ar_kayaker

Persoanlly I'd rather have a cache with one or two log entries of 50 words, than 50 two word entries and I have way more respect for cachers that hide challenging finds than PNG's any day. That said I genarally don't do puzzles when traveling, and never puzzles I have to solve in the field. If I know in advance there is an interesting puzzle where I'm going to be (and other cachers from the area have praised it for creativity) I will go out of my way to solve it before the trip and find it while I'm there, but those are few and far between. AK

I wonder if there would be a way to include some scripting in the cache page or in a linked page that could verify the challenge completion and spit out the coordinates. I know of several puzzles cache pages that link to a "coordinates verification" page so you can punch in your puzzle solution and see if it is right before going into the field. There is also at least one site you can upload PQ's to that will kick back tables and lists of all the counties/states/terrain-difficulty combos/etc you have found. Would Groundspeak allow for a puzzle/mystery challenge cache that had an automatied method of getting the final coordinates? That would eliminate the issue of waiting for a seldom on-line cache owner to get back to you with the real coordinates, which I think is at least one of the major reasons for the rule. AK

Sounds like a grand idea to me. Just list it as one cache with coordinates for the front gate, then state on the cache page that cachers can log the find as many times as the number of micros they find on the property. It make the numbers ho's happy. They wouldn't even have to lift skirts. AK

The worst thing I've read in a log after I DNF'd a cache was "I have pulled this cache x days ago and am archiving it." or something simular.

It would only change older cache finds to the new icon if there was a way to update older caches to have the icon. As I have mentioned before the website has issues with a hodge-podge mix of older caches that have other icons or other requirements that don't match with current guidlines thanks to grandfathering. I'm all in favor of grandfathering over archiving a cache, but when they change the way a cache should be listed and add new types, they should update (or have owners update) cache listing to meet the new guidelines. I hate going and looking for a cache that says "traditional" that turns out to be a offset or a multi but has been allowed to retain "traditional" simply because it is old. They don't even have a means for updating the cache icon if you want to try an be compliant so the blame lays squarely on the shoulders of TPTB. Personally I'd love a night-cache icon, though a nice tagging system might be more practical and more useful in the long run. AK

Well actually, yeah I do. Maybe not the looking it up on GC, since geocaches aren't the only things they implode, but yeah I would like for them, and the rest of the public to get their collective panties unwaded. Ever since 9-11 we've had dozens of Nervous Nellies running around crying about the sky falling on us and blowing up all sorts of harmless objects in the name of making us "safe." The Conway Bomb Squad is a prime example as they also blew up a micro last year that was in an old plastic M&M tube! I'd really like it if they would relax a little and THINK before blowing up every dropped box or misplaced backpack. The news media hyped up this one as being "near" an airport. It was 50 yards away and across the street from the nearest building, behind a concrete barricade that would have directed any potenial blast the other direction. The "airport" in question is a seldom used regional runway with weeds growing in the cracks of the single taxi-way and a metal sided shed as the "terminal." I'm sure the place is on every terrorists list of targets to hit. Anyone with an ounce of brains, not to mention people trained in explosives, should have looked at the location where this was at and asked themselves, "where is the target?" A terrorist wants attention. You don't get that by exploding a bomb across the road from a rural runway. As for all the geocachers "agreeing" to some new deal with the CFD/CPD, well let's just say I'm glad I don't live in Conway or I'd be having words with the two or three cachers who decided they had the right to speak for me about what containers and camo methods I used. AK

But then not everyone is about getting as many smilies as possible. If the experience is worth it I'll drive lots of miles for a multi or mystery cache if it has a good experience to go with it. For some of us it's not about the number of smilies, but how much fun we have finding the caches. AK

No one is suggesting that you have to have a live internet connection while in the field, however, one must assume that you are bringing the cache data with you for the caches that you might look for. Of course, if you are saying that you are a 'coordinates only' geocacher, I suspect that you can find the source of your dissatisfaction by glancing in the mirror. You assume a lot, especially in regards to what "cache data" might entail to people who don't happen to carry a full PDA everywhere they go. My GPSr is quite capable of holding what should be sufficient cache data (cache name/terrain/difficulty/type/size/and even encoded hint, if it isn't more than a few characters.) That is more than sufficient to most needs. I'm not an engineer or in competion with "Techno-Bill." You also assume that I hate micros or PNG caches. I don't. They probably make up 30% of my finds, espcially when I make a full day of caching in any given area. What I hate is knowing where a cache is when I'm still 1/2 a mile away simply because I just got through finding the 15th "redhat" in a five block area. I certainly can't find the person who hid those first 15 caches by looking in the mirror. If I could I'd probably be too embarassed to look in the mirror. First, I don't know where you got the idea that I have huge number of finds. Maybe it was this comment: As though stats had anything to do with the validity of a person's coments. I just assumed from that fact that you cared about my stats so much that you were one of those people with a gazillion finds. Of course maybe the reason you take issue with people that think saturating a town with identical micros is a bad idea is because you have no finds, or a gazillion identical hides. I wouldn't know, since I don't plundering profiles trying to find a reason why somebody's side in a debate must be wrong. AK

I too would like either an icon or a searchable attribute for "Night-only" caches. The way things stand right now there is no practical way to create a PQ that pulls "Night-only" caches. In part becasue of the way the attribute system is used, making it inconsistant at best and in part because of the ever evolving meaning of the cache types mixed with grandfathering. The incosistant use of the attribute system is mostly on the cache owners who don't read the descriptions of what each icon means. 24/7 is eough to say it's available at night, the night attribute should at least be reserved for caches that are more interesting at night. A 3/4 mile hike isn't a "significant hike", though it might be strenuos if it climbs 600' of elevation in the process and IMO should be reserved for hikes over 2 miles at minimum, etc... On the other hand the fluxuting meaning of cache types and the patchwork quilt of grandfathered listings rest squarely with TPTB. I'm fully aware that it would be a pain in the tail to go back and review 600K caches after a change in cache type guidlines, and I certainly wouldn't want older types archived, but by allowing older caches to follow different rules makes it confusing when you try to run a search. Just for instance I have a night-only cache and an offset cache which under current guidlines are both "mystery" caches but are listed as a traditional (the night cache) and a multi as per the rules when they were placed. I can't change them, and the one time I asked the reviewer they said they couldn't either (couldn't be bothered is more likely.) Not that I really want them lumped in with the puzzles anyway. The mystery cache type seems to me to just be a type for "You gotta read the cache page to figure it out, because we didn't want to overtax the reviewer by making them read through the whole listing." If they do come out with a new cache type for night caches I hope they also put in a process for changing the listing types so the new and old listings will be consistant. At least allow the owners the power to update their listings as neeed. I can't believe it'd be that hard to seperate out the true puzzles "?" from the offsets (an arrow maybe), the night caches (flashlight) and the ALR caches which are also currently lumped under "?" These are distinctly different experiences when you go to seek them and deserve their own types (Consistantly applied!!!) AK

That's not normal. Normal is the sidewalk is in the public ROW. There could be difference between east and west on this. Another interesting case. Canal companies are big "NO TRESPASSING" fans but seldom if ever own the ground they are trying to keep you away from. This is unlike Rail Roads who often have claims to the land that pre-date the state they are in. Actually it's quite normal. I've owned land in two states and three cities and in all the different places the sidewalk (when there was one) was considered a public easement on my property. I've never lived anywhere where I had to upkeep the sidewalk itself, but each time I've been in city limits they could fine me for not keeping the grass between the sidewalk and the road mowed just like in the rest of the yard. Where I am right now I actually own to the centerline of the road, though that is because of the way the land was tracted off when the subdivision was built. Most newer subdivision deed the road bed back to the county. Thankfully, once again, I don't have to maintain the road! AK

I have had this exact scenario play out once already after my reviewer insisted on verifiable contact information. I had obtained casual permission from the owner of the property, but when I had to go find him again to get his phone number, and I told him why, he withdrew his permission. It was a good hide in an interesting place, too! Yes, I can see that happening, in a very small percentage of cases. But I see it being no problem in the vast majority. The standard for deciding such things is 'does it benefit the greater good?', not 'will it have no negative impact at all?'. Remember first that I am only talking about caches that require permission, and that if anyone today wants to question or bother the land-owner it's not hard to find them, yet practically no one does. We've had this almost word-for-word conversation in other threads, so let me leave it as I have before: This doesn't require Groundspeak's intervention... no guideline is needed - those of us who believe that it has value may choose to put this permission contact info in our descriptions if we choose to. Those who don't like the idea don't have to do it. I couldn't disagree more. Property owners are all too likely to balk at having their personal information listed on a public website, I know I would. I don't even think the guy at the Parks Dept would want his number listed on what is effectively a game website. You want the number to po-dunk parks & rec. then go look on their website. Even as a non-public reviewers' note I wouldn't want my number listed. If I give John Doe permission to camp on my land or place a cache on my property, my point of contact is with John Doe, not Officer Cache Police. It's something like the difference between asking someone to use their bathroom and asking them to be a character reference. A whole order of magnitude difference in the potential inconvienence involved. AK

This macro seems to be doing a fair job. I had 4 sets of PQ's of every active cache in Arkansas dating back to March so I had a fair number of logs to start with, though obviously older, more frequently visited caches had more logs than newer, seldom sought ones. At a glance I saw several caches among the top few dozen that I have since been to (I didn't import my found caches at first) and knew to be interesting ones, so in that regard the process has at least some merit. Coupled with some filters it will certainly make the manual sorting process shorter. However, using it got me to wondering. If this can be done to sort out logs by length, could another macro also be developed to search for specific keyword(s) in the logs? Could you create a macro to sort out a list of caches that contain the words "view" "vista" "hike" and "beautiful" while automatically ignoring caches with word like "skirt-lifter" and "LPC"? AK

And good reasons they are. I don't know how bad the saturation issue has become in other places, but if you want to avoid that kind of issue in the future, don't load micros or many smalls for Clarksville, Morrilton, Searcy, Cabot, or Jacksonville, AR. You don't have to buy it. It's not for sale anyway, it free for anyone who doesn't carry a complete internet in their pocket. Not everyone spends themselves into creditcard debt to have the latest and greatest new toy. Some of make do with older computers and simpler, cheaper GPSr's and don't have the option of reading the full cache page in the field every time we find ourselves in a new and unexpected part of town. In case you haven't clued in yet, despite the huge number of finds you must have, it isn't an issue with A skirtlifter or A PNG being "lame" it's an issue with the people who hide 50 of them in a square mile just because they can. AK

Lame is in the eye of the beholder. I know people that get all googly eyed at the thought of driving to a blistering 500 acres of exhaust laden blacktop, dodging soccer moms in SUV's for the chance to locate a film canister in a lamp post kilt. Took my quote out of context...like I said in the original post "...lame? Not really." until they saturate and area. Do I read cache descriptions, sure, but I haven't read all 600,000+ cache descriptions and never will. I do a little research and asking around when I'm going to travel someplace and find a few interesting sounding caches to seek while I'm there...then I load a PQ of everything within a few miles of those. I don't have or want to take the time to read every cache description. The point of geocaching, for me, is to get out away from my computer. If I wanted to spend all my time on my computer I could log every virtual in the system without ever leaving my desk. Or I could just go back to playing Warcraft. Either way is a good way to let both body and brain turn to rot. AK

Your other option is that the next time your membership is due for renewal, let it lapse by a day or two and log the cache while you're not a premium member! AK

I guess they offered the guy his money back so they can sucker someone else into buying a $20 plastic nipple.

Yes, please add that as a log type, then I could filter out any cache with more than 4 or 5 DNB logs with a GSAK macro! AK

I think the OP's comment wasn't directed at urban micros in general or even all skirt lifters or phone caches, just those areas where someone without much imagination has gone around a town and placed 50 identical caches under every lamp skirt more than 550 feet apart in a town. Some guy did something simular in Clarksville, AR. The town already had several good caches and still does, but now there is a magnetic micro attached to a fire-hydrant in every single space more than 550 from the next cache. The town is totally saturated to the point where when a new guy started caching in town he had to place his hides in the next town down the road. And you know what he did? He copied the idea! They are called the "Green Hat" series because the top of all the hydrants in the town are green. Then to make things worse after an Event was held in the area all the numbers ho's started doing it to other towns around the state. There are three other cities that I know of with "hat" caches and one town with "S.L.A.P." caches (skirt-lift-a-pole) all over the place. Are skirt-lifters, fire-hydrant, and Phone-booth caches lame? Not really....until they saturate a town. AK

That is the procedure i've used in the past and I'm trying to avoid, or at least shorten some.

I know of two or three that can be found from your car, but only one that was designed that way on purpose. GCC8D0 - Driveby Caching in West Memphis, AR. AK

There are ways to add a "rating" to your cache here too, but it's voluntary and not a searchable flag. Or if it is searchable, it is only searchable on whatever linked website hosts the rating system. Not many cache pages use it and certainly not the PNG's. Would anyone really place a PNG cache then hope for a good rating?

I'm not sure that is a really good system. First off what is an interesting cache? And will average cache log really indicate that a give cache is within your interesting cache parameters? You write longer logs, but do others? It may not be a perfect system, but it's better than a sharp stick in the eye. Like you say, some people are going to write one sentence logs for every cache they find no matter what, but then those are more likely the people who have 10,000 PNG finds which means I'd sort those right to the bottom of the list. As somebody else has already mentioned it may be a little flaky at first with only 5 logs per PQ, but I have an "All active caches" database for my state that included a few dozen PQ's of the same area over time. By using an average, especially once the database builds up to 50 or 60 logs per cache, it will bring the most likely cadidates to the top. The I only have to actually read the top few hundred, not the full 5000+, especially when coupled with other filters to weed out terrain 1/difficulty 1 micros from the start. AK

http://www.itsnotaboutthenumbers.com/ If you upload your "My Finds" PQ it will kick back several stats including the "consecutive days" stat. I just did it and it worked fine. Now if I could figure out how they sort out the "Longest Log Entry" stat and apply it to my GSAK database....

Anybody know enough computer programing and/or GSAK macro editing to be able to sort PQ data and determine the average length of the log entries? I know for a fact I write longer logs for caches I like where all I write for a PNG is one sentence, sometime less. I'm thinking that if you could sort the data in a PQ or GSAK database so that the caches with the longest average log entries were sorted to the top you'd have a good chance of getting a list of the more interesting caches to visit. AK

I had two people form out of town ask for some help looking for the Wherigo I made back in the spring and since some people had been having problemswith it I went out with them to observe (and nudge when required) the cartridge at work in the field. When we were nearing the final zone where the cache was both Colorados seemed to be heading for the cache, but after a few seconds one led the owner more than 100 feet east of the cache and the other sent it's owner off 100 feet or more feet north. Both units consistant pointed away from the cache site until one owner thought to exit the game (saved the game in progress) and then restart the software and resume playing. Don't have the faintest idea what caused that one, but that might be a wok around to use if you are having problems with being led around and around worse than usual.