stu_and_sarah

Not at all. It should be a real one, not an imitation Sarah

I recall that that idea was also discussed and discounted because of the confusion that would result. Indeed. Old caches, no matter how long ago they were archived, still have finds on them, and people would lose their stats and logs if they were recycled. Stu

Yup. Bugs me, too. I used to log daily finds backwards, so they were in order on the page. Now I don't care so much. I do find it strange though. Cheers, Stu

This is OK - but only if it's done at the request of the cache owner. It's the owner's ultimate responsibility to maintain the cache. If the cache needs a new box or logbook - then the implication is: that it isn't being maintained properly. If it needs a new log book or container and hasn't been found in 6 months, I would guess that it isn't being properly maintained. A container would only be replaced if it was broken, and a new log book added only if the old one was full. Would it matter if a cache owner hadn't requested it? Sarah

Don't forget... the option is always there on your own hides to make the coordinates available only to members. I, too, don't think it would make much difference. 1) Muggles will find them anyway. 2) Your casual trasher might be put off. 3) Die-hard sociopathic trashers will pay. I think the key to avoiding muggles is to find a nice peaceful spot which not many people know about. That's my favourite place to find, too. Cheers, Stu

Yeah... ok... so I was actually checking out trails I could unicycle. But I suppose those people who need a stabiliser wheel could manage it too. Stu

Just had a look at geohikes for the first time. It's great! Geobikes sounds like a smart idea - I'm currently scouring our local countryside for bike-legal areas, so I'll almost certainly contribute. Unfortunately, I can't really offer to help run the site - I tend to have huge chunks of time when I don't update things. Not good. Cheers, Stu

The yellow eTrex can do this, and so can the Legend. I'm sure yours can. Go to the units menu, set the coordinates to British Grid and the datum to OSGB 39. Enter the grid reference (padding with zeros if you need more digits - ie. SK561321 becomes SK 56100 32100) Go back to the units menu, set the coordinates to the lat/long system of your choice and the datum to WGS84. Hey presto! Cheers, Stu

Aye! Sarah

Hey! Do we allow furriners in here? Stu

Why restrict caches which haven't been found very often, or caches which are still active which received a DNF? If they are still active then it would be good to check up on them to see if they need to be archived. Maybe give double points to someone who finds a dusty cache which had a DNF as the last log. There's a higher risk of not finding it, so peopel can take a gamble if they need the points All of the other ideas sounds great! Might be just what I need to get me enthusiastic about caching again! Sarah (who feels sorry for caches which don't get found very often.)

If the location of a cache is obvious with the clue and there is DNF on it, then we go as soon as possible to check on it. If it's a bit tricky to find, such as our 5/5 cache, then we don't worry if it gets a DNF but check up with whoever logged the DNF to ask the reason for them not finding it. For any other caches, we usually go and check on them if any logs show a problem which needs sorting. Otherwise we leave them alone unless we are passing by. Sarah

Sounds great! It might be good to start with the caches which had the longest time unfound first? I'm in! (Subject to nagging Stu enough to drive us there! Sarah --

Indeed... I have a bunch of scrap papers on my desk now covered in triangles and trig formulae amongst my work notes. Hopefully, I won't accidentally mix them up. If you suddenly see your tv picture turn 1 degree and move 10 miles away, you'll know why. Stu

Oh well... in for a penny. I did mean 'icosceles'. I'll quit now. Stu - If you're going to mess up - do it with style.

And for my part, I just made the error of saying 'icoceles' triangle, when I meant 'equilateral'. And managed to spell it 'icoceles' instead of 'icosceles'. And now I've started three sentences with 'And' Oops! Cheers, Stu

We removed a knife from a cache last week. We swapped it out, of course, but didn't take any action other than removing it and noting that we had done so on our log. Cheers, Stu

I initially thought that, but it's not quite true. It's actually an icoceles triangle which can be modelled as two right triangles. The right-angle method will give the error from your original track but NOT the error from the actual intended destination. Try it for large angles (eg. 179 degrees off track) and you'll see the difference. By the incorrect method, 10 miles at 179 degrees off track puts you 0.17 miles from your TRACK. By the icoceles method, 10 miles at 179 degrees off track puts you 19.999 miles from your TARGET. This is intuitive, since you've just walked 10 miles almost directly away from the target which was 10 miles away to start with. Cheers, Stu

Cruel. We've found four of the series so far... Stu

Halve the angle, take the sine of it. Multiply by the distance you walked. Multiply the result by 2. So for 10 miles at one degree, that's 0.17 miles (898 feet) out. Cheers, Stu

Tampere, Finland. Bus into town, boat to Viikinsaari island. Viikinsaari Micro would make a nice 100th cache Stu

A link? Um... it's at the top of this thread. Posted by you. Cheers, Stu

Well, I've got a reputation to keep up, then, haven't I? Go on, use the video if you like (not for profit, obviously), but do make sure you ask others... Cheers, Stu

It might be a good idea to ask anyone whose video you want to include before doing so. I've had one request for my video already, and I was more than happy to say yes. However, if I found this on a DVD in a cache, I'd be a little grumpy. So, I guess asking permission first would be a good idea. Cheers, Stu

I did consider taking an ironing board Stu