genegene
-
Posts
476 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by genegene
-
-
If you are still running into problems after checking out the wiki, just contact me and I will help you out.
-
I drive around a lot for work in western mass and upstate NY and will keep my eyes open. It would sure be great to win some money for our annual WMG event and make it that much better.
I spread the word a little more as well.
When does it start?
-
Anyone else having issues with the Attributes not working for new cache listings?
-
The only thing I would ask is that the coordinates be checked to make sure that they are accurate.
2 things strike me odd though in the listing:
It says look at the picture for the location of the cache, and then it says that the cache is NEAR the river.
How can a cache be NEAR the river, yet on an island IN the river.
I wonder if anyone of the cachers that were hunting for it ever caught on to that.
It sounds to me that if the cache is on the "island", then its a nanno up on the stone pillar or on the metal above it.
Most of the listings that don't have a cache size and have a "D" rating that high usually tell me its a nanno.
Anyone else think that might be the container.
-
I wonder if it has something to do with my issue?
Have you noticed this at the top of the Field notes upload page:
By default, the site will not upload Field Notes contained in your file before 1/1/0001 5:00:00 AM to reduce accidental duplicate logs. Uncheck the option below to include all Field Notes.
-
So anyone have any ideas about my problem?
-
Well it worked for about 25 seconds.
I deleted your finds and the date stayed what it showed you.
I uploaded my finds to check it and then deleted them and the date changed back to 01-01-0001 5:00:00 am
Good try though.
-
That's the problem, the date is locked and it wont change no matter what I do.
-
When I go to upload my field notes, the date next to the box says this:
By default, the site will not upload Field Notes contained in your file before 1/1/0001 5:00:00 AM to reduce accidental duplicate logs. Uncheck the option below to include all Field Notes.
Ignore logs before 1/1/0001 5:00:00 AM
I have tried uploading it with, and without the box checked and it makes no difference.
The date is locked and it uploads everything in my "geocache_visits Text Document" list.
Not sure why it is doing what it is doing and its quite odd. Any ideas why?
-
What about the field notes?
Its locked at 01/01/0001 5:00:00 AM
-
It's a known issue. You might want to read here:
What post #
-
From what I have been told its an issue with the way that the Oregon reads the page that is sent to it.
The Oregon is not set up to display/translate HTML so it will only read it the way that it sees it. Most of my caches are in HTML so you can only guess what Oregon users think of me.
If you want to see a cache that looks good online and then see it on the Oregon then look at this one:
In the future maybe Garmin will either fix the issue, or make a new GPS that can read HTML.
P.S. I own and use the Oregon 400t
-
I have been having issues with running the Field Notes (since oct 31st) adding all of my finds in the GPS.
The date seems to be stuck and I have no way to change it, no matter when I upload the field notes..
The date is stuck at 01/01/0001
Yes that is the year 0001
I use the Garmin Oregon 400t if that makes a difference.
Gene G.
-
Also a lot more requests for free items for sponsorship of events. Actually an overwhelming amount to the point where we can't fill half of the requests for freebies.
What about discounts for people hosting events instead of free items. Maybe Groundspeak can give items at cost and throw some freebies into the mix.
-
If you want bells, put a link to the forums and tell them to look for all the ding dongs
-
Yawn!
Yet another round number in the base-ten counting system. Why do we care so much about round numbers, anyway? Why is GC20000 more significant than GC19567? I don't see anyone geting excited about GC47040 (20,000 in octal). Hey, it could happen. Or what about GC4E20? We are a nation of decimalists, and I think that needs to stop right now!I so disagree with this.
I would love to get GC2GENE and if I need to tell you why then you did not read the GC#
A small monetary value would not be out of the question if need be.
Now I know some of you will have some negative comments about that as a way to get a GC#, but I just see it as the cost of a container.
-
I think I know what GeneGene is talking about (please correct me if I'm wrong). A region of a larger State a couple of hundred miles from the Maine Tribute Trail was recently designated as being "saturated" by one cacher by the local reviewer. And this A. was after "power trails" are apparently allowed again, and B. none of that cacher's 100 or so caches were placed on anything resembling a "trail".
You are correct.
I agree (and always have) that there is a "a wide range permissible and not permissible cache locations between reviewers". I think ultimately very few people know of the appeals process, or attempt to use it. Their reviewer tells them what to do or not do, and they comply.That is what I am asking, why is there such a wide range between reviewers on the amount of caches in an area, be it a trail or in the woods.
I would have put this question in a separate topic but I figured that this was just as good a place for my question as any.
The OP, Genegene, and others are using The Stud Mill Road near Old Town, Maine as an example of cache saturation but as I, and a few others have said, this is not the case at all. Here are 2 pictures of the area around Pittsfield, MA, where Genegene lives, and the Stud Mill Road using the same scale.
As you can see, the October Mountain State Park has a far greater cache density than the Stud Mill Road. If you look at almost any city, or even a lot of rural areas, you will find the same sort of cache distribution. There are areas that some may feel are saturated but the Stud Mill Road isn't one of them. Most of these caches are about 7 times further apart than the guidelines require.
If anyone thinks that they can do all of those in October Mt. in one day then good luck. Look at google earth with the Geocaching kmz to see it better. Most of those caches are not a straight run to each other. Most will take you a good 20 to 30 minn to get to each, if not longer because of the terrain.
A good chunk of them were also part of 1 cache at one time and changed over to individual caches.
-
Hay Bug512,
As for the EarthCache question, go down in the forums and look for it. There is a separate forum for it.
Now for the .gpx trail maps that's a different story. Any "Disk" you buy is going to suck and they are limited to some of the main trails.
Your best bet for local trails are on the web. Just do a search for the trail name and then add " .gpx " at the end of it.
I am having a heck of a time finding a trail map of the Taconic Crest trail map that is in the form of .gpx for my Oregon 400t. Even though it has there version of the trail on it, it is a very bad map and cuts out in certain places.
Just look around on the web and hopefully you will find something that you can download and then put on your GPS.
Gene G.
-
I'm not aware of anywhere in MA where you could duplicate this. So trying to say the reviewer wouldn't approve it is a bit unfair. In MA, you would have to put them closer and it would be a much shorter road for sure. This isn't your cache every .10 mile....like we saw out in CA on a section of highway. All guardrail caches. We didn't do any of those by the way. Drive right by them.
I'm not saying that this is isolated to Mass.
I talk to many people all over, and some want to create a cache trail in the woods (on existing trails) or want to add some more caches to an area that has a bunch in it already.
I have not had this issue here with MadMin and I have a good cache placement experience with MadMin. We don't always see eye to eye on some issues, but overall Ive learned a lot from MadMin about cache placements and have even gotten some good cache ideas.
If I wanted to do a series of P&G's like the one in Maine then there is plenty of back dirt roads here in Western Mass that I could use. It sounds interesting to try and do but I personaly would rather do it on a trail.
I'm not saying anything bad about the "Dragon" in fact I would like to go and do it myself and then move on and do some more in Maine. I'd go up for an extended weekend and have fun with some friends and family.
My question was:
Why do some reviewers allow the cache density 0.11-0.19 and others don't.
If we are allowed to place them at 0.1 from the nearest cache (in any direction) why do some reviewers say there is to many in the area already and deny the location?
-
Under normal circumstances, and assuming all other guidelines are met, caches need to be 529 feet (162 metres) apart in order to be published. I don't see any extraordinary circumstances in the example presented. It looks like the Maine reviewer published a bunch of caches. That is what we are supposed to be doing.
Keystone
Here is a question I have,
Why is it that one reviewer will allow the example that is being heavily discussed here but Another will not allow it because they call it a power trail or cache saturation.
I have talked to many cachers that are having this problem. ALL Guidelines are being met but its the reviewer that wont allow the caches to be published.
I have not seen anywheres where it says that a person can not do a so called "power trail" (I personaly hate the name power trail) but the reviewers are taking upon themselves to wright this "rule" into the guidelines and there judgment about the amount of caches on a trail or there distance from each other (between .11 and .19).
Can you please explain to myself and everyone else that my be following this topic and have that same question I do, as to why there is such a wide range permissible and not permissible cache locations between reviewers?
If this is a big issue with reviewers (distance between caches on a trail or road) why not just up the distance between caches to .2 and the problem will be solved. (This would be a future update and everything in place now would be grandfathered)
Gene G.
genegene
-
This is an interesting topic.
I was thinking of setting one up here in Western Mass but they wouldn't be P&G's.
The caches would be set at about .5 from each other, and in the logs I would ask that other cachers place one in between them so we can get a good trail going.
It would also promote other cachers to find good spots along the way.
In the end we would have caches at about .25 miles for about 20 miles (as the crow flies) once the trail is complete.
There is talk that the trail will continue to the bottom of the state in the future, witch will add a additional 27 miles (as the crow flies).
In total the trail may be around 60+ miles of mountain hiking starting in NY and going along the Berkshire Mts. in Mass. and ending in Conn.
That would put an additional 250+ caches on a trail that has about 15 - 20 on it now.
-
I wish it would get fixed. It had a lot of great info about the top ten cachers in your state.
I was on the list for the longest log in the state and it was still wrong since my log was actually maxed out on 2 logs, and used half of a 3rd.
Other then that I haven't noticed any issues with uploading a P.Q.
-
Instead of 2 separate topics I figured it was just as easy to do 2 in one.
Like the Description says,
1) Is it possible to make some changes so we can search for caches in a particular county, and leave the zip code.
2) Can we get all of "My Friends" in alphabetical order. When I want to send a message to one of them I need to scroll down until I find the one I am looking for and hope its in the same place as the last time.
-
175? ONLY 175? Here's the king of hiders!!
Looks like quite a bit of them are other peoples caches but under his name. I don't know why he does that but it would be interesting to find out why.
To claim that he has the record for most hides is not a very accurate description, he just has the most under his name.
Yet another round number in the base-ten counting system. Why do we care so much about round numbers, anyway? Why is GC20000 more significant than GC19567? I don't see anyone geting excited about GC47040 (20,000 in octal). Hey, it could happen. Or what about GC4E20? We are a nation of decimalists, and I think that needs to stop right now!
How do you delete Geocaches from Oregon 400t?
in GPS technology and devices
Posted
Almost what I would say, if you want them all gone try this:
1) Plug into computer
2) Open "My Computer" on your desktop or in your start menu
3) Double click on "Garmin Oregon"
4) Double click on the "Garmin" folder
5) Double click on the "geocache_visits"
6) Delete everything or individual logs.
The "geocache_visits" is the hard copy that is stored in your GPS Oregon unit.
Unless you delete them here manually, they WILL show up in your field notes if the box is not checked to ignore logs before "??/??/????" date.
P.S. Using GSAK will not get rid of anything located here.