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. Hi All: I’m in the process of building a tour-type Wherigo for a local museum using the Earwigo builder. I would like to have the geocachers interact with same character in more than one zone using the “Talk to” command. How can I accomplish this? Would I need to move the character (much like I do with items) into the same zone if I wish to interact with him or her? Many thanks in advance! CWillyPngn
  2. Well caveat: this is going to become a long post again, but as you somehow asked again. On the one hand, at least I understood a number of statements in this thread in the way that some cachers here think that socializing and hiking do not go well together or go less well together than for example eating and socializing. On the other hand, if hiking and socializing are a good combination for the target group and if indeed the worry that some cachers might use hiking events for caches is causing the ban of real hiking events, then that's a real shame that once again those who are sincere and follow the spirit get punished (and yes, I feel that way regardless of the existence of workarounds). A event that announces a picnic at the meeting point which lasts for 4 hours is a pure picnic event in my eyes. Even when a meeting point and time at a potential trailhead were given and most of the attendants were hiking to the picnic together (not the case in the example), I would classify this event as a hiking event as the distance to the event location does not seem to be that large (roughly one mile as I understood it - so one need 15 minutes to the cache location one way - hardly a hike in my opinion and not in relation to the 4 hours picnic). That is not relevant for my classification. If I drive to a ice skating pond where an event takes place by car it is still an ice skating event and not a car driving event. The organized option for socializing takes place during the picnic at the example event. If I wanted to have some socializing also during the hike I would have to contact some cachers by myself, apart from the fact that the walk is short. For me it's neither about smilies, nor about going for a hike alone or with some people I need to organize. A hiking event offers the same option for socializing than a meet and greet at a restaurant with the sole difference that the side activity is hiking and not eating. The example event not even suggests a route or a parking lot - so in this respect every normal hiking multi cache is to be preferred from my point of view. There I at least do not need to do the planning myself and if I want to organize someone who joins me, I can do that there too. A real hiking event is different in the sense that I do not need do all this planning and I do not need to try to convince others to join me. If I hike in to a picnic event that takes place for 4 hours, I would feel extremely ashamed to leave after a few minutes and would not have ended up with lots of possibilities for socializing. Those who prefer socializing while hiking to socializing while sitting or standing are not well served by the example event. There are certainly people who are good at socializing and do not need special requirements - they can even socialize nicely if they do not feel well in a setting. I can't. The example event would typically work out for me as follows: I walk alone to the picnic area or accompanied by a friend who might have talked me into attending the even and then would spend some time at the picnic without ending up with that much socializing. A picnic event that takes place for 4 hours and is reachable by a short walk (so not at least 1 hour one way) attracts a completely different audience than a real hiking event. In my area such an event have at least four times as many participants as a hiking event and it would already be hard for me to find and identify those at the event I'd like to talk to because there is something that connects me to them. In a smaller group I can talk longer with a person which fits my personality and communication style much better. At events with 100 or more participants I feel terribly lost. Somehow the typical expected behaviour is to spend some minutes to talk to A, then talk to B etc and never get end up with a consider as an interesting communication. It's mainly smalltalk.
  3. I have previous used an android tablet and LocusPro when out as a back up for the GPS. Then I bought a new phone. I have loaded the Geocaching app on my new phone and most of it works fine. However, when I click on 'directions' I get the message "This device does not have a compass". This could well be the case as it wasnt one of my priorities when chosing which phone to buy. There are many compass apps around but does anyone know a way of getting the geocaching app to talk to any of them?
  4. Thanks for the link Max. Nice to know that it isnt just me. However, my question remains. Does anyone know of a way of getting the Geocaching app to 'talk' to any of the Compass apps available out there.
  5. "What is the difference in their experiences?" Are you kidding? What's the similarity? It's like two different games. With traditionals, all you do is find the cache and sign the log. With a multi, you have to read the coordinates of the next stage, copy them into your GPSr, and then you have to figure out where the next stage is and how to get there. You don't know where you're going when you start, so you can't plan your route and you won't know where you're going to end up. The only similarity is that there's a container at each specific location. (We'll ignore the fact that multi stages don't have to be anything like cache containers.) I don't doubt there are a lot of people that skip multis because the same number of traditions will give them a higher count, but I think far more people skip multis because they think they're too much work and are unpredictable. And that's just 2 stage multis. Talk about a multi that takes a day, and only a very special group of people will do it. You can't tell me that the other 95% of cachers are all numbers hounds. It's just obviously not true. There's no doubt people often do the power trails because they think the stats are important, but I think that argument evaporates when you talk about about a day's worth of typical caches. 20, 30, even 100 finds doesn't make much of a difference in statistics considering what's impressive by today's standards. If someone picks 10 traditionals over a 10 stage multi, it's hard for me to imagine they're doing it for the stats. There have to be other reasons...and I think I've explained what they are. (For the record: I love multis and do any I run into. On the other hand, I've never done a power trail.)
  6. A couple of years ago, one small team put out a series in every one of the Denver Public Library branches -- 36 in all as I recall. Looks like most of them are up and running still. There was a nice geocoin from the library system for the first xx finders of the entire series. You might want to talk to the crew that did all of ours. Note that as mentioned above, none are traditionals, but they do represent an interesting cross section of other types.
  7. that secret Platinum membership is a secret, cannot talk about it. Shhh
  8. Talk it over with the cache's owner. He might not be aware of the restriction -- perhaps because he's oblivious -- so he'll understand his error if you talk to him about it. Or he might be fully aware of the restriction and convince you his cache isn't a problem. This might include him thinking that there's a logical non-intrusive way to get to GZ, in which case you can help him see why that logical approach wasn't apparent to you. Or you might find out the CO's just a jerk, in which case you can think about whether to alert to trail maintainers or Groundspeak, or just want to keep it to yourself.
  9. You haven't got or don't supply us with all of the pertinent facts for this 'other' account that you say got the short end of the stick, so there is absolutely no way to compare the two instances that you find in conflict in your earlier posts that complain of a double standard by gc.com. Unless you intend to have the guidelines changed, the account that Keystone has addressed seems very odd, but well within the guidelines. So if you are prepared to explain fully what historical details got the bee in your bonnet regarding the 'banished' account, fine. If not, the merits of the original comparison you have been trying to draw are something only you can determine for yourself, and soliciting help here isn't going to prove very practical. We don't have those details. Are you hoping that we'll start some sort of email campaign to gc.com on your behalf? If not, I would suggest you take your issues directly to them. The rest of us have no clue what really transpired with regard to the banished account, so why are you using this forum to argue the point? As I noted earlier, it seems Dr. Alien's caches, whatever their merit (or lack) as caches, are being maintained a hell of a lot better than many of the true 'vacation caches' I often complain about here whose purpose appears to be only to try to get another country souvenir for finders in difficult areas of the world where caches just don't easily work. Properly placed and maintained caches are the basis for your issue. Improperly placed and maintained caches are the basis for mine. Frankly, I'd rather talk about my issue.
  10. "You could post some real truth in the forums. First, Trump2020 is not my account. They are a geocaching friend of mine I invited to try Waymarking. I have several family members, we all have geocaching accounts. Two of my dogs have their own accounts. Groundspeak don't have a problem with us supporting them by being paying members. I approve my own WM because I enjoy doing it. I don't follow your made up rules, I make up my own. Mine work best for me. But please tell all you troll friends that want me gone that you were offered a seat as the fourth person in the LFP group and you declined. I am the founder of the category. You are just choking on sour grapes. We were willing to leave, but your forums trash talk upset me enough that I choose to stay and lead and manage the category I founded.Blame yourself."
  11. Just a suggestion: maybe if you spent a teeny bit less time on the forums discussing how the system could be changed, people would not come to the (natural, IMO) conclusion that you want the system changed. 28 of your last 30 posts have been about changes to the geocaching web site. For someone who doesn't think anything needs to be changed, you sure do like to talk about it. A LOT.
  12. The Geocache Talk podcast "4th Annual Podcast of Hope" had Mike Rowe and Dave Barsky on back in December. https://geocachetalk.com/all-about-the-4th-annual-podcast-of-hope/
  13. I like how you're sympathetic to the CO's plight. Some seekers act so entitled that I sometimes side with the COs being annoyed even when I agree they could do better at maintaining their caches. I don't replace containers. That's not my job. When I suggested helping the CO, I meant working with the CO. If you are willing to replace containers in the name of improving your local cache quality, talk to the owner first and discuss what would make a good container, whether for a cache you're willing to go back to or a cache you're going to go to for the first time that you know from the logs has issues. Although actually fixing caches is a nice side effect, the real goal here is getting the CO to think more about maintenance and container quality and anything else you don't think he's thinking about enough. In my opinion, in the environment you are talking about, complaining about broken baggies and dampness *is* nitpicking. I wouldn't post NMs about those. Yes, admittedly they are things that suggest a need for maintenance, but they're always going to be problems in a climate like that, so pointing them out in find logs is the way to go, leaving it up to the CO to decide when they need to be dealt with. This is one of those things to push more to the friendly, non-log part of your relation with this CO, in my opinion. I'd wait for a while to get a feel for the culture and the overall quality before deciding which issues to push via NMs. Of course, more obvious cases such as broken containers need to be flagged for maintenance as soon as you discover them. I'm less sympathetic to you in this area. COs have their own lives. Like most of us, they sometimes overpromise. If I were you, I'd focus more on the successful find of a nice cache without judging the CO's performance. This is just another sign that they need council and education. I have no idea what your NMs look like, but even if they're the most polite and helpful missives on the planet, I suggest starting the conversation with something along the lines of, "I'm so sorry you felt like you had to delete my NM. What did I say that made you feel like it you couldn't leave it in the log?" And, of course, sneak in "Oh, by the way, I don't think you know that deleting the NM doesn't clear the NM flag. You should post an OM to explain what you did to correct the maintenance issue, and that will clear the flag for you."
  14. It's good to hear you've started a dialog. Make friends and try to see if you can convince him that it's a *friendly* gesture to flag a problem for the CO with an NM so he can go take care of it. That could lead to the broader question of whether the CO needs to go out a fix problems at all, since that might be the more significant problem you're facing. If you have trouble getting him to see the light -- it might take time -- talk to him about the possibility of you helping out with his maintenance tasks. It seems quite likely that the culture in your new area doesn't really expect problems to be fixed, and, if so, you'll have to work hard to swift the culture in another direction, and getting them in the habit of fixing caches might help even though it's you doing most of the work. I would understand if you got shy about posting NMs, at least for a while, but I'd continue to look for his caches and post the appropriate NMs, perhaps trying to add a light-hearted air to the friendly disagreement the two of you are having over whether NMs should be posted. Good luck!
  15. Do you know any local cachers? Talk to them! (or email them, at any rate) The adoption process is straightforward enough >> https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=54 And actually, you only have 3 left that haven't yet been archived. The other 3 have already been archived.
  16. The difference is between people that think regulating the behavior of others is generally a good idea and the only question is how to regulate them, and people that think regulating the behavior of others is generally a bad thing to do, so a clear justification is required before you take that action. In other words, between people that think order is the most important thing and those that think freedom is the most important thing. Unfortunately, US popular opinion has, over the last half century, shifted from the latter to the former. Ironic, since the generation that originally saw itself as anti-establishment has been so instrumental in enlarging and fortifying the establishment now that they're in charge of it. Increasingly here in the geocaching world, people talk as if their standards should be enforced without any regard to whether the things they want to rule out are actually bad things as opposed to merely being things they don't like even though others do. As in our politics, this leads to unending arguments because the rule proposing side does not consider objections worthy of consideration as long as the rules they are proposing have popularity on their side. They don't respond to -- in fact, they don't even consider -- the objections that are repeatedly raised and, instead, repeat their opinions as if people will decide to believe in those opinions if they're repeated often enough. Which, sadly, turns out to be an effective approach.
  17. Man... tell people "this is how you should do it" = baaaad. Tell people "this is how I do it, other people do it differently, do it how it works for you" also = baaaad... There's just no win. Why discuss anything I guess then? As soon as you explain your experience and personal choice you're just "trying to talk people into following your example" and that's just baaaaaaad. No, sir. If I explain how "I" do something, it's not to tell people how "they" should do it. It's to provide an example of an option that from one person's perspective works, especially if it's not attached with "this is the best way" or "do it this way". So yeah I'll continue explaining how I do things if I think it's a solution to a present problem or concern. Likewise, I'll change how I do things if I think someone else's experience or recommendation is worthwhile to adopt, which incidentally is exactly the purpose of explaining how I do things. We learn from each other. I'm not shutting anyone down, as I explicitly stated above. "Sure. Of course. So go ahead. You have my blessing." Which was not sarcasm. Secondly, I wasn't arguing against your opinion, or your choice, but you are explicitly doing so against mine. You are telling me that I'm doing a bad thing for choosing not posting a NM from the couch without having visited a cache location (that is "arguing against my presented opinion") - when what I actually said was that no one who has not visited a cache location any any obligation to post any log remotely. Tell me how that statement is wrong? If you agree, then I'm not making the wrong choice for deciding not to post a NM from the couch because "I" don't believe I'm confident in posting it accurately. Maybe I should just tell you when I choose not to post a remote NM, and you can judge the situation yourself. It wouldn't bother me at all if I see a NM the next day; whether or not it's found to be accurate. Where circumstances make it reasonable and appropriate, for example, where the CO is known to have left the game months or even years earlier and a body of evidence which clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that the CO has consistently failed to maintain other of their caches which have fallen in to disrepair. If the CO has also previously failed to respond to reviewer calls for maintenance that adds further weight to the argument for posting NM/NA on caches which warrant it without needing to go all the way out to GZ. Okay. I don't disagree. Seems you missed the point of my comment to dprovan. I said: "So, I generally won't post a NM unless I have visited and verified that to my satisfaction, the cache does need maintenance." dprovan replied: "But visiting GZ doesn't really change anything. You could go to GZ, get whatever satisfaction you need to make yourself feel comfortable, go home and the CO could still go to the cache and fix the problem between the time you visited the cache and the time he saw your NM log." That's when I said: "Why post any NM/NA at all unless you do it from GZ?" First, I said "generally"... (I rarely deal with absolutes) Second, I took dprovan's rebut to the extreme for illustration. I was not saying you should never post a NM or NA unless you're at GZ. His response claimed that with any log something could change between the visit and log (true), thus essentially any log could be inaccurate, which means ultimately he's making the argument that posting a NM or NA is meaningless unless done from GZ immediately. Which of course we all agree is ridiculous. And most definitely not what I said. And I also made a clear distinction about how differently I treat the posting of NM and NA logs. In the example you cite above, some might choose to remote-log a NM on a cache with a string of DNFs which clearly indicate the cache is in disrepair, and the CO is known to have left the game. Okay... I have no problem with that. But I'd say there's also a problem with the local community: Why did none of those DNFers post a NM if it's clear from their logs that there's a problem? Rather, I could be led instead to contacting one of them, and in an effort to help improve the community ethic regarding NM logs, recommend that they consider posting a NM log - since that is what it's for. After a time if they don't do it then I might post the NM if I haven't already. Basically, if it's "clear" that a cache needs maintenance, why must I be the one to post a remote NM without verifying that it does? I have chosen to generally not make that assumption. I haven't done that whole contact-a-past-DNFer thing yet, but I think that's a reasonable course of action if the goal is to help improve the state of geocaching against "dying" if this is one of the proposed reasons people think that "geocaching is dead" (ie, sub-par cache quality not being reported). So hey, it's a learning point! If you search, don't just log a DNF if you visited the site and it's clear the cache needs maintenance, log a NM too! Just like Harry Dolphin explained he did above. Then none of us would even be faced with the decision of whether or not to post a couch-NM, because there'd never be a cache with a string of DNFs "clearly indicating" the cache needs maintenance with being accompanied by a NM log! Win all around! It's a problem for me because you don't file the NM when it's needed because you've managed to talk yourself into an unlikely scenario where it won't be needed. You not posting the NM isn't a problem in itself. That's certainly up to you. But you coming here to the forums and making it sound like not posting the NM is the most reasonable choice is what concerns me. Did I say it was the "most reasonable choice"? Certainly not! Nor did I say or imply it was wrong to ever post a NM without having visited GZ. I said it's the way I choose to post logs. You do something different, and that's just fine with me. I said that multiple times. I was countering your claim that it's somehow bad to choose not to post a NM since not having visited GZ. You were arguing against that choice, which is ultimately making the argument that we have an obligation to post a NM if we merely believe (even if found to be correct) there is a problem with a cache even though it hasn't been verified first-hand. Man, if that were true it would be better for people not to have even looked at a listing that potentially needs maintenance at all! Ignorance is bliss! Otherwise the cacher-cops will be out telling people who've simply been exposed to a potential problem but didn't immediately log a NM from their couch that they're doing something baaaad. I'll say it again: Anyone who has not verified a cache's current state is under no obligation to post a relevant log from their couch. If they choose to because they feel it's justified, that's fine, it can be dealt with easily and swiftly by the CO, whether it's accurate or not. But they are not doing something bad by not posting it. In no way is that telling you what to do. It's framework in which both of our choices are valid, reasonable choices. I'm only replying because I feel my comments have been misrepresented. But to bring it back to the topic, if there is a factor towards the "death of geocaching", it may not be just "cache cops", but "cacher cops" as well. (and no, I don't think geocaching is dead, not in the slightest) I completely agree with this.
  18. Bingo! Now go join Tennis Courts, talk to the NW History Buff and see what you can get done there. Serving as an officer there would serve as a good "introductory experience" to category ownership. Keith
  19. It's a problem for me because you don't file the NM when it's needed because you've managed to talk yourself into an unlikely scenario where it won't be needed. You not posting the NM isn't a problem in itself. That's certainly up to you. But you coming here to the forums and making it sound like not posting the NM is the most reasonable choice is what concerns me. You understand exactly! So stop telling people to worry about it. There are a zillion possible reasons an NM or NA might be wrong. If you start worrying about those possibilities, you'll never post any NMs. (Well, I suppose my tense is wrong: everyone's already given up posting NMs and NAs, so the reviewers have taken over that job.) Well, of course. People who have visited GZ have absolutely zero obligation to post any log on a listing whatsoever. When you come here to the forums and explain why you didn't post an NM for no reason other than you haven't been to GZ, I take it as trying to talk people into following your example, so I argue against your publicly presented opinion. It doesn't matter to me what you actually do or why you do it.
  20. In that thread it turns out that many of those COs were not actually maintaining those caches. They had strings of DNFs, NMs, no OMs, reviewer notes and disables. I see that you were rewarded a Virtual. And looking at your stats I'd say well deserved. You have a reasonable amount of hides that you look after without getting a reviewer involved. You even check your caches just to check if they're still in good order. The anti-algorithm talk and 'why don't I get to own a virtual' protests spoke volumes.
  21. as close to a stalking target as I have been was a few years back. someone who I had never communicated with previously saw that I was going to attend an event. I got to the event and these two guys were sitting there that no one recognized so they were introducing themselves and asked "which one of you is bulldogblitz, we came just to talk to you" heh...it was a question about a cache in another part of the country and they were visiting my home area (not that they drove 700 miles to meet me... but it was convenient). they happened to be from the town where I grew up so we had much more to talk about than a single cache 100 miles from them and 600 miles from me.
  22. I don't necessarily hate them, but I do value them far less than any other cache. I could talk about them for a while but I guess I'll just sum it up. -I remember almost none of the micros I have found. Meanwhile I could talk for hours about interesting small to medium caches I found and the memories I made searching for them. -When looking for normal sized caches I generally expect the journey to be the majority of the fun, and the actual hunt to be somewhere between leisurely to moderate. When hunting for micros I know I will be scouring around for 10-20 minutes for something minuscule. Not a particularly fun prospect. -Some people "micro-bomb" an area, placing tens of them all over an area in a wide radius. I have a fair few problems with this. Due to the proximity rule it cuts off large areas where larger, more deliberate caches could be placed. When one cacher drops 20 micros in an area, I feel 1/20th of the accomplishment in finding them, and it becomes a chore. No matter how much effort it may have taken to place them all, it appears lazy when that's all they hide and they're all over one area. Plus, finding nothing but micros over and over again gets boring! -I feel excitement and happiness and anticipation when I find a normal sized geocache. I feel nothing when I find a microcache. "Well, there it is." You could probably analyze that further but generally speaking I just have no fun finding them anymore.
  23. BAD NEWS about the Myncaster station. I stopped by there today and was able to talk with a farmer just north of it. What appears on satellite views, in the vicinity of where the station once was, is an old barn & hay shed. The Myncaster station was moved north and west from there some time ago and has since been destroyed. SOB, SOB! Keith
  24. You see, that's why analogy's don't really work all that well as arguments. Money = FP's breaks down because you are spending any money given by an employer (even investing is giving that money to someone else to "hold" for you) which you don't do with FP's. Employee of the Month is handled very differently with each list. So trying to force one thing (FP's) into another model (money) only works just so far. So let's quit arguing about a poor analogy, talk about FP's and goals in "awarding" or "collecting" them.
  25. First off I'm not picking on this person, not going to say what cache it is or who placed it, but I did want to talk about it and see if you had any similar experiences. Was alerted of a geocache recently published near me last night so I went out but was unable to find it. Sent the OP a message asking for a hint, and they directed me pretty far from the coordinates, about 20-30 feet away. I went back this morning with the hint and lo and behold tossed in the bushes pretty far away was just a simple GLAD container with 2 pieces of blank scrap paper, a clothespin, and a rubber eraser. FTF, hooray? I checked out their profile and this person joined only a couple weeks ago with 3 finds and 3 hides. I understand not everyone has money to spend on official geocaching containers and crazy swag, and in a cute way this is basically geocaching at its essence in a little Tupperware container, but would any of you been happy to find this after searching 2 different days for a total of maybe an hour and a half? There's a reason why Geocaching recommends you find something like 20 caches before hiding your own. Honestly when I saw it in the bush I thought it was some random trash someone threw out of their car window as they passed by, I know you've all seen the type of stuff I'm referring to while hunting. The placement was also super strange. I'm going to message the OP and mention that there is a big tree absolutely perfect for hiding this in about 20 feet up the trail, with lots of holes and hiding spots. Tossed in a random bush by the side of the road way off the coordinates is not fun to find for anyone. Anyway, hopefully I can work with this new player to maybe help them and make this cache better, and was wondering if you guys have any similar stories? Have any worse experiences? All things considered it's not THAT bad, so I know you guys must have some horror stories worth sharing.
×
×
  • Create New...