Teasel

We use id numbers, not the cache names, so even having two identically named caches shouldn't be a problem. eg: Windy Hill (14914) Windy Hill (41965) The cache in question is actually The CIN Fox Hunt, and the coordinates are probably Mark's old house!

Well, as far as the G:UK stats go, we don't have any historic information, so we'd have to simply sum up the current values for those caches. There are other undesirable consequences of the lack of history. For example, if you found a moving cache (eg one of the Photographers caches), it will only count against your UK totals when that cache happens to be in the UK, and your score will go down when it goes into another country!

I'm looking at adding some new figures to the cacher stats pages (OK, OK, I've just got this schoolboy urge to add 'virgins defiled' to the page ). The average difficulty is already there; calculating a total as well shouldn't be too difficult. I'd also like to provide clickthrough to a league table for each of the fields on the cacher stats page. After the sitting and waiting of the past couple of months, I'm starting to get all enthusiastic again

quote:Originally posted by The Merman:The cache you talk about is in fact a locationless cache, I have emailed you the details to save explaining it here. For anyone else it is Beach Hut Hunt by Amy and Adams Dad I'm glad you said that, 'cos I can only find one archived virtual cache in Hampshire, and it didn't look like the one.

Thanks, that's not one I'd come across before. I've added the option of downloading a Waypoint+ format file to the stats page. (I do like people who document their file formats! ) And welcome back dodgydaved!

You may notice a couple of changes here and there. File downloads now require you to sign a license (just as on the GC.com site itself), and the OS grid references in the cache lists are only 6figs. First priority is to get the database more accurate (there have always been problems with archived caches). Second, I hope to get some sort of 'my stats' page, which will list your recent queries, and provide easy links to the most useful custom pages. Also on the wish list are stats by county, improving the UK summary stats (graphs!) and adding more fields to the cacher stats (virgins defiled, for example!). Photo albums may also be on the cards...

quote:Originally posted by Nia:Are we half asleep or are all these 100 caches up North. I hope those Stats pages come back soon, so we can see who the busy cachers are. They're back! (Though they're being updated over a modem, so it may be some time before we catch up on the last two months worth of logs!) Dave and Maerwen's (out of date!) stats are here.

I just got an email from Elias. He's quite busy at the moment, so he's not made as much progress on the XML feed as he'd hoped. He's still working on it in the background but for the timebeing, he's agreed that we can switch the webscraper back on. Thanks Elias Unfortunately, it seems like the machine I run my webscraper on is currently on the geocaching.com blacklist Luckily my home PC is OK, so I'm currently bouncing all requests over my modem , so getting the database up to date may take some time...

quote:Originally posted by FourWinds:There are many studies that can tie in the chemicals used in these platics with the global reduction in the average sperm count (you asked!). The studies you mention concern pthalates, which are used as plasticisers in the manufacture of PVC products. I'm not sure I've seen any PVC caches in my travels (though I'm willing to be corrected!). Unless you know any studies suggesting that either PE or PP can be considered in any way toxic to any organisms, then I'll have to conclude that most, if not all, plastic caches are not poisonous!

Yes, CONGRATULATIONS!

I have a cache which is deliberately difficult to find. Each time someone posts a "not found", I just notch the difficulty up by 1/2, and vice-versa.

quote:Originally posted by FourWinds:Actually great concern has been expressed about the effect putting a poisonous plastic box in the wild can have on the fauna around it. OK, I let it go once, but this time I'll bite!... All 'plastic' caches I have seen have been made either from polyethylene or polypropylene. What evidence do you have that either of these are in any way poisonous to any species? Toxicity is generally considered to be a chemical effect on the body. The fact that putting your head in a plastic drinks can tie, swallowing it whole etc, etc, is a bad idea may make it dangerous, but certainly not poisonous!

Thanks Nigel! I take your point about the large scale nature of some monuments such as Avebury, and the fact that in other cases the surrounding area forms part of the purpose of the monument. However, from browsing round the TMA map, what worries me is the potential significance of what outwardly may look just like a pile of boulders. Naturally there is, and will remain, disagreement between our two camps. For example, it's unlikely that placing a tupperware box half a mile away from Bamford Moor Stone Circle would be considered inappropriate by many here. But a new cache at SK 221845 whose description began "hidden in a small pile of boulders" would be rejected as inappropriate ONLY if someone realised its significance, which is unlikely. And if this isn't the perfect site for a cache, then I don't know what is! Unfortunately... I have a database of all 1000 odd caches in the UK, and I've just downloaded the TMA database of 2966 sites. Would there be any merit in comparing the two, to determine whether any caches are placed unfortunately close to ancient sites? Could be a useful tool for T&J when deciding whether to approve new caches...

Just to let people know, I've been working on something which will track Mark's fox from my PC and automatically update a web page with its progress round the country. Such a feature would be a useful addition to laptop/mobile systems too (though probably implemented in a friendlier way than I'm forced to!)

quote:Originally posted by The Scout:I think these guys might be interested in an unknown (to them) stone circle in South Wales, should I tell them? Is this the one with, ummm, oriental influences? Methinks they might have a sense of humour failure

I see no need to apologise. You posted a short link to geocaching.com on a site which you could reasonably expect to be inhabited by people who like to get outside and discover new and interesting places. But, as they say, no good deed goes unpunished... From a quick look at their site, I don't see how you could have forseen that many of the Mod Ants have reverence towards these sites which goes far beyond archaelogical preservation, and view placing an ammo box in view of an ancient site as being akin to placing it inside a cathedral; both being equally sacred. And who see Mam Tor as a sacred hill protesting against road building. (And I thought it was just a big lump of shale that used to be used as a weapon of war but is now great for an afternoon walk or hang gliding!) At the end of the day, geocaching cannot rely on being secret for its existance. Sooner or later they would have discovered us. They obviously have a top-notch webadmin (wow!) who could scrape all the UK cache coordinates and match them against their site database within hours. We need to be able to negotiate our way, with people both fanatic and burocratic.

... have you seen their interactive cache^h^h^h^h^h monument map?! Wow!!! Time to do some serious crawling, fawning and begging to their sysadmin methinks...

Oh dear, the rattles are flying out of their prams, aren't they?! I think this sort of mentality is far more likely to result in caches being trashed than the "bored teenagers" who are usually painted as the villains. That's assuming they've got access to the required "marine safety equipment"

No new bears chez Teasel Sure they didn't get washed away?

quote:Originally posted by Moss Trooper:Also that Pid needs to brush up on his understanding of rights of way, public access and right to roam.. In general I try to be polite but firm and refuse to be moved on from public land, simply because someone objects on principle to my presence there. But Moss's comment made me realise that I don't actually know the law as well as I'd like. Who owns the strip of land between a public highway and the hedgerow / field? Is it lawful to park with two wheels up on the grass verge? What about all four? Is it lawful to park in an unmarked lay-by? Are you allowed to partially obstruct a gate? There is so much misinformation about (eg "Trespassers will be prosecuted" signs, people coneing off bits of road outside their houses etc), does anyone know of an easily digestible summary of the relevent laws?

quote:Originally posted by Omally:Hey guys, lets start our own NightCache Soc.! I'm up for that! Just did a quick count and 34 of my 81 caches so far have been done after dark, plus two of the seven I've hidden. Admittedly, not quite up to D&P standards, but... Need to come up with ideas for caches which can only realistically be done after dark. Hmmm, tricky, any ideas? Could always put a timelock on an ammo box, I guess! Since about 46% of UK caching happens on weekdays, I'd assumed that there were quite a few of us out there at night after work.

We wouldn't be able to show the cache stats (ie the search facility + links to streetmap bits) because one of GC.com's main worries is the inclusion of archived caches (eg the recently archived Decaying Hospital cache) in such lists. We could probably put the cacher stats (ie the cacher profile page) back up, if there was sufficient interest. Hopefully, though, we should be getting an XML feed sometime soon...

quote:Originally posted by Slytherin:The offending item was not porn. It was nothing that you wouldn't see on the front cover of a top shelf mag, or on page 3 of the Sun. I've not seen prostitutes advertising themselves on page 3 of the Sun! Maybe I've been looking in the wrong places... Regardless of whether images of naked women are appropriate cache contents, the fact remains that these particular advertisements are illegal. IANAL but since it is illegal to "provide facilities for prostitution", having a stated policy allowing prostitutes to advertise in caches would seem unwise. Of course, when I placed a CDROM of WindowsXP in a cache last weekend, that was just as naughty!

Oh dear - I accuse the Americans of being parochial, and now I'm guilty of the same crime! I'd assumed that Pid was only interested in people in the UK. It's a pity that geocaching.com don't publish the country cachers come from in their profile. I fully understand why home coordinates are not revealed, but there seems little harm in revealing the country.

quote:Originally posted by jeremyp:If it's a) very dangerous and off limits to the public, it _has_ to be archived. Would it be such a good cache if it was outside the grounds in a safer / more legal location? I agree that the cache must be archived because it is in a fenced-off location, but not because it is dangerous. I wouldn't like to attempt Don't Look Down without specialist safety equipment, but I don't think it should be archived. I would, however, have been happier if the cache description had indicated that, though the area is frequented by locals, you have to climb over a fence to get in, and there is an asbestos risk once inside. That way I could have made an informed choice as to whether to attempt the cache (yes), whether to wear a dust mask (maybe), and whether to take along my 4 month old son (no!). I don't see a problem with legal but dangerous caches, so long as potential cachers are in no doubt about what is involved, preferably before they set off.