Jump to content

Team S-J

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Team S-J

  1. Re-classify anything you can't get a TB tag into as a different type of cache. i.e puts micro's into a different class. Have a voting system where caches can be voted off, much like changing the maps on COD etc. Keep placing them as and where people like, within the rules. It's an evolving game and lets see where it goes. You never know I might even do another one.
  2. I do fall into the category of taking photos of the cache rather than the view. I will try to take more appropriate pictures next time. I also agree with mouse that the number of pictures is related to the quality of the cache. Can we search by number of pictures per cache?
  3. Why use a camera. I doubt anyone hasn't got a camera phone. As for resolution. In terms of resizing has anyone looked at the minimum resolution recommended by the online print people. You'd be amazed at how low a resolution you actually need for 5x7 prints. In fact unless you are doing poster size prints the only reason to have mega mega resolution camers is to crop them down to show just what you need. I've taken this from the site I use (Truprint) If you plan to order prints or create gifts using your digital photos, we recommend the following image sizes for best results: Print Size Minimum image resolution required 6" x 4" 360x540 pixels 7" x 5" 450x630 pixels 10" x 8" 720x900 pixels 11 x 14 Posters 990x1260 pixels 12 x 18 Posters 1152x1728 pixels 16 x 20 Posters 1536x1920 pixels 20 x 30 Posters 1920x2880 pixels Wallet Prints 180x270 pixels Photo Gifts 600x900 pixels 4x8 Photo Cards 426x640 pixels 5x7 Folded Cards 375x525 pixels 5x7 Postcards 600x840 pixels 4.25x6 Postcards 480x720 pixels 4x6 FlipBooks 360x540 pixels 5x7 FlipBooks 450x630 pixels MemoryBooks 1233x1639 - 1024x1280 pixels Notebooks 480x480 pixels Notebooks with full photo cover 1000x1350 pixels Notepads 370x370 pixels Stickers 370x370 pixels Notebook 480x480 pixels These are a lot lower than you'd imagine. I'd also recommend VSO resizer as other have. I generally copy the pictures I want into a temporary directory "fix" them then resize them to 640 wide. Uploading is then really quick.
  4. I stopped, but with less than 200 caches in 7 years, some say I never really started Anyway the reason I got fed up with it all was micro's and nano's. They may fulfill the "geo-" side of things but as for "-caching" I think not. Also have you tried caching with just a GPS with no logs, hints or internet access. I filter out everything other than trads for my GPS. I always thought anything samller than something you can get a TB in should have a different GC code. Finally I always think of caches to be in places that have some reason whether that is hostorical or just a nice place. I recently had a DNF in a Tesco car park. What the hell was a cache doing in an urban supermarket car park! This week I've done more caches than I have in ages as it's taking me, and the family, to some lovely spots.
  5. I think it's a shame more photo's and stories aren't logged. "TNLN Thanks" really doesn't sum up the adventure of caching. It all seems to be about numbers. Maybe an alternative numbers idea would be to list by the number of bytes logged. That way a good photo means more than a heap of dash & caches.
  6. It could go in either forum. The start point came from the two TB's I currently hold, having a hard time finding a new resting place locally with there being so many micros in my area. What I wanted to highlight isn't that all Trad's should be able to accomodate any TB, just that micros, by definition, can't generally take even a TB tag. So I'd rather micros were given a seperate designation than Traditional.
  7. Hey look another micro basher! With yet another glut of "Traditional" Micro geocahes in my area surely it's time to get them there own type as they are spoiling the chances of being able to drop a TB off locally. Personnaly I'd give them all a different website, something like www.geonotcaching.com but that's just me.
  8. Why not archive them and give another local cacher an opportunity to place their own new caches.
  9. And the sooner they are classified separately from a cache you can at least get a TB in the better.
  10. When is a cache not a cache? When it's a micro. One day micro's will go the same way as virtuals. It's like geocaching without the caching.
  11. I think I may be on for the slowest to 100!
  12. Thanks for that. I tried Little Dassett but didn't find anything. Looks like a couple of caches nearby as well!
  13. Anyone know what the structures at N52:09:13 W1:27:40 are? The entrance looks to be at N52:09:51 W01:26:24 I was following the track of the Google Earth generated KML file of one of my TB's and saw these structures. My best guess is a Military Arsenal. So if anyone is passing the area can they let me know what it is. Ta.
  14. Welcome back. Another thread recently mentioned cache burnout. Maybe this time round you should forget about the numbers and stop and smell the roses as you cache.
  15. So that's :- Cache Difficulty (1-5 as listed) Terrain (1-5 as listed) Scarcity (1 loads within 10km, 5 only this cache with 10km) Distance to Next cache (1 < 1km, 5>50km) Age in Years of cache (1 per year to max of 5) Add an extra two for a new county or region Add another three for a new country Volume (1-Nano, 5 Large Ammo Type) Time since previous find (1 per month up to 5) Distance to nearest road (1 per mile/km up to 5) Age of cacher (1 for <30, up to 5>70) Vegetation Interaction (1 for no vegetation, 5 fell out of tree) Animal Interaction (1 no animals, 5 eaten by croc) Number of cachers (1 on your own, 5 with reluctant wife) Cache interaction (1 TNLNSL, 5 left Rolex) More please.
  16. On a slightly different forum I've been working on a new rating system. So don't caount the numbers do the maths. Cache Difficulty (1-5 as listed) Terrain (1-5 as listed) Scarcity (1 loads within 10km, 5 only this cache with 10km) Distance to Next cache (1 < 1km, 5>50km) Age in Years of cache (1 per year to max of 5) Add an extra two for a new county or region Add another three for a new country Volume (1-Nano, 5 Large Ammo Type) Time since previous find (1 per month up to 5) Distance to nearest road (1 per mile/km up to 5) Age of cacher (1 for <30, up to 5>70) Vegetation Interaction (1 for no vegetation, 5 fell out of tree) Animal Interaction (1 no animals, 5 eaten by croc) That should make you think if you really want good numbers. Good Luck
  17. I've come up with a new rating system. Rather than just count the number of finds do the following. Add up the following for each find:- Cache Difficulty (1-5 as listed) Terrain (1-5 as listed) Scarcity (1 loads within 10km, 5 only this cache with 10km) Distance to Next cache (1 < 1km, 5>50km) Age in Years of cache (1 per year to max of 5) Add an extra two for a new county or region Add another three for a new country Volume (1-Nano, 5 Large Ammo Type) Time since previous find (1 per month up to 5) Distance to nearest road (1 per mile/km up to 5) Using this new method makes me just as useless at caching! Any other criteria anyone can think of? Please, please please don't take this seriously :-)
  18. Oddly enough I never mentioned my stance on Carbon Offsetting. I am skeptical about the impact humans have on climate change. Climate change is inevitable regardless of our actions. Aren't we 50,000 years late for the next ice age anyway? I could think of a few countries that could benefit from being submerged for a couple of 100,000 years. Present company excepted. It would also make towing my boat to the seaside a shorter journey. It would certainly raise the difficulty rating of many caches. Sorrrreee I mentioned it now :-(
  19. Having just started a personal TB of the caches I've done, I quickly racked up 14,000km for my first 20 caches, thanks to a trip to the States from the UK. This led me to thinking about the environmental aspect of caching. So would it be appropriate to add a link on the geocaching website to a carbon offset website. That way if you felt like it you could do your bit while caching. Of course you could walk to every cache Just an idea.
  20. YOSM was our first cache back on the 2nd April 2002. It's listed as our second as we did another on the same day. FIVE YEARS AGO!!! I haven't logged it since and wouldn't hesitate to log it again if it was nearby. As they say play the game as you see it. YOSM probably wouldn't be allowed nowadays but it's a classic cache. Long may it continue.
  21. Indeed. As most held TB's are logged from the cache page maybe a couple of radio buttons next to the cachers list of held TB's would help so that you could select Dropped or Dipped for held TB's. Once submitted it would add the placed or dipped log to the TB page.
  22. There are quite a few personal TB's on the go that involve writing notes to place the TB, then deleting the note then retrieveing the TB and then deleting that log. Wouldn't it just be easier to add a "dipping" log for TB's. I suppose "dipping" could be added to Coins as well. Opinions?
  23. I don't mind slightly off topic threads. It's pointless responses that should be banned!
  24. At one level it's so others can't see (judge?), at another level it's because I enjoy the experience and don't see the numbers as interesting as the places I've been to or the journey and inevitable adventures experienced on doing so few caches. For example yesterday I went skiing in the morning, while there I took a photo with a TB that wanted to "chill out", from there we dropped off the TB, from there off to another cache located at a pub. So two caches in one day. That's a lot for Team S-J but we had such a cracking day. It may just be pre 100 jitters! Or maybe the fact that some of the people I've introduced to caching are well on the way to logging more caches than I. I don't want to post them as notes as that would mess up the owners stats. Maybe I should chill out like my last TB and ignore the numbers and just hope the next cache takes me somwehere interesting.
×
×
  • Create New...