval from an event coordinator ... Why would it? That would be absurd. "Nope. Sorry. I'm not allowing any socializing at this event. Cards or no cards, you WILL NOT disrupt my event!" I think forum posters should have an event and sit across from each other and fire water pistols at others. LOL (Now, I'm waiting for some *serious* person to post some fiery message about how that just would not be right!) Remember, if you toss a cat and it still lands on its feet, you just aren't throwing it correctly.

icefall5, When I check out your profile (clicking on your name) and then clicking on the "geocaching" tab, I see that you have 15 total finds. 14 caches and 1 event, totaling 15. If you do the same, or clicking on your stats box, you will eventually see the same as I saw. From that page you can click on several icons or links to see various things. Play around and see what you discover. Have fun. LifeOnEdge