longW
-
Posts
20 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by longW
-
-
With the not-so-new-anymore editor my rules are simple: Double-click on the image and set its size either to a width of 670 or 672, whether or not yoy want to implement the tiny magnifier. It has to be done everytime the page is edited and submitted. Otherwise big images will appear with their original size and then visibly be scaled down.
Then on the link tab of the image I always set the target to "New window: blank". Then the image gets its nice popup-window without interfering with the listing itself.
As for the background images, make it small like a stamp, then mirror it and copy the mirrored images on one edge, then mirror it again over the other edge (horz and vert). The final size is fourtimes of the original stamp, but will prevent any visible sewing. It usually requires some thinking and tweaking. The results are worth it. -
-
I have uploaded a bunch of images to your side as an part of a log of a TB.
The top-right thumbnails of the images in that is covered by an ad.
I have checked 2 browsers, Safari and Chrome.
The log number is "TL3QENY6".
-
Ignoring the new message makes a lot of sense.
However, if somebody contacts me I have no choice then to join the conversation.
This was the message I just found in my browser.
>> Communication service error. Please try again.
>> OK
Like 404.
-
Ich habe auch so ein Problem. In einen meiner Tradis ist ein TB gelistet, obwohl er entnommen wurde. Nach Recherche habe ich denjenigen auch ausfindig machen können, habe ihm die gesamte Vorgehensweise erklärt, doch er zuckt sich nicht. Was kann ich da noch machen???
Gruß
das Leff
Was sagt denn der Besitzer dazu?
- longW
-
Schau mal in Deinem Profil in die Recently Viewed Caches, dort siehst Du mehr. Das rote Ausrufezeichen deutet darauf hin, dass schon ein Reviewer den Cache "angefasst" hat.
Danke, das kannte ich so noch nicht.
-longW
-
Ich habe auch noch ein paar alte Nummern, deren Listings ich aus verschiedenen Gründen verworfen habe. Von daher kannst Du gar nicht wissen, seit wann der Cache in Bearbeitung ist.
Ich sehe (und Du kannst das auch!), dass der Cache ein Mystery ist, mit D3/T5, am 2. Sept 12 platziert wurde und sich bereits im Review befindet. Wahrscheinlich muss aber noch etwas nachgebessert werden.
Von daher würde ich sagen, hab noch etwas Geduld.
Danke für die Information.
Dass das eine Vorratsdatenspeicherung sein kann, ist mir klar. Ich bin auch im Club.
Nur, wie genau kann ich das sehen?
Ich sehe nur, dass der Cache nicht veröffentlicht ist, dass ist alles, was ich vor Deiner Nachricht in Erfahrung bringen konnte.
Das mit der Geduld ist mir selbst eigentlich egal. Unglücklicherweise muss ich mich damit auseinandersetzen, dass andere den Cache heben wollen, also mit der Ungeduld von anderen.
Schönen Gruß
longW
-
Warum bist Du Dir sicher, dass Du weißt, dass das Versteck bereits seit Juni 2011 in Vorbereitung ist?
Weil die Nummern fortlaufend vergeben werden.
Ich habe das schon einmal für ein Doppelrätsel benutzt.
Edit:
Noch mal richtig nachgeschaut:
Es müsste der 07/10/2011 gewesen sein, die beiden davor tragen das Datum
-
On 9/3/2012 at 9:41 AM, bebilix said:
Hallo longW,
hast du den Cacher, der den TB in dem unveröffentlichten Cache abgelegt hast, schon mal kontaktiert? Ich würde das erst einmal mit einer freundlichen Mail versuchen. Vielleicht ist ja der Cache bereits beim Review und es kann sich nur noch um ein paar Tage handeln, oder der TB wurde versehentlich in einem falschen Cache eingeloggt. Es gibt ja mehr Möglichkeiten, warum er dort liegt. Also, ich würde einfach mal nachfragen.
Grüße, bebilix
Hallo,
Ja, natürlich habe ich gemacht. Das hatte ich so wohl nicht deutlich genug ausgedrückt. Tut mir leid.
Dummerweise habe ich aber bis jetzt keine Antwort bekommen.
Er hat schon beim FTF nicht gemeldet, dass er den Datenträger hat (Ich lasse es mal bei der Umschreibung.), sondern erst 2 Tage später,
und auch nach seinem FTF.
Für mich sieht es jetzt so aus, als wenn er der Einzige bleiben will, der die Dose loggen kann.
Das neue Versteck ist jedenfalls schon seit Juni 2011 in Vorbereitung.
Trotzdem Danke für die Hilfe.
-longW
-
Hallo zusammen,
Ich habe einen TB, der die Koordinaten für einen Rätsel-Cache enthält.
Der erste Finder hat den TB nun in einen Cache abgelegt, der noch nicht veröffentlicht ist (GC2ZVP9).
Offensichtlich ist er der Besitzer, anders könnte er das nicht machen. Der Cache selbst ist, so wie ich es sehen kann, seit Juni 2011 in Arbeit.
Was ich weiss, ist, dass er 47.27 km Richtung NW liegt, aus der Wanderung des TB.
Weil ich nicht weiss, was ich weiter tun kann, als diesen Teilnehmer zu kontaktieren, kann ich nur hoffen, dass er seine Meinung ändert.
Offensichtlich macht es wenig Sinn, den TB als verloren zu markieren, obwohl er das so schon fast ist.
Dann müsste ich auch den Cache archivieren.
Eine alternative Option wäre, weitere TBs auf die Reise schicken.
Aber dass nur, weil jemand anderen den Cache missgönnt?
Deswegen meine Frage: Habe ich noch andere Optionen, dass mein TB wieder unter das Cacher-Volk gebracht werden?
- longW
-
I've been trying to upload a photo to an event page and have been getting an error message. The photo is not uploading.
Me too - it worked in fits and starts and now seems to have fallen over completely.
Same here. It failed earlier, then I had a some luck.
Now it is not working again.
Even the photos I have uploaded before are not on the page, only the icon indicating a broken image is on display.
-
Since it's possible to attach coordinates to an uploaded picture, I'd welcome it if the site recognized geotagged pictures and used the coordinates to populate its own coordinates fields. That would make it immediately obvious if the picture was geotagged.
Not anymore. The last update -probably- changed it all. It is not possible to attach coordinates to an image, if this image is uploaded to 'geocaching.com'.
Complaints are already popping up, e.g. if a tagged image should become part of a puzzle.
Hence my request.
Old images on the site maintain their data, though.
-
It seems, that with the new update EXIF-tags are stripped by default.
In the past those tags were stored with the images, and some cache owners complained about them as spoilers.
Now we have seen both options, but not at once.
Maybe it can be just as simple as a switch saying:
"Strip EXIF-data" before uploading the image.
-
I already grabbed it.
It was this line, where I adjusted the margins:
<img src= "http://img.geocaching.com/cache/882c6a8f-8116-4e17-872a-5f63f2247d13.jpg" style= "margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 20px; margin-top: 42px; margin-bottom: 37px;float: center; width: 440px; height: 330px;" />
And is this not working like you expect it to?
The code works, I have written it.
But I could not get the line from the locked cache, so I had to dive through the complete source to find the in fact only 3 numbers.
@fizzymagic: No GPX involved at all, just the site's editor with html switched on.
-
About the code: I know how to grab it, but usually I got a dishwasher-load of it, while I only need the spoon.
The website transfers or eliminates some tags, and I like to get access to what I have written and tested there.
And this was never an issue.
Open the cache page in something like Nvu or any other freeware WYSIWYG html editor, and just cut and paste the bits you want to keep
I already grabbed it.
It was this line, where I adjusted the margins:
<img src= "http://img.geocaching.com/cache/882c6a8f-8116-4e17-872a-5f63f2247d13.jpg" style= "margin-left: 20px; margin-right: 20px; margin-top: 42px; margin-bottom: 37px;float: center; width: 440px; height: 330px;" />
-
In general, from my point of view, the simple comparison between smartphones and dedicated GPS-devices very soon runs short.
There are 3 major components, antenna, chip and software.
Back in the old days I had an Garmin II+ with an external antenna. The antenna gave me about 10-15 percent increase in signal strength.
This did not always count. The increase really kicked in if the overall perception was good enough that the satellites' count went up, too.
Accuracy depends on the number of satellites in view.
In other words: the satellites above you give you the position, the satellites down at the horizon give you accuracy.
What matters is the count, not the signals' strength, but obviously there is a connection.
The most important fact of the chips is the number off channels. The old Garmin has 12 channels, meaning that under no circumstances
more than the signals of 12 different satellites can be used for calculations. Kind of a limitation, I guess.
Now we have chips with a 100+ channels and now maybe a lack of satellites...
By comparison power consumption is only a minor issue.
And then software. Smartphones by now have quite an advantage. In urban areas the cell-tower triangulation, and yes, this is not about the antenna,
it is software, combined with Wifi-spots (Apple collects them on its own) gives you almost an immediate position, while the GPS-part is doing, well,
its GPS-stuff, acquiring signals and so on.
On an everyday base this is just fine.
But smart-phones are not dedicated GPS-receivers, hence we have to deal with compromises.
-
The cache in question was never published, but archived as it is and is now locked.
I have no imagination why this might be necessary at all.
If I understand the process correctly, an unarchived cache (even if it is unpublished) reserves a location in the Groundspeak database. When reviewers check for saturation issues, your unpublished, unarchived cache could prevent another cacher from hiding a new cache in a nearby spot. Perhaps the reviewer archived it to eliminate this potential problem.
Generally the reviewer will send an email inquiring as to your plans for the cache. I'm sure if they don't get a reply they will archive the unpublished cache and publish the ready to go cache.
The reviewer archived the cache because it would bug his queue.
This is the last information I got.
Now my cache is both archived and locked, with all the consequence I now know about.
-
Is there a difference between an archived and a locked cache?
One of my caches is archived, and also locked.
The reason is simply that I want to grab some of the code their, instead of retyping the html again.
Thanks in advance,
longW
don't see any archived caches in your profile. if it it archived it cannot be edited. if it is locked, there cannot be any new logs posted. if you need the code, you can grab it from "view source" by right clicking it.
Thank you for all your answers. I reply to this one, because it covers all topics.
I was assuming there is a difference, but I couldn't find any information.
The cache in question was never published, but archived as it is and is now locked.
I have no imagination why this might be necessary at all.
It seems that the issues regarding that cache are no longer meant to be discussed.
I will not say more, because I am not going public about it.
About the code: I know how to grab it, but usually I got a dishwasher-load of it, while I only need the spoon.
The website transfers or eliminates some tags, and I like to get access to what I have written and tested there.
And this was never an issue.
Again, thank you all for your answers and interests.
I wasn't aware that you were really looking into it.
longW
-
Is there a difference between an archived and a locked cache?
One of my caches is archived, and also locked.
The reason is simply that I want to grab some of the code their, instead of retyping the html again.
Thanks in advance,
longW
Question about pictures in listing
in Website
Posted
Understood. But then I am in the hassle of all the tags.