Jump to content

marcelteun

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by marcelteun

  1. You are repeating this, and I replied already on this. I don't know how I can explain it more clearly to you. Equal chances doesn't necessarily mean fairness, please see my previous comparison. You hinted that the comparison was not valid, but without arguments. Instead you give the same argument I reacted on. Please refer to them, i.e. where was it stated that these rules will be applied in the future to decide who will be able to create a new virtual cache.
  2. Yes there is,... I guess you mean to say it was a false analogy. Please argue. My point is that if you have the same chance, it doesn't necessarily mean it is fair. But as I said before, I think a lottery would have been fairer than this. Yes it is: the relation between apple, tree and distance is compared to parent, kid, behaviour / looks.
  3. OK. I forgot to say that the both will well prepared, but both didn't have access to the rules. In other words, luck is just luck, nothing more than that
  4. Do you know the concept of a comparison? Here is another one: if someone says "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree" Will you say: I am not an apple?
  5. One more time the comparison: Person A goes to trial and person B goes to trial. Both a judged by the same rules, however they don't know the rules. Person A had good arguments, person B too. Only A is freed. The problem was that B wasn't dressed well, which is part of the rules for showing respect to the court. Because of this lack of respect and the fact that the rules stated that someone who shows no respect for the court will be found guilty. No could say that both had the same chance, so the trial was fair. But I would argue that they didn't have a fair chance.
  6. No I am disappointed because I didn't have a fair chance. That since it was unknown what was going on and what rules applied. Overall I am happy with new virtual caches.
  7. Did you understand the point I was making? It was a comparison, not an equation: you didn't win, you got a reward. You are not being punished, this is a consequence. My whole point about this: you can twist the words as you like: I miss the fact that I didn't have a fair chance, since I didn't know what was going on and what rules would apply. Even a lottery to which people could have applied would have been fairer, since at least then you know on the fore-hand. But I guess HQ wanted to make sure about a certain quality when these virtual caches are going to be reviewed, but even for that there are other ideas (as I wrote some of them before)
  8. It is like a parent is saying: you are not punished, this is a consequence,... That is why there was no warning. In nature there aren't any warnings, but nature isn't fair either. In a fair situation you get to know the rules that are applied before they are applied. It is like going to court to defend yourself without knowing the rules. A is freed, B isn't. But had the same fair chance you could argue. I would argue they didn't.
  9. Well, that was one suggestion where at least anyone had a chance. One could just let the reviewer decide the first X number of ideas that come in and that won't lead to any of the problems with classical virtual geocaches. My biggest point of disappointment is that not everyone had a fair chance. That said: I am still happy that more virtual caches will be created!
  10. Since you don't want to hide, I understand that you don't feel you lost anything. But someone who has a great idea for a vritual cache, and lives in an area that isn't suited for (m)any other type of caches, never had any chance. That is unfair.
  11. HQ wrote: "it created significant problems for reviewers and often led to poor cache quality. " I guess that is why they used a certain algorithm to prevent getting the same problems again. It seems that making beautiful interesting geocaches of the other types doesn't guarantee that means that the CO knows how to prevent problems when creating a virtual geocache. I understand you are excited: I am happy for you and I hope you will get a brilliant idea and many FP!
  12. Though I am positive about allowing some virtual caches to be published, I am disappointed about the way the community is divided into two classes this way. Suddenly, out of the blue HQ decides: you are the top class, you are not. I thought geocaching was for fun, and there was no need for competition, but apparently there was a competition, though we didn't know about this. Apparently one percent of the geocache hiders won, and according to HQ the other 99% of the cache hiders cannot do this properly and and are second class geocache hiders. Apparently a Translator or Forum Modulator know how to create an interesting virtual geocache that follows the guide lines, but other volunteers don't. I am mainly disappointed because: I never had a fair chance! We didn't know this was coming. We didn't know what requirements would be taken into account. And if we would have known, one wouldn't have had the time to do something about it either. I can imagine another way: every one who wants to hide one gets the time (i.e. until a certain date) to prepare a virtual geocache and puts this in a special queue, where the CO is hidden from the reviewer. The reviewers of a certain region pick the top of those (most interesting, follow the guide lines and are ready to be published) and the other are rejected. This way every one gets a fair chance. Limiting the time will keep the amount of virtual caches down. The reviewing process will be short, since the ones that need more work will not be chosen. Once again: I will be happy that a virtual cache might show up in my neighbourhood, but I am disappointed in how this was decided and how this was implemented, by suddenly dividing the community into two classes. Most of the second class geocache hiders didn't have any chance.
  13. I played a bit with this (by removing old logs and writing new ones, since it doesn't work for the edit function) I noticed that for some friends the tag is turned into a link, but for another this wasn't done. Why not? It seems that it had to do with the way I wrote it (@friend1, @friend2, @friend3 ) Note that i all three cases the list appeared and I selected the name from the list, but for friend1, no link appeared (I didn't check with him whether he received a message)
  14. I am surprised. I would expect that the edit and the log functions already share a lot of code, in fact I would expect that if you update the log function (say you fix a bug) that you don't have to think about updating the same thing in the edit function. In that case it could be even so that adding this to the log function would have added this automatically for the edit function, otherwise it shouldn't be a lot of effort (if you designed the site well). Tagging could be used for all kinds of things, not just notifying friends with whom you logged caches with. But I think it could have been a good idea to have the tagging separate from the log itself. In that case you can add a tag to someone else's log (e.g. if you think it is a funny log and you think some friend should read it too)
  15. And yes I do have friends specified in my page (and it works when writing a new log) (And sorry for the fact that my post repeated the previous one, I should have refreshed the page before posting)
  16. It worked for me to give FP while writing a new log to a new cache. I.e. only givinf FP for a cache that I logged already doesn't work.
  17. I have the same problem. I have enough FP to share (11) but I cannot give a any favorite point to a cache I just logged. I get the exact same behaviour. First it seems to work and the FP is increased (to 10), but after a refreshing the page, the counter is back to 9. I even tried adding a new log (though that log was a note, not a found).
  18. I hope the next one will be ok! Keep us informed! Cheers Marcelteun
  19. Hi Fnparrotts I don't know why I succeeded in the end, but I must say, compared to my previous eTrex 30 with old FW, I must say that the compass is really, really stable. I am glad that I didn't give up. Once again I not sure why I succeeded. I moved to the wooden deck, where there were no electronics in the neighbourhood and no other metal objects and ended up in a mode doing this many times. I cannot say I did something special when I succeeded in the end, but I did. The only thing I can say: don't give up! And let us know how it went.
  20. I wondered that as well and read through the FW upgrade list: From 2.80 to 2.90 it says: "Improved accuracy of compass calibration on eTrex 30 devices. A new manual compass calibration is required (Setup > Heading > Calibrate Compass)." I guess this has been a problem since 2.90. I know that the first poster writes it si a problem since upgrading to 3.20, but this person didn't tell from which version he upgraded. In the release notes nothing is mentioned about fixing the calibrating process since then, though I understand that not everything might be mentioned in the release notes. Btw some people mentioned that you should do a master reset first. I didn't do this, I assumed that this wasn't needed since I have a new GPS anyway. Calibrating the GPS was the first thing after changing the the battery type to Lithium, since I inserted (new) ones of that type. I posted my story just to share my experiences for other who are having problems, to state that it is still a problem in 3.70. And that I needed a very long time, while sitting on a deck: an environment made of wood, nothing magnetic there.
  21. I bought a new etrex 30, because I lost my previous one. FW version 3.70. I had major troubles with calibrating the compass. "take it slow and persevere" I read. Well, the latter was needed indeed. About the former, I am not so sure. It took me more than 50 tries. I sat there at least half an hour on the deck. I tried taking 10 secs about the third step, it didn't help. I took out the batteries, I was hopeless that I even tried to rotate the opposite direction. I suspect, when I finally succeeded I might have been more stable with no sudden movements, but the fact is that I don't know why I succeeded in the end. I think it is a shame. Garmin should really fix this. This is absolutely not user friendly. I am still not sure whether to send back my Garmin again. What a disappointment!
  22. I bought a new etrex 30, because I lost my previous one. FW version 3.70. I had major troubles with calibrating the compass. "take it slow and persevere" I read. Well, the latter was needed indeed. About the former, I am not so sure. It took me more than 50 tries. I sat there at least half an hour on the deck. I tried taking 10 secs about the third step, it didn't help. I took out the batteries, I was hopeless that I even tried to rotate the opposite direction. I suspect, when I finally succeeded I might have been more stable with no sudden movements, but the fact is that I don't know why I succeeded in the end. I think it is a shame. Garmin should really fix this. This is absolutely not user friendly. I am still not sure whether to send back my Garmin again. What a disappointment!
  23. Hi Ranger Fox. I guess I will leave this the way it is, since by now I have 2 completions. I will make a remark about this in the text. It is not a big problem and while looking at other modules, I noticed that many other have it like this. I will double check before uploading my next Wherigo cartridge next time. Thanks for your answer, and thanks for testing this.
×
×
  • Create New...