Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for '광주출장안마,광양텍사스가격(Talk:za32)24시간 상담가능'.

  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Geocaching HQ communications
    • Announcements
    • Release Notes
  • General geocaching discussions
    • Getting started
    • How do I...?
    • Geocaching topics
    • Geocache types and additional GPS-based gameplay
  • Adventure Lab® Discussions
    • Play Adventure Lab®
    • Create an Adventure Lab®
  • Community
    • Geocaching Discussions by Country
  • Trackables
    • Travel Bugs
    • Geocoins
  • Bug reports and feature discussions
    • Website
    • Geocaching® iPhone app
    • Geocaching® Android app
  • Geocaching and...
    • GPS/API/technology
    • Education
    • Hiking/backpacking
    • Photography
    • Design

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Location

  1. When I try to upload or download waypoints from GSAK to my GPSMAP 76CSx from GSAK, a "sending waypoints" or "receiving waypoints" dialog box comes up with a gas gauge that goes from empty to full over and over and over and over and over, ad infinitem. It seems like it isn't communicating with the GPSr at all. USB connection. I can upload and download fine with Mapsource. The only way to get GSAK to do anything is to end task in task manager. Help!
  2. Pen doesn't work (empty, broken, lost in the woods). The rusty can won't open. The logbook is wet and I don't want to touch it. ... In each of the cases I have the cache in my hand and have successfully fulfilled the task given by the owner. Why do you have a problem with me not signing the log? Only because of the rules? (I don't talk about "seen it up in the tree and could not reach it" or "could not open the trick lock" or ....)
  3. I'm trying to get a good long streak of consectutive days with finds going (currently at 51). As a freelance photographer one of the things I get to do is talk on cruise ships, which is fantastic for increasing the number of countries I have cached in but the 'sea days' do make it difficult to get a really big streak of consectutive days caching. I know there used to be such things as 'locationless' caches, but are there any caches left that could be legitimately logged on a day when I am in the middle of the ocean? I did wonder about 'banking' some earthcaches - visiting the locations, just photographing them in detail and then only answering the questions when I'm out at sea. But that feels like cheating. Thanks Ian.
  4. How do you know the other cacher's "better coordinates" are "spot on"? How could your coordinates be typically 80 feet off and you not know there's a problem until you hide a cache? Many GPSs have magnetic compass sensors which you can calibrate to see better compass directions. You don't calibrate coordinates. Can you get together with the other cacher and get some pointers? There seems to be a disconnect where you're having trouble with coordinates. Maybe entering them, or maybe with some setting that could be changed. I try to talk people out of the "Waypoint Averaging" thing. It's best used for specific purposes, and way beyond what is required for "geocaching". It requires a definite plan, a lot of time, and visits to the same spot in various weather conditions, times of day, and seasons. After all that work, all you get is an average of waypoints (go figure). Instead, walk to your chosen waypoint (the cache hiding spot), stand there for a while, take some snapshots (save some waypoints), walk a few yards away, return and see which snapshot is closest. Use those coordinates for the cache. Takes 10 minutes. When you return to place the container, check that selected snapshot again, and see if it's still fine. If so, submit the cache page.
  5. Hi there, I am new to the whole Geocaching arena and I started volunteering at several small historical societies in an area with a rich historical background, away from the cities in a very mountainous area. I was thinking of trying to create some sort of geocaching fundraising event where prizes could be awarded for achieving certain geocache goals over a weekend event. I have searched high and low on the internet and I have not found ANYTHING that even begins to relate to what I am trying to find. Can someone give me some guidance in what I should be searching for? I know SOMEONE has done this before, but as of spending over an hour searching on the internet, I cannot find anything. Can someone send me in the right direction; give me the right search terms, or perhaps could I talk to someone who has set up non-profit fund raisers using this venue?
  6. I think it's OT, but I kinda agree, though I feel even having the find count on your profile doesn't mean much to many folks. By talk at events, all those graphs, badges, and animations added-on are wasted on most of us here. We remember there was a lengthy period where we'd time-out before all that carp finally loaded. They can look at your stats page if they're that interested (if not already "compared" to on a third-party site)... At a mega event once, before they even asked who I was (the cord was buggin' my neck...), a Lackey asked what my find count was. - So it's possible I guess that "points", no matter how they came by them (and we've seen some examples...) do matter to some.
  7. The first rule of platinum membership is you can't talk about platinum membership.
  8. For Thursday night 8-10-06 3 checkins from IRLP 5 checkins from echolink KI6CPB Tag net control hope more can start to checkin
  9. The key point is "user-defined" (I know you latched on to 'geocraphic' as the context for that clause though). Anything other than what's HQ-defined. On the DT grid, an explicit shape is a "user defined region". There's also a bookkeeping aspect which I've been cited. Having to keep track of numerous components of a challenge - the fewer the better; a challenge with 3 simplistically defined parameters (x Traditions, y Mysteries, z Multis, for example, or 400 of each D rating, or 30 finds in each corner) is easier than a list of specific matches (all the 15 DT combos required to form this specific shape). A user-defined shape means a list of very specific qualifiers, or a detailed description of qualification 'region', and having to seek out specific qualifiers and keep track of what you've got. That's why I suggested how you describe the challenge could make a HUGE difference. Instead of saying "form an X of a certain number of finds", have a quick math checker that can determine qualification. This is not me saying I'm a fan of decisions based on "user-defined" and "bookkeeping" clauses, but these are what I have been told as reasons ideas like yours are declined. I'm just passing on what I know from experience, whether in agreement or not. Honestly I could potentially see the challenge idea you cited as allowed if worded acceptably in my province. We already have SO many very similar. As long as it doesn't look like a 'pattern' or 'shape' and isn't too difficult to keep track of (bookkeeping), I think my reviewers may allow it. Again though, I'd suggest you talk to your reviewer to find out what they think of the challenge. That's the best way to find out what would be allowed and not, before putting in too much work only to be declined.
  10. I think the problem is that you haven't explained a specific problem, only an expression you're unclear on. Has a specific challenge cache idea been denied? It's hard to tell from your original post if you're looking for an opinion, or an explanation. Now that you've explained in more detail what an example challenge is, can you say that that is precisely what you've submitted for review, and it was declined? And that the reason you were given was that "grid art" is not allowed? If so, then the reason is 'user defined regions' (or patterns or shapes) are not allowed. If you want clarity on that point, you should talk to your reviewer. Beyond that, you could only try making adjustments as described in this thread.
  11. OK, who has an opinion on handheld compass's to share. I'm looking for a good mapping compass primarily to use with 1:24K topos and aerial photos. So far I've been looking at the Brunton 8096 Eclipse GPS compass Brunton and the Suunto GPS-Plotter G compass. Suunto. What do you think about the quality of these manufacturers, features these offer, other options, or ??? I haven't seen a Silva with similar scaling features for my purposes, am I missing something? Thanks for your comments
  12. Has there ever been any talk of creating a app for Waymarking ?? I bet alot more poeple would get into it if there was something quick and easy to use When I am out geocaching I usually forget about waymarks and log them after the fact
  13. Keystone

    GSAK

    The best place to discuss the GSAK program is on their own dedicated forums. But, it's also fine to talk about GSAK here, because it's an authorized partner application. As such, the best place on the Geocaching Forums would be the API Forum.
  14. Just wondering, is there a talk around freq. for GW4. Is it better to go on the national simplex channel on 2m, or is there another channel, or a repeater that would be better.
  15. G'Day My Fellow Geocachers, How are you doing on this fine day? I’m DARKSIDEDAN aka Daniel from Canberra, Australia. I love discovering Geocaches, Trackable items and collecting Pathtags. I hope that you all enjoy Geocaching as much as I do. For me geocaching is a way of life. When I am not Geocaching, I am thinking of Geocaching. Here is a little information about me. I have been geocaching since 2015. At the time of this post I have over 6850 finds plus 340 hides. I am the creator of the “Duck Dip” Lab Cache that won 2nd Place for the Australian Capital Territory in the State Vs State - Battle of the Lab Caches at the OzGeoMuster - The Gong Mega 2019 in Wollongong, Australia (GC7N7ZC). Now let’s talk Pathtags. Currently I have over 8000 Pathtags in my collection plus about 500 Etagz. I currently have three of my own Pathtags (45762 / 46950 / 47696) with another one in the works.
  16. I've been geocaching for a little over a year now...not too religiously, but enough that when I travel, I take a quick look at what caches are in the zipcode I'm going to. It looks like the hot setup is to download all the specific cache info to a PDA and use the PDA in conjunction with your GPS. There's a lot of good and bad to every PDA I've researched. Anyone have a "most bang for the buck" story related to their PDA. BTW, I just "upgraded" from a Garmin 76CS to a 60CSx and LOVE IT, now I want to get the most out of it by throwing some cash into a reliable and functional PDA. Comments? Fire away!
  17. I feel blessed and lucky enough to say, I've been chosen to create one of the 20th anniversary events. I came to the forum to see if anyone has starting to talk about them only to not find much info. So I'll start by saying, I am seeking a little help and guidance on how to pull off a special event like this. I have previously hosted and held events in 4 different states, including my home state of Ohio. The event I will schedule to celebrate this 20th anniv. will take place and be held here in Ohio. Outside of that, tips, ideas and the like on how to make this special for my area would be appreciated. I go by the name Corn-fed and live in the center of that state approx 30 minutes from Columbus.
  18. Clan X-Man

    Google Talk

    I notice the card option on the forums. Could we get a google talk line in there?
  19. I would hope that number of finds or "popularity" doesn't become a measure of cache quality. The ones that get the most finds are the urban P&G micros in tourist hotspots, whereas the ones that get the fewest finds tend to be the more challenging and, for me at least, rewarding ones. Sure, that's what we'd hope, but that wouldn't be the reality of the situation. Popularity can only mean quantity of activity -- given the measures we have, how else can it be determined? Favourite points are just as subjective, find count is only a measure of activity, there's no universal quality rating system. "Popular" right now means that the caches found the most tend to be the ones that most people enjoy (not that I agree with that in the slightest). 'Awesome' caches (which is also subjective) that get few visits will be drowned out by the quantity of caches that people BOTH place and find. What we should hope is that HQ realizes that quantity cannot be considered the sole indicator of popularity. The only other way really is by listening to buzz. What do people talk about the most? Or wish they could do the most? There's no metric for that. But that aspect tends to put everything on an even playing field. LPCs may be super populous, but how much buzz is there about LPCs? Consider that general sentiment with all the talk about bucket list caches, which by comparison are found only a fraction of the time and you can count on your fingers relatively speaking. I'd argue there's a whole lot more buzz and excitement about such caches despite being far fewer and rarely found by comparison. But again, there's no metric for that. So, the only measure of popularity is by what people place the most and find the most. Activity will determine what the landscape of geocaches will look like in the short and long term, varied somewhat by region and local community makeup. It's the promotional strategies of geocaching that can only help to retain that feel of what "quality geocaching" looks like (not just 'geocache quality'), by catering to the social buzz, the word on the street -- not merely statistical data.
  20. My ladyfriend and I went caching today at a spot just off the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina. After we had located the cache and hiked back to the parking lot, I unlocked the car and laid my brand new GPSr (A Lowrance Expedition C) on top of my old Taurus wagon because I needed to put my backpack in the back seat. As soon as I had done that, we hopped in the car and headed home. After eating dinner, I went in the den and reached over to pick up my GPS carrying case and thought to myself, "this thing feels awfully light." Then I felt a sick feeling beginning to well up inside because I didn't remember getting my GPSr back off the roof of my car. Thinking that I may have just laid it in the back seat, I raced outside and there sitting on the top of my Taurus wagon was the Lowrance, just where I left it. I picked it up and stared at it in disbelief. I had just driven about 30-35 miles on an extremely curvy road at speeds of up to 50 mph and the thing hadn't moved. The only thing I can figure out was that the Expedition has some tiny rubber feet on the back of it that must have kept it from sliding around. Man, what a lucky break!!!
  21. Not publishing on geocaching.com is determining what is reasonable. If it's not reasonable, it won't be published. They might indicate what should change. If it is published, the reviewer has deemed it is reasonable to publish. What it is not is your strictly literal definition. We will continue to disagree until we agree on the definition of "Date Hidden" in the context of a Geocaching.com listing property. Until then, continue to bang on. No opinions changing, per all the discussion up until now. Already answered that, and as others have said, because most likely a reviewer will recommend making the date the date the container was hidden as a geocache. Oh they make many decisions I may not like. But I make every effort to determine the reason for such a decision. And at worst it comes down to people trying to push the limit so far that they simply have to say "No". Sometimes parents and teachers have to do that with unruly kids. In the case of this website, they make the rules, they define what is allowed. For a "Date Hidden", they have every right to determine what is "reasonable" for their website. Even if I don't like it. But for the record, I don't think 1995 should be allowed either. Because I believe the definition of (and I believe they define) the field is explicitly in the context of a geocache. (psst and if it's not already clear, I also believe that to be reasonable =P) Hey, we agree. No one said you can't talk about how restricting 1995 for whatever reason is a silly reason. But you can't say we can't repeatedly disagree with you = P If you created or owned the sky, or you fundamentally defined "blue" and "green", you'd have every right to say what is or isn't blue and green. Well for the cave, no, because the cache is in the cave. The example was using the actual container as the cache. If that box is the cache, and it's been there since who knows when, then the box itself was hidden way back then, so why not use that year? Why would you say that's not reasonable but 1995 is? Why is it okay to use someone else's box with their placed date because it was a geocache and owned by a geocacher but not the ex-summit log box because it wasn't? These seem to be entirely subjective parameters you're adding to the situation to define "reasonable" in your own opinion. Now if you owned your own geocaching website, you'd have every right to allow that date, define it however you wish, what you believe to be "reasonable" across your website. But HQ owns geocaching.com, and they get to decide what is a reasonable set of parameters for the value of the field. And as described by IceColdUK, pretty much every aspect of the listing is in the context of the geocache. At worst, we can infer by context what is reasonable for the hidden date, before a ruling is made by a reviewer. If you infer something different, well then there's a test - find a way to publish a listing using a container with a relatively extreme Hidden Date by your definition of 'reasonable' that may be in conflict with the argument we're making. Then find out what a reviewer decides. Heck if they say no, you could even take it to appeals and get an official ruling from HQ directly. And even if they still say no to the date that you think is 'reasonable', you would still have every right to believe that HQ is being "unreasonable". Probably won't change much though I think this is what I would do! Such a cool idea Absolutely! I think it would be awesome to find a cache that's actually been there decades, with a very interesting and inspiring story Depending on how much is still tied to that time, it could even get loads of FP recognition.
  22. And what reason do you think - just your opinion, as a non reviewer like me - a reviewer might come up with for telling said CO they cant use 1995 as the hidden date? Can you think of any solid reason other than upsetting stats hunters? Serious question. Yes a reviewer and HQ can deny publishing, but that doesn't mean it's for a good reason, it's simply that they are in a position to make an arbitrary decision (absolute power over the geocaching.com database) and it doesn't mean we cant talk about it being a silly reason. No one is going to die because of it, either way... The sky is blue. You can say the sky is green - it doesn't matter if you do, but that statement is still untrue. A reviewer can tell me I cant state the sky is blue and I have to say the sky is green. It also doesn't matter, but it's still just as untrue. Whether it is an important data point, doesn't affect whether something is truthful or not.
  23. Do you honestly believe that ALL abandoned caches are caches that qualify people for challenges? You seem to think that everyone caches based on challenges they're working on. Sometimes, contrary to your belief, people wish to pay a cache a visit because it intrigues them, not because it manages to fulfill a challenge. I will sometimes pick a cache to visit because it fulfills a challenge, but only if I am actively thinking about it. Finding caches is only about the numbers if you choose to make it about the numbers. If I have the time, I'll go out of my way to find a multi over any other type of cache. It's not because I want to get to some pre-determined number of multi finds to qualify for a challenge; it's because I generally prefer multis over other types of caches. I'll select non-traditional caches over traditional caches because those are the ones I prefer, not because they fulfill some challenge. I did too but I don't see an issue with this because that's how some players choose to play. Why should we eliminate caches based on the sole factor that they're caches that allow some people to qualify for challenges? What happened to the notion of "To each their own."? There are some who would say eliminate PTs because they're bad for the game, promote throwdowns, take up way too much space, and only provide a +1 to those who go find them. There are some who would say eliminate puzzle caches because they're too hard to solve and they take up space that could be better used for a cache that will actually get visited. There are some who would say eliminate multis because they take up an inordinate amount of space that also prevent many cachers from placing their own caches. There are some who would say eliminate LPCs or GRCs because they're not really "good" caches. That's part of the beauty of geocaching; there's something for everyone and you are the one that gets to determine the manner in which you choose to cache. I'm not a fan of cut and paste logs that tend to talk more about the challenge than they do about the cache they found that helped them meet the challenge. However, I don't get upset that some cachers have chosen to find one of my caches because it happens to fill a hole in a challenge they are working on. There are LOTS of reasons that cachers choose to visit a cache and, contrary to L0ne.R's opinion, it's only about the numbers if a cacher chooses to make it about the numbers. Some do and some don't. I fail to see the harm involved in someone caching that way because it's not how I usually cache, it's how they usually cache. This urge to dissuade finders from caching to fulfill challenges (and instead find nice geocaches in nice locations) seems to be more about a personal pet peeve and the desire to castigate all who choose to cache that way vs. realizing that both types of caching have merit, even if one doesn't like the reasoning behind it. I get it. I really do. I'm not a fan of PTs but I'm not going to tell those COs and those who choose to find them that I think it's in their best interest to stop finding them because it's not really about what geocaching is or that they're finding them because they only care about the +1. So what if they only care about the +1? So what if someone only cares about a certain cache because it fulfills a challenge? That doesn't mean that every cacher who visits that cache has chosen it because it fulfills a challenge or some other number based reason. As it pertains to this particular thread, I understand what they're trying to do but I wonder if it's truly the best way to approach cache quality, if that's truly the motivating factor behind this test policy. If we're looking at just 1.5% (that would mean there are roughly 31,200 caches in GA?) of the caches in GA, then I have to wonder what percentage of caches in GA currently have outstanding NM logs that haven't been addressed by the CO within 30 days (the typical amount of time a reviewer will allow for a disabled cache to be fixed). I would think that percentage would be higher, hence the potential impact to cache quality would be even greater as it would remove caches with unattended NM logs or get those caches fixed by their COs. I understand the reasoning behind this but like someone else has stated, I question that this will noticeably improve the quality of caches that are being found in either of the two states where this is being tested. Sure, it will remove some caches that might be poorly maintained but it will also remove some caches that are just fine as they are, other than the fact that they have absent COs. Eventually, if cachers were to go through the right process, they would get NM logs, then NA logs and then disappear from the listing site as they're archived. I think they'd get more potential benefit from a renewed focus on NM logs, why they're not a bad thing for seekers to file, how they should be approached by the CO (they're not personal attacks but factual comments about their cache status that should be addressed), as well as the follow up procedure of filing a NA log if the CO is unable or unwilling to address the initial NM log that was filed in order to get a reviewer to help get needed maintenance done or remove them from the listings because they're not up to the standards listed within the guidelines.
  24. If you read the above posts... You will see that I'm inquiring about designs specifically for urban landscapes. I personally work as a design and artist, so this aspect of geocaching is what excites me. I've been geocaching for a while now but was working with a friend. Didn't get my own account until recently... So I'd appreciate you all not making assumptions about me based on my stats. Good for you... If you've found more caches than me... But I'm sorry that does not give u the right to talk down to me over a fun GPS game. Like wow... What is wrong with you people? 8f this is what you need to feel superior to other people that's just sad . This is supposed to be a fun game. If other people's responses to my original question were off topic that is not my fault ... it's called conversation... and sometimes its organic. Talking and conversations aren't meant to be policed... and all this policing has effectively KILLED this conversation. How come the people now complaining about bullies and "newbies".. Who are in fact acting like bullies.... Not being policed to stay on topic? This subject is more "off topic" now than people talking to me about their urban caching strategies... Which I THINK has a lot to do with DESIGN. It's called UX. Look it up. Why has my thread turned into a bunch of complaining gate keepers... Literally putting down people new to the game. It's TOXIC. This is really disappointing... And this is why there seems to only be a handful of people who chat on here. It's Cliquey and unhelpful. I will look elsewhere online for a positive and helpful geocache community... I've found some on facebook groups who are WAY NICER to me than anyone on here.. Because whatever this is is LAME, judgemental, Cliquey, toxic culture and gate keeper ish... And geocaching.com should maybe reevaluate some of their mods "dedication" to their "job". My topic of conversation has been officially killed. Thanks a lot guys.
×
×
  • Create New...