W4G_SOTAGoat

Not to sound insensitive, but people need to take responsibility for their own safety and know their limits. Plain and simple. It shouldn't be up to Groundspeak or a reviewer to decide if a cache is too dangerous or not. Accidents happen, and this is a tragic one. I don't think anything needs to change. There will always be extreme or dangerous caches. It's up to the finders to decide if the reward outweighs the risk.

Makes sense....thanks

What is the difference between this and a cache located inside a park's visitor center?

Would it be allowable for a cache final to be at the customer relations counter at a sports venue with the first stages being a puzzle to determine the combination to the cache? Getting to the final would require admission to a game. I don't see this as any different than a cache being at a place that requires admission.

My SO thinks that *IF* it was indeed a ghost, it's quite likely it was a slave. As much slave labor as they used to dig the mill race and work the mill, it's highly likely that some of them died terrible deaths in the area.

Here is a twist.... What if it's a multi with a puzzle that can easily be solved with a smartphone and the proper app?

I'd put it in my tablet.

One of the Georgia State Parks Challenge caches is actually IN an old family cemetery that lies within Fort Yargo State Park. I've also found two others around Atlanta that are within the gates of what appear to be old, possibly family or special use, cemeteries.

I went for a FTF yesterday and met another cacher who had just pulled up ahead of me. The listed coordinates had us in one corner of the lot. The description said that it was behind a dumpster. The only dumpster in the area was on the other side of the lot, abut 50 yards away. Huh? We then checked the hint. It said "In bushes behind a wall". No wall or bushes in the GZ or near the dumpster. So, we have a GZ in one corner, bushes planted terraced behind a brick wall about 25 yards away, and a dumpster 50 yards away. WTH? The CO has one find, and it was back in May. Finally found the cache behind the wall, well away from the GZ and dumpster. Posted updated coordinates in the log and emailed the CO. Still no response or update on the cache listing.

I agree...Can a mod move this?

Today I was out on the Yellow trail at Sweetwater Creek State Park to get stage 1 of a multi near the collapsed bridge. As it turned out, I had to go back because I got the wrong information the first trip. Keep in mind that the Yellow trail is not used much anymore because it used to go over the bridge and do a long loop on the East side of the creek. I saw no one out there on either excursion out that trail today. After about 10 minutes of searching the GZ on my second trip and realizing there was a good chance that it had been removed due to construction, I looked up the road that leads down to the remains of the bridge and noticed what looked a person about 100 yards up the road just standing there. No one is supposed to be on that road unless they are park personnel or East Point PD (they have a firing range on that road). It was just me and who/whatever was up the road. I'm not one to get spooked easily, but this figure looked completely black, like a silhouette. No colored clothes, discernible features, or anything. After standing there looking at the figure for a few seconds, I decided that discretion was the better part of valor and started back up the Yellow trail towards the Visitor's Center. As I stepped into the woods, I stopped for a second and looked back up the road. The figure was still standing there absolutely motionless. I continued for about 50 yards up the trail and looked back to see what was going on. The figure was no where in sight at this point. I was looking over my shoulder all the way to the intersection with the Red trail, but never saw the figure again. As I said before, I'm not one to be creeped out but this incident sent chills up my spine. The fact that the figure looked like a silhouette and just stood there motionless was a bit eerie for my taste. Has anyone else had any strange things happen out on the trail?

I've left unavtivated tags as SWAG, but never a live traveler.

Completely agree. Had one today that had the trailhead listed in the description. UGH.

I have to disagree with this. The sport is finding the hide, not driving around wasting gas trying to find a parking spot and possibly causing or getting into an accident because you are distracted looking for parking near the cache.

On one of my caches that is around a lake, I have a parking waypoint listed even though it's pretty obvious where to park. My question is, what is the general opinion of having a parking waypoint where there is NOT an obvious choice of where to park? I like to spend my time searching for the cache, not a parking space.

Sorry, I used the 'download PQs' option rather than the 'Get Geocaches' one. A quick test this morning showed the behaviour that you report - the Long Description doesn't include the text at the end even when there are child waypoints in the DB. Did you notice that the waypoints appear when you view the cache description within GSAK? That's why I'm confused. Why don't they show up on an export when they show up in the description displayed in GSAK? Here is a link to the discussion that was going on over on the GSAK board. I never really got a straight answer as to why they are displayed in the description but not exported to the GPX file. http://gsak.net/board/index.php?showtopic=20406

I have a multi and in stage one, there is a piece of paper that just says: abc xyz Most experienced cachers know that is just a substitute for the decimals in the location of Stage 1. 33 34.123 would become 33 34.abc 083 22.812 would become 083 22.xyz

Did you populate one of the databases from the API download function? I didn't use the "download PQs" option, but the "Get Geocaches" option.

Even if the information was there (and I don't know), a GPX file is not a flat set of data. A program WOULD need to be written in order to put it in a useful state for you. I am looking to see what Cache Report can do.. I know, it's basically an XML file. The main thing I'm looking to do is take the data from the API and verify whether or not the additional waypoints are passed, and if so what format they're in. Then, massage the API data to create a GPX containing this data in the long_description field. I have years of "real world" programming experience so I don't think it would be too hard to do.

GSAK will not provide the additional waypoints in the <long_description> field when a GPX file is exported from a database created with an API download. So, when you view a cache on your GPS you don't know if there are any waypoints for parking, trailheads, puzzle multis, etc. It will give you the waypoints in the export if you build the database from a PQ, but if I run multiple PQs I can just send them to my GPS directly. Clyde says that the API doesn't provide that data, so he can't export it. However, the additional waypoints DO show up when you view the long description inside GSAK. So, for the life of me, I can't understand why a GPX export from GSAK doesn't provide that information if it's available when you view the description within GSAK.

Allow users to specify not only a distance from a particular point, but allow a min and max distance. For example, to catch all the caches in a particular area you could to the following PQs: PQ #1 Radius Min = 0 Radius Max = 5 PQ #2 Radius Min = 5 Radius Max = 8 PQ #3 Radius Min = 8 Radius Max = 10 PQ #4 Radius Min = 10 Radius Max = 11 This would be better than having to do radius queries from different points and wind up duplicating numerous caches or missing some between the radius overlaps.

Does anyone know if there is a program that will download raw data from the API? I'd like to write a program to massage the data the way I want it (GSAK will not do what I want) to create a GPX to upload to my Garmin. PQ's limited to 1000 caches and every few days won't cut it. Thanks!

Have two different attributes for beacon geocaches. Beacon required Beacon available This would allow placement of a physical cache along with a beacon device. Those without compatible receivers can filter out the beacon required attribute. People with compatible receivers could search for geocaches with the beacon available attribute.

I have an older Surefire 6P and absolutely love it. However, it eats CR123A batteries. Is anyone using a drop-in LED replacement for this torch? If so, how does it compare to the standard 120 lumen lamp assembly? I'd like to maintain something just as bright so it can maintain duty as a tactical flashlight when needed.

GSAK seems to parse the long_description field differently if it's an API download or PQ import. Specifically, a GPX export from a database populated by a PQ import shows additional waypoints in the long_description field. A GPS export from a database populated by an API download does not. Hence, you have no clue that a cache has additional waypoints by reading the cache description from a GPX file created by a database populated by an API download. According to Clyde, the API populates some of the fields differently, causing issues in waypoints when processed by GSAK. Does anyone know if the long_description and Waypoints download via the API is different than what you get in a PQ? If so, why?