Jump to content


+Charter Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by washboy

  1. quote: ...couldn't it be re-written to spread the load over a period, I think I remember Teasel mentioning in another thread that he had done things to reduce the amount of "hammering" it caused GC.com. The impression I got is that the stats system, as we saw it latterly, is somewhat different "under the bonnet" to what it was originally. No doubt Mark or Teasel would have commented to this by now if it weren't such a delicate issue ===== There's no such thing as a free lunchbox!
  2. quote: Basically whenever it's on the cache co-ordinates are spot-on. But are the cache co-ordinates spot on in the first place? Was the cache-setter using WAAS too? ===== There's no such thing as a free lunchbox!
  3. quote: This is true, but the web scrape software "views" the site as fast as it can. The time between HTTP requests is probably several hundred (or thousand) times faster than human viewing. This results in quite a heavy load on the site while the program is running. When I used to run it, it took about an hour on even a fast link. This is probably the real reason Jeremy doesn't like webscrape software, hence the need to ask his permission to use it. My simplistic explanation was in response to T&J's comment about JeremyI not giving the data to the likes of "he who shall not be named". My point was that the data is taken, not given and that if HWSNBN wanted it, he could get it. That said, I'd like it on record that I totally agree with the need to ask JeremyI for his permission (as, I'm sure, do Mark and Teasel). ===== There's no such thing as a free lunchbox!
  4. quote: A common concern raised on the thread about the TV program seems to be based around an increase in the number of caches out there. Eh? From where I sit, the common concern appeared to be that there won't be a sufficient number of "new" caches to satisfy the appetites of veteran cachers unless loads of new recruits join our ranks and place them. ===== There's no such thing as a free lunchbox!
  5. quote: Suppose for a moment if you will, that a certain unmentionable had provided the facilities on his site that Mark has been doing, and Jeremy just handed over the data. Later, when all the trouble started, would we have forgiven Jeremy for making it so easy for that person to obtain what could be a powerful hold over caching in the UK ? Unless I completely misunderstand, this is an issue of etiquette and manners, not technology. Not even copyright. It is not a case of whether Jeremy hands over the data (or not). As registered users of GC.com, we all download web pages containing data about caches and log reports. That is the principal function of the site. In this way, Jeremy already "hands over" the data. Normally speaking, though, we only view that information on screen. We don't keep it on our computers in a database - or do we? Many of us use the GC.com facility to download cache details to EasyGPS for manipulation there. So Jeremy obviously wants us to be able to make more use of the data. In principle, all that Rob&Lisa/Mark/Teasel's system does is "view" every UK-related cache page and log report on GC.com and then store pertinent details in a database. That database can then be interrogated to provide the reports (and downloads) we were used to seeing on geocacheUK.com. Those reports merely link back to the very GC.com pages from whence the data was gleaned in the first place. Net result: GC.com is of more use to UK users. Jeremy has more satisfied UK users without the need to invest development and programming time to provide UK-biased customisations and features. He can concentrate on US users. Mark gets a warm fuzzy feeling. We all get happy and send Jeremy more money. If that certain unmentionable had wanted to have the data, he could have done so without Jeremy's permission. All he would have needed is the appropriate programming expertise. If Mark & Teasel were up to no good they could have ignored Jeremy's hints of annoyance (in this forum only) and carried on regardless. As Mark has indicated, several people/sites already routinely "nick" data from GC.com. Jeremy does not stop this from happening but he is presumably not pleased about it. Apperently his earlier silence did not constitute consent (as, I guess, Rob&Lisa assumed). Upon learning of Jeremy's displeasure, Mark and Teasel have done the gentlemanly thing by immediately ceasing to continue the offending activity. They have approached Jeremy with apologies and reassurances of their benign intentions. Let's hope that Jeremy has simply been too busy enjoying the Thanksgiving festivities to read his email and that, shortly, he will enter into a constructive dialogue. ===== There's no such thing as a free lunchbox! [This message was edited by washboy on December 02, 2002 at 12:58 PM.]
  6. Don't give up yet, Mark. Wait a while longer. You, and everyone involved in GeocacheUK, have accomplished too much and provided too great a service to the UK geocaching community (IMHO) to give up unless everything fails. I have become almost dependent on the UK stats pages for my complete enjoyment of the sport. Until Jeremy Irish objected, I was very conscious that Teasel's wizardry (built on what Rob&Lisa started) had added a huge amount of fun and facilty and was providing a greater useabilty and overall enhancement to Jeremy's geocaching.com. So much so that, despite my great reluctance to use PayPal, I was about to cough up my $30 and become a charter member. I can appreciate Jeremy may be peeved that, through oversight and misunderstanding, no-one managed to obtain his direct consent to webscrape geocaching.com. I'm sure no offence was intended and that we all regret he has apparently taken umbrage. But maybe he has not. Perhaps he is just too busy to respond for the moment. Let's hope the next few days will see a positive response from geocaching.com. After all, geocacheUK.com only enhances what Jeremy provides. It takes absolutely nothing away. So, be patient Mark. Jeremy must see the good you have been doing. ===== There's no such thing as a free lunchbox! [This message was edited by washboy on December 02, 2002 at 08:16 AM.]
  7. quote: Pharisee: If the National Trust was to ban geocaching on their land and the Farmers Union got into the act as well; you can kiss goodbye to geocaching in this country. That’s not something I want to see any more than you all do. The longer we can keep a low profile, the longer we’ll be able to enjoy geocaching. Precisely! My point exactly. That's what I meant by "official" permission. The NT, Forestry Commission, Crown Estates, county and local councils, etc., are each responsible for most of the land on which we cache in UK. If we give the wrong impression to them (or allow such an impression to be formed) they will proscribe caching on their land and will become alert to our activities. I would suggest that, at the moment, we are totally unknown to the powers that be in those organisations. In a year, following a few more TV articles, "Geocaching" could be a well recognised term. This really is an issue in which neither side of the argument can be certain of the outcome. It's just a "gut feel" thing, I guess. However, I subscribe to the principle of "if it aint bust, don't fix it". I've heard no argument, to date, which convinces me that we need a major influx of new cachers (but I'm open to persuasion). The pro-advertising lobby is quick to point to the several recruits who were made aware of the sport by magazine articles. I won't deny that but I suspect at least an equal number stumbled upon it via internet searches, links from manufacturers' sites, etc. The effect of personal recommendation and word of mouth should not be underestimated either. Aw, heck! I guess I should just give up and accept that, in life, those who are prepared to act unilateraly will always hold sway over those who argue for discretion. I've nothing more to say ===== There's no such thing as a free lunchbox!
  8. quote: Slytherin: You are entitled to your opinion, but you are way wrong on this one. No! Iathama and Pharisee are not "way wrong" any more than you are totally misguided in your own "opinion". As usual, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, many activities need a constant supply of recruits to replace those who do not maintain sufficient committment. But how many? I have next to no skills of statistical analysis and I wonder how large the pool of live caches needs to be to satisfy the "average" cacher. The T&Js of this world (all power and respect to them) are far from average and, at the rate they eat caches, certainly need plenty more to be planted. But what of the weekend cacher, perhaps only clocking up a few per week (or month)? Now, more than ever, I wish we still had access to geocacheuk.com's stats pages. I'm sure teasel (and jeremyp) would have been able to come up with some answers. Surely we should be more concerned with the number of new, quality caches planted and maintained than the number of cache hunters joining the sport. There are risks associated with untargeted advertising and, in this instance, they are not simply to do with cache vandalism. They have everything to do with how the sport is perceived by those who influence our freedom to cache, i.e. landowners. quote: Tim & June: The problem is I think they are going to refer to this, and us as "bizarre" Journalists, in all media, are notorious for distorting (or perhaps I should say "selecting") the facts in order to create a good story. I couldn't care less if I'm regarded as bizarre by the public at large for my habit of skulking around in bushes and hedgerows - not to mention my geocaching activities quote: Kouros: Or is the problem that peole are worried about their secret sport being found out? This is a small, densly populated country with limited public access land. Many of our physical caches have been (and could only be) placed in locations where official permission ought first to have been secured. However, if such permission had been sought, it would probably have been denied. That is the nature of bureaucracy. If in doubt, say "No!". We should also bear in mind that, technically, placing a physical cache is an act of littering. This being the case, I believe there is a real need to keep things discrete. Not "secret" or masonic but "low-key". If we're not careful we could make it so that most caches have to be virtual or where treasure hunts reveal the co-ordinates of a physical cache in the front garden of the cache owner. Comparing geocaching to orienteering is misleading. Orienteering tends to have organised events, well planned and with the permission of landowners. But, yes, geocaching could be forced down a road where physical caches are created for and active for an event only, thereafter being removed and all references to their location deleted. Is that what we want? I think not! I appreciate the sincerity and good intentions of those who are seeking actively to promote this crazy sport but I beg you not to let enthusiasm blind you to the risk of over-exposing an activity which can only exist (in its present form) with the blessing of landowners - landowners who currently are largely ignorant of the sport's existance. I'm not "way wrong" or "way right" on this - it's just my opinion. ===== There's no such thing as a free lunchbox!
  9. I have no problem with chat about specific caches, even if it is intentional (but subtle) advertising. I also would accept a single, sticky topic specifically for cache announcements. After all, we're not still in the days of 300bps acoustic modems and we're free simply to ignore anything not of personal interest. I, for one, was interested and pleased to read about T&J's success (Well Done, BTW). In such a case it would have been fitting for T&J, if they had felt inclined, to initiate a self-congratulatory thread. So why not the cache owner? ===== There's no such thing as a free lunchbox!
  10. What a decidedly dotty duo! You're both obviously sharp witted and I should declare this a tie but I suspect your humour is only accidental (though, please note, I don't mean that as a slur). So, I have no choice but to join this off-beat ensemble and up the tempo. Do you mind if I become the third triplet and take up the baton? However, we must remember that this kind of humour leaves most people flat. They have no ear for a finely tuned pun. It's scores very low on their joke scale. Maybe we should give it a rest, eh? I don't mean to bar further improvisation but I suggest we compose ourselves and refrain from further wordplay. I fear there might only be a short interval before the moderators slide in and accuse us of being off-key. And just in time. Signature bears are one thing - but signature tunes?!! I do hope I don't have to repeat myself. Maybe we need a coda conduct about this type of thing? ===== There's no such thing as a free lunchbox! [This message was edited by washboy on November 24, 2002 at 07:39 PM.] [This message was edited by washboy on November 24, 2002 at 07:43 PM.]
  11. The UK may be ranked 3rd in a list of placed caches but we still have only 4% of the number of caches in the US. So, of course, Jeremy's emphasis is going to be on the US. And his point about availablity of affordable UK street-level (and topo) maps is one I guess we can all appreciate. It is unfortunate, though, that a couple of easy-to-implement enhancements have been overlooked for so long. Namely, presentation of OSGB co-ords (in addition to WGS84 and UTM) and a link to streetmap.co.uk (as well as MapQuest, et al). I was unaware that Teasel had already requested these of Jeremy. Furthermore, it wouldn't be beyond the wit of man to restrict display of these items to UK cache pages - to avoid confusing non-UK cachers ;o) We shouldn't be too upset that geocaching.com is US-centric. After all, it's a free service to us and an excellent one, at that. We're not yet compelled to contribute to funding it. So, as long as Jeremy is willing to condone (perhaps even endorse and co-operate with) geocacheuk.com's (and others') efforts to provide local enhancements and services to UK cachers we should be grateful. I know I am. So, a massive vote of thanks to Jeremy, to Teasel and to all the others who enhance the sport. There's no such thing as a free lunchbox.
  12. quote: I just think that the moderators over-reacted and need to know what we think. I am totally convinced that it was done in good faith, but people can do things wrong in good faith and if everybody else just keeps quiet they'll keep on doing the same thing. I've been lurking on this one. I wasn't around at the time of the RL episode and, despite reading the archives on the subject, I guess I can't fully empathise with the intensity of negative feeling it appears to have generated. For these reasons, I'm probably not entitled to express an opinion on the historic RL issue - so I've tried to abstain. But, I have to side with JeremyP and others about the way Dodgydaved's post was handled. I've not seen the uncensored original but, from what I've read, I can see absolutely no justification for such censorship. Why is the role of "moderator" so called? Why is it not known as "censor"? I can make my own mind up about the rights and wrongs of the RL episode but, like other newcomers to these forums, I have the right to enquire about it in the first place. If the subject of RL keeps cropping up every so often (to the tedium of old hands) then the moderator(s) could easily enlighten by having a stock reply to hand - directing newbies to the archived threads (much as Tim & June eventually did) and requesting that sleeping dogs be allowed to lie. But, here's the thing; if old hands find the RL topic so boring - they're free simply to ignore it each time it resurfaces. If new forum members feel it's worthy of continued discussion, albeit only amongst themselves - then it is! I've rambled on too long, I guess, and for that I'm sorry but I felt compelled to comment on what has been for me an unsettling introduction to these forums. I've witnessed a mere microcosm of the Geocaching community denie the remainder a significant number of caches and, thereafter seek to stifle all critism and comment on the subject. This cannot be good.
  13. I just spoke with the Fox and he's departed the Leigh Delamere eastbound motorway services (just W of M4 Exit 17). He's heading for the Newport Pagnell northbound motorway services (N of M1 Exit 14) and hopes to be there around 2100-2130h. His route there will be M4->M25->M1 but he may deviate from that if he encounters bad traffic around London. Nevertheless, Newport Pagnell is his goal.
  14. 2.7 miles W of Newport (UK) travelling N at 53mph 51° 34' 34"N, 03° 01' 56"W (51.5761,-3.0322)
  15. 3.1 miles SW of Newport (UK) travelling S at 31mph 51° 34' 06"N, 03° 02' 02"W (51.5683,-3.0339)
  • Create New...