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. I found out about this because you popped in on Geocache Talk one night and talked about it. I have a feeling that led to an increase of participants this year.
  2. We've been talking about L5 here in the forum for a while, and are looking forward to GPSIII satellites in the future as well. L5 should help to resolve some of the issues that degrade positioning performance. GPSIII will mean that we no longer need to depend upon ground based references like WAAS and EGNOS, which will be nice as well. And more birds in the sky has already improved ephemeris issues and the occasional lousy HDOP that we used to encounter for a couple of hours on particular days when the constellation was a bit whacked relative to our ground position. But there will still be challenges to getting the level of precision described in that talk in anything but ideal conditions. Multipath issues, which I think will likely be improved by L5, will always remain a bugaboo that has to be dealt with in software to some lesser or greater benefit. Quickly sorting whether a signal is direct or reflected is certainly something that continues to perplex some GPSr manufacturers now. S/N ratios will remain an ongoing technical challenge as well. Again, not an issue under ideal open sky conditions, but we don't always cache in an ideal environment. Heck, I don't even know if Garmin's clocks (or any others in consumer goods) are tight enough to resolve the levels that this guy is talking about (0.63m?) Would be interesting to know whether the GPSr chip manufacturers are going to have to improve their own specs to take advantage of this, and how difficult or costly it might be. They may be there now, or it could pose a hurdle. No way to know from where most of us sit. As an aside: Good on them for finally preparing to dump NAD83 in favor of a more realistic model. Long overdue.
  3. I will be on Geocache talk podcast show #222 discussing creating Adventure Labs that go beyond the "magical history tour" model that is so common. You don't have to have anything interesting to make an AL that can amuse. I just published one that tells a story but uses nothing from the environment. It could be transplanted to Iowa and play the same. It uses simple puzzles and riddles for the player to solve in the field. A very simple way to do something in an area with nothing of interest, is an I Spy game - particularly good for kids. Listen in Live or watch it later. November 1, 6 pm Pacific.
  4. Hi all, A couple of geocaching video creators from New Zealand recently shared an interesting talk about the events leading up to Selective Availability being disabled. I thought it was really interesting and wanted to share it here. From the video description: "This Cache Walk is a talk by Jason Kim from the National Coordination Office for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing, Washington, D.C. He talks about turning off the Selected Availability (SA) feature in 2000 which increased the GPS accuracy to the public allowing the game of geocaching to begin." I hope you enjoy this.
  5. When I travel, it would be great if I could get the GPS to talk to my android tablet. I got an adapter cord so I could hook the two together, but if I try to send way points to the GPS I get "your browser is not compatible" and I've tried all three browsers on my tablet. Should I give up this dream, or is there a way to do it?
  6. That seems like the best answer to me. GerandKat's rules of thumb only talk about the specific physical location. I find that often the least significant part of a cache.
  7. Why would they need to hide geocaches to battleship the finals? They could just use the saturation checker without actually submitting any caches for review. This is not the first time this topic has come up. Here is one of Keystone's replies to one of the earlier threads: So, suppose I tell you that your proposed location is 110m northwest of the final coordinates for "Cacher Conundrum," a five-star puzzle cache that only four people have ever solved and logged in the past three years. Armed with that intelligence, you track down the container and sign the log at the same time when you move your cache to a spot that's 162m away. What do I get for being helpful? A flaming email from the CO of "Cacher Conundrum," who also posts to three Facebook groups, and files a complaint with Geocaching HQ that I gave away secret information and ruined the puzzle cache. Having had that happen to us enough times, reviewers nowadays are constrained to be less forthcoming with details. Depending on your reviewer, you may get a hint, like "you are less than 161m from "Cacher Conundrum," GCABCDE, or you may get a hint that you should strongly consider moving to the southeast, or you may not get any guidance at all. So, that's how come. In a world where people hack lab caches and share the final coordinates of puzzle caches in Facebook groups, the inevitable outcome of such a feature would be to spoil every puzzle cache, multicache and Wherigo cache, plus a fair percentage of letterbox hybrid caches. There are people who like placing and finding these cache types. Geocaching.com has chosen not to alienate them by ruining the ability to keep the actual locations a secret. "But all I need is a distance and direction," you might say. So, the cheater simply enters enough coordinates into the planner tool to permit them to hone in on the actual location through triangulation. Think that can't happen? Talk to the travel bug stalkers who watch for drops of trackables in unpublished caches so they can figure out the locations and log a pre-publication "FTF." Talk to the group of cachers who hid traditionals in every conceivable spot within two miles of a 5-star puzzle, knowing they'd eventually "battleship" their way to a hit, and then they could do a scorched earth hunt within that area. I foiled them by publishing their cache even though it was 200 feet away from the puzzle final. Reviewers are smart humans*, you see, and that is better than an automated system. *Many reviewers are dogs.
  8. No, it's the same issue that I described previously. Comcast is now throttling Weekly Mailer messages we attempt to send by deferment, so our server keeps retrying until the message is accepted or expired. In this case, it took ~4 days. Here are the logs: Sep 30 13:40:36 signal2 postfix/error[18592]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=0.1, delays=0.1/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta34.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Sep 30 14:21:55 signal2 postfix/error[27076]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=2478, delays=2478/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta24.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Sep 30 15:15:28 signal2 postfix/error[26069]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=5692, delays=5692/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Sep 30 17:31:19 signal2 postfix/error[21426]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=13842, delays=13842/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta19.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Sep 30 21:50:24 signal2 postfix/error[21488]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=29388, delays=29388/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta25.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 1 02:20:11 signal2 postfix/error[17888]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=45575, delays=45575/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta25.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 1 06:50:08 signal2 postfix/error[14401]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=61771, delays=61767/4.3/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta28.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 1 11:20:24 signal2 postfix/error[10233]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=77988, delays=77967/21/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 1 15:50:18 signal2 postfix/error[5719]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=94181, delays=94167/15/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta30.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 1 20:20:06 signal2 postfix/error[1014]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=110369, delays=110367/2.6/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta29.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 2 00:50:09 signal2 postfix/error[29149]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=126572, delays=126572/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta12.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 2 05:20:20 signal2 postfix/error[24714]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=142783, delays=142764/19/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta32.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 2 09:50:20 signal2 postfix/error[20450]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=158983, delays=158965/19/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta27.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 2 14:20:05 signal2 postfix/error[15686]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=175169, delays=175165/3.9/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 2 18:50:05 signal2 postfix/error[11213]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=191369, delays=191365/4/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta21.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 2 23:20:32 signal2 postfix/error[5842]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=207596, delays=207564/32/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta26.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 3 03:50:18 signal2 postfix/error[1119]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=223782, delays=223765/17/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 3 08:20:09 signal2 postfix/error[28593]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=239973, delays=239966/7/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta38.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 3 12:50:08 signal2 postfix/error[23322]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=256172, delays=256167/4.6/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta17.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 3 17:20:18 signal2 postfix/error[18820]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=272382, delays=272367/15/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 3 21:50:19 signal2 postfix/smtp[13687]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147]:25, delay=288583, delays=288567/15/0.3/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 4 02:20:12 signal2 postfix/smtp[8287]: DBBC5702B75: to=<earl.anderson@comcast.net>, relay=mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147]:25, delay=304776, delays=304768/6.3/0.3/0.7, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 YxL81m02s3RP4Bm0QxL95o mail accepted for delivery) And I still don't get one. Yours is still in queue for delivery: Sep 30 14:23:56 signal2 postfix/error[17402]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=0.1, delays=0.1/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta24.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Sep 30 17:01:53 signal2 postfix/error[20668]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=9478, delays=9478/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Sep 30 19:48:30 signal2 postfix/error[10666]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=19475, delays=19475/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Sep 30 23:50:09 signal2 postfix/error[26238]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=33974, delays=33974/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta21.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 1 04:20:05 signal2 postfix/error[22530]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=50169, delays=50169/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta24.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 1 08:50:11 signal2 postfix/error[18967]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=66376, delays=66367/8.7/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta35.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 1 13:20:23 signal2 postfix/error[14592]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=82587, delays=82569/18/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta17.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 1 17:50:19 signal2 postfix/error[10261]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=98784, delays=98769/15/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta18.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 1 22:20:17 signal2 postfix/error[5594]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=114981, delays=114969/13/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 2 02:50:19 signal2 postfix/error[1345]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=131184, delays=131171/12/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta30.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 2 07:20:30 signal2 postfix/error[29898]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=147394, delays=147371/23/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta37.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 2 11:50:23 signal2 postfix/error[25103]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=163587, delays=163571/17/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta13.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 2 16:20:22 signal2 postfix/error[20394]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=179787, delays=179771/16/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.COMCAST.NET[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta38.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 2 20:50:21 signal2 postfix/error[15742]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=195986, delays=195971/14/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta15.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 3 01:20:22 signal2 postfix/error[10582]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=212186, delays=212171/15/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta20.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 3 05:50:22 signal2 postfix/error[5603]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=228386, delays=228370/16/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta24.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 3 10:20:31 signal2 postfix/error[832]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=244595, delays=244572/23/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 3 14:50:28 signal2 postfix/error[28274]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=260792, delays=260773/19/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta23.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 3 19:20:24 signal2 postfix/error[23125]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=276989, delays=276974/14/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta24.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 3 23:50:26 signal2 postfix/error[18230]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=293191, delays=293174/16/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 4 04:20:30 signal2 postfix/error[12972]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=309394, delays=309376/18/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 4 08:50:36 signal2 postfix/error[8163]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=325600, delays=325579/22/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta16.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Oct 4 13:20:35 signal2 postfix/error[2929]: 27EEE748EEF: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=341800, delays=341778/22/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta24.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later)
  9. There has been talk of a system that would fulfill this requirement.
  10. Some odd reason, once in a while I forget that I went into the woods with a hiking stick. I always have a hiking stick. We don't usually buy cheap, so then I have to lug my can wherever I left it last. Talk about a spoiler ! "Yoo-hoo ! The cache is right here...!" The last time was only eight miles, but it was almost dark. I was second-to-find, so left a note if someone would grab it for me. - And they did. But I never forget a writing instrument.
  11. Here's an unpopular point of view. "One and Done", "Weekend Cachers"; whatever you call them. People who download the app and go out without knowing or caring what they're doing. We talk about them here in the fora all the time. This doesn't make them necessarily bad, just uninformed or uncaring. People tend to see what's in front of them as "it". The App can say "Go to the Website" on every screen, but the average person;e tendency is to say "Well, I'm here in the app, playing the game," so they won't. ---------- If you have to balance the 'business needs' of GS as a money-making entity against our needs of protecting the hobby against people on a joy ride through random things to do, I'll pick protectionism every time. This ISN'T Angry Birds or Candy Crush as someone alluded to above. At it's core this is a manually constructed, human effort hobby that exists in the physical world. It doesn't matter how many people have access to the top level of Angry Birds (if there is such a thing) because NOTHING is at stake except profit from app-sales. In Geocaching, what's at stake is the physical effort, time, expense and materiel that goes into the creation and maintenance of the playing pieces in the REAL WORLD, otherwise known as geocaches. Yes, you can play for free forever. You can even HIDE caches for free! That's a wonderful, respectable operating foundation of the company. But, it's SOOOOOO easy to ruin a geocache, even if you have no malice. Even if you have respect. Take stuff home, leave it exposed, log spoilers, relocate to make it easier, throwdowns.... We get all that from PAYING players who presumably should have a higher chance of knowing better! To allow access to all but the most elementary game pieces for players with NO skin in the game is irresponsible and abusive to cache owners. I WISH there was a way to give cachers more perspective and education. I WISH human nature didn't tend toward ONLY self-fulfillment. I WISH that there was a way to immediately get across the concept that the COMPANY didn't hide this stuff; your fellow PLAYERS did, and maybe people wouldn't treat caches like they do public facilities. So, no, the unlockable features of the app should be a reward for actually joining; investing in the hobby. Basic membering which involves using the website may not be the most efficient way to play, but think of it as a toll road. You can take the smaller roads for free, or you can 'join' and get a smoother, faster ride. With reststops and bathrooms. But, it's said, how can people really tell if they want to join unless they can play? Well, I think caching is something that will grab you if you're the right type. Want to try 'higher' stuff? Get yourself a one-month inexpensive membership (or whatever it is). Put SOMETHING personal into the game to be granted access to the shared property of cache owners. Otherwise, there are LOTS of "Angry Birds" games to play. The unpopular part of this? I suppose I'm all for a 'smaller', well-played game. "After all, Bill," my Dad would say. "If everybody does it, then EVERYBODY would do it."
  12. Re: cerberus1 wrote: "You're saying the Geocaching Regional Policies Wiki isn't good enough ?" Yes. I am saying that. The Wiki is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far nor cover a very large percentage of current cache placements. Let me define the issue as narrowly as possible. The goal is to have good caches placed in interesting area with the permission of the landowner. The guidelines require that anyone placing a geocache get landowner permission. Let's assume for the sake of argument that this is actually a requirement that The Reviewer follows. Let's say I want to place a geocache where one has never been before. I need to get permission. It's up to me. I accept that. I figure out who to call, get permission, place the cache. No problem. It's something I've done many times in several different states. In my expirience permission, is either flatly denied without explanation, or granted after some process is followed. Now lets say I want to place a cache where one or more caches have previously been placed. Supposedly whoever placed thse caches, got permission, and passed that information on to the Reviewer. It's a very simple matter for The Reviewer to look up that information and supply it upon request. In the discussion above it was stated that if a landowner objected The Reviewer would relay the information to the landowner about who gave permission, so why not relay the same information upon request to a cacher who requests it? It is still up to the cacher to make the call, get permission, or if the "things have changed" figure out who to contact. Not a big deal to supply some possibly helpful information upon request, is it? For caches placed "where caches have been before" there are really only two reasons for The Reviewer not to answer "Who have other people contacted to get permission?": 1, The Reviewer has the information but chooses not to share it. 2, The Reviewer does not have the information because it was not previously provided. This is an instance where the person enforcing the Rules could be helpful to the person attempting to follow the rules. Why not be helpful? If someone asked me "who did you talk to toget permission" I would be happy to pass it on. Why aren't Reviewers willing to do so upon request?
  13. That's fair enough, but some people talk as though it's the only way, and the website is redundant. Personally when I started geocaching, I found my first 180 caches without a GPS or a phone, and I could only see some caches, and had no idea other caches even existed. I LOVED that, as when I finally became a member all these other caches appeared near where I lived. Rather than get upset I couldn't see them, I was thrilled I hadn't been able to see them, as now I had a whole lot more local caches to find. It was like a birthday present for me. Also, not having a GPS or phone for my first 180 caches, taught me to look for other clues when searching, such as moved pebbles, broken twigs and bent grass.
  14. If you're looking at just putting a bit of metal with the code, or the code and a small amount of text such as the TB name then you could look into letter stamps for metal which come in a variety of sizes and styles. Many hardware stores carry the heavy duty ones that will work on steel, some craft stores carry light duty (read: cheaper) ones that will work on aluminium or thin stainless steel. If you get friendly with some local engineering or engraving place, you might be able to talk them into laser engraving some metal tags for you on some scrap metal for only a few dollars. I haven't had any TB's go missing (yet), not sure how much a difference it makes that I've only sent out proxies. But I've only sent out a few and none have been out long.
  15. Hi all, today I had a rather frustrating experience with Adventure Labs. After more or less ignoring the cache-type completely, I tried one next to my homezone called Rothsee. Went to the first station, entered the answer... wrong. Again... wrong. Verified the correctness with some friends who already did it. Right answer, no typos... wrong. Thing is, while we in fact are in Germany, my iPhone runs English. So we pulled my wife's iPhone (running German), installed the app, logged in, provided the exact same answer... correct. So while we were able to complete the cache, I still wonder if there is a problem with the internationalization of either that particular lab or the app itself. Answers should the unique b/c e.g. the solution on a plate is always the same word (in this case the name of the manufacturer), no matter the nationality of the player, or clearly state "provide the translated version of the word." What should not happen is that the app fails with particular language settings. What does a tourist do, if he can't easily switch his entire phone to German? If there are any developers of that app listening in here... we need to talk. #Carsti
  16. Thanks! I finally found it. The blog entry was posted way back in November and isn't in any of the categorized lists, so it took me a while to track it down. No reason for you to apologize, but you might want to see about the souvenir description giving some slight hint about what the souvenir is actually granted for. With every other similar souvenir I looked at, the description always ends with "You earned this souvenir by...". It's as if Last 2020 was done by "the new guy" who didn't realize there was a defined formula they were supposed to follow. (I'm not complaining, mind you, I just think it's funny, especially because thread came up at just the right time for me to even look at the souvenir.) I did find the newer 2020 Geocaching HQ souvenir moments blog entry which doesn't mention Last 2020 but does talk about the traditional 12/31 and 1/1 souvenirs. I assume the person writing that newer article hadn't heard that the one day souvenirs have been replaced by these week long versions this year.
  17. First, I agree with RuideAlmeida: if you want to be strict, that's fine, but in order to reject the find, you really need to know for sure whether they signed the log, so physically check it. If you want to let it slide, that's OK, too. To avoid the problem cerberus1 mentions, when you check the physical log, that counts as owner maintenance, so post an OM and mention the missing signature and admit you've giving this one person some slack, but no one else should expect any. (It doesn't matter whether that's true or not. ) In my opinion, what you do or don't do about it as a CO are somewhat secondary to the question of how to teach the seeker about multicaches in case they really don't know about them. Whatever you do with their log, they'll likely never notice or won't understand. To help them learn, don't worry about being a CO: you're just another friendly cacher. I agree the message center is probably out, but they'll notice an email if their address is set right. (If it isn't, then there's nothing you can do unless you meet them in person sometime.) So I tend to send email with enough information to make them realize how multis work if they don't know without flat out accusing of them of not knowing what a multi is in case they do. The most important thing is to think of it more like you're explaining what a double IPA is to your drinking buddy and forget anything about the original owner/seeker, somewhat antagonistic dynamic in which they technically did something wrong that you have to prevent or correct. Imagine you noticed this in a log for someone else's cache so when you're dealing with the newbie, there's no need to talk about whether you'll reject his find.
  18. i have a problem and not sure how to fix it . i have a old lap top on vista and runs an old version of chrome and my gps does communicate ok with it. but my windows7 based pc used to comunicate to the gps then chrome and firefox and others change things to make the it safer to use the web .i belive since then i plug the gps in and the computer does not even know its there, i have down loaded the plugin from garmin still no go its getting to a point i belive its the windows7 based pc and chrome that have caused the connection problem , but how do i sort it please help in easy to understand computer garble. cheers steve
  19. Here in Australia we also have events for the following: May 4th - Star Wars Day September 19th - International Talk Like a Pirate Day November 14th March 14th - PI Day June - World Wide Flash Mob December 23rd - Festivus
  20. Who do I contact and talk to if I have a problem with a reviewer? I am trying to hide and publish my first geocache but the volunteer reviewing my geocache asserts that it is in Indian Reservation Land despite the fact I have a vast amount of evidence to prove it is not. Please help.
  21. Now that you've had the DriveAssist 51 for awhile, what do you think? I just dropped by DriveAssist 50 (which we loved) and totalled it. I tried to order another, and they sent me the 51. I'm not really sure what the difference is. I've heard talk about having to use a smartphone app while driving, which I'd rather not do. I used to upload caching routes from GSAK or Cachetur thru TripPlanner.
  22. Hi all, I was asked to do a "Nerd Nite" talk- a ~30min talk on a nerdy topic, usually to an audience of 20-30 somethings, at a bar over beers on a Friday night- about geocaching. This isn't for two months, so I have time to prepare! But I was wondering, has anyone given such a talk before for the general public about geocaching, and if so are there any resources for writing one? Obviously, the first part I know has to be a general explanation about how geocaching works, and I have a mess of pictures from my adventures in exotic destinations where I found geocaches (like Tibet and Argentina), so was thinking one or two anecdotes from there. I was also thinking of highlighting one or two local caches that I think are cool, but don't want to pick ones that are too easy to find if you just want to vandalize them... luckily here in Amsterdam we have one or two "by boat" geocaches under bridges, so one of those might be cool to show. But hey, these are just some ideas I'm tossing around, and I'm happy to hear any others folks might have. Thanks all!
  23. No, I believe I am reading exactly what they wrote in the blog post - you're inferring something more positive from it. And that's fine... Seems you selectively disincluded the following point I made: And there has been plenty of talk about 'mundane', 'run of the mill' geocaches proliferating in various places of the community, so they're not pulling this 'archive' idea out of thin air. I'd wager this advice is based on general community feedback. Some people are labeling this advice to consider archival a negative thing. Clearly that opinion is contested. I'm not inferring something positive, I'm saying there's no need to infer something negative. It is what it is. And since clearly the rest of the intent is to encourage more positive geocache hides, why would one infer that considering archival of a cache the cache owner feels is worth archiving, a bad thing? Unless you consider merely asking a cache owner to consider archival for any reason (let along reasons generally to be considered good things) a bad thing? How am I dismissing opinions? You're entitled to them. We all are. But yes, let's start going meta in this disagreement and try to discredit the other person's position by saying they're discrediting yours. Disagreeing is not dismissing. Probably because of a lot of community discussion and complaints and feedback about the proliferation of mundane geocaches, powertrails, lack of maintenance, lack of creativity, etc etc... Again, it's nice seeing your stats. But it doesn't apply everywhere. And not everyone likes the same cache styles or hides. So, if I enjoy mundane caches, does that mean they should be protected against archival because they "can" be enjoyed? The intent to encourage cache owners to consider things that indicate a geocache may be more widely providing a positive experience. If a good cache gets archived because the cache owner decides it's time, sure, if I found it before I might sad because I may know some other people who'd enjoy it like I did. But it's that's CO's choice, their decision. I can only hope that perhaps they're thinking of another good idea for a cache. HQ wants to encourage that. Let them. They're not telling people to archive caches. They're implying, rightly I would say, that favourite points and regular (which is a relative term) finding of a cache is a good sign it's a positive experience. I would not expect a 3 day wilderness camping excursion cache to expect 15 finds a day to be 'regular'. Likewise, I wouldn't simply look at FPs to determine quality, but the tone of the logs that are posted. So if I were the cache owner I wouldn't archive that 3 day camping trip cache solely because it's found twice a year and has 2 FPs out of 15 finds, especially if all the logs are praising the experience. There, I've now considered the suggested indicators of a good cache and chosen not to archive. That's all it takes.
  24. This has come up before. Encouraging a positive isn't discouraging everything else. You have to infer that everything else is a negative. They are encouraging people to create quality geocache listings. And there has been plenty of talk about 'mundane', 'run of the mill' geocaches proliferating in various places of the community, so they're not pulling this 'archive' idea out of thin air. I'd wager this advice is based on general community feedback. They didn't say no one like mundane caches. They simply asked cache owners to consider their geocache hides more carefully and aim towards quality hides. Again, I never said the wording was the best, but I never got from them that people should archive all their caches that don't get FPs or are found rarely. Seems like the people who are inferring that are more likely the ones who are or have been critical of HQ's leanings for a while - ie, have a bias already. If someone wants to hide geocaches, and they infer that they should archive their FP-less, lonely geocaches regardless of any other factors, most likely they will hide new ones, and having already 'heeded' the advice, they'll probably aim better with that mentality in mind. Or, they may keep those old hides without archiving them and just start placing more towards that mentality. Who knows how people will interpret the advice. But the fact is, the advice is entirely towards geocaches that are attempts at being more "FP worthy" (generally excellent advice) and more likely to be attractive to more geocachers to find (also generally excellent advice). And all of those concepts may be regionally interpreted; there are no objective standards or thresholds or universal definitions provided, which means one must interpret it for one's area, and consider providing geocaches that people will enjoy - whatever that may mean.
  25. Avast! Got me event on the calendar and the port authorities notified to expect a band of hardies to drop anchor on the 19th of September. Anything going elsewhere?
×
×
  • Create New...