Alpini

Ah and just some short additions to get that started and flying. My experience tells me that you should be able to rate only caches you found. Owners should not be allowed to rate their own caches (actually who would do that? But it seems from GC-Vote experience that it happens). May it is best to offer teh rating in the log template and that you are not allowed to rate for caches found more than a year ago in case the rating can be done independently from the loggiong. The rating system should be 1-5 star as for D and T and may allow 0.5 subclassifications. For discussion is if you only count in the last 15 rates or the rates of the last year to reflect the actual situation as that may change over time (due to poor maintenance, environment, muggles, caching trails etc.). Finally it should be easy to use and intuitive (gc.com.au and gc-vote fulfill that already). Have fun rating. Cheers mates

True- I don't mind playground caches but unless it is a great hide I wouldn't give it a thumbs up or recommend it to anyone. If it was a devious hide I would but few hides/caches are a cut above the rest. I also think that if it was a good/devious hide, you would want to look for it too. It will work. It will average out. Try it. If you don't like it return it for a full refund. See, that right there is my point. You'd give it a thumbs up if you thought it was a cut above. I won't even look for it so my thumbs down won't be cast and thus can't average out your opinion. We end up with a playground cache that is highly rated yet for me that rating is useless in helping me maximize my caching experience. I like to remember that I found in Germany a tool called GC-Vote which is from my point of view a good starting point. The current existing resuls of vote displays that very good Caches reach 5 Stars and worse caches end with one Stars. GC-Vote ratingtool That means from my point of view that Quality is measureable althrough differnet understanding of Quality exist. JZ I totally agree with JZRed's point that quality is measurable with a rating tool. I used the Geocaching.com.au rating system for more than a year (probably up to 2) in Oz and it really seperates poor not to say s***ty caches from the good ones and from the ones you must see. Truely expectations and wishes differ, but iconic caches will get a 5 star rating whereas a nano in the park without clever ideas in hiding, riddle, story and without a good location will may get just one star or thumbs up. I have a similar but much shorter experience with GC-Vote now in Germany, it does the job similarly well. I already use it for selecting the next caches and slightly for puting caches on the ignore list. That is certainly a function of much value if you go for quality and nice spots. If you are going for numbers you just can ignore that tool as you go for cache density. The arguments that doesn't work and it averages out is completely nonsense in my experience, sure you will find different ratings (up to the extreme difference of 5) but that is human behaviour for what ever reason. We will not always like the same music, but we will know which music the majority buys (but may not like). We also have an rough common understanding of the difficulty and terrain rating and still we find some ratings too hard or too easy. It is not an clear cut yes or no, but you get an idea and to be honest, it really gives you a good idea and helps to ensure some fun while caching. So where is that petition? Cheers mates Alpini (currently in Germany)

Hi all, I have had the same experience as ersthelfer. Tried anything like different routes of installation (with without active sync), CF2 ys and no, get GPS signal first or not and more or less in any combination you can think of. At least I can get in the GPS settings now, although selecting the Com Port already blocks the PPC completely requesting a hardreset. BTW, I am using an O2 XDA Orbit 1 with WM5 with the player release of 7 March 08. So after the first hurdle seems to be solved I am now hooked one step further. Hope it is not a series of hooks until the software is running... Cheers Alpini Now after another hardreset due to a not related reason, the player works.... Confused as I don't know what changed the players mind and not really keen on trying the new release.... set the gps to com4 and 9600 and now even the gps settings are getting acceptable... Will report in due course on one of the locationless ones...

Hi all, I have had the same experience as ersthelfer. Tried anything like different routes of installation (with without active sync), CF2 ys and no, get GPS signal first or not and more or less in any combination you can think of. At least I can get in the GPS settings now, although selecting the Com Port already blocks the PPC completely requesting a hardreset. BTW, I am using an O2 XDA Orbit 1 with WM5 with the player release of 7 March 08. So after the first hurdle seems to be solved I am now hooked one step further. Hope it is not a series of hooks until the software is running... Cheers Alpini

After using the xda orbit for other one and a half years I think what is strange is the Wherigo player and not the device. The device works with almost every software and I did not find one GPS related software, which had this problems... Nice idea, but I think there are too much devices which just do not work. Clear enough you can not test each and any, but I think there is a general issue with the software as it works only on a handful of Pocket PCs. And it seems that there is not even an idea how to fix these issues.... Alpini

Thanks we got a PN and a cacher who wants to cooperate with our team. Thread can be closed. Thanks Alpini

Dear all, we want a cacher near Cambridge to tackle with us the World Cache in UK GCWDD0. At the moment we are three cachers from Canada, Germany and Australia. The first stages in Canada and Australia are already found. If you like to join in just drop a PN and the hunt can start. Simultaneously we look to fill the place for the US cacher. Thanks Alpini (Australia)