Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by FYI_Geocaching

  1. I've come across an issue with downloading when using Chrome to my Garmin. I'm told that the Garmin Communicator Plugin is not detected, and elsewhere I discovered, by accident, that this is apparently not supported by Chrome any more.


    The only way I could see of downloading individual cache details to my Garmin was therefore to use another browser (in my case IE). I can still upload Pocket Queries through GSAK


    Excuse me if some of the above terminology is not totally accurate, as this is right at the edge of my comfort zone, but you'll hopefully get my drift. Maybe this is the issue that the OP has encountered?

  2. I know it's far from an ideal solution (and there may well be other ways to do this that I'm not aware of, but).....


    I am registered on the Walk Highlands website http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/. I can choose a walk, and select a map of the walk that shows up in 1:25000 OS detail. All very well and good if you're walking in the Highlands, I hear you say, but how does that help me if I'm caching elsewhere? Once you have the map open, you can zoom in / out, and scroll to anywhere in the UK, and get a 1:25000 map which you can then print out. Of course the map won't be pre populated with caches, if you want them on the map you'll have to add them manually, but that's not too much of an issue usually.


    Better than nothing while we have this problem of no OS Maps on the geo.com site?

  3. I too enjoy looking at the listings, and tracking my progress. I seem to recall that there was a similar two week or so hiatus last year (maybe whilst the person responsible for updates was on his / her jollies?), but it does now seem to have been static for longer than two weeks. Here's hoping....

  4. With regard to the previous log, here's a copy of a reply I received from Groundspeak on the subject of boring August souvenirs


    Thank you for writing us at Geocaching HQ. We like your honesty and appreciate that everyone enjoys geocaching in their own way. While we're disappointed 31 Days of Geocaching isn't how you prefer to geocache, we understand. To that end, we're considering creating a way for people to customize their souvenirs, and as you mention, potentially delete souvenirs. This feature is only a hypothetical at this point in development. We appreciate your input and please know that we are working to support a positive experience for all your fellow geocachers (6 million geocachers worldwide!)

  5. Actually, "Needs Archived" can make sense, if the word "needs" is a noun, not a verb. As in "since I lost my wedding tackle in that chain saw accident, I've had some of my Needs Archived" Innit.

  6. I see it as a contraction. They took out the "to be" for brevity. Sort of like if you trip over your daughter's shoes in the middle of the hall and you give her the look and succinctly bark out: "Needs moved." :D


    Is that a bit like, instead of me saying "You are an idiot", I just say "You, idiot"? Sort of like.....

  7. Maconb makes a most relevant point in post No.36. If you go for a "dangerous" cache that requires abseiling / climbing etc, then you are putting yourself at risk. Caveat cacher, as they would have said in Ancient Rome. With this cache however, not only are you putting yourself in danger, you are also potentially endangering the lives of others, who's reaction to your movements in the central reservation you are unable to predict. Surely, for example, it would not be an unnatural reaction for an approaching driver in the outside lane to think it desirable to get into the inside lane as quickly as he / she could, when they saw someone in the central reservation who was obviously not merely standing there waiting for a gap in the traffic to cross the road. Could that desire not mean that the driver would possibly take risks to change lane that would not ordinarily be taken?


    Then there's the case of the Taunton firework display last year that caused a pile up on the M5, resulting in (I think) 7 deaths. The organiser of the display is on trial, accused of manslaughter. Surely, if a cacher in the central reservation were to cause a sudden reaction by a motorist, then he / she could also be accused of being responsible for any accident that occurred as a result? And could the blame then not also be extended to the person who placed the cache, in what the prosecution would no doubt claim to be a "reckless" (or similar legal word) position?

  8. SP, I think you will find that the only reason that I have quoted the number of caches I've found is to emphasise the fact that I do not enjoy writing TFTC as a log entry. As a CO yourself, you can surely agree with this attitude? Alas, in this case, TFTC seems far more acceptable than a description of my experience with the cache.


    I am grateful for your input, despite the fact that we are coming at this from different directions. Of course I'm more grateful for the several other contributors who agree with me!


    Now, I really must get back to my LHC experiments....where is that pesky Higgs Boson particle? I'm sure I put it down here somewhere.....oh well, just have to go and get another one.

  9. Yes, Seaglass Pirates, you are bucking the trend, aren't you!


    Mocking? No. The cache has 2 dnfs out of 39 visitors. The 2 cachers who logged dnfs have a total of 46 finds between then. For them, this may well be a D4, as it would probably be their first experience of such a cache (a magnetic nano on the underside of a metal gate hinge – yes, really...a D4!) But for any cacher with a modicum of experience, this would be standard stuff. And surely that’s how a D rating should be calculated. My first ever find was a bog standard sandwich box at the base of a tree, a D1.5, but to me, at the time, it was a D5, because I didn’t really have a clue as to how this game worked, or exactly what I was looking for, but the correct rating is 1.5, not 5. My querying of the D4 rating was, I contest, fully justified. (As an aside, how many COs are tempted to “inflate” D and / or T ratings, so that they can gain a certain amount of “geokudos”, by being seen to set caches that are “cunning”, or similar – when in actual fact they’re not? And is it not more likely that this would happen when the CO in question has only 129 finds to his name....maybe he genuinely believes that this is a D4, as, when he saw it advertised on ebay, he thought it was the craftiest cache container he’d ever seen in all his caching days)


    Superior? No. I did see it from 5 yards away, what’s wrong with me saying that? How many logs have you read which say “Nice easy find” “Saw it at once”, or similar. Are you suggesting that they should all be deleted, because they’re “superior”? No, of course you’re not. So, why should mine be deleted for that reason? It shouldn't. My seeing it straight away is further proof that the cache doesn't deserve its D rating. (If you looked at a cross section of my logs, you would also see that, far from being “superior” in attitude, I more often than not bemoan my lack of caching ability, my favourite phrase being that “The Curse of the Dumb a** Geocacher” strikes again). A further point to consider is that maybe the only reason why I saw it straight away is that it's been replaced wrongly by a previous cacher, in an easy to spot location. By telling the CO of this fact, I could actually be alerting him to the fact that he needs to pay a visit to reposition the cache so that it regains the true characteristics of a D4.


    Dismissive. No. Technically, of course, you are correct, I didn't sign the log. But whose fault is that? Mine or the CO’s? The CO has been aware for the past couple of months that the log is full. If I had attempted to put my name on, it would have been at the expense of potentially defacing an earlier entry, thus putting that cacher’s log in jeopardy. Yes, I could have taken a photo, but not all of us are fully in tune with the wonders of modern technology. I didn't have my camera with me, and my mobile doesn't have a camera. Really, it doesn't! My offer of an exact description was therefore made as a genuine offer to assure the CO, if in any doubt, of my find. You seem to think that it would have been better if I’d not made this offer?


    The CO was happy to accept that I’d found the cache, and acknowledged the fact that the log needed replacing, so that was not the reason that he took umbrage. The reason for the deletion is therefore one or both of my questioning the D level, and / or the fact that I saw it from 5 yards away. Cause for an instant deletion, without so much as a by your leave....surely not?


    As you point out, my find has now been recorded by means of a TFTC. I'm confident that it’s the only TFTC that I've logged in 2600+ finds. TFTC is an insult to a CO who has gone to the effort of placing the cache, and I make sure that I always try to write something for each cache, even if it’s on a long series. However, if my “caching experience” at a particular cache is not entirely positive, I don’t see the harm in saying so. After all, the log will not only be read by the CO, but potentially by many other cachers considering a visit to that cache, and could assist them in making a judgement as to whether a visit should be made or not. You say that “if you feel strongly enough (presumably about a negative aspect of a cache) write a nice review and email them to let them know of your experience”. You’re not serious, are you? So, if I find a cache in a particularly undesirable location for example, or if there’s evidence of local drug taking, I shouldn't mention it in my pink fluffy log, I should merely write privately to the CO? That’s ridiculous. As far as I'm aware, we still live in a democracy.


    So, we will have to agree to disagree!

  • Create New...