TheOldfields

Hi, This weekend was the first time that I've tried creating a route and then trying to follow it on my Oregon 450. All worked fine but the map wasn't automatically moving to reflect my changing location so I was needing to move the map manually. That would be fine if I was walking but I was actually cycling so a bit tricky to keep eyes on the road while adjusting the map. Is there something I'm missing that would allow me to tell the unit to do that automatically? Thanks for any info.

Hmmm. Think Tendulkar was playing then, so I'll have a guess at him.

I don't think anyone is going to begrudge you taking time off from working on GME. Hope the birth goes well and best wishes to Mrs jri.

Isn't it a bit odd to worry about what other people think of rules that you've decided you're going to abide by?

...and a good quick Ding! there. Back to crb....

Thank you very much. In what mathematical way does Christmas equal Halloween?

Mrs O says Corfu. (We definitely know the naturalist at least....)

No. No it doesn't tell the CO all they need to know. Very strange to believe otherwise. 'Experienced finder didn't find once' and 'Experienced finder didn't find on five separate visits' are two totally different things. No?

If you look for a cache and don't find it then surely a "Didn't find" log is exactly what you're looking for. If you go out and look for it again, then what's changed? As an owner, I always want to know when a cache hasn't been found - irrespective of whether that's the first or fifteenth attempt.

That would be a lovely shiny Ding to m&l. Over to you.

No dings as yet.

Splendid. What are the four quarters of the old city of Jerusalem?

Pluto?

Going to overlap with the church micro series obviously. Your first cache looks very similar to a standard CM other other than the 'caring for gods acre' bit towards the end of the write up. Have to say that I'm not seeing the point and also who's doing the verification? If I set up a 'cfga' cache then who checks that I'm within bounds?

ISYMBMTU (I suspect you may be making that up.)

Coincidentally.... I figured this one out earlier on.... http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC50JD0_utter-gibberish

Apologies but I appear to have accidentally accessed a lawyer's forum. Could any of you tell me where the geocaching site has gone?

As Yorkshire Yellow says, in the UK it's definitely 'multi trunked tree'. I remember the first time we saw it used - and didn't have a clue what it meant either.

But then Team Earth would have to condemn Team Earth for only finding caches that Team Earth had placed. And that could get far too existential far too quickly.

It might be that US dirt works in a different way to european dirt, but have to say that I've not seen this desire of nature to cover boxes. We do however own a cache that features a depression caused by a bomb from 1942. No sign of the dirt encroaching there as of last week.

That $180 price only available for shipping in the US I think. Cheapest new one I could see in GB was £190. Having said that, we started off with a cheap GPS and then decided to upgrade it after it proved to be useless. Went for the 450 and find it well worth the cash.

I don't think anyone "missed" it. Groundspeak isn't in the business to check for quality/condition of hides. - We're supposed to bring those issues to a Reviewer via NM or NA. At a time when the site is offering a free intro app just to get more people in, doubtful they're gonna act on a negative. Do you leave NM or NA on those hides? Simple fix, really. Yes, left NMs on a lot of them. Nothing happened.

The point some missed was that the owner in question has many caches with a maintenance notice on them. I think Bamboozles suggestion that 5 or more NM notices trigger a block on any more new caches by that owner. Is that something Groundspeak could put in place?

This is Mrs O here, I was looking at some local caches and there is an owner who is prolific but who doesn't maintain his caches, looking at his list quite a number have been archived and of the ones left many need maintenance. However he continues to place caches. I don't get that someone who owns loads of caches, never maintains them or even responds to requests/ notifications they need maintaining then is allowed to continue placing. This is irritating and a waste of time for cachers and also blocks areas for new caches. I understand that we all have different opinions about what is an acceptable condition of a container, what is a good cache etc but if a cache cannot function/ goes missing /is badly damaged / log full/soaking wet and owner doesn't look after it what is the point of continuing placing? Surely part of owning caches is maintaining them for the pleasure of others. So... the question is: should reviewers look at the state of current caches owned by people when publishing new ones? And advise that perhaps maintain existing ones before publishing new ones might be an idea?

I would say that adding spoilers into a log would be classed as non-standard behaviour. Thus shouldn't really need to be requested.