Totem Clan

All we need is a goat or two or three.

That's the best idea of heard in this thread for some time now.

Fixed it for you. I doubt it's a cache though.

I must have missed that while looking at the macro list. Thanks bunchs.

Outside of this forum I have NEVER once heard any cacher ever talk about numbers as a competition. I have heard people congratulating others on reaching a milestone, be that 100, 500, 1000 or whatever. Beyond that I've never heard any cacher mention numbers outside of these posts ever. I haven't either, what I have heard and seen is a lot of drama where cachers are bashing others for how they cache an what they consider a find, this is done by high number cachers, the reason being, numbers matter, you'll find the same things on the forums, people trying to belittle others find counts. How many posts are there about how people cache the E.T. Highway? If you had 2 people walking down te street side by side and off in the distance someone raised a finish line at some point they'd break into a run then one would accuse the other of cheating or something like that. If you honestly believe that I fell sorry you. You have no idea about the true nature of humanity.

Outside of this forum I have NEVER once heard any cacher ever talk about numbers as a competition. I have heard people congratulating others on reaching a milestone, be that 100, 500, 1000 or whatever. Beyond that I've never heard any cacher mention numbers outside of these posts ever.

Cool1 I'd love that as an FTF prize. But then I don't need a prize to make me go for an FTF.

Not that I can see. That list appears to function differently than other true bookmark lists. It doesn't have a LOC/GPX/Run PQ function and doesn't show up in the API. The only way I can see is to do it manually. Ok I didn't just overlook something then. Thanks.

Ah, thanks for isolating our disagreement. I doubt many people at all would quit just if they removed statistics, certainly not enough to seriously damage the bottom line. But we'll never know because statistics do add to the game, so Groundspeak would never eliminate them even if they were sure they wouldn't lose any customers over it. It's a good feature that attracts and engages customers, but I don't think it's a critical feature that the product couldn't get along without. Now that I really think about it, of the hundred or more cachers I know well enough to speak of, I don't know ANY that would quit if you took away any one of the things you mentioned.

It's very politically correct of you to describe this in the neutral, but the fact is that I've never heard anyone say there's anything wrong with old school caches out in the woods. I only hear people objecting to those new fangled cache trends and how wrong those are. I have. In fact there's a thread about it. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=292200&hl=old school caching&st=0

Is there a quick, easy way to make a PQ or GPX file out of my Favorites list. I wanted to downlad it to GSAK. I know I can construct the database one cache at a time but I'm looking for better way. Thanks in advance.

I posted this in that thread. (BTW, I was in North Dakota when this was posted.) I still think it answers the question. I do see more bad caches now, but I also see more good cache. I see more caches period.

Must have been worth asking twice.

There really are very few, if any, "micro haters", (people who hate all micros) although that term is thrown around here a lot. I believe there are also very few, if any "powertrail haters". I for one, could be considered a roadside micro power trail hater, and it sounds as if the OP is also. Have I done one? Yes, 45 mostly smalls and handful of regulars along a gravel rail trail. There were more, but that's all I did. It was OK, the containers left a lot to be desired (a lot of Margarine tubs and metal coffee cans). Funny you should mention that though, I just noticed last weekend there is a rails to trails power trail in the vicinity of The Midwest Geobash Mega Event, which is all small and regular. If I attend, which I probably will, I would have no problem walking a few miles on this rail trail, and finding a bunch of them. What is or isn't a powertrail. I'm planning a seires/trail that will be 33 miles long. It will have at least 70 caches maybe up to 100. It follows an old highway that has been replace with a new straight high speed 4 lane road. All the caches will be the largest I can hide at eache site. At least a small and even a couple of larges. Part of the trail will be on a closed section that you must either walk or bike. There will be at least one cemetery cache. One will be at a place where a man collects and displays old signs. Some will be on of near old brigdes. Is this a powertrail?

I'm in California, and I'm a little unusual because I do, in fact, live and work in the same PQ. My wife, though, is more typical: she works a couple PQs away, about 30 miles.For me, a PQ for the 1000 unfound caches nearest to home reaches only 8 miles. A lot of people around here live more than 16 miles from work. Wow! For me it's 80.1 miles.

That sure sounds to me like you're saying many fewer people would play if they couldn't compete, and I can't think of why that would be unless people only play to compete. Since you also deny that's what you're saying, I guess we just have a language barrier. Well, we all agree Groundspeak would be stupid to stop supporting counts and statistics. I guess we don't have to worry too much about agreeing what would happen and why if they did. Reason being people cache for multiple reasons not just one (i don't cache solely for numbers, it's one of several reason I do but combined all these aspects of the game attract me enough to participate), if you take one of those reasons away then those that enjoy that part of the game just might not participate anymore. Take away puzzle caches and people will quit, take away events and people will quit, question is how many? I believe numbers play a big enough impact that it would be enough that the company couldnt sustain itself. Then how did they do it before the numbers crowd start pay for all of us to cache?

I agree, that's it. Close the thread now. I agree too. Nothing more to talk about. Yes, I knew myself and 4DD were on the same sheet of music. You will not get an answer, Mike and Jess. Some people "leapfrog" or play "three cache monte" on Powertrails. Some would never do that, and sign every single log, and put every single cache back. This simple question could very well start a thread that goes on for weeks. Now you did it. This went from how many in 1 day to how did you do that in one day. Like it always does. This going be good.

I can bring my dog and you can't stop me. He's a service dog. I'm sure that's fine. It's in a dog-free park, and earlier this month, the drama was at the maximum. People posting notes with the single word "FAIL". People deleting their will attend logs, and posting notes saying they're not coming. I don't have a dog in this fight mind you (pun intended), I'm just the messenger. Don't shoot bite me. Yeah, that's why I post that. I'm not going either. (At least I don't have plans to do so.)

... and that's why although caching has changed, it hasn't. Caching has expanded. That's about all you can say without getting your (not pointed at one person here but at everyone) personal bisas in the way of the debate.

In the last 2 weeks there have been barely any new caches publish and none I had an opportunity to get too but my nose is a lot flatter now. My caching buddy and have manage 4 in the past 3 days. Having new caches 3 days in row that close by is that common here.

If you are a math nerd then you know that is no way you can use caching numbers to obtain in useful information to compare cachers. There is no standard basis because the numbers have been complied using widely varied and sometimes openly flawed methods. Statisics for each cacher can be rationally compared only with own numbers. Beyond that the system is so flawed as to be useless. Yes, but that is all part of the fun. Identifying source of error can be just as fun as figuring out some bizzare terrain rating stat. (eg. of my mountain caches, my terrain rating average is 4.4) Exactly! YOUR average. Even if all I get are 1/1 P&Gs my elevation average will be higher than someone caching near the coast even if all there caches are high terrain caches. There is no even basis for comparing stats between cachers.

What system will the COs be forced to use? What if that goes down? Who will pay for this sudden increase in needed server space? I like the idea a lot, but like any change that tries to force quality on a hide, I don't want to see it put into the guidelines. I wish every CO would hide high qualty well maintained hides, but this is the real world and it's just not going to happen. All we can do is lead by example, and spread the 'Gospel of the Good CO.'

If you are a math nerd then you know that is no way you can use caching numbers to obtain in useful information to compare cachers. There is no standard basis because the numbers have been complied using widely varied and sometimes openly flawed methods. Statisics for each cacher can be rationally compared only with own numbers. Beyond that the system is so flawed as to be useless.

I can bring my dog and you can't stop me. He's a service dog.

I can use as many PQ's as you want. There's no need to delete anything. GSAK will blend them into one database that you can then sort using you home coords or the coords at your workplace, or anywhere you wish. You can even create multiple databases in GSAK if you wanted to.