Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for '구리여대생출장안마,밀양출장카톡【Talk:ZA32】지금 조치를 취하십시오'.

  • 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. OK, so I am working up preliminary areas where Funerary Art could be found. Up front I will say I am not religious, so I have not been raised in any religious tradition (calm down, I am not going to talk about religion). Therefore, I am not familiar at what types of tombs/stones/art on final resting places would be found in places of worship. Most of the locations I am finding are related to Christian churches and burial traditions. If anyone can help with other religions/burial traditions, I would be quite grateful. Remember, the reason this category is getting up and rolling is that Figurative does not accept Funerary Sculptures. We are not trying to create a redundant category and there are many categories that deal with markers for the deceased. The thrust of the category is funerary art, not final resting places or type of monument for the deceased. This category recognizes that most of the sculptures would be found in a cemetery. However, there are other burial locations that may include sculptures that are funerary in nature, such as churches, cathedrals (bigger church), mausoleums and some burial locations that were owned by the deceased (family burial locations). Are there other locations common in other faiths/burial traditions I am missing? (Help please.) Any comments/thoughts on what should/shouldn't be accepted and why. Here are some locations where Funerary Art could be found. Should the category accept/decline from these various locations and styles of burial for the deceased: Sculpture/Artwork found on a headstone, columbarium, crypt, tombstone, mausoleum, ledger grave marker, cenotaph, tomb, effigies, church monument, cadaver monument, .... ? I know some of these have their own categories. Any of these that are related to s specific burial of an individual would not be accepted in Figurative. Figurative only accepts monuments that are, in essence, honoring all the deceased. Figurative does not accept pieces of a specific ('known") individual--that goes in Statues of Historic/Religious Figures. Just looking for comments/thoughts on what should/shouldn't be accepted and why. Existing Waymark Categories (I probably missed some) that need to be considered to be included/excluded: Death Mask Gravestones Broken Column Headstones Occupational/Hobby Grave Stones Woodmen of the World Grave Markers/Monuments Headstones of Centenarians **Veteran Memorials (Many categories - Specific wars and general categories) Homemade Tombstones Graves Mentioning a Cause of Death Out of Place Graves Statues of Historic Figures Statues of Religious Figures Dead Poets Society Zinc Headstones Mausoleum Relief Art (I am contacting Relief Art to verify if they accept/reject relief funerary art) Figurative Public Sculpture Sphinx Sculptures Equestrian Statues Epic Beings Lions, Bears, ... Pet Cemeteries (**There are many categories that honor the resting places of Veterans. For my convenience, I am grouping them into this overall term.) I am not against cross-posting and NOT suggesting all the above should be excluded. Remember the goal of this category is to highlight the art of the memorial - not the final resting place of the deceased. Members are concerned about the premise of the "Wow" factor as to what the category is wishing for. There is concern that the criteria may be too subjective (though there are many categories with 'wow' factor, this is not new). The reason for that idea of "Wow" is that, for instance, there are many headstones with little lambs (for the tragic loss of a child), or fingers pointing upwards, etc. Would a size criteria help (ex., roughly over 3 ft/1m square)? The piece must not be mass produced-it need to be a unique piece. How would members like to see this phrased/defined? Please don't get bogged down in format for title, etc. Right now, we need to best define what the category is trying to highlight and thus clearly define the types of sculptures/art the category is looking for. And I know there are always exceptions when a Waymarker finds something so magnificent we did not anticipate that. Again, I am just thinking aloud and looking for input. Please don't shoot the writer [grin]. Take care, Outspoken1 (Sandy)
  2. The one playground I went to was in a state park, and no one around. It turned out to be a magnetic altoids tin under the front of the slide. Moms with jogging kid-carriers are the worst, and I even hear the angsty talk on phones on rails to trails, and small local parks by moms... Sheesh... - I could imagine what it'd be like if santa in camo was found on his back under the slide by one...
  3. The only real way is enforcing the minimal rules which can be verified (typically that's HQ and the TOU for the website), and finding some way promote values and ethics where not verifiable. Promote positivity in the game, community, aspects that people enjoy the most which negatively affect people the least. Talk down practices that make things worse off for people, or which promote competitive behaviour (where not everyone involved has opted in), and promote benefits of it in an effort to help people have overall great experiences, and encourage people to realize it's an individualistic hobby and not take offense when people do things differently or enjoy different aspects of it... It's really not an easy system to make "work for everybody" - and it never will. All we can do is help to try to make it a great hobby for as many people as possible.
  4. The obvious answer is that it's up to the CO of the challenge cache. But unless they're pretty clear about it -- and I've never seen that -- I'd assume it's just find logs. I wouldn't expect a problem, but, worst case, I'd be ready to try to talk the CO into accepting my finds if he initially rejects them. (I don't think I've actually run into enough caches in this state to cause me a problem in achieving a clear success at the challenge. What keeps happening to me is that I far exceed the requirement by the time I get around to signing the challenge cache log even when there's an initial period where I have to work towards that goal. Once I started looking for unfound caches, I couldn't stop myself.) My reaction to your question is that this is a good reason not to call them "lonely" precisely because it opens up this ambiguity: a CO's or previous finder's visit means they're not lonely, right? "Unfound" is more accurate, but not as cute. I think "unloved" works here: someone that can't find a friend might be called "unloved" even though their parents love them. The first few challenges I saw of this type used the terms "recovered" and "neglected", but those have fallen out of favor. I always liked those terms better, but I don't think they're any better at making it obvious CO visits don't count. Indeed, "neglected" kinda implies even more strongly than "lonely" that the CO hasn't visited.
  5. I know what you mean, but happily in this case I don't have to question the veracity of the claim because the solution remains the same: the person that's so sure this is happening can go talk to the people. explaining how silly they look to people that recognize the obvious subterfuge. If the person making the claim is really blowing smoke about how much evidence there is, then they can decide for themselves whether to initiate a conversation that might make them look petty for accusing someone of doing something they didn't do. If I was that sure, I'd just say, "FTF@8am. Ignoring the signatures from before the cache was hidden." Oh, wait. They sign the log in the middle? Obviously they don't intend to claim FTF, so I'd just take FTF without commenting on it. If I saw this in my area, I'd assume they were people that were there when the CO hid the cache and are planning on claiming the find after the FTF. I consider that kind of "finding while hiding" a little silly, but it doesn't sound to me as if they're trying to block you from claiming FTF.
  6. That's pitiful, both for the seekers and the CO, but I don't see why it matters to you. Sure, I'd talk to them all to try to figure out why they're wasting their effort that way instead of having fun finding caches, but there's no way to prevent it and every reason to think anything you try to do to prevent it will only have the effect of making it hard on people that are actually geocaching. Worry more about other people that are playing the same game you are and worry less about people playing some stupid game that makes no sense.
  7. My estimate is that if your rule had been in effect for the last few years, I would have at least 10 times fewer caches in my area, and they wouldn't be anywhere near as good as the ones I have now. Why would I think that's better? I'd much rather have my experienced COs who have hidden hundreds of high quality caches than a smattering of caches by people who, by law, don't have the experience from hiding even 10 caches. If the prolific COs really did "shut out" others, then I might at least listen to you, but I'm seen them do no such thing. The high volume COs in my area hide hundreds of caches because they easily find hundreds of places to hide caches, and there are thousands more places after that for anyone else to use. If caches aren't being maintained, then they should be archived. In my area, the caches hidden by the high volume COs are the best maintained. It's much more common with a CO with 10 or fewer caches to neglect their hides. But, in any case, they should be archived because they aren't being maintained, not forbidden in advance because your faulty logic predicts that they won't be maintained at some point in the undefined future. In other words, my experience contradicts every single one of your assertions. So please, please, if you really are experiencing those problems, please look for ways to fix it in your local community. And, in fact, that's the obvious place to start anyway: if someone's dominating your area with crappy caches, talk to them. Work with them to make more areas available for other COs to hide caches. Treat them as the friends they should be, the friends you're playing this game with, the friends hiding so many caches for you to find. You're acting as if they're impersonal powers inflicting this situation on you for their own evil ends that you can't discuss with them. My guess is that they're just filling a vacuum and would welcome anyone volunteering to plant their own caches.
  8. Well, I'm not really seeing that. I admit, it's hard to read the OP's combative responses, but I think he's making valid points about the few examples being raised being less than convincing because of other possible scenarios which would look identical to the seeker without involving any incorrect logs. As I read these examples, they tend to clump in 2 classes. The first is fake finds that are clearly an anomalies, so anyone seeing it would discount it. The other class is fake finds followed by a missing cache, and I don't really don't understand how the person reporting the "impact" determined the fake find was fake. The other example we've seen is a throwdown where the real problem that impacted people was the throwdown, not the fake find. It doesn't help that many of the examples are imagining impacts, including a few that show successful searches that involved no fake logs, but "it could have happened! I claim that's one reason the discussion has slipped over from imaginary impacts to imaginary solutions involving COs deleting logs when the OP wants to talk about whether the incorrect logs are a problem to begin with, not how the problem can be solved. Admittedly, the OP tends to reject examples instead of discussing the degree the fake log really did impact the poster in light of other events we all accept as part of geocaching which could easily lead to exactly the same experience. That makes it hard to follow the discussion, but it's more of a rhetorical failure than a logical fallacy.
  9. It does feel like you redefining what "fake log" you want to talk about: A - fake find when dropping a throwdown? B - fake find after series of DNFs? C - fake find amongst real find logs? D - all of the above?
  10. People drop throwdowns all the time. Can you, just this once, forget about the cache owner and approach this from the standpoint of my OP, which I've repeated endlessly to figurative deaf ears, evidently? If you want to talk about what the cache owner should do (in your opinion) then start your own thread.
  11. "We just unveiled a new catalogue system that allows to you search for all sorts of unique media at our library, as well as all of our partnered libraries across the country!" "Great! How can I use it?" "Sorry, it's for staff only. You'll have to go talk to a librarian at the front desk to perform a search." "What...?!" "You're more than welcome to go flick through the index card cabinet, though!" --- (somewhat true story) This is a ridiculous leap backwards by HQ. Luckily it looks like https://gcutils.de/lab2gpx/ still works?
  12. This. Specifically, ngs.infocenter@... will be the people you need to talk to.
  13. My problem with this is that the situation would be exactly the same if the cache was really there, but you just can't find it. Your argument would make it seem reasonable to say a legitimate find log also wastes your time and money. But this has a simple solution that I'd use for reasons not related to fake logs: if I DNFed a cache that was a significant effort to get to, and then someone else found it, before I spent the time and money to go back, I'd talk to the person that found it. I'd be assuming they really did find it and be asking to gather information about how I could have missed it, but if it turned out to be a fake find, that would surely come out in the conversation.
  14. There is a lot of seemingly well-intended chit-chat here, but 90% of this thread is off topic. Please try to offer something helpful to the OP and not just chastise them. That generation of GPS required a driver provided by Garmin to work. I think it's this guy: https://www8.garmin.com/support/download_details.jsp?id=591 This driver is required for any software, whether Basecamp, EasyGPS, or GPSBabel to work with that hardware on Windows. Please confirm it's installed. The suggestion to try GPSBabel has merit because I think every error condition it (that isn't a crash...of which we have none reported for years) has an error message associated with it. That said, we either get packets or we don't and we can either talk to the driver above or we can't so we can really only recommend kind of hand-wavy things like rotating USB ports, different cables, cleaning the gunk out of the USB connector etc. Good luck
  15. Wow! Lots of new caches. Yet you and your friends are complaining? That seems odd, particularly since there's every reason to think the established COs that are on the ball enough to put out caches when the trail is available are odds on favorites to have better caches and do better maintenance than your friends who only just recently got the bug and could well lose it as easily as they got it. Anyway, teach your friends that they can reach out to the owners and talk about them making some room on the trail. Just emphasize that if the CO makes room for them, that it would be really embarrassing to you, as their mentors, if the cache they hide on the trail don't compare favorably to the caches the CO pulled for them.
  16. For me, there are a few bad cacher types, on various degrees of bad. They have one thing in common: No regard for others. - Cache saboteurs. In the worst case, they damage the cache, intentionally or not. They break locks, pry boxes open, disassemble what should not be taken apart. Others leave it in a bad state that ruins the experience for others, not putting things back properly. - Throwdowns. Didn't solve the puzzle? Just put in a fake log! Didn't find the cache? Or couldn't reach it? Hang a petling at face hight and pretend it is the cache. - Copy-pasters. Looong boring logs about nothing (just to fake that author badge) and not a single word about the cache, on a special, unique cache with much work in it. Yes it is legal. Legal to be impolite. I don't mind a TFTC much, but getting piles and piles of these boring copy-paste logs on something I have worked hard on... it makes me considering quitting the hobby. Really. - People who can't communicate. People who misunderstand everything, takes offense when you try to help them, or don't respond. Can be both COs and finders. But now I'd better think about the good cachers. Cachers who have fun and let me know it. Cachers that are careful. Cachers that you can talk to.
  17. I'm a Boy Scout GC Merit Badge Counselor as well. It was alluded to above, but one of the biggest headaches with teaching kids about caching EVEN if they all get it (watch out for the uninterested kid in the back) and buy into all the etiquette, respect for the CO's effort, time and money and the collegiate nature of the hobby (NOT "US (cachers) vs. THEM (hiders)", but rather a collaboration) is that they now know about something REALLY KOOL and they HAVE TO tell everyone about it! So, they talk about it and "C'mon; I'll show you!" And, it's gone; a nifty ammo can left at the mercy of uninterested, uninitiated kids with no perspective on the game. MAYBE, your Scout is left standing there shouting, "Hey, wait! You can't take that with you!" What a spot to put them in. What I've done, especially with younger Scouts is start with and keep pushing the concept that GeoCaching is like a club; a club that's an honor to be a part of, and you're being trusted with secrets that CANNOT be shared. As sacred as the Cub Scout Oath! Would you tell any of your friends where your family keeps the secret Hide-a-Key outside your house? This is the SAME THING! Play it up for all it's worth; you'll be exposing the time, money and effort of a lot of local people to the whims of little kids. ALSO, if you take them hunting, consider reaching out to a few local CO's and asking them if they mind if you take Cub Scouts to their hides. If the local Cub Pack went after mine, I might not be all that enthused.
  18. Really good point. I will make sure to emphasize this when we talk with the scouts.
  19. When I have taught kids that age geocaching, I've spent about half an hour explaining the basics of geocaching to them, with lots of hands on props. For example, I pass around containers of various sizes, I pass around examples of trackables, and I pass around examples of trade items. Then I take them out to practice geocaching. For a one-hour class, I will have set up a couple dozen hides in a small outdoor area near my classroom, and then I have the kids stay behind a line and raise their hands when they've spotted a hidden container. If I have more time for an actual geocaching hike, then I take them to a park or open space some distance away from home so we can find actual caches there. (The half-hour talk can happen at the trailhead right before the hike, or it can happen beforehand with a brief reminder of the rules before the hike.) I specifically DO NOT take them to find urban/suburban caches in the neighborhood. Even if I trust all my kids completely, I don't necessarily trust their friends and classmates who hear about hidden treasure in the neighborhood.
  20. Yes, I used the basic stuff to glue the paper down and do the initial seal over the top, then sealed it with spray-on acrylic outdoor furniture sealer. I think I ended up with two coats of Mod Podge and three coats of sealer. The sealer I used is Dulux Duramax which is supposed to be pretty good for wooden outdoor stuff. Assuming it doesn't get scratched on a sharp edge somewhere, breaking the seal and letting the water in. I've heard people suggesting nail varnish as being relatively robust, or mixing up some epoxy resin / UV resin but I don't have either available.. Totally agree. My preference is to make TB proxies in etched aluminium though my current method isn't working as well as I'd like (correction - the results are pretty good, it's the hours of prep and lead up work that I'm trying to streamline). I also tried simple letter and number steel punch on aluminium which is great for making a quick and easy proxy (about six minutes for this one) but I need to slow down and use some guides or something to help keep the lettering even. I'd also really like to make things by melting and recycling HDPE plastic but that's better for swag than TB's (mass produce the same thing over and over again once the mold is made). Due to my wife having lung issues I'm reluctant to do anything that will generate a lot of chemical fumes. Which also takes resin casting off the table. I'd prefer to, as you suggest, use water resistant / proof labels, but my main consideration is keeping costs down. If I can buy a standard TB for AUD$9 (average price to get one shipped here in northern Australia) and it's going to cost me $10 or more to make the proxy, then I may as well just send out the original TB. I have scrap aluminium and the punch set, so that method is almost free for me. I had some leftover sheet wood, sealer and paint from another project, so I wanted to use those up on something - hence this idea. The most expensive part of these was the mod podge, which I can use on other projects as well. On my math, these cost me just shy of $2 each to produce (plus the cost of the TB's, but I keep those at home and only send proxies out). It would have been less, but I had the first couple of attempts that didn't work out. Unless I factor in my time, then they would be horribly expensive and it would be cheaper to just go to a laser engraving place and get them to make some professional ones with their industrial laser. That would be pretty cool! But with this method, I still have a lot of material left over, so if I wanted to make another dozen it would almost be free (other than time and buying TB codes) and the cost of printing the designs onto paper. Plus I also take pleasure in making things and trying out new methods. Agreed, which is why I started my first post with an apology. It's my old sales training rearing it's ugly head - make the headline attention-grabbing, anger-inducing or have an error and people will talk about it. Very rude of me. Also agreed, but the average life expectancy of a TB around here is 3 - three months or three caches - then they disappear. If these are travelling long enough to start deteriorating from age or the elements then I'll be delightfully surprised. At which point I can either create a new one to re-release or post a replacement out to whoever has the old one. Overall I'm mostly happy with how these turned out and I'll be releasing them soon. I did make a deliberate mistake in that they don't have a hole to add a hitch hiker, because I figured if I left a hole through the wood with a ball chain, it would rub and cut open the seal - leading to water, swelling and destruction. I don't think I'll be making any more in this style anytime soon (maybe next year?) but I am looking for other options on how to make low-cost, durable proxies that can travel around. I got hold of some nice scrap 3mm (1/8in) aluminium which could make some nice GeoCoins, but I don't have the tooling to work with this size material yet.
  21. Nun, bis auf die Möglichkeit, mit dem Händi auch mal OHNE Vorbereitung loszuziehen und ein paar Tradis am Wege abzugreifen - gerne auch mal anlässlich eines Muggelausflugs, wo man sich erst im Auto klar wird, wo es überhaupt hingeht (Elsass, Schwarzwald, Kraichgau, Pfalz...) - mach ich das heute noch so. Auch mit demselben Gerät. Und ehrlich gesagt - ich finde die Behauptung, anders wäre einfacher, Ergebnis einer Art Hirnwäsche. Jede "Abkürzung" oder jedes "bequemer gehen" bedeutet erstmal mehr Aufwand in Form von Equipement, Proggies, Einarbeiten. In zum Teil völlig abstruse Gedankenwelten, die an Umständlichkeit oder der Problematik, dass genau DAS am umständlichsten ist, was am greifbarsten als Grundfunktion benötigt wird, nicht geizen. Dem, dem das quasi körperliche Schmerzen bereitet, der wird das so weit es geht meiden wollen Das alles mag ab "stufe 7" einen Sinn geben - aber die Stufe 7 ist die Ebene, in der man anfängt, alles zu nutzen, was als Ergebnis von ganz viel vorheriger Umständlichkeit erzeugt wurde. Die Ernte eines vorherigen Aufwands. Neolithische Revolution, sozusagen. Dem User, der als Ergebnis auf Stufe 3 stehenbleibt, ist das alles ein grosser, unnötiger Rucksack. Und die Diskussionen um deren Genzen für BMs - ich bin von der GC-Vergrämungstaktik nicht begeistert, aber eine Beschränkung für ne App ist doch keine Beschränkung, solange die andere komfortablere Möglichkeit noch funktioniert. Mittlerweile hat man den Eindruck, es existiert nichts, wo es keine App dafür gibt. Aber selbst die ist auch unterhalb einer gewissen Nutzungshäufigkeit resp. - frequenz - völlig unnötig. Unnötig, aufwendig, umständlich, umweltfeindlich Was ist einfacher, als auf der Karte gucken, was da iiegt, wo man hinwill und dann per "send to GPS" bzw. leider nur noch per "gpx downloaden" die Koords aufs Gerät zu schieben, ne kleine Übersichtskatre auszudrucken, ein paar Hints drauf zu notieren und dann loszuziehen? 1 Cachetag, 6 Stunden unterwegs, Rüstzeit 15 Minuten - und zwar zuhause, aufm grossen Bildschirm, mit Talk Talk im Ohr und nem Glas Primitivo. Geht schlechter. Gruss in den wilden Süden Zappo
  22. Nope, but I know of several geocaching vloggers who are trading swag for money found in caches and donating the money they collect to St. Jude's Children's hospital as part of the Geocache Talk podcast's "Podcast of Hope" (St. Jude's fundraiser) this year. They're calling their effort "Coins for Kids".
  23. Oh, and the lack of pagination is a fairly hilarious UI failure by the way. Talk about Unintended Consequences.
  24. Any news on this matter? Talk to us!
  25. I was trying to use the new search on my phone to look up my recently found caches. I gave it an honest try. I went in to do a couple simple searches. WOW it feels like 3 steps backwards from the old search! First and most importantly: Having only one parameter viewable at a time is extremely inefficient and results in a significant loss in functionality. Let's say I want to find the terrain rating of several caches I found a couple weeks ago. First I click on my link to All Geocache Finds. Now I scroll down (scroll, scroll, scroll) to find the cache from a couple weeks ago. But it's only showing the found date so now I have to click terrain. Click the 3 dots. Click terrain. Now I'm back up at the top again! Scroll, scroll, scroll back down. Finally found it! Now how about the difficulty? Sigh... Click the 3 dots. Click difficulty. Back at the top. Scroll, scroll, scroll. Now when did I find that cache again? Double sigh... A simple task that used to take me seconds now is a huge chore. Here's a sample screenshot that shows JUST terrain on my phone: Also, where's the GC code? How come the GC code is missing on the mobile version, but not on the desktop version? I do, however, like that in the mobile version it does not say "Traditional", "Mystery", etc next to the cache icon. Next, I was surprised that while some caches take up only 2 lines (for both the title and the cache owner), some caches take up a whopping 5 lines! There's also an additional line added to tell me the cache is PREMIUM (6 lines of text are wasted in the screenshot below to tell me the various caches are premium). Talk about inefficient! It doesn't look very good at all, either! On the old search page, the columns were long enough such that the title and cache owner would ALWAYS fit on 2 lines. Next, I think there's a bug: my found date just disappears after some point? And finally, something a little strange, but when I'm at the top of the page, some caches show as 3 lines. But when I scroll down and the title rows freeze to the top, suddenly some of the caches switch to being 4 lines. It almost makes me sad to see how inefficient and buggy this new system is compared to the old search. As a tool with the intended use to be searches of recently found and owned caches, I just don't think the functionality is there.
×
×
  • Create New...