Jumpin' Jack Cache

To answer the original question, you can't embed wav files in your cache page. You can host them elsewhere (with some restrictions) and add a link to the page.

1,139 cachers like them and it got 443 of fav as well Not a good example, that one is atypical for the series and quite different. I understand that, but having a system setup will make it alot easier for people to setup powertrails. Theres something similar for your PQ setup. Like that. Everything is set and just have to change the numbers and coordinates and you are ready to go. I am going to ask you to stop stalking me around on the forums. Thank you for understanding. You seem to be attacking me on every post I make tonight. You been warned or further action will be taken. I assure you, I know how it works (and doesn't). I also assure you that there is no stalking nor attacking involved. You seem compelled to post a lot, other people are allowed to post their opinions on the same topics, I do believe. I'll go piss my pants in fear of your threat now.

1,139 cachers like them and it got 443 of fav as well Not a good example, that one is atypical for the series and quite different.

Heh, that didn't take long Copy/paste.

I see some familiar names there I have had some help, but drop me an email.

Thanks. I usually have a bear of a time finding that. To the OP, unpublished archived caches are a handy place to "hide" pictures for use on other caches, among other things.

Thanks. Yeah, I'm a bit lazy

I'm attempting to create a puzzle which involves finding the coordinates given distances from four existing caches. I've read up in older threads here and other places online and think that I have set it up correctly, but math isn't exactly my strong suit and I've been known to think that I'm right when I'm very wrong (just ask my wife). If anyone would be willing to check me, and maybe set me straight if I've messed up, shoot me an email via my profile here and I'll reply with the preliminary page text. Let me know if you would prefer that I include coordinates for the "helper" caches and the target coordinates in my reply or just the puzzle as is. Lessons on general procedures and/or links would be welcome in this thread, too. Thanks.

Can't sleep, so I'll play Devil's advocate. [*] Which side of the sign is it on? If you can read the sign, it logically follows that you're not on the other side, where you would be trespassing. [*] That would actually make the newspaper? Doesn't seem like a hotbed of terrorist activity if so. [*] To Mrs. Kravits, or who? No matter the town, I'd be willing to bet that the local police have seen much stranger things going on in all kinds of places.

Your picture in your NA log doesn't mean anything. All the signs in that picture are clearly for the fenced inclosure. It doesn't sound like the cache is behind that fence. I will say, I bet the Reviewer is aware of any homeland security concerns. I would guess they do not come into play with this cache location. A while back I found a cache just outside a power substation. When I pulled into the gravel drive that lead to the gate, there was a police car there. (watching the traffic coming down the hill.) The cop pulled his car out a little to give me room to park, and then waved when I left. There were all kinds of no tresspassing signs on the fence and gate, just like in your picture. Clearly, there may have been a permission issue, but that doesn't seem to be your complaint. How funny is this. Just tonight, another cacher texted me, and said they were parking near an enclosure like that (for a cache they knew I'd found), and were worried about the signs. I texted back, yo' that's if you're like going to hop over the fence into the enclosure. So I'm not quoting a lot of posts, but I've read them. I have in fact seen newer cachers "band together" with other newer cachers they are acquainted with, and give crap to seasoned cachers who are trying to help them out. And surprise, it's always the seasoned cachers who are correct. I've never personally dealt with such a situation, but I can imagine how frustrating it might be. The reviewer disagreeing there's a problem? This I have not seen. I'd like to hear the possible solutions to that one myself. You know what it says on the other side of those signs if you do hop over the fence? Nothing. Disclaimer: I have never hopped one of those fences while geocaching.

Regardless of whether the category is of broad or narrow appeal, there are several preventing factors, one is that PM-ship is required (like for creating challenges btw) and another one is that is means a commitment to reviewing. What I would like to do is to implement a small number of ideas in a virtual manner. I do not want to be involved with the worldwide submissions of others and actually I also do not care that much about the quality of the submissions of others. In my area there will never be a large number of submissions as long the activity does not add to the find count, so I have no reason to worry about too many lame submissions. It can never become worse than for physical geocaches and I'm thus used to filtering out manually anyway. Cezanne So, you've been using the site for 10 years, don't want to pay, and want them to tailor something for your very specific, fairly exclusive taste? Ayep, I'm sure they'll get right to work on that.

Oh, hell, they're chomping at the bits to be "virtual reviewers". But they tl;dr ed your post about the time WM came up... :sarcarsm smilie:

I'd bet on this piece of legal advice looooong before I'd take sides with Snoogans and the Goat on their cockamamie scheme.Drat! Foiled again I was just airing my skepticism of the link to one of the oodles and oodles of random "legal expert" sites. It actually makes sense what the article is saying. After all that, in the interest of full disclosure, I might have a geocache hanging in a tree in my back yard... But to say for sure might spoil the fun. I might now know exactly where your back yard is, in that case... Does it got a pool in the backyard so I can fall in? If you're wanting to fall in on purpose, I'd have to say no...

I'd bet on this piece of legal advice looooong before I'd take sides with Snoogans and the Goat on their cockamamie scheme.Drat! Foiled again I was just airing my skepticism of the link to one of the oodles and oodles of random "legal expert" sites. It actually makes sense what the article is saying. After all that, in the interest of full disclosure, I might have a geocache hanging in a tree in my back yard... But to say for sure might spoil the fun. I might now know exactly where your back yard is, in that case...

If only they'd give the poor horse a proper burial... (ducks & runs).

Your "lawyer" told you wrong information: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2864/does-it-matter-if-you-sign-a-contract-with-a-name-thats-not-your-own Dangit! I've been signing "Snoogans Geocacher" on all that carp...now you tell me.

You are hereby declared a Geocaching Challenge Reviewer. Enjoy.

I would like to see a poll result between those who want to bring virtuals back as opposed to those who are glad they are gone. As you say the masses are calling to bring them back but I think it only appears that way because those of us who are glad they are gone already know that this horse was buried a long time ago. The masses do not look at the forums. Only 16% of the more than 5,000,000 registered accounts have ever visited these forums. (Main forum page, "statistics" at the bottom, the forums have only 804,000 members.) Believe me, the masses are screaming for them, and have been since about 2004, when they were still technically accepted, but under the "Wow factor" provision. The response was Waymarking. Then when they kept screaming for them, their response 6 years to the month later, was Geocaching Challenges. I'm of the opinion the third time will be the charm for the screaming masses. Which I am not necessarily a member of, by the way. It’s rare that you see someone who was around when new virtuals were allowed and before the “wow factor” was instituted, clamoring for the return of virutals. It’s usually newer cachers. That’s because those who were around then remember all of the incredibly lame virtuals and the forum threads complaining about virtuals and how they weren’t true geocaching. If those people who demand the return of virtuals are truly looking for interesting locations, Waymarking and challenges are most certainly replacements for virtuals . There are some shortcomings, but if it is cool locations you want, there are plenty on Waymarking and as people better understand challenges, there will be plenty there too. I’ve heard the excuses, no pocket queries, they don’t want to go to another website, etc. but I’ve always maintained that the biggest issue was no easy smileys. I strongly suspect that if Groundspeak reinstated virtuals tomorrow, but virtual finds were counted separately the way challenges and benchmarks are, virtuals would be about as popular as Waymarking, benchmarking and challenges. See bolded part. Challenges do have their own, quite prominent, count. Those who are after numbers do realize that. Still not getting much traction... I don't want new virts, either, just saying. It's prominent but not included in the overall total. That's the number most numbers oriented geocachers are concerned with. *sigh* You seem like a good guy but you're too hung up on numbers. Seriously.

I would like to see a poll result between those who want to bring virtuals back as opposed to those who are glad they are gone. As you say the masses are calling to bring them back but I think it only appears that way because those of us who are glad they are gone already know that this horse was buried a long time ago. The masses do not look at the forums. Only 16% of the more than 5,000,000 registered accounts have ever visited these forums. (Main forum page, "statistics" at the bottom, the forums have only 804,000 members.) Believe me, the masses are screaming for them, and have been since about 2004, when they were still technically accepted, but under the "Wow factor" provision. The response was Waymarking. Then when they kept screaming for them, their response 6 years to the month later, was Geocaching Challenges. I'm of the opinion the third time will be the charm for the screaming masses. Which I am not necessarily a member of, by the way. It’s rare that you see someone who was around when new virtuals were allowed and before the “wow factor” was instituted, clamoring for the return of virutals. It’s usually newer cachers. That’s because those who were around then remember all of the incredibly lame virtuals and the forum threads complaining about virtuals and how they weren’t true geocaching. If those people who demand the return of virtuals are truly looking for interesting locations, Waymarking and challenges are most certainly replacements for virtuals . There are some shortcomings, but if it is cool locations you want, there are plenty on Waymarking and as people better understand challenges, there will be plenty there too. I’ve heard the excuses, no pocket queries, they don’t want to go to another website, etc. but I’ve always maintained that the biggest issue was no easy smileys. I strongly suspect that if Groundspeak reinstated virtuals tomorrow, but virtual finds were counted separately the way challenges and benchmarks are, virtuals would be about as popular as Waymarking, benchmarking and challenges. See bolded part. Challenges do have their own, quite prominent, count. Those who are after numbers do realize that. Still not getting much traction... I don't want new virts, either, just saying.

Minnesota Nice is a myth. It should be Minnesota Passive Aggressive. But I disagree in your approach. If there're 8 DNFs on a 1.5/1.5 cache that hasn't been actually found in months, the CO deserves to be called out publicly if they're not responding. And that applies to local or long distance. I knew it! Wouldn't be the first time we didn't agree but I can live with it

So, just keep posting those fantastic find logs on your own unbelievably wonderful caches, eh? Saves bandwidth, same result sans disagreement = win/win.

Yep, I do this all the time. I mean, I won't do a NA but I would have no hesitation in doing a NM. But I travel a lot. Minnesota nice? Actually, that surprises me, given your usual responses in the forum. As for the OT, I've crossed paths with/cached behind the DNFers fairly often. A review of their logs will tell you that a DNF doesn't necessarily mean that they think it isn't there, and they would tell you the same thing, I'm sure. Long distance NM = "I don't want to be inconvenienced, so I'll publicly inconvenience you".

OCD much? Or just need attention?

Here ya go http://coord.info/GC1A29V has absolutely nothing to do with the OP, though...just like your post.

SC, perhaps? Geocachers spend money on gas, food, lodging & etc. Frankly, "powertrails" draw more geocachers. Lament the demise of tupperware in the woods all you want, numbers will draw more people Some percentage of them will spend more time in any given area doing what the numbers poohers consider "real caches"., but they wouldn't be there if not for numbers. You want government to listen? Give them their own numbers. Pretty simple. VA has done other things recently, some of which make caching more inconvenient even "in the woods". It's very close to me, I intend to avoid spending money there...