Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for '길음역텍사스위치오라 카이 인사동 스위츠[Talk:Za31]모든 요구 사항 충족'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Geocaching HQ communications
    • Geocaching HQ communications
  • General geocaching discussions
    • How do I...?
    • General geocaching topics
    • Trackables
    • Geocache types and additional GPS-based gameplay
  • Adventure Lab® Discussions
    • Playing Adventures
    • Creating Adventures
  • Community
    • Geocaching Discussions by Country
  • Bug reports and feature discussions
    • Website
    • Official Geocaching® apps
    • Authorized Developer applications (API)
  • Geocaching and...
    • GPS technology and devices

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. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. If you want to tell someone you liked their log, email works... We do that all the time. +1 - if your intent is for the CO to show appreciation to the writer of a log, a message or email will do that. It's happened to me (CO messages me with thanks for a helpful log or glad that I enjoyed their cache, etc.) and I, as a CO, have also contacted finders when I liked their write up. It's a bonus when you meet each other at an event, and can talk about each others' caches in person (which hasn't happened in a loooooong time, and I miss the interaction). Back on topic - a personal note is more direct if you want to show appreciation to the finder who wrote the log. Unless I go back to visit a previous find and read other logs, I'd have no way of knowing if the CO marked my log for "appreciation".
  5. We kinda understand except for this jumping through hoops thing... We never knew of a "wiki" until entering the forums. Never called or emailed anyone, instead heading personally to township buildings, county offices, and the like to find out who to talk to. - One cache had the other 2/3rds attend months of township meetings before they could "fit her in" to discuss it (no parks director). We found that a plus with standing in front of a parks director is it keeps the "paper shuffling/passing the buck" at bay too. The "wiki" is only reference. It says on their page "This site may not be a complete or accurate list of land policies.", and, "if no policies for the area you’re looking for are listed, that doesn't mean no policies exist. You must still obtain permission to place your geocache from the landowner or land manager..." - We've asked for permission since starting, and never considered it "jumping through hoops", but respect to the landowner. On the page (to the right) it does say, "If you have an update, email the community reviewer(s) listed." Why not be proactive and offer known areas to your Reviewers to get things rolling?
  6. I'm not sure in which category I should put this in. There is a Jewish cemetery in my neighbourhood. It was used from 1904 to 1941. There are no funerals here since ca. 1945. It is not abandoned, because there is a person taking care of the whole old complex. So it's not fitting in "abandoned cemeteries" You can see some part of the cemetery, because of the low situated wall. But it's also not open to public. You can't enter there just like that, you would have to talk to the keeper. So i don't really think it fits into "cemeteries worldwide". There are some graves with no names, but many of them are visible, so it's not exactly "graves of the unknown". I can't fit it in any category so it would meet the standards of it, but this is an important place on the map of my small city. What do you think?
  7. I have read (much of) the above and cannot help thinking about a sport you do not talk about here: strolling. Not a sport, you say? Indeed it has no element of competition, you do not get any points added to whatever, heck you don't even have the effort that is associated with trekking/hiking. You only walk to a place, maybe to another place, then in the end you return. That's it. Lots of people do it, only: they are not geocachers. The latter kind of animal seems to be motivated by a treat, a reward at the end of the effort. I don't know how many geocachers are aware of Groundspeak's proprietary version of strolling, but there can't be many, as GS decided to leave out of the new dashboard the link that has been present in the old one for as long as I can remember. My guess is that hardly anybody clicked it to go visit the Waymarking.com website in the last so many years. Like AL, Waymarking has a separate website and isn't really connected to geocaching. And of course the animals don't get a treat to lure them there. As I see it, AL is the new flavour of strolling and this time, GS decided to include the reward. That's how I interpret the fact that you can increase your counter really fast with it. For the record: I don't particularly like AL, but I don't fulminate against it, I just choose to ignore it. Those who like AL should go strolling. Live and let live.
  8. To cerberus1: Re: "Are you referring to the "frisbee rule", where people assume that if other hobbies are allowed, this hobby "must be" allowed too ? We took months at meetings until a township would talk to us about this hobby (asking for permission...), and were very restricted on what they'd allow. Within weeks people who never bothered to ask placed caches there too. Some in sensitive areas we were told to stay away from. - We knew they never bothered because the park told us to take our carp and leave, and they don't allow caching there now." I hadn't heard of the "frisbee rule" but understand what you mean. I'm actually refering to land use that is open to other hobbies such as hunting, fishing, and hiking which I consider equivilent to geocaching as they involve walking on the land while minimally disturbing it. What you point out about getting permission and then having others not bother is the inverse of my point (other's didn't get [permission but I was required to) but it makes my point rather nicely: Since a cache can't be placed without "The Reviewer" giving the "OK", that fact that you took the trouble to do so, and noted it, meant The Reviewer was aware of the land policy and who to contact yet they did not inform other cachers, nor follow the policy of the landowner which was known to them. To me this is the same issue: if The Reviewer is aware of a landowners policy then they should share that information. The fact that contact people change all the time makes no difference. They would supply what information they have and if it turned out to be dated, they could update it with the new info. Sharing information on which office to contact even if who is changeable is an improvement over not sharing. edexter
  9. I came here to see if there was talk about it. My DNF drafts show up as finds. As there is already a thread, I don't have to create a new one or try to recreate, lots of others see it also.
  10. Some people talk about High D/T ratings. Some people talk about solving a difficult puzzle. Some people talk about the cool places they go. But I'll be honest, I'm still chasing that high from the first time I submitted an EC to the Geoaware and said "looking for feedback on what needs to change" and he said "I can publish it right now." Whoosh. Blew. My. Mind.
  11. I'm curious if anyone knows of any gadget caches in Ireland. Search by field puzzle attribute turned up a few, but I know that not everyone is exceptionally diligent on their attributes and I'm sure many caches were placed before their introduction, and they do seem to be mostly visual puzzles rather than the more physical gadget caches I've seen discussed elsewhere. I see a lot of US cachers talk about these types of caches, and I do think they look very intriguing and engaging - are there any around? Or do I need to start planning some post-pandemic trips abroad?
  12. Anything you're not sure of, feel free to ask. You may get more appropriate and / or faster replies if you join a local group on Facebook or other social media. Though I'm sure your Brother would love to go out on a caching trip with you now that you're interested and would probably talk your ear off with advice and hints if you don't live near each other. Welcome!
  13. Sent my info to Laval K-9: Nov. 17Name received from Laval K-9:Sent my gift:My gift arrived at destination:I received a gift: I heard about this in The Geocaching Podcast and then on Geocache Talk podcast. It sounds fun for a first timer. Looking forward to the excitement.
  14. It's because the Wherigo Foundation site is an alternate listing service. It was supposed to demonstrate to Groundspeak what we were intending to do with Wherigo so we could run Wherigo for Groundspeak, free of charge for everyone involved. The other Wherigo player apps and builders are on Groundspeak's ban list because of the same reason: they're an alternate to something else--their PocketPC app and their builder, respectively. Though I worked to get community work officially recognized, those at the top of Groundspeak never communicated any of their verbal support to those enforcing Groundspeak's guidelines. Throughout Wherigo's lifetime, regardless of individual intentions at the company, Groundspeak's apparent attitude has always felt one of apathy and passive hostility towards anyone attempting to make their product more accessible to the community. I coined the term "the Wherigo Foundation is Fight Club". They've always told their reviewers not to allow any mention of the Wherigo Foundation or other non-Groundspeak Wherigo applications in cache listings. It's just that the reviewers aren't consistent with each other that caches in some areas were published and others not. Part of the partnership agreement I was reviewing did state that, if the Wherigo Foundation site were to be discontinued, all cartridge files would be provided to Groundspeak for dispersal to community members. I was planning to do that, anyway, so that was fine. There was one other clause I haven't before talked openly about. Suffice it to say, the way I interpreted it, if I ever walked away from Wherigo and did not transition its running to others, the entire game would come to an end. I did not like that Wherigo would then seem to rely on one person's continued health, existence, and interest. The partnership agreement never panned out because Groundspeak took too long in replying, which further showed their apathy (I'd say nine months, several times, classifies as too long, regardless of how patient you are--while waiting for one such reply, I had a house built and moved into it). An odd quirk to all this is this Wherigo forum. Why can we openly talk about these applications? The answer is a combination of me and Groundspeak's apathy. Back when matejcik and charlenni first presented their applications, the forum rule was that moderators needed to clear through Groundspeak talk of new applications. So, as the moderator, I hid the threads and sought approval. Groundspeak did not reply for a month, so I unhid the thread. When that second application was announced, I hid the thread again and asked Groundspeak. I again didn't hear a reply and unhid the thread. Later, I did get a reply, saying it was fine and that there wasn't anyone at Groundspeak who could speak for authorizing these, so that's why it took so long. I asked, then, for something no other moderator has: the authority to make these decisions on my own. It was granted. Ever since then, so long as something wasn't commercial, I allowed it. Now, mind you, Groundspeak's employees have definitely changed since then, so no one there remembers that this responsibility was delegated, so would likely take it away. Another odd footnote is Wherigo\\kit. I am able to use Groundspeak's API for authentication, which does require approval and a review. More recently, when I had to submit an updated overview of this application, I was asked by someone at Groundspeak if I wanted Kit to appear in the list of official Groundspeak partners. I guffawed, pointing out that Groundspeak's reviewers do not allow caches to be published if they mention Kit, the Wherigo Foundation, or any other application, so listing Kit as an official Groundspeak partner would thoroughly confuse the situation, so Groundspeak should really consider its stance on the matter. This was about two years ago. Finally, something that irritates me. Groundspeak allows cachers to mention GSAK and Project GC in their cache listings. Both are commercial applications--GSAK was up until recently and Project GC pushes a subscription model. Groundspeak also allows mention of other commercial applications in cache listings. But, yet, when it comes to everything the community has done to help Groundspeak with Wherigo--and everything we have has always been free, with the individual developer shouldering 100% of the continued cost--Groundspeak has this as their official position. And, believe me, there are ongoing costs. I average about $200/month for hosting, storage, SSL/TLS license, and domain registrations between Kit, the Wherigo Foundation site, DevOps/TFS, and the staging areas I use when publishing. I could decrease the cost by doing a shared hosting plan, I suppose. I suppose I could have still continued to create things. But there comes a time when one needs a solid support group to provide feedback and motivation. I don't have that. And you'd figure people in my own area would be really supportive of my endeavors, be it Wherigo or having found almost 95K caches. They're not. There's a distinct anti-Wherigo feeling in my area. There have been some that would like it if I quit geocaching altogether. So, no support there. One can continue only so long against the flow and apathy before exhausting oneself. So, later, my job became the beneficiary of some of my free time. I worked uncompensated overtime 300 hours last year and 400 hours this year (and no time off). You'd think they'd be grateful, but instead I get managers telling me they're not asking me to work extra hours and they're apathetic about all the things I'm doing to fix their aging application single-handedly. No encouragement, no support, no appreciation from there. Sigh. So, anyway, that's my view on the matter. There are always other sides to it, though I've tried to be neutral.
  15. Several other people have posted about receiving similar notes on their cache listings as well. Groundspeak has always been clear that a Wherigo geocache has to be hosted on Wherigo.com and it appears now they are enforcing the rules about this. I'm not sure why they won't allow anyone to host a Wherigo on the Foundation website, but it is unfortunate as much of Wherigo.com is out of date and does not work well, and the Foundation website works very well. It has long been the running joke in this forum, Wherigo Foundation is like Fight Club, "No one talk about Wherigo Foundation." For what it's worth you could try contacting them to see why the Wherigo Foundation is not allowed as a hosting website.
  16. I think that challenges are so unique that they should still remain as Mystery Caches. Having own type of "challenge" would probably lead to having a lot of easy challenges, just to have a different cachetype. By the way, when we talk about new cachetypes, I think HQ will never introduce any new types ever. I'm not saying that they won't rename or change currently existing types (like they did with the CCE), but we will never see new, and the reason is somewhere deep in the webpage code.
  17. That depends upons the agreement between the adoptee and the original CO. If the original CO says, "Please keep the cache going.", then yes. If the CO says "Do what you'd like.", then no. I have adopted a cache from the second CO to "own" it and was told that there was a slim possibility that the original CO might want it back. That mandates, at least to me, that I'm supporting that cache until such time as the first CO wants it back or the area is developed and the cache isn't viable anymore. If you're against maintaining a cache that wasn't yours to begin with because it apparently has no value to the community, then why would you support someone placing a new cache and maintaining it when the entire community won't value it either. Why can't just some of the community value the cache and find it a viable cache to keep going? That's well and good but I, like many of the earlier posters, wonder what the purpose of adopting these caches is if you have no intention of keeping them going and refreshing/maintaining them. Did you and the CO have any sort of talk about the original CO's desires regarding these caches?
  18. Yes! I hunted an AL that is found by driving, and in that subdivision, Apple and Google failed me. I had to open Waze, then guess where the icon goes, to be given proper navigation info. Due to missing features (and added complications), I had FIVE Apps open, and switched between them, to hunt the AL and its Bonus Cache. Apps that don't talk to the AL App. Wild guess, at some point The AL App will go away, and become incorporated into The Official App. So it has no extensive features at this time.
  19. Lets see over the years I have found 2 bags of drugs in/near a cache. The second one was heroin that I had touched on the way to the airport to board a plane. I was really hoping the drug dog was not working. I was on a walking trail with another cacher when I got to GZ to find a loaded 9 mm gun next to the cache with a school across the street. Trying to talk to the police was interesting. The most interesting set of three caches was in Barstow doing the Planes/Trains series. The first cache i came across had a rusty can as cover and I lifted the can and then reached to grab the pill container that was covered in camo tape when I realized that there was way more camo there than there should be. I removed the sunglasses to find a Rattle snake under the cache. The next cache I came across had a California King snake leaving the cache. I was on the way to the third cache and rounded the corner to find a large desert tortoise in the middle of the road. At that point I figured I was 3/3 and caching for the day was over. The most bizarre situation was doing Route 66 and going off a side and driving down it when the navigator yelled at me and said look out there is a tarantula on the road. I said what did you say when I heard the squish. There was a question from the back seat asking what happens when you run over a spider of this size? Well a few hours later we were in a major Thunderstorm with very heavy rains flash flooding etc. The weird part about this was after I ran over the spider and we got back on the road on Route 66 was all the tarantula walking down the white line on the right shoulder for the next 10 miles. Yes these are a few of the weird things I have come across.
  20. Don't take it personally. I can't believe someone tall would seriously be condescending towards someone not as tall, so I suggest you take it as a joke, since that's almost certainly what it was. You're input on the terrain rating on this cache seems valid, and you expressed that observation in your log. I certainly encourage you to keep making this point to COs, and feel free to talk to them in more detail. And you brought it up here. I think you've done what you can. Please try not to be irked.
  21. Derek from the Behind the Cache Vlogg came on the Geocache Adventures podcast to talk about creative and gadget caches. Check it out!
  22. What do you mean "not located at the posted coordinates"? It is. It's room coordinates, inside the building, parking coords are nearby. Also I changed the hint. I really don't understand that - "not located at the posted coordinates." No hard feelings, but my cache are really on new coordinates, hint is simple, no need to talk with workers.
  23. I had an odd find yesterday. I stopped at a small cemetery to make a find, and there was an SUV already parked maybe 100 feet from the cache. A man was standing behind it, bent over a boxy object. It turned out to be a live trap covered with a cloth, and he was shaking out... something. Then a skunk popped out. The guy calmly put the trap and cloth back in his car, got in, and drove away. The skunk waddled down the fence line at the back of the cemetery property until it found a hole big enough to get through, and it disappeared. I didn't talk to the guy - he looked like he wanted to just be gone. I assume he trapped the skunk in his back yard, and didn't want to kill it. The land behind the cemetery is heavily wooded, and unused, so I think it's a fine place for a skunk to make a new home. The man is a braver man than I am - I would have never put a live skunk in any vehicle I planned to drive ever again.
  24. Your vision of the tasks counting as individual finds is something I understand and feel the similar way. But I think that if HQ would make the labs only count as 1 find for the whole scenario, there would be problems if someone couldn't get the right answer for 1 out of 5 for example. Imagine you are trapped on the last question and the whole adventure cannot be finished, counted in the stats. Of course you can contact the CO, but many things can happen to us, and there is not always the possibility to talk to each other. Contact should always be optional. You've said that this is a completely different game and you're right! But... If this game would be completely separated from geocaching itself, it would just be dead. Existing of AL is also a great opportunity to show places in a different way or places blocked by the 161m / 528ft minimal distance required in regular caches.
  25. Once again, I set out to prove I had my finger on the pulse of the Geocaching community; and once again, I was shown to be wrong - this time by a factor of more than 2 to 1. I set up a poll on the Facebook Geocaching group (*) to see how (or if) people thought Adventure Lab finds should be incorporated into the overall Geocaching find count. The poll has been up for 21 hours, and seems to have run its course. Here are the results: A number of the comments on the post talk about the problems that would be caused by changing the current implementation, so maybe some of those votes for the first option are more for maintaining the status quo, rather than outright approval of the method. But I'm just clutching at straws. It's a pity the question wasn't asked before the current solution was implemented, but I guess the answers may not have been very different... (*) A private group with over 17,000 members worldwide.
×
×
  • Create New...