Jump to content


+Charter Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TrimblesTrek

  1. Ignoring the grammatical atrocity, I'm wondering where you are getting your facts!
  2. Oh C.G. PLEASE send me a copy of the email! This is a real character! FYI Kermode, there is already an ongoing topic on Parks Canada. It's pinned in the Canada forums. Don't know how you could have missed it.
  3. I don't believe they understand a thing about geocaching. Seems to me that somebody visited the gc.com website and copied and pasted a bunch of verbiage. Then, with no further investigation, they wrote up a totally inane document. Hi J.A.R.S. Virtuals are the only ones they ARE allowing (provided enough hoops are jumped through to get it approved). My point is, I don't believe they have any right whatsoever to disallow a group of people from sharing the coordinates of a location in the park (aka geocaching). It's a coordinate on the surface of the planet. It's not a box in the woods. It can't be moved, removed or even touched. Anyone legally in the park and following park rules can go to the coordinates. But they say we need special permission! Ludicrous. edit: due to temporary insanity
  4. Cache-Tech... I have a feeling the "glad we left it to the pros" comment was probably directed more toward OGA than at you. The person who posted the comment was (at one time) vying for the position of leadership of the fledgling OGA. The folks that were interested in getting OGA started took a vote, and democratically selected a OGA Administrator. The person selected was not the poster. The poster has not attempted to make any contribution to OGA since that time, welcome to do so though he is. Sour grapes maybe? We all know you have done everything within your (limited) power to try to get a meaningful dialog going with Ontario Parks. It's not your fault they came up with this poor excuse for park policy. Rather than bellyache about people, I want to bellyache about policy... Correct me if I'm wrong, but my interpretation of the policy goes something like this.... - I find a really cool spot in ABC Provincial Park that I'd like to mark as a virtual cache location. I contact the Park Superindendent and jump through various hoops for him. Provided that the stars are properly aligned, and I'm of sufficient birthright and virtue, my virtual gets approved by the mighty Park. Then, I do the gc.com cache submission dance and (hopefully) get approved by the cache approver. At this point, it's all hunky-dorey for any geocacher to hunt down my virtual location. This means that they enter the park legally, be good nature-loving citizens and don't tromp on the flora and fauna, and follow their GPS arrows to my most spectacular site... TADA... the virtual cache has been located! Is that about right? OK, so how is that ay different than what I can do right now, without any approvals whatsoever... - Call up my buddy who has a GPS receiver and tell him to go to Nxx xx.xxx Wxx xx.xxx which is situated in the ABC Provincial Park. So he heads out, enters the park legally. is a good nature-loving citizen and doesn't tromp on the flora and fauna, and follows his GPS arrow to location I gave him. He stands and gapes in awe at the spectacularity of the sight he beholds. Does this seem strange to anyone else? How is it possible that, because I'm a geocacher, I need PERMISSION to pass along a set of coordinates to someone else? Wait a sec! How can a virtual geocache have a "suitable" location. If I'm looking at a spectacular land feature which is situated along the trail system in the park, I'm afraid I don't have much choice in the "suitablility" of the location! It's right THERE! If the park trail system takes me anywhere near sacred/sensitive cultural sites, then the park must WANT me to be there! Otherwise there'd be no blasted trail! Are they telling us we aren't allowed to mark a waypoint along the trail, and pass this waypoint along to others??? Just because we are Geocachers??? Good grief! I may be a little thick, but it's just beginning to sink in now. These policy makers have NO IDEA what a virtual cache is! Hello????? It's a LOCATION on the planet! Nothing more! They are concerned about the "total number and distribution of" waypoints! "Well, it's OK if you post the coordinates of THAT waterfall, but don't ya dare post the location of that other one over THERE...we don't want folks lookin' at THAT one!" The writer of this document quoted chapter and verse directly from the gc.com pages... you'd think they might have taken the time to understand what they were writing about first! I would have accepted a park policy, (either good for geocachers or not so good) as long as the policy was based on knowledge and investigation. This policy shows neither. Saddened by the apparent lack of interest shown by Ontario Parks. -TT- (edit for the mandatory typos, misspellings and idiocy)
  5. Some cache owners don't take too kindly to having extra explanations given in cache comments. Maybe a better way would be to contact the cache owner first and let them know that a better explanation may be needed. Now if Parks Canada really want's to get involved with geocachers, they'll make the effort of making a policy that requires an approval by Parks staff before a cache is placed. This way, we follow the gc.com guidelines by having the listing approved by a cache approver, AND we follow the park policies too. There's no reason why any extra burden should fall upon the cache approvers.
  6. I think we'd all be better served if the "sniping" type of posts not be posted here. Cache Tech started this topic to bring a situation to our attention as a community. As a community we should respect each other, and each other's opinions. Resorting to "sandbox" type tactics only show immaturity. I agree 100% with these ideas and I would support any park (Federal or Provincial), heritage site, conservation area policy that implemented rules like these. The problem would be policing the rules. There is no way a cache approver could know how far off the trail the cache is hidden. [edit] oops! I guess I was in the middle of composing my post when Cache-Tech posted his. It wasn't there when I started!
  7. I think the better question would be: Why hasn't there been any input from other provincial groups in this thread? Lack of interest? That's fine. Figure it's a losing battle? That's OK too. Afraid of being chastised by other people in the discussion that have nothing positive to bring to the group? No problem. People stay away from issues like this all the time. At least OGA has been providing some input here! And the way I see it, OGA isn't negotiating for the rest of the country. OGA is negotiating for OGA. You want to be heard? Step up to the mike! If, after getting all the information they need to make an informed decision, the government bodies decide that Geocaching is not a suitable activity for our national parks, I'll abide by their decision. To any scoff-laws that decide anarchy is a better way to go, well... go ahead... teach your children well. -TT-
  8. Hey! Way to go Hard Oiler! Seems like only yesterday you were at.. um... 499... -TT-
  9. Saw it online last week. I read the Chapter 1 preview. I wasn't convinced that it had enough unit-specific info to make it worthwhile. Now we've got a guinea-pig! Keep us informed Murfster!
  10. Perhaps they've been converted into the new Phantom-type caches?
  11. Great topic. I've got a Top Ten list. OK, I've only gotten around to posting ONE cache there, but my intent is sincere! I also have a list of caches I've found that have been archived. List one and list two, since you can only store 100 bookmarks in a list. Not sure how useful these will be, and I have NO idea how I'm going to keep them up to date. Can anybody create a list, or are they members only?
  12. I, like Hard Oiler, always thought that Quebec was listed as PQ for postal abbreviation. I noticed that a couple of the recent posts listed it as QC, which I thought was the old fashioned way of listing it (sort of the non-metric way). Anyway, I just did a little searching and came up with this page... which shows that I am (once again) wrong! So QC it is! Just like Queens Council I suppose.
  13. I agree with keeping the 4 letter designation, and with keeping it strictly Trans Canada Highway. However, folks can name their cache whatever they want. And there will be some of them that use the 4 letter moniker when they shouldn't, according to the "rules". Can't do anything about that...folks will be folks! I'm changing my vote from TCDA to TCDN, just to be difficult. By the way, did you consider a 3 letter designation? I just did a seach on TCH and came up with zilch, nada, zero matches. (Oops... now I see from your earlier post that a minimuum of 4 letters are needed for a search term.) But WAIT... I just tested this. I searched for ABC and the search returned a result. So what's the deal? -TT- (edit for the inevitable typo's AND stupidity!)
  14. I've been following this thread and think it's a great idea too. TCHW already returns results on a gc.com search...things like paTCHWork, LeTCHWorth, etc. So that leaves TCDA or TCDN. I'd vote for TCDA. Once this is in place, and word gets out, I fear that there will be many S.Ontario caches listed as TCDA that really aren't. This is because in S.Ontario, the Trans Canada Highway system doesn't include S.Ontario's two busiest highways... Hwy 401 and Hwy 400. There are a pile of caches along both these highways that would fit the rest of the designation "rules". Many people mistakenly will make the assumption that the 400/401 highways are Trans Canada routes. Interesting fact is that Toronto is not on the TCH at all! Somewhere around 80km away from it in fact! I like that fact that in S.Ontario, the Trans Canada Highway follows the route of the original highways... Hwy 69, Hwy 12, and Hwy 7. (edit for the inevitable typo's)
  15. Thanks for the tips. I've now got my numbers within 10 of the gc.com stats. I did as suggested and I've now got three main PQ's. 1. Founds in N.America that were placed 2001-2003 2. Founds in N.America that were placed 2004+ 3. Founds outside N.America Then, I listed all my founds and went through, page by page and bookmarked all the archived caches. (I came up with a total of 127) Adding all these together I get a number within 10 of what gc.com stats page shows. I assume the missing caches have been permanently archive and cannot be viewed. Close enough. Then, when I view all the listings in my bookmark list, I checked them all and downloaded as a .loc file. A quick conversion to GPX and my GSAK database is now up to date (more or less).
  16. Archived caches would definitely account for some of the missing numbers. I also have somewhere around 60 or 70 US caches as well. I reran my traditional query selecting all States and Provinces and this boosted the number from 339 to 395. But now I'm missing some non Canada or US caches. It looks as though I'm going to have to create a few more PQ's to account for all of them. Wish it was easier! I would just like to be able to get the same breakdown that gc.com uses for the stats page. Related question... on the pocket query page, when you choose Preview... what sort order is used to display the caches? It's not by My Found date, not by Placed Date, not by distance from my home coords... Anyone?
  17. I've read Markwell's FAQ, and didn't find what I was looking for... Question about Pocket Query... To keep track of all my found caches in GSAK, I currently have three pocket queries. One for traditional caches, one for Multi-caches, and one for all other types. When I view my profile, it shows that I have found 484 traditional caches. When I run a pocket query selecting... - Traditional Cache - Any Container - I have found - Within: ALL Countries selected - Origin: None Selected - Place During: None Selected ... it only shows 339 found. What has happened here? Is there something I'm doing wrong with my pocket query? I have the same inconsistencies with the Multi caches and OTHER caches queries as well. Any ideas?
  18. I liked that one too, right up until I slipped into the creek, which WASN'T frozen at the time!
  19. How much notice does one need to put a call out for group geocaching? I'm usually a spontaneous cacher, usually not sure if I'm available to go caching until the day before, depending on what I've got planned, what plans fall through thus giving me some time to cache, and what the weather conditions are like. But I would like to join in occassionally. With the group of folks that we have in this area, there always seems to be a gang cache hunt in the works. A forum post on a Friday afternoon would probably elicit a response. If you knew earlier in the week that you wanted a rubbermaid fix on the weekend, you could try joining the Golden Horseshoe Chat on Wednesday nights. Plans are always being cooked up there! (It's still a SECRET, but an application is being tested where you can enter a list of cachers, and enter a coordinate. The app will then return a gpx file with the 50 closest caches that NONE of the cacher list have done yet. I've seen it in action and it is very, very cool.) There's also the "very last minute" cache groups that get formed via Messenger conversations and phone calls. You just need to make it known that you are interested, and pass along your contact info to one or two of the folks you already know. Then if a phone call comes and you are available...off you go! Cheers! -TT-
  20. Hi J.A.R.S. !! You mean like this? Fortunately GC.com just recently added a new feature where cache owners can mark their own caches with some valuable information... stuff like "Kid Friendly", "24/7 accessible", and yes, even "Winter Friendly" Unfortunately, I haven't seen any means to search for caches using these things as search parameters... not too much use if you can't use 'em in a search if you ask me! Maybe I'm just doing something wrong...wouldn't be the first time. Anyway, until such time that gc.com allow searching with these parameters (or I figure out what I'm doing wrong) we're pretty much left with only the logs of others to give clues about how easy/not easy the find will be. If your thirst for tupperware is really getting to you, another idea may be to try a day of drive-by 1/1 caches. There are a pile of these down in the Burlington area. Although they aren't usually the most exciting hike, they can be an interesting diversion. Another way that I've found to alleviate some of the frustration of winter caching is to go with a group of people. If the annoyance is spread out over a bunch of people it's not quite as bad! The bonus here is that there's usually somebody willing to dig through that pile of snow for you! (That somebody usually isn't me!) Anyway, if you want to get together and do a gang cache day, just add another new forum post...there are lots of us now that would love to join in. Cheers, -TT-
  21. 800 not found ??? !!! Come ON Scottie! You slacker!!!!
  22. Hi... this is "Yet Another Where's In A Name" cache request... I see these requests in the forums all the time and finally decided to look at this "cache" My name: TrimblesTrek First 5 letters translates to: 87 46.2xx From my research I see that Chicago Midway airport is 87 45.xxx According to the Where's In A Name virtual I need someone to take a picture at W87 46.2xx (N coords are irrelevant) and get the pic to me. Then, we can both log the cache. This doesn't really seem much like geocaching to me...I much prefer the wild tupperware hunts. But if you can help, contact me via the site and we can coordinate our mutual "find" Thanks, -TT-
  23. Way to put him in th spotlight now Annie!!! Wow! 1400 traditional caches is an awesome milestone. You're like, the King of Tupperware! Hail to King Nozz! Long may he reign. -TT-
  24. I'm looking forward to the live Flamingos ! Annie will be so pleased! ... what... did I misread something?
  • Create New...