MartyFouts

It's still early evening, on the day that the article appeared, and I've already received email indicating that two different people have started geocaching as a result of the article and found caches I had placed.

quote:Originally posted by survey tech:T1 The Rectangular Survey System of the Public Lands uses parallels and meridians, but is not related to latitude and longitude in any way. The Townships, which, in theory, each consist of 36 sections, each of one square statute mile (5280 feet), not nautical mile (6080 feet), are laid out across each state or region from an initial point, which is random with respect to latitude and longitude. So the corners of the sections are all at random lat/long locations and there is no equation by which the two systems can be related. Say, Paul Bunyon, I think you meant one minute, not one degree, of long. = 1062 feet at 80 degrees lat., right? The chart is fine, but it uses meters and nautical miles instead of feet and statute miles, which are normally used in this country, so it introduces the need for additional conversions. When the township system was surveyed for the state of Montana, it worked out, roughtly, so that the western, rugged mountainous part of the state was surveyed by one set of crews, while the eatern, flatter, part of the state was surveyed by a different set of crews. Which set of crews do you think did a better survey, and why? (That is, which part of the state, western/rugged or eastern/flatish, was better surveyed?)

quote:Originally posted by Steve Bukosky:What's the difference between benchmark hunting and virtual caches? Not much in my opinion. If benchmark totals are not included in cache totals, and I agree that they shouldn't be, then it follows that virtual caches should not either. I believe they should be totaled with the benchmarks. If it doesn't have a cache, it isn't Geocaching! It's more like Geodashing. The total finds mean a lot to many of us. I believe including virtuals dilutes the meaning of X number of finds. What do you think?? Steve Bukosky N9BGH Waukesha Wisconsin I think that total finds is a meaningless number. Or, more precisely, comparing your finds to someone else is meaningless. I've found 1/2 traditional caches that take less time and thought to do than my virtual cache does. Two weeks ago I did a /3 that took eight hours. Yesterday I another /3 that only took two. How do you compare a 7 stage multicache to a 2 stage puzzle cache to a 3 stage map-and-compass to any of the above?

I would imagine 3-5 miles would be easy for most non-bikers on a bike, provide that the terrain really is mostly flat. the big issue for most of us is how long we can stay in the saddle, if it is flat.

quote:Originally posted by The Pet Posse:I would appreciate some input on an idea for my team's signature item. I take a ceramics class each week, and thought about making a bunch of 2 inch ceramic tiles with the Groundspeak/Geocaching logo on it. Then making the tiles into magnets. Would this be something folks would like to score? I also don't wish to step on any copywriting toes, so am not sure if I should use the logo. Thanks for your kind input! that would be cool. even cooler would be a personalized logo of your own. it doesn't have to be fancy -- i'm working on a compass rose for mine.

quote:Originally posted by Lonnigan:Can anyone reccommend a pouch to use for geocaching? I currently use a rhinoskin, but it's not quite large enough. Any help is appreciated! David I found a cheap digital camera bag that I use. the camera pouch holds the GPS, PDA, and my reading glasses. other pockets have space for spare batteries and i can stuff a map in there as well.

If you've never hidden a cache, this poll's not for you, but if you have, is the cache nearest you one you placed yourself?

Time for a light hearted topic. What's the longest streak you've had, either of always finding the cache, or of always missing the cache. My longest miss streak is 3, all on the same day, all hidden by the same person. (I'm in a snit and refuse to do any more of his caches because he has me jinxed ) I don't think I've ever gone an entire day without missing a cache, but that's because I try to mix a few easy ones in on the days I do many caches. My longest hit streak is around 25.

Time for a light hearted topic. What's the longest streak you've had, either of always finding the cache, or of always missing the cache. My longest miss streak is 3, all on the same day, all hidden by the same person. (I'm in a snit and refuse to do any more of his caches because he has me jinxed ) I don't think I've ever gone an entire day without missing a cache, but that's because I try to mix a few easy ones in on the days I do many caches. My longest hit streak is around 25.

I just got back from a cache with a $4 parking fee, so I guess my answer has to be 'yes'. The qualifiers, as mentioned by others are that the cache description should mention the fee (most do) and that I think that either the cache is worth the fee or the park is worth the donation. Around here, usually, the park is worth the donation, so I haven't yet skipped a cache because a fee was involved.

quote:Originally posted by seneca:What's wrong with just logging each cache on Geocaching.com, and using "my cache page" as your journal? I find that that is an excellent record of everything I want to remember about my geocaching adventures - and in a far better format than anything I could ever devise myself. Anything else is superfluous to me. _You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)_ I put details in my private notes that aren't appropriate for an online log. Sometimes the details are spoilers for the cache site, others they are personal tidbits that aren't of interest to anyone else.

quote:Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin): quote:Originally posted by mrcpu:I concur! I would hope that the original GPX data schema would be used to its maximum potential BEFORE augmenting with extensions. Porn and video games have driven hardware and bandwidth improvements over the last 10 years. You need a "killer app" to drive the GPX standard. Why not Geocaching? Dan has done a great job with augmenting LOC to the GPX standard. I believe anything else should be in a namespace. If you want to drive change in GPX, sign up for his discussion forum. It's on his http://www.topografix.com/gpx. Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location I think there are two issues here that should be discussed on the GPX forum, and I've posted a note there to start that discussion. Anyone who's not already involved in the forum but is interested can go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gpsxml/?yguid=45141692 and join the discussion if they have a Yahoo groups account. The two questions that I think are more general are: 1) Should extensions be in separate namespaces? I think this is a nobrainer and the answer is yes, but I think it's worth making a formal part of the spec, so I opened the topic. more interestingly, though, I asked 2) should fields from the base GPX be duplicated in an extension? As a data purists, I think the answer should be no, but I don't know enough about XML to know whether Jeremy's thoughts about needing to duplicate are correct, either. Oh, as to the killer ap. I hope I'm writing it.

quote:Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin): quote:Originally posted by mrcpu:I concur! I would hope that the original GPX data schema would be used to its maximum potential BEFORE augmenting with extensions. Porn and video games have driven hardware and bandwidth improvements over the last 10 years. You need a "killer app" to drive the GPX standard. Why not Geocaching? Dan has done a great job with augmenting LOC to the GPX standard. I believe anything else should be in a namespace. If you want to drive change in GPX, sign up for his discussion forum. It's on his http://www.topografix.com/gpx. Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location I think there are two issues here that should be discussed on the GPX forum, and I've posted a note there to start that discussion. Anyone who's not already involved in the forum but is interested can go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gpsxml/?yguid=45141692 and join the discussion if they have a Yahoo groups account. The two questions that I think are more general are: 1) Should extensions be in separate namespaces? I think this is a nobrainer and the answer is yes, but I think it's worth making a formal part of the spec, so I opened the topic. more interestingly, though, I asked 2) should fields from the base GPX be duplicated in an extension? As a data purists, I think the answer should be no, but I don't know enough about XML to know whether Jeremy's thoughts about needing to duplicate are correct, either. Oh, as to the killer ap. I hope I'm writing it.

quote:Originally posted by georgeandmary: quote:Originally posted by Nurse Dave:but a big green sqaure in the middle of 10 potential deadend streets doesn't show you where the actual parking lots are. ---I will stand out, I am a raven in the snow. Those are the fun ones. george Remember: Half the people you meet are below average. http://img.Groundspeak.com/track/5867_200.gif Doesn't even have to be dead end streets. I did a cache last week in an open space preserve. There are approximately 10 places you might park. They're spaced out along the perimeter of the park. Each will get you to the cache with roughly the same amount of hiking and each one is a different adventure. I would't want parking directions for such a cache.

quote:Originally posted by robertlipe: quote:Originally posted by Marty Fouts: Robert Lipe is developing a program called GPS Babel that translates between various formats (an open source geobuddy that's more complete.) It currently is in beta and only available for Unix systems, but you can track its development at http://gpsbabel.sourceforge.net/ Please don't perpetuate that. It works fine on any OS with a POSIX environment, including Darwin/OS-X and Windows with Cygwin load. Since I'm a UNIX guy, I tested the UNIXen within reach. That said, gpsbabel really won't get anything out of these GPX files that it couldn't get from the (much smaller) geocaching.loc files. It's other projects that honk on the whole description that will come into play with the GPX data. My apologies.

One of my favorite finds is a GeorgeandMary cache that I thought I had to pass on until I found the right route to parking. I learned a lot about the area that day. On the other hand, there's a cache in the Santa Cruz mountains near here that would be pretty much impossible for 99% of cachers to find if the hider didn't give parking coordinates because the actual trails don't show up on any of the maps for the park. I'd give parking coordinates for something like that, but little else.

quote:Originally posted by GoldKey: quote: The GPX format has been extended with extra data ExpertGPS and EasyGPS do not support, but there has been a growing interest in creating client applications that do use it. Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location By the excitement generated here, I am assuming that there must be some applications available that can use this data. If so, how do I get a copy? Thanks Robert Lipe is developing a program called GPS Babel that translates between various formats (an open source geobuddy that's more complete.) It currently is in beta and only available for Unix systems, but you can track its development at http://gpsbabel.sourceforge.net/ I'm working on a program for windows that allows you to treat one of these files as a database so you can pick and chose entries for download and display on a palm, but that's a long way off because it's a spare time project.

Cyanoacrylate was invented in the 40s, rediscovered (by the same guy) in the 50s, and initially marketed in '58 by Kodak, according to http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bladhesives.htm I couldn't find a reference, but I vaguely recall that it was first used to replace stutures to close wounds by medics in Vietnam in the late '60s Bruce Sterling has a great article about Superglue online at http://www.eff.org//Publications/Bruce_Sterling/FSF_columns/fsf.07

When I'm alone, I prefer the harder caches. An all day 8 mile hike to find a 3.5 rocks my socks. When I've got the grandkid along, I prefer an easy urban 1/1 so that she can be the one to find it. I think that the camera is a great first-to-find prize and that a lot of people would like it.

I like it. Can you add the difficulty and cache size fields (or are they there and I missed them?) Marty

quote:Originally posted by seneca:Why not simply a single excellence rating for caches that are exceptionally good? When the cache has been found at least 5 times, and 80 percent of the finders log that it is worthy of an award of excellence, then the cache description would be marked with a "Gold Seal of Excellence" which would show up on cache searches. Players would try to achieve the excellence rating and no players would get bummed out because they got a bad rating. _You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)_ This is a good idea. It would be easy to implement by adding a field to the log form that defaulted to 'no rating' and gave a 1-5 rating for ok to excellent, for example, similar to the way that various product rating web sites (like amazon and netflix) work.

If I didn't think I did a good search, I won't post a 'not found', but if I did, I will -- it's one way to remind myself of caches to go back for. Back when I was keeping a blog of caches, I kept count of the not-found ones. Over time, I've gone back and found about half the caches I couldn't find the first time. Tastes vary, I guess.

quote:Originally posted by Directionless:Ok I guess we can filter the entire argument down to this: There are owners of wireless nodes who allow anyone to connect some publish their intentions some don't. In fact I know at least one of each type. Some people do not want other people to connect to their network period. The problem is that we cannot distinguish between the two. These are free airwaves, why am I guilty of theft! In the land of the free why am I to assume that it is not free. "Mobile Cache" how can you say this is black and white, it surely isn't in the state of NY as I could argue both sides of this case. Go back and read that law. I agree with Team WSM, I live in a free country where I am innocent until proven quilty. Don't want to share your bandwidth, either don't get 802.11b or if you do SIMPLY protect it. The instructions are in the manual. Just an aside, companies can and are doing whatever they want with our computers by burying clauses in End User Agreements. (Microsoft Media Player update), This isn't very "ethical" either, but they are following the law. I think that this or the KaZaa situation is wrong. These clauses shouldn't be buried but should be a seperate "Opt" in selection. We need to revamp our laws. Not trying to hide behind grey areas. I am 100% in favor of 802.11b and protecting my network. I am not afraid of getting laws passed or changed. But If I were to attempt to change this law or write one to cover it, you have to ask "WHO is able to control the situation?" Currently with this system it is the node owner, only. There are no cases because it isn't likely winable for a node owner point of view. From a wireless user point of view there is no point. the whole problem with your argument is that the airwaves aren't free, they're public. The difference is that when something belongs to everyone, no one person can say how to use it, so we delegate responsibility under the social contract to agencies that have the job of regulating the use so it will be (at least in theory) fair to all. As with all public resources, the airwaves are regulated. Mainly by the FCC in the US, and there are laws about interecepting communications. Also, you can tell whether someone intends their network to be open or not. Specially, you should assume they do not unless they tell you they do (this is the same rule that applies to access to private property. Assume it's closed unless it's posted as open.) There are a lot of free wifi access points. They all advertise their existence. (Around here most of them are in coffee shops) That's different than unintentionally open access points. Anyway, even if the access point is open, that does you no good, because in order to take advantage of it, unless you're simply accessing machines inside the local net, you have to steal access to the internet connection attached to the AP.

Pocket query seems to quietly change any distance of > 500 miles to 500 miles. Since this isn't documented as a feature, it seems to be a bug. It would be helpful if it were fixed. Also, although there's an option for 'none selected' for origin that would be useful for finding locationless caches or for finding caches-I've-found you get an error message when you attempt to use it. Finally, as others have reported, it seems that queries are not returning all of the caches they ought to. In this case, my 'closest' query appears not to be returning a cache that's well within range that should match the criteria. I'll be happy to provide details if someone has time to debug this. thanks, marty