niraD

The suggestions that Groundspeak is discontinuing support for MSIE 6 were part of the bickering that mtn-man ended when he posted: Given that the list of outstanding issues at the head of this thread includes "Mapping errors in Internet Explorer 6", do you really think they're discontinuing support for MSIE 6? Why would they bother listing this issue if they were no longer supporting MSIE 6.

If someone is going to cater to MSIE 5.x, then they should also cater to all the other browsers that have more than its 0.03% of the market.

If you don't care about nitty-gritty details of HTML/XHTML comment syntax, then you can ignore this message. That sounds like FF is implementing correct HTML/SGML comment parsing. I wasn't aware that any browsers actually got it right, even in standards mode. Technically, XHTML/XML comments are defined to - start with <!-- - end with --> - not contain -- anywhere inside That's a good rule to follow for HTML/SGML comments too, because it's safe and matches what browsers actually do when they're trying to make sense of the junk HTML found on most web sites. But technically, HTML/SGML comment declarations are defined to - start with <! - end with > - contain zero or more comments, which begin and end with -- Therefore, your example: <!-- comment with--inside the text --> is not a valid HTML/SGML comment, nor is it a valid XHTML/XML comment. In XHTML/XML, it violates the rule against including -- inside the comment. In HTML/SGML, it technically should be interpretted as: <! [begin comment declaration] -- [begin comment] comment with [comment text] -- [end comment] inside the text [invalid characters between comments] -- [begin comment] > [comment text] Note that there is no -- to end the comment, so technically the > and all the content that follows it is part of the comment. But as I said, I wasn't aware that any browsers actually got this right, even in standards mode. But your main point, that user-supplied content should not be able to break the structure of a page, is indeed correct.

Are you serious? The geocaching parents I know have said exactly the opposite. A lone adult looking under a bush or park bench looks a lot more suspicious than a child looking under a bush or park bench, or an adult and child looking under a bush or park bench together.

I've solved puzzles where there was a good reason for the posted coordinates to be more than 2 miles from the cache. I've also solved older puzzles that were published before the guidelines said anything about the posted coordinates for puzzle caches being within 2 miles of the cache. And of course, there is no such limit on multi-caches. I've found multi-caches where the final location was miles from the posted coordinates, and I've heard of some that are hundreds of miles from the posted coordinates. Before you invest a lot of time/money in a location-specific cache, it's probably a good idea to check with your local reviewer to verify that the location is available.

meaning so sublime just seventeen syllables except when you need a few more

Darn. I had bet on Heath bars...

That's invalid markup. You can't put anything inside a tr element except td and th elements. The br elements need to go inside a td element.

I don't know about the specific changes that geocaching.com made, but I do know that in general, layout changes may be required to allow a site to be translated/localized well. For example, headings can change size, depending on the words used in different languages. A rigid layout that is optimized for one language can fall apart when translations for another language are used instead.

Sounds more like resident proxies than resident geocoins. I enjoy discovering resident geocoins, just as I enjoy helping other geocoins travel. And I understand why coin owners send out proxies. But proxies just don't have the same appeal.

I use a bookmark list to track puzzle caches that I've solved. I run a PQ on this bookmark list, and then use Geocaching Basecamp to correct the coordinates of these solved puzzles. Occasionally, I actually find one of these caches. And unfortunately, some of them occasionally need maintenance. It would be very helpful if I could filter my bookmark PQ the way I can filter my location-based PQs, including only the bookmarked caches that I haven't found, that are active, etc.

FWIW, I didn't notice the font size change, but that's because the old site tried to specify fonts that were smaller than my browsers' minimum font size settings. The new site may be doing the same thing, AFAIK. (I tried to sort out the style sheets, but given the CSS errors, I gave up.) Ideally, the site would respect the browser's configured font sizes, which should satisfy both those who think its current font size is too big and those who think its current font size is too small.

When I use the "filter out finds" option on the web site, or the "I haven't found" option in PQs, then:Caches that I DNFed and still haven't found show up. Caches that I DNFed and later found do not show up.

Some owners of geocoins want their coins to travel, but without the risk of someone "collecting" (stealing) their coins. So they print a photo of their coin, and release that rather than releasing the actual coin. Some go to the trouble to print a double-sided card with a photo of the front of the coin on one side, and a photo of the back of the coin on the other side. I've even seen one that attached trimmed photos to a washer, and then put the washer in a plastic coin case. Anyway, I'm one of the people who likes helping real coins travel, but doesn't bother moving coin proxies.

Yep. As long as the cache hasn't been published yet, you can just go ahead and edit the page to fit the new location.

I've found hundreds of caches using the satellite view on Google Maps, and you appear to have been successful at it too. It's harder in areas where there are fewer recognizable landmarks visible in the satellite images. It's harder in areas where the satellite images aren't high-res enough to allow you to zoom in very far. (Around here, I can zoom in to the 20' scale, but I've seen places where you can't zoom in past the 200' scale.) And it's harder in areas where the satellite images' calibration is off. (Around here, it's at least as good as a consumer GPSr, but I've read accounts of the satellite view being off by 100' or more.) I've had that happen in areas where the signal was bouncing off buildings. When I approached GZ from a distance, the GPSr arrow pointed to the same place that the satellite photos indicated. But as I got closer to GZ, the arrow pointed some distance away (and that's where the cache was actually hidden). In practice, sometimes it can be easier to find the cache if you're using a device that is subject to the same inaccuracies as the device used by the cache owner, rather than using a device/system that is more accurate than the device used by the cache owner.

Says who? The guidelines merely require "the option of using accurate GPS coordinates". Besides, the GPSr doesn't find the cache. The GPSr just points you to ground zero, where you can start trying to find the cache.

I use bookmarks to track my progress on challenge caches, to record personal milestones, to create public lists of caches that I like for various reasons, to record puzzle caches that I have solved but have not yet found, and to follow caches in an area I'm monitoring for a local open space district.

To be honest, I haven't done much geocaching since I upgraded from the G1 to the N1. But the N1's GPS accuracy has been fine the few times I've geocached with it, and the GPS accuracy has been fine when I've used the N1 for on-road navigation.

See also http://cacheopedia.com/wiki/Nano_cache

That depends on your phone, your provider, and the Geocaching software you're using. I didn't pay anything extra, but the GeoBeagle software I use is free, I didn't have to pay to unlock the GPS receiver in my Nexus One, and my service plan already includes unlimited data and SMS. (I use GeoBeagle's SMS logging to create field notes, and then use the field notes to log online.)

Looking through some of the caches I've found that are now archived... Adding a piece to a structure is a very effective camouflage technique. In a wooden gazebo, you could add an extra piece of wood that matches the rest of the construction. On a metal structure, you could add another nut/bolt that is painted the same color as the rest. If you find a structure with a missing piece, then you can replace it with a similar bit that also contains your cache, and then it's even harder to spot the bit that is out of place. (Bison tubes camouflaged with a bit of rebar and hidden in a concrete parking stop fall into this category.) Fishing line is almost invisible. I've found a few that were suspended by fishing line, and the only way to find them was to notice the fishing line and pull up the cache from its hiding place. Or find a location that matches a typical hide style, but figure out some other way to hide a cache there. Until they've determined that you didn't hide anything in the newspaper box, under the bench, or under the lamppost skirt, they won't even look for the obviously fake rock you hid 5' away in plain sight. A decoy container very near the actual cache can be interesting. Many will give up searching the location after reading the "sorry, this is not the cache" note. The successful ones will find the real container hidden under the decoy. I enjoyed an "elevated" cache that was about 20' high. The CO left it up to each seeker to figure out how to retrieve and replace the cache, and to obtain and transport the necessary equipment. I also enjoy blinkers hidden in plain sight on public sculptures.

The only thing here that I disagree with is the definition of start of the hunt. I define it as actively searching for the cache. If I reach ground zero (or try to reach ground zero but fail) but don't actively search for the cache, then I post a DNS ("Did Not Search") as a Note. But if I start searching, then I post either a DNF or a Find. Besides, the "call up the cache coords on my GPS" definition doesn't work when you don't use a GPSr...

Another factor is that caches close to the trail will tend to be smaller and better camouflaged than caches further from the trail, because they need to be harder for muggles to find accidentally. The easier a cache is to find, the more quickly geocachers seeking it will be on their way. The harder a cache is to find, the more time geocachers will spend searching for it.

Here are a few more examples: http://www.stpfriends.org/STP_Geocaches.html http://www.openspace.org/activities/geocac..._guidelines.asp http://thegba.net/policies/