Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mach2003

  1. Except now the coordinate changes don't work at all.


    I just tried to update a cache, the default was set to the original coordinates. I edited them to the new ones. The log entry was:

    N 49° 48.975 W 119° 37.316

    ** Coordinates Changed From **

    N 49° 48.975 W 119° 37.316

    Distance From Old: 0 feet


    The new coordinates are: 49 48.971 119 37.346, and that is what I entered!



    I still have the "pottery" here so if they do want to make it a tag, I'm happy to hold onto it.


    As you said, it could probably do with dipping in and out of the caches, but bearing in mind that I know MK Rambling Rose / Norfolk 12 as they live 6 miles away, it sounds like it hasn't done much travelling!

    Adding a TB tag to the item will certanly make it better able to get back here, and everyone can watch it along the way, I think it might be fun!


    I sugest The Other Stu could TB tag the item, to save shipping a tag overseas. The people here are newer cachers, and have not gotten as far as putting tags out yet. I can guide them in setting up a watch, or in accepting an adoption :P, if you are willing.


    You can contact them using thier profile here, if you like.


    Edit to add: The Turtles posted while I was editing, thanks to you!

  3. I contacted the local connection, subn1vean, and have this reply:


    Hi ! That is from Fiona, my husband's cousin who was in Kelowna last summer ! She bought that piece from the farmers market and yes, I think she is trying to get it back to Kelowna. Where is it? Do you think we could somehow help her along by making it a TB? We are fairly new to this and don't know how. Maybe whoever has it now can register it and request it get back to our cache? (Let's Go to the Movies in Kelowna). Let me know what we should do!


    Let's go to the Movies IS the cache I linked just above.


    Do you guys want to put a TB tag on it?

  4. I do live in Kelowna, but have never heard of that name, nor seen that object (or anyone just like it) before.


    We'll do our best to find the intended, by showing pictures at all the local events.


    If you want to send it over, we could show it around, and even didp it into the local caches.

  5. If a forum discussion is ongoing, the object (cacher) of the discussion should be known, so that all lookers' on can see the details for themselves, and not have to depend on the posts others have made. You know missing context and such. Heck even quoted posts in these forums are skewed to make the point of the quoter, but at least the reader can go back and look at the original.

  6. Did I miss a rule change? I thought 0.1 miles was the limit, 528 feet, 161 meters. 0.2 miles is far enough away, no?


    In any case if you can move your cache a bit, and still keep the hide the way you want it, email the reviewer with the new coords first, they will give you a yes/no.


    You can move it .2 in any direction and it should be far enough from the mystery cache.


    No, one possible direction would be directly on top of the other cache, half the possible "directions" would still be too close, only half of the circle will result in farther away.

  7. We always look at the terrain rating first, then if we feel like the terrain fits our mood, we look at the difficulty. In our minds the difficulty is in the hide itself, when we see a high one, we expect a challange "AFTER WE GET to the SITE". If we see a high terrain rating, and go for it, but also see a high difficulty, we are disapointed when the box is right under a tree in the open.


    When we hide a cache we look at terrain on its own, then assess difficulty without re-considering terrain (so everything BUT terrain goes into difficulty).

  8. the guidelines Groundspeak has asked us to follow.


    Why can't Groundspeak share the guidelines with us?


    I dislike forcing people to hide caches almost as much as I hate hidden guidelines that we're expected to follow.


    Would the original poster be so upset right now if he'd read the guidelines and seen that this type of ALR isn't allowed?

    Did I not read somewhere here in these forums, that the reviewer manual was very large? Are you sure you want to have a complete copy posted, and that you will check off "you have read and understood it"?

    I bet there would be another 1000 threads a week posted, so some folks could argue about each and every word in it. In the end, would hiding and finding tuperware be any more fun?

  9. I wonder if the "how to place a cache" blurb was modified to include: "The first cacher to enter a coord into the online form, reserves that coord even if you don't ask for it to be published" (my words) would not just cause MORE of these type issues to pop up, by encouraging people to "save" coords while they think about placing a cache?


    There have been recent threads, were reviewers have demonstrated the ability to resolve these issues for the most part.


    IMO the guide *could* be modified to say that your reviewer will check your proposed coords for you if your placement will require considerable effort to place.

  10. Also remember that the unit updates in position only about once a second, so move slowly when you are near GZ, and you might have better luck in getting a good position. How you hold the unit will also change its ability to get a signal.


    Since you are comparing two units to the same spot, and have almost the same sat coverage at the time, then the actual position of the cache and the hiders in-accuracy don't realy come into play.


    Next time this happens, power off the units, and then re-start them, and see if they are closer to the same position. There has been reports of drift with some of these units.

  11. HTC TyTn Windows Mobile 5, Office 6.1 (email, word and excel compatible with new desktop office)

    Garmin Mobile XT + Bluetooth GPS10X, mapping, 1000 caches on the map, 8000+ caches (plus descriptions and hints) as POI.

    Cachemate PPC, 8000+ caches, full details and hints.

    Internet (Wap and regular site), email (data plan and cell coverage or WiFi required)

    Oh and it works as a phone too.


    Just not waterproof (or rain proof), or drop proof, so the Etrex is still required on some days.




    1) Cache is in plain sight or location is fairly obvious.

    2) Cache could be in one of several locations. Hunter may have to look for a while.

    3) Cache may be very well hidden, may be multi-leg, or may use clues to location.

    4) Cache likely requires special skills, knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days or trips to find

    5) Finding this cache requires very specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment. This is a serious mental or physical challenge.


    I am not talking of any real cache here by the way, but that high muggle cache, might fit some of D4 using that rating too. Special skills, Knowlage, (not realy), but it might take in-depth preperation or multiple days or trips to find, even if you think it is in that lamp post skirt, you haven't had it in your hands yet.


    We have no hides like this example cache, and would likely pass on finding one too, however, I still think that muggle factor may influence the D rating, so might the dificulty in finding the trailhead. But overall I agree that the D rating applies to the find, and the T rating applies to getting there after you park the car or the 4x4 either for that mater.

  13. How could there possibly be any meaningful or practical difference between a log with an unintentionally incorrect date versus an intentionally false log?
    Dang, I just checked and the GC website states the date field as being "DATE LOGGED" and not "DATE FOUND". All this time I've been doing it wrong, I've been making it the date found! Sometimes it's a week later!!! ACK!!!! :yikes:

    OMG this means the torches and pitchforks people, will have to stop at almost everyone's place!!! :P


    But seriously, GC uses logged because the "found it" is only one type of log available on that screen.

  14. [snip] To me that would sort of like increasing the Difficulty of a LPC because the shopping mall is busy and parking is hard to find.

    But don't a lot of people add to the rating if the muggle factor makes signing the log very hard? And shouldn't they? It would be harder to "find" the cache wouldn't it, could even take several trips to log it?

  15. I have almost always looked at the two seperatly.

    Puzzle "difficulty" should be included in the D rating.


    How about a cache that is in a large urban park, but the trailhead is not well known, and not posted as an additional waypoint. The actual find might be a 2 difficulty, terain to the cache from the correct trailhead is 2 also. Should the fact that the cacher may have to try four of five different entrances before they get the right one, come into the ratings?

  16. I think there's always going to be cheating, no matter how the rules are written. For example, I know a cacher who caches all weekend and then claims to have gotten them all in one day. I say let the cheaters cheat. It only makes them look foolish and it doesn't affect my game at all.

    Until I read this I didn't realize it mattered in the post as to what date the cache was actually found. I guess I was too lazy to change the date. To me it doesn't matter when I found or didn't find the cache. What are you suppose to do if the log is full or soaked?

    I do think though a person should make every effort to sign the log. You only cheat yourself if lie about finding the cache.

    I don't think that "unable to sign soggy logbook" falls under the "cheating" concept. We have all had logs that, once found, were unable to sign.


    The date you log online, could have some effect on the listing, "IF" there was a possiblility that it went missing, the "last found: date *may* be usefull. Recording the incorrect date online (or in the logbook), again, IMO is not "cheating". I guess there will be some who would look at your logs and say "wow look at all those caches found in one day", and might even think that you were cheating if they are too far apart, or just to hard to do in one day. Do you care?

  17. Read down the logs for the cache you found.


    March 20 by The Farrill 4 (476 found)

    Found what was left of the original cache. The cache pirate jerks at least put your log book inside a soap bubble bottle. You cann't get it out thou. And they left

    a pencil on the wood pile for the log book. We hid the bottle so it woundn't look like trash laying around. SL

    [view this log on a separate page]

  18. Do you have 417 caches, plus additional (child) waypoints for a total of 502. The Hcx will take 1000 anyway.


    Poi symbols are a little harder to explain. Do you have the bipmaps in your POI folder? You can edit those to suit with a picture editor, but make sure you keep the size and number of colors the same.

  • Create New...