McPhan

You can use pqs effectively? Got me there

Try Greasemonkey. Lots of useful scripts. http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/ There is one script that gives a summary of log types. http://gmscripts.locusprime.net/ Of course you need Firefox.

Showing my vast lack of knowledge except from his books, does this go anywhere near Stephen King's fictional town of Castle Rock?

For what it's worth, I believe the overwhelming majority of geocachers contribute to this obsession. Premium or Basic Members all hide caches and that's what makes this thing we do such fun - the diversity. Nothing can be all things to all people, but with the variety inherent in this sport this comes close. If we learn to accept our differences - hallelujah. Going back to the summer of love now! Thanks

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...97-880e67888eea

We have one hider who excels at placing long multi-caches. He thinks them through and they are truly memorable. He's a mountain biker, but I've had to walk and or drive. http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/fd8d56...4421547f239.jpg Superimpose the above on a map of Canberra and you'll see how many WPs it had and how far. Not as far as some above but 26 WP and then GZ.

With SAW 3 in the can, is this the plot of SAW 4?

Okay, one last try. Must be my upside-down view of things that is making me hard to understand. I was not advocating any type of test at all. Re-read the first paragraph of my first post and you will see I am against testing because testing means nothing in practice. I was suggesting a list of questions relating to the actual hide being submitted, based on the guidelines, on the submission page. Or a separate page similar to the attributes page. If any of the answers could be construed as not quite being in line with the guidelines then a warning/link to the relevant guideline would pop up. No test, just an "honesty" in the answers. And yes, I know people will do what they want and answer what they want. It may, however, help when hiders have forgotten or not fully understood the guidelines. P.S. railroad, railway, train tracks are all understood here.

Um, OK, but I did a cache once that was underground, but had not been buried. It was in an under-road walkway, and was a very clever hide. I loved it! This was only an example not meant to be taken word for word. In this example, when the warning pops up then it could be ignored or prompt you to write to the reviewer explaining that it is indeed underground but is not buried.

Thank you Team Perks for taking a little time out to explain something quickly to a relative newbie to both geocaching and forums. Taking time to belittle other people on the other hand.............

Please explain.

Even though I know the road rules I occasionally bend some. This would be the same answering a quiz, I would be able to answer the questions and still go and plant a cache that was contrary to guidelines. Perhaps if there were a few questions concerning the placement on the listing page (or a subsequent page like the attributes one). The questions could be along the lines of the above questions but be yes/no answers. An "incorrect" answer would then pop up a warning that the placement may not comply with guidelines and then provide a link to the relevant area. ie Is this cache underground? Yes No. If yes is picked (I don't have the computer nous to show this how it should look) then the warning pops up and links to- "Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate." The questions could also rotate as mentioned in a previous log. Of course this will not stop poor judgement but may make people think and could be a useful/additional tool for the reviewers. (I'm sure they can do with all the help they can get - Thanks guys)

They certainly do. This is from the CacheStats page. "To generate the GPX file that CacheStats analyzes: go to your Pocket Queries page on geocaching.com, then click on "Add to queue" in the My Finds section (premium membership required). This will send an email to you with an attachment. Open the "zipped" attachment and save the GPX file directly to your hard drive and then open it using CacheStats. Important: Do not use EasyGPS to open and save the .gpx file because that strips out statistical information from the file. Important #2: Each time you get a new .gpx file, save it using the same name. By doing this, CacheStats can remember all information you enter such as your favorites and FTF's."

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...bc83c&log=y This is an actual combination safe on a pole cemented into the ground.

I just tried and it worked okay. Open CacheStats, click on the OpenGPX file... point it at the GSAK file that contains all the info you want and there it is. (Well for me anyway

Appears to be okay now as it worked for me.

The way your boys are going lately and especially tonight there may just be another trophy coming back with them. And yes I guess that would be the place.

Anyway, Clyde's probably watching the cricket Anybody know the co-ords of our Ashes????(Please it's a joke.)

Sorry to jump back a bit. LEO?

More like a sick burp?

I've only recently started cruising the forums and have noticed that a lot of time and threads are taken up discussing the pros and cons of micros and where they are hidden. Reading the logs for the cache mentioned above there are some very complimentary comments, admittedly they were made quite a while ago. Is the main frustration that the once unique hide has now been done to death, become ho-hum and boring? Just curious as the vehemence against lamppost micros runs high in some threads.

Cachers lick caches?

For a start you could try posting your question here:- http://forum.geocaching.com.au/index.php which is part of http://geocaching.com.au/ Lots of very helpful people to make your trip great.

Guess

There is something to be said about having the number of finds outweigh the number of hides. Ive come across a number of hides that would appear to have damaged property, although I couldn't be sure that the hide spot wasn't already damaged/loosened before the hide was placed. Drilling holes is pretty obvious though. (This one archived?)