Search the Community

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...

I guess I am in a minority here on the forums then (though from my limited time here, I don't think so). Granted, my caching has slowed this year compared to last, but that's been due to circumstances that forced geocaching to the back burner for a while. But I still use the forums to glean useful information, bounce ideas around, and hopefully add some input that others find useful, if not entertaining. I don't necessarily like to hear myself talk - and I definitely don't think my opinions are gospel. And, frankly, I don't get that vibe (hot air, like to hear themselves talk, think their opinion is gospel, etc) from most of the participants here either. I enjoy participating, interacting with other geocachers. Yes, I'm new to geocaching and new to the forums (relatively speaking). What's with reviving all these old threads??

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.

[OT] Have you actually read the First Amendment? (Hint: Groundspeak is not a government agency.)[/OT] It doesn't have to be a govt agency. There are plenty of cases where the gov has stepped in and ruled that people have the right to say what they want when being censored by private parties. This forum might be owned by Groundspeak, and they can do what they want with it, but they can't control my right to TALK about something. I think that's the point we're missing here. I'm not violating their terms. I am merely TALKING about something. On an mlb forum, for example, I am allowed to TALK about steroids, even though it is illegal and a clear violation of both the law and of the mlb terms. However, I am not DOING anything, and therefore not violating them. If they ever censored me, I could take them to court on the basis of First Amendment rights and I'd win, and they know that. Think about it...if that weren't the case, how could Sportswriters talk about it freely? It's just TALK. It doesn't violate anything. I think you guys might need to go back to law school ;-)

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.

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.

I prefer the real small gatherings. Little chance of the natural shifting to only folks you know. - New people think it's a "clique" thing, and for the most part it is, simply people you're familiar. I like to stir things up a bit. 3-4 people, I'd have a couple unactivated signature geocoins to pass out, and probably have a few trackables to exchange (depending on their goals). We don't discuss find totals, but will mention caches we've enjoyed the most with others. Sometimes we don't even talk about this hobby. Hang out with an ice cream, coffee, whatever ... and make small talk.

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.

No not Leeds but we've all been beginners at some point. I wasn't going to be able to complete the summer challenge some years ago as there were no nearby events on a free night. We were going away for the weekend so I looked at caches in the area and there was an event at the pub just down the road. We had to eat out anyway so we got a meal, a drink, a natter, a cache in the pub grounds and a souvenir all in one outing. Since then I have been to various events. The format differs slightly but there's usually a log book being signed and the clink of dog tag TBs gets ears twitching. Somebody will talk to you. You might even find somebody else looking "new" and talk to them. The next event will be easier as you recognise names in log books as you cache. Go and enjoy!

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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?

Not quite true. Groundspeak actively pushes the FTF prize on a very regular basis as one of the benefits of buying premium membership. They talk about it in mailings, sure. But they never talk about rules. They just say it's when you find "that clean, unsigned logbook...". And that's just external affairs/outreach talk--show me where Groundspeak outlines anything specific about a FTF "prize" (especially in the guidelines, or with an official mention or validity with, say, a statistic on your profile) beyond mention in some emails. Back to my popcorn. Of course they never talk about rules - why would they? Their sole purpose in pushing FTF hard in their, what was it again? external affairs? outreach talk? Is purely to dangle the carrot in a bid to tempt more individuals to hand over cold, hard cash in return for a shot at the prize of that clean, unsigned logbook... Groundspeak actively pushes the FTF prize on a very regular basis as one of the benefits of buying premium membership. Enjoy your popcorn. Well, yeah... It's a business afterall... There are no rules, we can all admit that. Groundspeak mentions it on the blog or in weekly mailers, yes. That's the outreach/external affairs side of things. Then there's the internal affairs of programming, financial, daily operations, the store... Someone with a job to promote the game on Geocaching.com is doing just that: promoting geocaching on Geocaching.com, which includes the option to get some cool features if you sign up for a premium membership! They may not be too worried about a few angsty people battling out over dictionary definitions and chicken-and-egg scenarios in the forums, and therefore only trouble themselves with the simple, general aspects of the FTF side-game. Groundspeak is aware that the "FTF" is a well-established side game, and that it is practiced all over the world. Being FTF can be fun, and the race to get there first can be a hoot. It can also cause a ton of anxiety, as I can see oozing from your posts. Sheesh...settle down! Who brought the butter? I seem to need more for my popcorn. Oh, wait...

Not quite true. Groundspeak actively pushes the FTF prize on a very regular basis as one of the benefits of buying premium membership. They talk about it in mailings, sure. But they never talk about rules. They just say it's when you find "that clean, unsigned logbook...". And that's just external affairs/outreach talk--show me where Groundspeak outlines anything specific about a FTF "prize" (especially in the guidelines, or with an official mention or validity with, say, a statistic on your profile) beyond mention in some emails. Back to my popcorn. Of course they never talk about rules - why would they? Their sole purpose in pushing FTF hard in their, what was it again? external affairs? outreach talk? Is purely to dangle the carrot in a bid to tempt more individuals to hand over cold, hard cash in return for a shot at the prize of that clean, unsigned logbook... Groundspeak actively pushes the FTF prize on a very regular basis as one of the benefits of buying premium membership. Enjoy your popcorn.

This. Specifically, ngs.infocenter@... will be the people you need to talk to.

Thank you, GeoGern, for the information. Here's your answer to the random question, Wumpus: Suppose you want to make a random number. Here's how to do it: Define a variable in the builder and call it whatever you want. I will call it "Random" for this example. Next, define whatever event you want that will be dependent upon the random number. For purposes of this example, I will keep it simple. This step will show you how to create a character who will give you a random number every time you talk to him/her. The character will then tell you if the number is low (<50) or high (>=50 to keep it simple). To create the character outlined above, to the following: Select "Characters", click "Add", and give the character a name. Next, look at the bottom right-hand corner under "Commands". Create one called "Talk". After that, click the "Events" tab and you will see "When talk occurs". Select it and click "New". -- I originally typed this post to display two message boxes, one to show the random number and one to tell if it is a higher or lower number. However, showing two message boxes one after another does not work well. It'll show the boxes, but the first will give way to the next without requiring user input. Instead, we'll create one message box to display and it will say the number AND if it is a higher or lower number. -- Let's first begin with defining PART of the message where the character tells you the number: -- Add an if-then-else block. In step one, select "Compare an Object" yadda-yadda-yadda. For each of the three arguments, in this order, specify the following: the Random variable, "Greater than or equal to", and the value 50. The line should now read "If Random Greater Than or Equal To 50". Click "OK". --We're back to the programming block screen. Highlight your if statement and click "Add an action". This is what happens if Random is greater than or equal to 50. Select "Show a message to the player" and make the message say " is a higher number" (space included). Now, create another message to the user that will say " is a lower number". Don't forget to highlight "else" before you click "Add an Action". Now, we're going to edit the code directly. Hacking time! Click "OK" until you're back to the main screen. Save your cartridge. You don't have to close it. Open your .lua cartridge file in Notepad. First, type the following line at the top of the file: requires "math" WARNING: You will have to insert the above statement manually after EVERY TIME you save your cartridge. It keeps losing that statement, which was the cause of my confusion. Odd, but it happens. Now, do a search for the string " is a higher number"--what you typed for the character to say to you. You will see the following: Wherigo.MessageBox{Text=[[ is a higher number.]],} Remember that variable you defined to hold the random number? Change the statement likewise to mimic the following: Wherigo.MessageBox{Text=Random .. [[ is a higher number.]],} In Lua, apparently, ".." is the equivalent to "&" in VB and "+" in C#. String concatenation. Do the same thing for the lower number. Look at your "if" statement and be sure it reads like mine. I didn't have an operator in mine and had to edit it: if Random >= 50 then And, now, the last step. Include the following code above "if" statement. This is what assigns the random number. The first digit is the lower bound and the second the upper bound of your random number. Both numbers are inclusive: it will return a 0 or 100 within the random number set. Feel free to use other variables if you'd like. Random = math.random(0,100) Save the file and reload it into the Wherigo Builder application, compile it to your machine, and run it in the emulator. Here's my test code. There are other things in it, but pay attention to the code under the function "function zcharacterRandomGuy:OnTalk()". Copy this to a new text file and name it "test3.lua". Using my file, which has a lot of other test junk in it, move the player's position to the closest zone, right off the road. You'll see a character listed called "Random Guy". Talk to the character multiple times to see different random numbers. From this example, you should now understand how to insert a random number into the code. If you have any other questions, it seems the Groundspeak crew are very eager to answer them. Compliments to them for treating us, the innovator market group, well. I'll be hanging out around here and will perhaps come out with a test open source cartridge for people to learn from it. Seems like I have another programming project other than the Statbar Modifier to work on. ================================================= ================================================= require "Wherigo" require "math" ZonePoint = Wherigo.ZonePoint Distance = Wherigo.Distance Player = Wherigo.Player -- #Author Directives Go Here# -- -- #End Author Directives# -- cartTest3 = Wherigo.ZCartridge() -- MessageBox Callback Functions Table used by the Builder -- cartTest3.MsgBoxCBFuncs = {} -- Cartridge Info -- cartTest3.Id="c183a2f5-6ec4-45c0-b164-6af81985f473" cartTest3.Name="Test 3" cartTest3.Description=[[A time trial along the trail]] cartTest3.Visible=true cartTest3.Activity="Puzzle" cartTest3.StartingLocationDescription=[[]] cartTest3.StartingLocation = ZonePoint(36.1423999945323,-79.8561833063761,0) cartTest3.Version=".01" cartTest3.Company="Ranger Fox Adventures, Ltd." cartTest3.Author="Ranger Fox" cartTest3.BuilderVersion="2.0.4704.3539" cartTest3.CreateDate="1/4/2008 3:43:54 PM" cartTest3.PublishDate="1/1/0001 12:00:00 AM" cartTest3.UpdateDate="1/4/2008 4:53:37 PM" cartTest3.LastPlayedDate="1/1/0001 12:00:00 AM" cartTest3.TargetDevice="PocketPC" cartTest3.TargetDeviceVersion="0" cartTest3.StateId="1" cartTest3.CountryId="2" cartTest3.Complete=false cartTest3.UseLogging=false -- Zones -- zoneParkingarea = Wherigo.Zone(cartTest3) zoneParkingarea.Id="52fa9078-04ca-4e40-8607-2c6d88cd3fba" zoneParkingarea.Name="Parking area" zoneParkingarea.Description=[[Park here]] zoneParkingarea.Visible=true zoneParkingarea.DistanceRange = Distance(-1, "feet") zoneParkingarea.ShowObjects="OnEnter" zoneParkingarea.ProximityRange = Distance(100, "feet") zoneParkingarea.AllowSetPositionTo=false zoneParkingarea.Active=true zoneParkingarea.Points = { ZonePoint(36.14225,-79.85592,0), ZonePoint(36.14243,-79.8558,0), ZonePoint(36.14272,-79.85629,0), ZonePoint(36.14259,-79.85649,0) } zoneParkingarea.OriginalPoint = ZonePoint(36.1422499974569,-79.8559166590373,0) zoneParkingarea.DistanceRangeUOM = "Feet" zoneParkingarea.ProximityRangeUOM = "Feet" zoneParkingarea.OutOfRangeName = "" zoneParkingarea.InRangeName = "" zonePlankbridge = Wherigo.Zone(cartTest3) zonePlankbridge.Id="2373f3e4-0eb3-4849-9450-db9c5f317962" zonePlankbridge.Name="Plank bridge" zonePlankbridge.Description=[[]] zonePlankbridge.Visible=false zonePlankbridge.DistanceRange = Distance(-1, "feet") zonePlankbridge.ShowObjects="OnEnter" zonePlankbridge.ProximityRange = Distance(10, "feet") zonePlankbridge.AllowSetPositionTo=false zonePlankbridge.Active=false zonePlankbridge.Points = { ZonePoint(36.14279,-79.8563,0), ZonePoint(36.14307,-79.85607,0), ZonePoint(36.14323,-79.85622,0), ZonePoint(36.14298,-79.85649,0) } zonePlankbridge.OriginalPoint = ZonePoint(36.1427833398183,-79.8562999725342,0) zonePlankbridge.DistanceRangeUOM = "Feet" zonePlankbridge.ProximityRangeUOM = "Feet" zonePlankbridge.OutOfRangeName = "" zonePlankbridge.InRangeName = "" zoneRailroadSign = Wherigo.Zone(cartTest3) zoneRailroadSign.Id="7cbfc5d9-094b-4cd6-a4ef-17a1bcbdf798" zoneRailroadSign.Name="Railroad Sign" zoneRailroadSign.Description=[[]] zoneRailroadSign.Visible=false zoneRailroadSign.DistanceRange = Distance(-1, "feet") zoneRailroadSign.ShowObjects="OnEnter" zoneRailroadSign.ProximityRange = Distance(10, "feet") zoneRailroadSign.AllowSetPositionTo=false zoneRailroadSign.Active=false zoneRailroadSign.Points = { ZonePoint(36.15314,-79.855,0), ZonePoint(36.15305,-79.85531,0), ZonePoint(36.1533,-79.8555,0), ZonePoint(36.15349,-79.85524,0) } zoneRailroadSign.OriginalPoint = ZonePoint(36.1531333287557,-79.8549999872843,0) zoneRailroadSign.DistanceRangeUOM = "Feet" zoneRailroadSign.ProximityRangeUOM = "Feet" zoneRailroadSign.OutOfRangeName = "" zoneRailroadSign.InRangeName = "" zoneAquifinaArea = Wherigo.Zone(cartTest3) zoneAquifinaArea.Id="94701d65-d574-44ff-a8a4-d45dd5e48944" zoneAquifinaArea.Name="Aquifina Area" zoneAquifinaArea.Description=[[]] zoneAquifinaArea.Visible=false zoneAquifinaArea.DistanceRange = Distance(-1, "feet") zoneAquifinaArea.ShowObjects="OnEnter" zoneAquifinaArea.ProximityRange = Distance(10, "feet") zoneAquifinaArea.AllowSetPositionTo=false zoneAquifinaArea.Active=false zoneAquifinaArea.Points = { ZonePoint(36.15193,-79.85451,0), ZonePoint(36.15215,-79.85462,0), ZonePoint(36.15208,-79.85485,0), ZonePoint(36.1518,-79.85459,0) } zoneAquifinaArea.OriginalPoint = ZonePoint(36.1519333362579,-79.8545166651408,0) zoneAquifinaArea.DistanceRangeUOM = "Feet" zoneAquifinaArea.ProximityRangeUOM = "Feet" zoneAquifinaArea.OutOfRangeName = "" zoneAquifinaArea.InRangeName = "" -- Characters -- zcharacterRandomGuy = Wherigo.ZCharacter{Cartridge=cartTest3, Container=zoneParkingarea} zcharacterRandomGuy.Id="525cc893-ac19-4e1c-9bba-e87031422b94" zcharacterRandomGuy.Name="Random Guy" zcharacterRandomGuy.Description=[[]] zcharacterRandomGuy.Visible=true zcharacterRandomGuy.Gender="Male" zcharacterRandomGuy.Type="NPC" zcharacterRandomGuy.ObjectLocation = ZonePoint(36.1424918494855,-79.8561522764714,360) zcharacterRandomGuy.Commands = { Talk = Wherigo.ZCommand{Text="Talk", CmdWith=false, Enabled=true, EmptyTargetListText="Nothing available"}, } zcharacterRandomGuy.Commands.Talk.Custom = true zcharacterRandomGuy.Commands.Talk.Id="03330ea2-27d2-4242-92b2-33122efaee47" zcharacterRandomGuy.Commands.Talk.WorksWithAll = true -- Items -- zitemRandom = Wherigo.ZItem(cartTest3) zitemRandom.Id="5ac3fd70-474b-497d-b8d1-aa84678f6ba5" zitemRandom.Name="Random" zitemRandom.Description=[[]] zitemRandom.Visible=false zitemRandom.ObjectLocation = Wherigo.INVALID_ZONEPOINT zitemRandom.Locked = false zitemRandom.Opened = false zitemRandom.Commands = { GetRandom = Wherigo.ZCommand{Text="GetRandom", CmdWith=false, Enabled=true, EmptyTargetListText="Nothing available"}, } zitemRandom.Commands.GetRandom.Custom = true zitemRandom.Commands.GetRandom.Id="9d38f63f-760f-4fad-baeb-2a3e19ef9857" zitemRandom.Commands.GetRandom.WorksWithAll = true -- Tasks -- ztaskFindtheparkingarea = Wherigo.ZTask(cartTest3) ztaskFindtheparkingarea.Id="4259783b-c0c6-492b-9690-96456bd8bec9" ztaskFindtheparkingarea.Name="Find the parking area" ztaskFindtheparkingarea.Description=[[]] ztaskFindtheparkingarea.Visible=true ztaskFindtheparkingarea.Active=true ztaskFindtheparkingarea.Complete=false ztaskFindtheparkingarea.CorrectState = "None" ztaskFindrailroad = Wherigo.ZTask(cartTest3) ztaskFindrailroad.Id="a12be009-b3fe-40f4-9459-980b244dec34" ztaskFindrailroad.Name="Find railroad" ztaskFindrailroad.Description=[[]] ztaskFindrailroad.Visible=false ztaskFindrailroad.Active=false ztaskFindrailroad.Complete=false ztaskFindrailroad.CorrectState = "None" ztaskFindAquifinaarea = Wherigo.ZTask(cartTest3) ztaskFindAquifinaarea.Id="58653b15-4628-4d77-a6ae-f3a95420f32c" ztaskFindAquifinaarea.Name="Find Aquifina area" ztaskFindAquifinaarea.Description=[[]] ztaskFindAquifinaarea.Visible=false ztaskFindAquifinaarea.Active=false ztaskFindAquifinaarea.Complete=false ztaskFindAquifinaarea.CorrectState = "None" ztaskGettotheplankbridge = Wherigo.ZTask(cartTest3) ztaskGettotheplankbridge.Id="59095708-f9e8-466e-8ef5-0cb5f689ac34" ztaskGettotheplankbridge.Name="Get to the plank bridge" ztaskGettotheplankbridge.Description=[[]] ztaskGettotheplankbridge.Visible=false ztaskGettotheplankbridge.Active=false ztaskGettotheplankbridge.Complete=false ztaskGettotheplankbridge.CorrectState = "None" -- Cartridge Variables -- Random = 0 TimerExpired = false cartTest3.ZVariables = {Random = 0, TimerExpired = false} -- Builder Variables (to be read by the builder only) -- buildervar = {} buildervar.Random = {} buildervar.Random.Id ="763ea73a-b54f-4ac2-bf1c-a5d230b4f292" buildervar.Random.Name = "Random" buildervar.Random.Type = "Number" buildervar.Random.Data=[[0]] buildervar.Random.Description=[[]] buildervar.TimerExpired = {} buildervar.TimerExpired.Id ="0dfd5fe7-7c9d-4d09-b9b4-9a6fd9e61da3" buildervar.TimerExpired.Name = "Timer Expired" buildervar.TimerExpired.Type = "Flag" buildervar.TimerExpired.Data=[[False]] buildervar.TimerExpired.Description=[[]] -- ZTimers -- ztimerStopwatch = Wherigo.ZTimer(cartTest3) ztimerStopwatch.Id="2d6873df-7ed9-4608-88d7-4768c6b35ac4" ztimerStopwatch.Name="Stopwatch" ztimerStopwatch.Description=[[]] ztimerStopwatch.Visible=true ztimerStopwatch.Duration=600 ztimerStopwatch.Type="Countdown" -- Inputs -- -- -- Events/Conditions/Actions -- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------Builder Generated functions, Do not Edit, this will be overwritten------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- function zoneParkingarea:OnEnter() -- #GroupDescription=Enter the parking area -- -- #Comment=Enter the parking area Comment -- ztaskFindtheparkingarea.Complete = true Wherigo.MessageBox{Text=[[You found the parking area. Now, go to the railroad sign.]],} zoneRailroadSign.Active = true ztaskFindrailroad.Active = true zoneRailroadSign.Visible = true ztaskFindrailroad.Visible = true zoneRailroadSign.Visible = true Random = math.random(0,100) end function zoneRailroadSign:OnEnter() -- #GroupDescription=Player enters the railroad zone -- -- #Comment=Player enters the railroad zone Comment -- Wherigo.MessageBox{Text=[[Good. You found the railroad sign. Now, find the Aquifina rest stop.]],} ztaskFindrailroad.Complete = true ztaskFindAquifinaarea.Active = true zoneAquifinaArea.Active = true zoneAquifinaArea.Visible = true ztaskFindAquifinaarea.Visible = true end function zoneAquifinaArea:OnEnter() -- #GroupDescription=Enter the Aquifina area -- -- #Comment=Enter the Aquifina area Comment -- ztaskFindAquifinaarea.Complete = true zonePlankbridge.Active = true zonePlankbridge.Visible = true ztaskGettotheplankbridge.Visible = true ztaskGettotheplankbridge.Active = true Wherigo.MessageBox{Text=[[Great! Now, it's a time attack to the plank bridge. You have ten minutes.]],} end function zoneAquifinaArea:OnExit() -- #GroupDescription=Exit the Aquifina zone -- -- #Comment=Exit the Aquifina zone Comment -- ztimerStopwatch:Start() zoneAquifinaArea.Active = false zoneAquifinaArea.Visible = false end function ztimerStopwatch:OnTick() -- #GroupDescription=Timer expires -- -- #Comment=Timer expires Comment -- TimerExpired = true Wherigo.MessageBox{Text=[[Too late!]],} ztaskGettotheplankbridge.Complete = false end function zonePlankbridge:OnEnter() -- #GroupDescription=Enter the plank bridge -- -- #Comment=Enter the plank bridge Comment -- if ztimerStopwatch.Duration > 0 then Wherigo.MessageBox{Text=[[Great! Good job.]],} ztaskGettotheplankbridge.Complete = true end end function cartTest3:OnStart() -- #GroupDescription=Start cartridge -- -- #Comment=Start cartridge Comment -- zoneParkingarea.Active = true zoneParkingarea.Visible = true ztaskFindtheparkingarea.Active = true ztaskFindtheparkingarea.Visible = true end function zoneRailroadSign:OnExit() -- #GroupDescription=Exit railroad sign - hide the railroad stuff -- -- #Comment=Exit railroad sign - hide the railroad stuff Comment -- zoneRailroadSign.Visible = false zoneRailroadSign.Active = false end function zitemRandom:OnGetRandom() -- #GroupDescription=Get random number -- -- #Comment=Get random number Comment -- Random = math.random(0,100) end function zcharacterRandomGuy:OnTalk() -- #GroupDescription=Talk to random guy -- -- #Comment=Talk to random guy Comment -- Random = math.random(0,100) if Random >= 50 then Wherigo.MessageBox{Text=Random .. [[ is a higher number.]],} else Wherigo.MessageBox{Text=Random .. [[ is a lower number.]],} end end ------End Builder Generated functions, Do not Edit, this will be overwritten------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------Builder Generated callbacks, Do not Edit, this will be overwritten------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --#LASTCALLBACKKEY=0#-- ------End Builder Generated callbacks, Do not Edit, this will be overwritten------ -- #Author Functions Go Here# -- -- #End Author Functions# -- -- Nothing after this line -- return cartTest3

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.

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

There's probably a good reason why not, but I would like it to look like this: There's been some talk in these forums about issues with the notification emails. Perhaps having it look like this would help:

of course I don't want to risk my expensive device, as I told before geocaching is specific activity, that could really benefit from watch app since in normal circumstances I wouldn't walk on rocky cliff with smartphone in my hand, but when geocaching I don't really have a choice.. You shouldn't drive and talk with your phone at a same time, but if you have to, if your work is to drive and talk to clients at a same time, you have a safer option of buying hands free set, but with geocaching there is no safer alternative.. and its not all about risk of braking device.. do I really have to give an example of every possible scenario? ok, lets say you're geocaching on that rocky cliff with smartphone in your hand and you slip, you're falling.. you'll probably by reflex going to try to safe not only your self, but your device to and by doing that your injuries may be bigger, but if you would have an extra free hand to grab on something, you may end up with lighter injury.. ok, ten-thousands.. how much do you think it costs? millions? billions of dollars? its just an app, not a space rocket, it shouldn't be unaffordable for descent company so far I've heard only one decent reason not to make watch app, its technical reason of apple watch not having magnetic compass, although it still would be nice to at least have watch app for reading hints, descriptions, logs... all other reasons is basically stating that Groundspeak is barely making a living and just can't afford such big luxury like creating simple app.. that makes me feel like I'm getting into lost cost, like windows phone users did..

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.

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.

I might never have met them and have no idea who they are or how to find them to talk to them. It might not even be in my country. That could be considered storking too. Besides, I consider the comments written in a log as 'talking' to the CO. It's like the old fashioned letter that 'talked' to the recipient. I read my logs and take them seriously. If the coordinates were regularly being mentioned as off I would investigate. I don't need someone to track me down and talk to me, even at events. If they waited to do that and not write what was wrong in a log, I would find that very strange and unhelpful, as I should have been told earlier. If it's only one person's comments, say the coordinates are out, that might not be enough to go on (although that is affected by how experienced they are), but after several comments, time to act and go check those coordinates. I found several caches recently by a CO whose coordinates were often out. It was not only me mentioning this, but others too. After I logged NM explaining the problem, the CO checked and did a OM, saying log and cache good. That wasn't what the NM was about, but the off coordinates. I messaged the CO and explained the problem again (politely). They said they would check this. Nothing has changed. The coordinates are still not fixed. I don't want this archived, so am not going to log a NA. Besides, I find that sort of rude if the person is at least looking after the cache and log. People are still mentioning the cache is not being found at GZ.