Jump to content

cezanne

Members
  • Posts

    6753
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cezanne

  1. quote:Originally posted by ~erik~:As a cache approver, though, it's much easier to recognize the hallmarks of a lame virt when reviewing a submitted cache than recognize a lame physical cache. I fully agree. quote:If you'll look at some of the virts that were posted a year or two ago before the guidelines were tightened up I think you'll also be able to spot the lame ones without leaving the comfort of your home. That's certainly true for the majority of them. The point I tried to made is, however, that often the cache description of physical caches does not contain sufficient information for judging whether or not a reasonable level of effort has been invested by the hider. In my opinion the approvers do a very good job. My comment was not meant to critize their work. The problem is just that they only have the cache description, and they are not clairvoyant . As the newbie caches are regarded, I do not feel that the majority of the bad caches I came across had been hidden by beginners.
  2. quote:Originally posted by BrianSnat: quote: interesting ways to use the GPS, good places to visit, and quality hides that challenge, educate, delight and amuse But there is already a website for that. http://www.waypoint.org I do not agree at all. Apart from the fact that in many countries there exist hardly any waypoints of interest on that site (keep in mind geocaching is a world-wide activity), most of the listed waypoints are just objects that could be also found in guide books or are rather well known. A virtual cache that includes puzzles and tasks to be solved and that guides the cachers to places that are not that well-known, goes far beyond a listing of waypoints. quote: quote: Give me a quality virtual or a benchmark anytime. That's exactly what they are trying to do. Make sure virtuals are quality. Personally, I was sick of being brought to a spot only to find a plaque saying something like "this tree was planted in memory of Kenneth Johnston". I would have become sick of such caches either (they do not exist in my area, however), but it seems to me that this is more a question of quality and not of the fact whether a cache is virtual or not. I have seen at least as many bad physical caches as bad virtual caches. I prefer a *well-done* virtual cache by far to a film canister dropped off at 2 meters distance from a big street or to a film canister hidden under a stone in a park behind such bushes which are abused by people as public toilette area. There are many wonderful parks in urban areas with very nice spots to be visited, but with no *nice* places for putting a cache which are not too crowded. (The cache situation in Paris mentioned some postings above is a good example.) Personally, I do believe that it is not even possible that the approval process takes care of the quality of the caches (regardless of their type). It is up to the cachers themselves to put a higher value on quality.
  3. quote:Originally posted by Jomarac5:Sounds like doublespeak to me. ***** I agree. In this regard it is interesting to note the different wording of the two statements that we need to check since a few days (see quotation below). It seems that they do not even expect us to *understand* the terms of use agreement. (Maybe I am too cynical.) quote:Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache. Yes. I have read and agree to the terms of use agreement. BTW: In my opinion both statements that need to be checked are problematic insofar as there are many cachers out there who are not able to understand a rather complex English text. (Some of them do not speak English at all.) Cezanne.
  4. quote:Originally posted by The Leprechauns:..... It says that copyright REMAINS with the original author. You are only giving a license to the site to use the material here. So what's wrong with that? Are you reading another term someplace else? Probably he is worried about this part of the terms of use quote:By submitting any Submission to Groundspeak, You grant Groundspeak a worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, fully-paid royalty-free license and right to use, reproduce, distribute, import, broadcast, transmit, modify and create derivative works of, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease or lend copies of, publicly display and publicly perform that Submission for any purpose and without restriction or obligation to You.
  5. I recommend that you repost your inquiry in the German speaking forum (it does not matter if you write English) and, if you have access to newsgroups, also in alt.rec.geocaching. I guess that all caches in and around Vienna are safe, but some of them require longer hikes, and you do not mention if you are used to longer hikes. If you write more specifically for which type of caches you are searching, the local cachers from Vienna might be able to help you. I have not yet visited one of the Viennese caches myself. Some of the shorter caches in Vienna are Squirrel's Treasure, Jubilaeumskisterl and Cordon Bleu. Perhaps have a look at one of them and then search for the closest. Many of the logs are in English and so you might be able to make a first selection. Happy caching in Austria Cezann
  6. I was not talking about formatting to the wishes of everyone. I was not asking for a font of >20 points. The old version could not have been that bad. It was used for a very long time without anyone complaining about the large font size on the list of search results. Note that I *do not* talk about the cache pages. They did not change and the standard font size used there is fine with me. I had a look at the CNN pages. Even the normal text there is displayed in a slightly larger font than the cache names on the new list of search results. The heading lines of texts are considerably larger. In my opinion, the names of caches in the list should have a similar importance than headers. BTW: Your suggestion of using a scrolling mouse requires the availability of such a mouse. At many places people have to work with the mouses which are available and cannot choose. Regards Cezanne
  7. It is definitely not true that using a modern browser solves the problem of the much too small font size. Neither Netscape 7.0 nor Mozilla (I tested three platforms, Linux, Win NT and Digital Unix) lead to a larger font than Netscape 4.7x. Despite the fact that the new version offers more options, I *by far* preferred the old version since it was better suited for shortsighted people. I am aware of the fact that I can change settings, but I am not regarding this as a feasible work-around since it has effects to all the web-pages I am going to view. I feel that the GC.com web site should not be designated only to users who either have very good eyes or are using the awful MS-IE as browser. Regards Cezanne [This message was edited by cezanne on June 20, 2003 at 07:52 AM.]
×
×
  • Create New...