The Vargman

Wait! That's it! We'll make up a new name! How about a "gort", or a "spame", or a "gobby", "robby", Geez the possibilities are endless...

I have set up a PQ to filter out any caches with a difficulty or terrain of 1, to give myself a bit more of a challenge. I set the max # to 500 and the max distance I left at default, I think it was 100 or 200 miles. I was just emailed the first gpx file and it cuts off at 15 miles... Why? Granted 200 is likely overkill, but 15 is under my maximum anyday drive time by maybe half. And it's not the number of caches, the list only has 110 caches on it. The furthest cache is 14.97 miles away, which is what leads me to think that the limit is 15 miles. I have no "proof" of that but the numbers are very close. Has anybody else seen this? Is there a limit I don't know about? And, most importantly, how can I get it to show me caches further out?

On my way out, but I'll give the quick hits: Live in Stow, OH -Love it. Grew up in South Euclid, lived in Willoughby and Concord Twp too. Married. No little versions of us...yet (unless you count the two felines). Started caching through my best man Retcon.

That's how our fans roll! Thanks for the backup avpas!

Alright...Seems we've got no representation for the much populated NE section of our glorious state in this thread. Sooo let me shout a few things to help "properly" represent our corner (and please keep in mind this IS in the spirit of good fun....and better sportsfans ) : #1. Pittsburgh sucks - Go Browns! #2. Go Tribe! - Spring training is already here...Woo Hoo! (or should I say WA-Hoo!) But seriously, just a "hey there!" from our corner... Sorry....one more thing... Had to do this. I saw a post that praised a team from "That state up north." I just wanted to (now don't let me down folks) let that person know how this thread SHOULD work ... O! H!

Ok. The premium member thing is not my problem. I have access through another premium member login. And the size (not style) info is in the spreadsheet/gpx file before it gets translated into the GC software that comes with the explorist 210. When I load the gpx file into the software, there is not a place for size (micro, small, regular large, other), so it filters it out. All the other information that there is a sub-type for loads fine. My question is: Is there a way for me to easily (or at least easier than manually) load/copy over this (the size) information into the given format? Again, thanks for any help.

Since it's an affinity system it would be handy for finding caches you might like. That's different from pointing out which caches you won't like. You would actually have to reverse the system to have it help you rule out caches. As long as the out of towner is interested in finding what they like, it can work. O.k. I got lost... I get that the affinity system works much better as a "Help me find good ones" So, allow me to revise that part, but I'm confused on the whole "Ignore" funtion being able to be used in place of the "I skipped it" for profiling. If I understand this well enough, you should be "paired" with people that have similar taste and ignoring wouldn't allow me to know what you ignore. Just tryin' to make sure I understand. Since the other person ignored the cache, it wouldn't show as 'liked'. Therefore, it won't be recommended to you. I see. So, then I guess the somewhat confusing part to me about this (again, hypothetical) system is that, if it only takes into account other "likes" like mine how can it accurately compare my likes to others similar to me if it doesn't account for the dislikes/ignores/skipped it? I would think that, in the Netflix system a dislike rating is factored into comparing me to "other users". This may be where I'm wrong. It just makes sense to me. So, assuming they take into account my dislikes, if you skipped it, or ignored it, it's similar to a dislike and I would think that data would be useful in comparing me to others. Gotta go for now, but interested to hear where/if I'm going wrong.

Since it's an affinity system it would be handy for finding caches you might like. That's different from pointing out which caches you won't like. You would actually have to reverse the system to have it help you rule out caches. As long as the out of towner is interested in finding what they like, it can work. O.k. I got lost... I get that the affinity system works much better as a "Help me find good ones" So, allow me to revise that part, but I'm confused on the whole "Ignore" funtion being able to be used in place of the "I skipped it" for profiling. If I understand this well enough, you should be "paired" with people that have similar taste and ignoring wouldn't allow me to know what you ignore. Just tryin' to make sure I understand.

Bingo. Any cache judging system must have credibility at its core to have any value. If I discovered that my favorite literature critic was posting opinions on books without reading more than the cover, that critic's opinion would suddenly cease to have relevance. Finding a cache would, (to me), seem like a critical component in deciding if I like it. Although a rating system based on incomplete data might help to narrow down my search, I think the system would be far more accurate if it was limited to those who actually located the cache. Maybe the soluion is to use the already existing "Ignore" rather than rating. You can pre-judge some caches based on logs, knowing the area ect. Just like some people hate any movie with Keanu Reeves (sp?) in it. Some people will never get past a lamp post micro. Others may enjoy that this lamp post is the only hiding spot within a mile of a beautiful pond surrounded by a strip mall wonderland. One of those found spots in a start cityscape that make you smile. Hard to say. Over all I think the idea would work. There are nits in any rating system. That we are debating a single aspect of this system is a lot of progress from the days of old. I see what you're saying and perhaps I'm missing something, but I think using the function as it exists wouldn't be of much assistance to the "out of towner" if they were trying to eliminate certain types of caches.

Yes I am. I guess the issue is that I see no place for the size of the cache. It's just not in there in the given software. Transferring into the software from the "swiss army thing" is fine, but it eliminates the size stat (probably because there isn't a place for it in the 210 GC software). Sooo....when I send it to the GPS... no size.

Not a bad thought, but I can guarantee you that an "I skipped it" category would immediately be abused, and used as an attack on certain types of hides. It would therefore quickly become meaningless, and only serve to flag each such cache with the fact that lots of people think this particular one is an example type of hide they've come to hate -- whether it truly is or not. Perhaps...And I can see your point, but I guess what I'm saying is this could add to your "profile". If you skip a lot of caches, you'd be grouped with those like you...etc. Also If you skipped cache X but not cache Y you are like cacher A. Perhaps I'm naive about the affinity system being proposed, but that would seem to fit in. Also, personally I can't see a feature like this being abused any less than if a system was put into place without an option like this.

O.k. perhaps this is dumb, but I actually think it may resolve part of the "rating without seeing it" debate in this hypothetical system... Add a category "I skipped it" and just leave a counter on it. Just a thought...

Just wonderin'. It seems so basic, but the size of the cache is not included in the given GC software for the unit. I have been manually replacing the "placed by" field with the size field to accomodate, but it seems awfully tedious for such a basic cache stat. Any helpful tips out there to either A. Fix this, or B. Make it easier for the cache size to appear on the main page, or even C. Automatically change the "Placed by" data with "size" data? Thanks in advance for the help folks!

True. Perhaps (and I know this exponentially increases the task of having a test if many areas wish to adopt it) making the test regionally specific and only for those areas that felt a need (such as the US) to have this quiz/test in place. All that you'd need to do is specify where your cache will be located, and then the logic would either take you to a quiz, or not. Just a thought.

Is it OK to pain coords on a rock? What if you brought the rock with you?Actually, I'd say that's fine. Seems to be not very different than placing a cache to me. Edit: Clarify - If you brought the rock it's not that different than placing a cache. The catch with the 'What if I bring my own rock?' question is that a bystander won't know the difference between your rock and a 'local' rock. Interesting. Hadn't considered that. I suppose that might be one of those gray areas that seem to talked about pretty constantly around here. I'd say that's an excellent reason to have some sort of clarifying question if a test is to be used. To use your example in the format of the questions above, it might (I said might) be good to have a couple "food for thought" examples in with the guidelines. Allow for the answer to be correct either way, but then make a point to add a commentary that states something like "While this is not technically against guidelines, you may want to consider who could be looking at what you are doing and what they might think." Actually, right after typing that, perhaps that could be it's own question. Meaning: A question that will always be right, no matter what answers you choose, but would have some "use your head" commentary beside each potential answer.

Is it OK to pain coords on a rock? What if you brought the rock with you? Actually, I'd say that's fine. Seems to be not very different than placing a cache to me. Edit: Clarify - If you brought the rock it's not that different than placing a cache.

This guideline applies: "Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive): Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a clue or a logging method." What are some examples that you have seen? Actually 2 this weekend: 1. Saw a sharpie marker written on a broken speaker system at a vacant Taco Bell. 2. Home made coins (with pieces of coods on them) screwed into telephone poles. *Edit: saw sbell111's post and saw that #2 had really poor grammar.

Just to copy over my idea posted in the other thread: A question that clarifies "What is vandalism?" in placing a cache.

Based on my experience this past weekend I offer the following suggestion: Something that clarifies "What is vandalism?" in placing a cache. Not sure how this would be worded, but I like the multiple choice format used earlier in the thread. Sorry If I missed this suggestion earlier in the thread.

Ok. So, in thinking about this, I can understand why some might think that being able to judge a cache without a find might be good. Not just on location like a starting point (which I admittedly think you CAN determine a lot when you drive up to/near coordinates), but on technique (like parts of a multi), the puzzle being used...etc. So to me, there is SOME validity to this point. Does a find increase your ability to rate something? I don't think so in the majority of cases. Examples: I'll almost always like a good hike. I would then thusly rate all those I found. I dislike most drive ups. So I'll rate those that way. It would seem to me, that since this is being discussed as a help system and would work like net flicks, me rating a drive up poorly only helps other people like ME weed it out. I guess the puzzle "dislike" rating makes me think that if this system were used, it would be difficult for those that dislike these to actually log a find just to rate it (esp. if they are bad at solving puzzles).

As a courtesy to the owner I post all my DNFs. (Just in case it's missing, etc.) Plus, it actually helps me keep track of ones I wait to go back to (did someone else find it after I DNF'd?). *Edit: I don't log DNFs if I get to a site and I choose not to look for the cache.

I see. So THIS is where the issue turns to the ATV/Snowmobile access debate. But as far as legalizing cache placement in this designated wilderness areas, an act of congress, literally, is involved. Probably needing outlined REALLY specifically and such, so on and etc. etc.. Now I understand why the "geocaching license" thing is basically a lost cause for these areas. Thanks!

This idea is really a non-issue, simply for the fact that caches are not possible in 'designated wilderness'. Some federal officials have gone ballistic even with virtual caches, because they either can't be made to understand, or simply don't want to understand that a virtual is exactly what it sounds like it is. A registry on open NF land is a good idea, and is implemented in various ways throughout the US. But to approach this same concept in 'designated wilderness' is simply impossible without some monumental changes. In 43 years, the Wilderness Act of 1964 has remained what it was created as in 1964. Ahhh, I see. So the issue is more directed at the 'designated wilderness' areas and the fact that it would take an act of congress to alter the specified guidelines in place. Thanks for clarifying. So if you wouldn't mind educating me further... Is fishing/hunting permitted in these areas (with a license) and is that part of the wilderness act as well (like an exemption or something)?

Thanks for helping me clarify. I meant to include the cache placement approval as part of the process in my original post. As far as the feasible part of it, I have no clue, I kinda guess that's why I threw the idea out there. For those that may be better informed as to how feasible the idea is.

*Shaking head* Here I go being odd again and asking an odd question/proposing something weird that has probably been brought up before... Has the proposal of a "Geocaching License" for wildlife type areas been brought up? If so, sorry I missed it... But it would seem (although perhaps odd to legislators at first) that it's not unreasonable. When game wardens check on fishermen and the like, they'd better have their license and legal equipment. A Geocaching License could be set up similarly I would think. Seems like this might be a way for all to win? Note: I'm not weighing this against the whole ATV/Snowmobile portion of the thread, to me that's a seperate issue, although this might add to that debate.