fizzymagic

Believe me, Ron, we had the Right Tool today. In fact, we got the Right Tool all tangled up in the rocks!

I got two answers for number 1, also, but it doesn't matter as the difference was not important for the cache coordinates. Is this cache worth trying after dark, or would that be hopeless?

Hope it gets posted before we head out tomorrow morning! If it doesn't, I'll grab it as soon as I can. Thanks, George!

You know how to tell which one it was easily, right? Double-click on the cell in the Pivot Table. It was Lovers Landing. As I recall, you worked for that one!

You know how to tell which one it was easily, right? Double-click on the cell in the Pivot Table. It was Lovers Landing. As I recall, you worked for that one!

Everyone's objections to my "style points" idea are well taken. It is merely offered as one way you might get around the problems of just counting caches. I saw a few months back somebody had the idea of simply adding up the distances from your home to each of the caches and called the "bragging points." But, as George pointed out, it's not entirely fair, either, since when I take a trip to the East Coast I tend to get several caches, while the way I made the score gave big points for every one. That's one reason I made the distance from home factor logarithmic. George: My new version of the script gets the difficulty and terrain ratings for the caches. I'll send you your current version later today. I found it interesting to see how many of my own caches were of various difficulty ratings. I am pleased to say that only 60 of the 238 caches I've found so far have been 1/1s. Of course, that pales next to Ron; only 78 of 401 of his have been 1/1s. He is truly amazing. Marty: You want a new version of your stats, too?

Everyone's objections to my "style points" idea are well taken. It is merely offered as one way you might get around the problems of just counting caches. I saw a few months back somebody had the idea of simply adding up the distances from your home to each of the caches and called the "bragging points." But, as George pointed out, it's not entirely fair, either, since when I take a trip to the East Coast I tend to get several caches, while the way I made the score gave big points for every one. That's one reason I made the distance from home factor logarithmic. George: My new version of the script gets the difficulty and terrain ratings for the caches. I'll send you your current version later today. I found it interesting to see how many of my own caches were of various difficulty ratings. I am pleased to say that only 60 of the 238 caches I've found so far have been 1/1s. Of course, that pales next to Ron; only 78 of 401 of his have been 1/1s. He is truly amazing. Marty: You want a new version of your stats, too?

I have this proposal for those who like to keep score of how many caches they get. The problem with raw numbers is that they don't very well reflect the "style" of the caches you have gotten. So here's my idea: the Style Score for each cache is: Style = Diff * Terr * log(Dist) * TypeFactor where Diff and Terr are the difficuly and terrain ratings of the cache, Dist is the distance from your home coordinates to the cache in miles, and TypeFactor is a factor that attempts to correct for residual differences in cache type. A lot of the difference is already there in the rating, but I'd propose a table to TypeFactors like this: Locationless = 0.5 Virtual = 0.75 Normal = 1.0 Micro = 1.25 Multi = 1.5 What does everyone think of this? It probably goes without saying that I have kinda rigged this score to do well on the kinds of caches I like best, and also to make my score look good.

I have this proposal for those who like to keep score of how many caches they get. The problem with raw numbers is that they don't very well reflect the "style" of the caches you have gotten. So here's my idea: the Style Score for each cache is: Style = Diff * Terr * log(Dist) * TypeFactor where Diff and Terr are the difficuly and terrain ratings of the cache, Dist is the distance from your home coordinates to the cache in miles, and TypeFactor is a factor that attempts to correct for residual differences in cache type. A lot of the difference is already there in the rating, but I'd propose a table to TypeFactors like this: Locationless = 0.5 Virtual = 0.75 Normal = 1.0 Micro = 1.25 Multi = 1.5 What does everyone think of this? It probably goes without saying that I have kinda rigged this score to do well on the kinds of caches I like best, and also to make my score look good.

was closed today. I went around it to go do You've Got Mail and Totally Toys, but I had planned on going through it. I'm guessing Pepper won't place those caches until it re-opens. [This message was edited by fizzymagic on September 28, 2002 at 05:08 PM.]

I think it is important for people to place caches, but I'm not so sure about the ratio idea. I currently have 14 out, and plan to reach a total of about 20, which is as many as I think I can reasonably maintain. I figure that good maintenance probably means visiting the cache once a year even if there are no problems, and being ready to visit it within a week or so if there are. But I am also singularly reluctant to archive my caches; if one disappears I tend to replace it instead of archiving it. I figure I put enough effort into the location and name that I don't want to let it go. Other people are much more willing to let their caches die a natural death, so they can probably handle more. My point is that someone who has found 200 caches and never placed a single one should maybe be gently urged to place a cache, but someone who has found 1000 but only placed 10 is probably being responsible in their estimate of what they can maintain.

I think it is important for people to place caches, but I'm not so sure about the ratio idea. I currently have 14 out, and plan to reach a total of about 20, which is as many as I think I can reasonably maintain. I figure that good maintenance probably means visiting the cache once a year even if there are no problems, and being ready to visit it within a week or so if there are. But I am also singularly reluctant to archive my caches; if one disappears I tend to replace it instead of archiving it. I figure I put enough effort into the location and name that I don't want to let it go. Other people are much more willing to let their caches die a natural death, so they can probably handle more. My point is that someone who has found 200 caches and never placed a single one should maybe be gently urged to place a cache, but someone who has found 1000 but only placed 10 is probably being responsible in their estimate of what they can maintain.

If you are in to vintage planes, you really ought to do the MiG Alley cache up in Round Valley (near Clayton). I won't spoil the surprise, but as far as I know, Ron, Jimswim and I are the only ones to have completed all three phases of the cache. It is a must-do cache, in my opinion!

If you are in to vintage planes, you really ought to do the MiG Alley cache up in Round Valley (near Clayton). I won't spoil the surprise, but as far as I know, Ron, Jimswim and I are the only ones to have completed all three phases of the cache. It is a must-do cache, in my opinion!

By the way, for those of you who have my spreadsheets... Try double-clicking on a subtotal in the Pivot table and watch what happens. You can easily delete the new sheet that results by right-clicking on the tab at the bottom and choosing "delete." I've got a brand-new script that updates the spreadsheet without having to go grab the whole thing. I'm working on a way to distribute it.

By the way, for those of you who have my spreadsheets... Try double-clicking on a subtotal in the Pivot table and watch what happens. You can easily delete the new sheet that results by right-clicking on the tab at the bottom and choosing "delete." I've got a brand-new script that updates the spreadsheet without having to go grab the whole thing. I'm working on a way to distribute it.

I am a little worried, too. The only good news is that the media often makes fires sound a lot bigger than they are, and fires often skip around a lot. On the other hand, several caches were lost to fires in Colorado this summer.

I am a little worried, too. The only good news is that the media often makes fires sound a lot bigger than they are, and fires often skip around a lot. On the other hand, several caches were lost to fires in Colorado this summer.

quote:I guess Fizzy needs a longer magic wand or something. I'm not quite sure how to take that... Just remember, we've got a bigger laser than you do. I agree that more people should put some caches near George, who has done a LOT for the geocaching community around here. Although I did put one relatively near you, George, and I don't think you've done it yet. Maybe that's because there aren't 57 nearby. But you could do it and drive over Mount Hamilton and get the ones there...

I think a clipboard should be standard gear for a geocacher. I've used it to good effect several times. Now, if I only had a dark blue shirt with my name embroidered above the pocket I could really look official. But I do use the GPS as part of the act. I stare intently at the screen, frown, and make a note on the clipboard. What time are you going to go get Gas tomorrow morning, Pepper? My Rotary meeting is about 1 block away, so I could meet you for coffee afterwards...

I think a clipboard should be standard gear for a geocacher. I've used it to good effect several times. Now, if I only had a dark blue shirt with my name embroidered above the pocket I could really look official. But I do use the GPS as part of the act. I stare intently at the screen, frown, and make a note on the clipboard. What time are you going to go get Gas tomorrow morning, Pepper? My Rotary meeting is about 1 block away, so I could meet you for coffee afterwards...

for the Blue Bandit cache. HotFoot's right below it is also a hoot.

is wireless Web access, so you can check on new caches while you're out caching!

is wireless Web access, so you can check on new caches while you're out caching!

in the car I saw when I went for Blue Bandit! Amazing that there is a whole parallel society out there of which I am completely unaware.