reedkickball

Discounting the whole worldwide challenge thing, as they more closely resemble locationless; Virtual: Go to a place. (used to log a picture) Log your experience. Challenges: Go to a place. Take a picture. Log your experience. It's not a geocache. Neither are virtuals. Correct, they aren't geocaches either.

Discounting the whole worldwide challenge thing, as they more closely resemble locationless; Virtual: Go to a place. (used to log a picture) Log your experience. Challenges: Go to a place. Take a picture. Log your experience. It's not a geocache.

just stupid.

That's cool. I just celebrated my 200th last week. I don't think I'll ever catch up to you, unless someone places an ET trail outside my front door.

I think that's an acceptable argument. However I have a Motorola Droid 2 and I have terrible problems. I don't consider that some weird offshoot of the Android OS. Probably not the exact phone the developers used then... I'm assuming it's not rooted too. That's the problem with Android, Blackberry, Windows Mobile/Phone 7, Palm development. You gotta test on each model of phone for each OS. That gets expensive fast. iOS you can get away with less, as there are only a few models in that line. Not rooted. If they didn't use Motorola, I'd wonder what they're using. Other GPS based apps don't seem to have similiar problems. For all we know, the carrier gave them a discount on HTC devices. Or perhaps they're waiting for the contracts to run out on their Nexus One's. But that's something for the Feedback site. The new Groundspeak iPhone app just dropped today, and it uses the new API so progress is happening. Soon you'll have a whole bunch of developers trying to outdo each other with the API providing live data - and THEN the fun begins. That's when we see the real competitive design happening and clever programmers get rewarded. We will also hopefully see the devs pulled off API work and hopefully put back toward smartphone app development, and start smashing those bugs more frequently. I don't work at the Lillypad but I would imagine at this point it's all hands on deck for the API to get it done. I really don't the think the excuse can be that it's different hardware(I work enough Android app developers to know that it's not). I think it's a convenient excuse to explain away the problems. I'd like to say that I know that it does or doesn't work on another setup, but don't know anyone else that purchased the app. The dozens of people I know, have (or now had) c:geo. Hopefully the API does spur some competition, but if not, I'll just have to go back to being more organized.

I think that's an acceptable argument. However I have a Motorola Droid 2 and I have terrible problems. I don't consider that some weird offshoot of the Android OS. Probably not the exact phone the developers used then... I'm assuming it's not rooted too. That's the problem with Android, Blackberry, Windows Mobile/Phone 7, Palm development. You gotta test on each model of phone for each OS. That gets expensive fast. iOS you can get away with less, as there are only a few models in that line. Not rooted. If they didn't use Motorola, I'd wonder what they're using. Other GPS based apps don't seem to have similiar problems.

I think that's an acceptable argument. However I have a Motorola Droid 2 and I have terrible problems. I don't consider that some weird offshoot of the Android OS.

I loved c:geo, I hate to see it go. Hopefully a group of developers will work to keep it alive. I'm trying to use the geocaching.com app again, but continuously get the "force close" errors. I log the problems online, but they never get resolved. I just wish Groundspeak would put some effort behind the development of the geocaching.com app. I may try geohunter or geobeagle, however instantaneous access to the database is what I'm looking for. If I do PQ queries, I might as well load my Garmin. I just want an app that can show me the current geocaches on a map, with the descriptions available. I'm willing to pay quite a bit for that (much more than the geocaching.com and android amount that I already pay for.) I'm usually very pro-Groundspeak in almost every way, although I believe Groundspeak missed the boat on this one. c:geo was bringing in lots of new geocachers. Groundspeak had a chance to purchase an app for less than it probably cost to develop it. This won't drive me from geocaching.com like it will for others, however geocaching for me won't be as spontaneous anymore. I'll have to go back to loading GPX files at least once a week again. My Garmin will get a workout again.

I'm going to create a physical cache that's located at a telephone pole that overlooks a rock outcropping. That way, people can find the physical cache, tell whether the rock is sedimentary or not(earthcache), and then send me the number on the telephone pole. That way they can get 3 finds in one spot. Hey, wait a minute, I could create a geotrail of them. A 1000 in a row of the triplets. And then there could be new records made. 3000 in one day! That would be so awesome!

Just now reading the new earthcache requirements, specifically the photo requirements. On my earthcache, NPS mandated that there must be a photo requirement in order to publish it. I may have to archive the earthcache if I have to make the photo requirement optional. I don't know yet, I'll have to contact NPS about it.

But they ARE noticed by CO's who get the log notification, date makes no difference... Usually split-off new accounts note what they are doing in the new log... They get notification, but not every cache owner reads the notifications and not every one who does checks the date on the notification. Beside, a cacher could place a "Note" on a cache. Then a month later change the date, and change the note to a find, and even a vigilant CO can miss the false online logging. That's why I hope TPTB develop notifications on changes in logs in the future.

Indeed, when two of the three numbers that have been obscured are in the Degrees portion of the co-ordinates then the one that is in the thousandths of minutes is not really important... However that was an easy puzzle cache. I hope that the difficulty on that linked cache was not due to the puzzle difficulty. My favourite puzzle cache so far has to be The Kakuro Puzzle Cache where getting the starting co ordinates is just the first part... It's a multi stage puzzle cache, and I had to phone for a hint on the final stage. I was in the right area but the cammo was just TOO good. Z. Obviously it is difficult There's only been one finder in over a year.

Looked at it. Solved it quickly enough. I don't ever say I'm good at puzzles (because I'm not), but you can assume half the numbers in this puzzle, and the rest are all duplicates of the ones you can assume. You don't even need a key.

Ah. Cool. Must of missed the update on that. Or maybe I never clicked on it before. Either way, thanks.

I create a lot of GPX routes for my many trips around the US. Unfortunately, I now have many pages worth of routes. Some worthwhile, and some that I'd rather get rid of. Is there a way to get rid of some of the "Uploaded Routes" that you've uploaded. If there isn't, is this something that could be added to the website in the future?

I like the idea. I think there have been variations on it. I'm pretty sure there's been a puzzle box of some type in a cache, but I haven't encountered one that was just a premade box puzzle. However, I don't know how well it will go over. If it's listed as a traditional cache, I'd be worried someone might get frustrated and break it. I would make it a mystery cache even if you'll just be providing the coordinates. After all it does require a puzzle to find the log.

They tried that once. It did not work out very well. It didn't work out for earthcaching(It shouldn't be called earthcaching, there's not cache). It was fine for geocaching. I've been in at least two meetings with local land managers that have stated, "It's too bad they don't allow virtuals any longer, otherwise we'd just do that." Maybe you should place them on Waymarking.com. Sorry, I can't imagine you going to a monument, and jumping up and down with glee saying, "I found it!". Maybe, "That's interesting", or "Huh, I didn't know that", but not "I found it!". But I know in the past, particularly the first geocaches, I was proud that I was able to find an LPC(first one took two trips, and 20 minutes), or a guard rail(first one took 11 people and 15 minutes), or any other physical ones. Still, when I find the easy ones, I know I found it. Maybe someday I'll get a "I found it" feeling on a virtual cache. But the 100 plus I've tried, I didn't have to "find" them. I just walked up, took a picture of the sign, or the statue, or myself, or nothing, or I guess I could of looked the answers up online. It was all so ambiguous. It had nothing to do with a cache. But if they add virtuals again, I guess it would be nice to have two different activities in one place.

It is topic that is debated too often. Given the popularity, I think Groundspeak should make a separate virtualcaching site. As for arguing that not allowing virtuals bans caching outright, they either ban putting a cache there or they don't. They can't ban someone putting out coordinates on a website. I think earthcaching will become a problem. Maybe they can be put on the virtualcaching site. I'm pretty sure you could of found the spot on Waymarking.com. No matter the visual experience, I would never have gotten the "I found it" experience that I get with finding a geocache. It might be nice and wonderful, but I don't know what it has to do with finding a container with coordinates (i.e. geocaching). Like you said, there's a LOT of sites doing virtual Waymarking. Having geocaching do this is outside the sport of finding a phsyical container with coordinates. I see virtual caches as no different from Waymarking, no different from foursquare, no different from gowalla. I've done quite a few virtual caches. I've yet to find one that couldn't be made into a cache. I've even done quite a few mystery and multi caches with virtual waypoints. Except for the one you mention, they can easily be incorporated into finding a geocache. I've done Waymarking.com as well, and have created waymarks. I enjoy Waymarking.com. I use it when my wife doesn't want to find a geocache. My wife enjoys the virtual caches on geocaching.com for the same reason. I'd rather the virtual locations stay over there in one place. Here in DC, every local park in DC is owned by NPS. So getting the buy in and leverage to create a geocache within those parks is very important. By keeping virtuals on this website, it equates a physical geocache with a virtual site, which will ultimately doom the people that want find a physical cache in DC parks. Now if geocaching.com made virtuals again, would it bother me? Probably, because I know it would limit physical geocaching in places . I'd have to click off the virtuals for all my pocket queries, and have a bunch of virtuals on geocaching.com that would slow the servers down or require more money for Groundspeak to maintain. They would then be competing directly with foursquare and gowalla and I really don't think there's enough money to be made in cataloging coordinates to virtual spots. I don't think the Economy of Scale can support that many companies. Would I quit going to virtuals if they added them? Probably not, but I wouldn't call it geocaching.

NPS has taken this stand, and continues to do so. However given the elimination of any new virtual cache possibilities, and the popularity of geocaching; NPS is starting to change. In Maryland NPS sponsored a geotrail, and I'm working with a local NPS park to place physical caches. (been given initial approval, reviewing the hides in September). Maybe published in October. If virtuals come back, land managers such as NPS, local parks, Nature Conservancy(which allows physical caches here) would essentially say, "Create a Virtual, it's a good as a physical cache." As much as people hate Waymarking.com but love virtuals, bringing a flood of new virtuals to geocaching.com would essentially create the same type of website as Waymarking. The WOW factor is way too ambiguous to determine on a Virtual Cache. And besides, you can always incorporate virtual landmarks in any multi or mystery cache. It really doesn't take much intelligence to do so, and it makes it better than any virtual ever could be. If you can be bothered to create a multi or mystery out of it, then it's not worth visiting.

It would be cool if there was a general repository of these types of geotrails. Here are a couple in our area http://friendsofchesapeakegateways.org/pro...s/ssb_geotrail/ http://www.mdmunicipal.org/programs/geocache.cfm http://www.pgparks.com/page2313.aspx http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/state_parks/geocachegame.shtml There are more in the works too

The owner of those caches should turn him into the police. No different than any other cache thief.

Caching in the snow is great. No snakes, no ticks, no bees, no biting flying, no gnats. Heatstroke isn't a problem. An extra challenge while caching. One of my favorite caching moments was bushwhacking 4 miles through 6+ inches of snow, in sub-20 degree temperatures to be FTF on a cache. When we had 24+ inches of snow here in Virginia, there were still some of us hitting caches. Although without appropriate snow shoes or cross country skis, it was extremely difficult for some caches.

I have a question for "The mood". At what size of container does the threat of a potential bomb become negligible? In other words, obviously a film canister could have enough explosive material to be a major threat. Would the same response be considered for a bison tube? a magnetic nano "blinky"? Or would you blow up anything regardless when reported as suspicious regardless of size?

There's always Civil court. Maybe someone involved has free legal, and is willing to drag him into court to pay for the ammo boxes.

Anyone know WHEN Repak is scheduled to appear in City Court? If you want to know, call them up. It should all be public record. Yeah, I looked to see if they had they're court system online, but they don't. I was just interested. Not going to bother with a phone call.