RJFerret
-
Posts
940 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by RJFerret
-
-
Ironic this just came up, I was thinking the same would be great the other day. Not just via Firefox (which I use) but on the page so other browsers and one's cell phone would get it too!
That way if you are talking to folks at an event and trying to decide on some caches to do after...
It would also save site bandwidth as we wouldn't have to load the page, then load the all logs page to search. -Randy
-
I've thought it would be nice to avoid conflicts, but without coords for most letterboxes 'twould be so incomplete as to be ineffective.
The best was a week and a half ago, a cache was found pre-approval by letterboxers, I log it and turn to leave only to see the obvious letterbox at the very next tree!
-Randy
PS: Unusually it wasn't even a vista or highlight of the property as most other conflicts are...
-
It's still screwy, seems someone goofed the logic, so instead of excluding events it's now only showing them in the "Latest Caches Hidden..." section. -Randy
-
Your black tape or camo tape can be roughened up with soft scrubbing or sanding pads to eliminate the sheen. Voila, no more shiny! -Randy
-
Also in this multipage thread from last January several folks brought up this issue (the desire for "Needs Maintenance" to be cleared by others)... So you might want to tally votes from there too! -Randy
-
There you go, the correct answer is never use the 'needs maintenance' option. Just post a note that maintenance is needed, so the owner OR some other cacher can do so. Then that cacher can indicate the maintenance completed with another note. Ta Da!
Don't do it at all. It's just as useful as your suggestion.
Not true, the "Needs Maintenance" currently provides inaccurate info (good samaritan has taken care of it but it's got the bad attribute).
Using a Note allows correcting the problem without causing a new one.
Doing nothing doesn't correct the problem.
Should we allow others to take over for the lack of maintainence by the cache owner?Are you kidding??? OF COURSE!
We should ENCOURAGE helpful people. We should encourage good samaritans. We should encourage community building habits. Around our neck of the woods it's common practice to spruce up caches and consistently I see logs mentioning replacing ziplocs, leaving new pens, dropping a new logbook. It's common practice.
I help your cache, you help mine.
Of course the system should support good habits rather than discouraging them because it creates a new maintenance issue and work for the volunteers.
IMO of course! Heh.. -Randy
-
I upgraded from 3.9 and no, performance is the same IMO. Remember that the time it takes is variable depending on many conditions. Primary among them is how long since your last lock. (IE, off and right back on you'll have lock before bootup finishes often.) The constellation, reception, etcetera, all affect time to lock.
Thankfully since the update I can get WAAS D's despite the WAAS sats being in "limbo", which we couldn't here in NE when #35 got too far away. I've been seeing 8' accuracy regularly since (happily).
hth,
-Randy
-
I figure if the cache is properly rated and categorized then nothing special should be required.
Since this request has come up repeatedly all the years I've been caching... (And attributes haven't helped...)
Thankfully someone in my neck of the woods maintains a bookmark list so when new ones pop up he can be notified.
There are 100 caches in CT w/'recommended at night' and 'avail 24/7'.
24 w/just 'recommended at night'.
Any guess how many actual night caches???
Another option instead of a night cache category (instead of "cache at the coordinates," "cache not at the coords, but the starting point is," and "cache not at coords, but starting point is in dark") would be for EVERYONE to include "night" in the name and sort the keyword search by distance from home coords!
-Randy
PS: 9
PPS: That being said, that's 0.6% of the total caches in CT, hardly warranting a new category. However a keyword search sorted by distance would resolve this and other problems.
-
You can also turn off Javascript and voila, just as before! -Randy
-
For those that want the print the old maps, just turn of Javascript and voila, there's the old maps! -Randy
-
Great new feature--love it!
I second not showing found caches...
But here's another request, how about one-click to the cache page instead of two? (Now you click the pin or link in cache list on side and it loads info into small box above THEN you have to click the name over there...)
Could there be a direct link instead? Maybe a mouse-over shows the info in the small box and click takes you to the page? (While a click on the pin stays the same, putting the info in the small box.)
Thanks as always! -Randy
PS: Just noticed if you click a pin, you can't click another pin without moving the map around to get rid of the bubble. Speaking of which, what does the bubble show that you don't already see?
-
That would be wonderful, especially to find named night caches!
I almost always do a keyword search before naming so others can pull up my caches easily but more common names get completely lost.
Heck, even simply restricting it to a State would currently help.
-Randy
-
Glad I spotted this thread, found the survey in the spam folder. Next time it might be worth having [GEO] in the survey subject line as I filter that into my inbox!
I too experienced the first three questions repeating themselves over and over and over despite disabling the referrer blocker and having enabled cookies for the session.
Turns out it oddly needed cookies to be fully allowed to work.
I forgot about "contact@geocaching" being a black hole though...it's been years since I considered it!
G'luck,
Randy
-
I was baffled, saw page, wrote log, sent log, got that error on the page!
Thankfully the log seems to exist and I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one.
Hopefully we won't need to fall back on our backup cache info (you do keep it right?)
Heh,
Randy
-
WAP works on the Samsung A900 (Sprint) but I didn't test everything 'cause I needed functionality of the regular site (new caches and mine). (The signal to noise ratio of the wap list sans &f=1 was too much clutter.)
OTOH, the full website works great! (Well, weekdays obviously...) Access everything, tested logging a cache, etc.
So those having trouble w/the WAP might just try the full instead.
hth,
Randy
-
Sure enough, I randomly clicked discover RSS feeds today and New England was there!
Mucho gracias,
Randy
PS: The umpteenth record for prompt courteous service...
-
I'm adding the categories as they are requested. The UK RSS feed has been added.
Fab, and now (or tomorrow) may we have New England added pretty please? {wink}
Thanks,
Randy
-
I see "Nordic and Baltic" up, hopefully the rest will come soon (I vote for New England next!)
Heh,
Randy
-
Firstly, what do you think?
Having just scored my 100th FTF (um, two days ago) I've seen many FTF prizes and if I can, I "break it" to share with the second finder too. For me it's more about the challenge. A prize is generous, but not expected. I tend to provide them 50% of the time, trying usually to theme them to the cache (four CZ diamonds to the first three finders of "Nell's Rocks" hidden in a rocky area with a trail and road of that name).
Secondly, what's the best prize/trade item you found?- Top-end Magellan GPSr I eBayed (from their contest) to split w/team comes second to...
- A gorgeous treasure box filled with 2-3 pounds of silver coinage (plus a bit of gold)
Let's see, there must be a pic around here somewhere...
Ironically, neither were "Groundspeak" listed caches now that I think about it! (The former now immortalized w/a GC.com listing, the later a bonus cache w/clues found from others...)
Enjoy,
Randy
PS: I consider lottery tickets the worst FTF prize, far worse than having no prize since the $$'s just wasted.
-
night only really isnt a different type
Actually, unless the final container has the only reflector (rather defeating the purpose), aren't all night caches pretty much an "unknown multi" variant?
They aren't traditional ("...coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache").
They aren't really multis as defined in the guidelines (I won't quote the whole thing) as coords/waypoints aren't provided at various discrete stages typically.
Hence I often use the "Unknown" type (referred to as Mystery in guidelines) since that's the "catch-all". But unknown's have been devolving into just puzzle-caches.
Also, neither "not available 24/7" nor "recommended at night" exclusively indicate "night cache". Folks have used them for other circumstances.
I'm not a fan of too restrictive features, but this need keeps arising such that members are now trying to manually list night caches via bookmark lists in our neck of the woods, a poor solution at best!
I don't recall the arguments against this concept in the past, but agree it's worth taking a second look now that things have been "cleaned up".
Enjoy,
Randy
-
Sorry, but that problem exists independantly of it being a MOC.
You can be denied a location due to a standard multicache or puzzle cache occupying a spot that only reviewers and the owner would know about.
Unfortunately, that's a cost of "doing business".
The best precaution would be to have alternate hiding spots in mind in case your first option wouldn't work out. In two cases of mine, the second options were nicer/better than original.
Does it cost? Yes. Is it purely a MOC issue? No. Fortunately the cost of both time and money also involved a level of enjoyment that hopefully fits within your entertainment budget...
It's a shame this was frustrating, but now that you know to expect such, you'll be ready next time!
G'luck,
Randy
-
It took nearly an hour for the first found log to show on a new cache at 9:00 am est today. Fortunately all the local FTF hounds had already been emailed so they knew but still...
Haven't actually gotten the "server too busy" errors until this afternoon.
Maybe the forum troubles have encouraged some maintenance on the others? (Probably not or there'd have been an announcement...)
Ah well,
Randy
-
The trick I learned is to compare the cache placement date in your list of finds to YOUR find date. If they are the same (or close), you can manually check if it's a FTF.
hth,
Randy
-
Curious. Isn't it up to the owner? They are the arbiters after all!
Around here there's a regular event that doesn't allow a new find for each attendance and one that does. The only difference is in the former you can't tell who attended except by the timing of their notes, whereas the later you can.
But it's not like this is a a game after all, there's no comparable score or anything. There's just a statistic.
I do remember an instance where an event log came through a year and half later! Baffled, I checked the logbook--and the name WAS there?!?? 'Twas someone's son, who was now logging separately.
On the other hand, don't other sites provide points based on difficulty and stages? Actually, isn't this site the only one that doesn't?
Anyway, I don't endorse computer restrictions that inhibit intelligence. Sure, I may not choose to setup an event that way, but what if land-owner restrictions required it in the future? (Allowing caches during an event but nothing fixed?)
It seems the objections folks have are more personal in nature, to which I suggest taking care of yourself and not worrying about how others prefer to keep track of their activities.
Enjoy,
Randy
Difficulty And Terrain Rating By Geocachers
in Website
Posted
Actually, allowing users to rate terrain/difficulty ala' Wikis would work better. In the above example 'twould come out a 3, just what the owner picked!
You could also weight the owners selection more heavily (x3) so it wouldn't be wonky with fewer logs.
IE, owner rates it 5 difficulty, joking finder or random discovery rates it a 1, ends up a 4. Next finder rates it 3-5 and it's still a 4.
The biggest problem I see is loggers wouldn't bother spending the time providing their input unless they disagreed a lot.
But it would solve that fear of insulting someone when having to log, "nice first cache hide but I'm afraid it's totally over-rated in difficulty and should only be a 2"... -Randy