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. Hey, I can talk to this! This happened to me. My decision was to change the stage while keeping the rest of the multi the same. If you mean the "virtual/physical" attribute for the stage, I actually did not change the attribute, either. I'm not going to explain why, but I will mention that you should feel free to change the attribute if you can. Furthermore, I'll tell you that this approach did cause some confusion when a previous finder checked the stage on a whim and discovered the original sign based pointer was missing. She filed an NM pointing out it was broken. No big deal: I just filed an OM explaining that it had changed, and also sent that previous finder a note thanking her for the notice and explaining what had happened. It broke my heart when the original pointer disappeared, so I could only be thankful that someone else remembered how it used to be fondly enough to think I should know that it was broken.
  2. "a young lady at Apple support" isn't going to be in a position to help you. At best, she'll manage to pass your issue along in a way that might get it to the right people there. The folks who need to check into this at Apple are those that manage their mail servers with the domains those of you with issues are mentioning. It may be difficult or even impossible to talk to the right people. You literally need to talk to one of the administrators of their mail servers who set up the reputation rules for the server, or who obtain that information from a 3rd party to determine how to manage mail from other servers based upon their 'reputation'. Alternately -- Groundspeak, it's your ball again! You may well be getting bounce messages from these Apple email servers that are providing an indication of why your mail is being rejected. Could you have a look? The bounces you were getting from Comcast were trying to tell you what the problem was. A peek at your server logs might turn up something similar for the Apple servers.
  3. Parents know their kid ain't cute they just don't talk about it.
  4. Fully agree. Not few cache owners are the opposite here - quite easy to offend by an honest log. But I do not think it is too different in other places in the world... Aren't we all weak egomaniacs!? By the way: we usually talk about too LOW ratings. Did anyone of you ever complain about a rating that was too high? Finding the terrain 3 cache high in the tree or the terrain 4 cache which needs a ladder makes me usually complain about the rating. But what about the terrain 5 cache that can easily be climbed to so that terrain 4 would suit better? Or the difficulty 4 mystery cache that anyone solves in 3 minutes. Do you complain that the rating is too high? Perhaps I do not do this as often as other way round but I think it is important to do so, too. If you do in both directions it shows that you want the rating to suit the cache. If you only complain about low ratings it might show that you want to have a big statistics. Both may be true (for all of us)... Recently I solved a D3 mystery in one minute. Now the cache is rated 2.5 after my log - any maybe D2 may be even better as the riddle was really easy. The owner listened to me and no one else complained about the decreased rating as it was just too high... May be something different if the D5 cache would become a D3?! ;-)
  5. I think we are still on topic, and I don't mean to offend Touchstone - if there really is an issue of COs (note plural) unreasonably deleting peoples logs, and continuing to do so, then let's talk about that as a reason for a change of some kind to deal with it... But I'm not seeing it...
  6. To add to the above... Since I'm quite a fan of Earthcaches, and somewhat of a promoter and advocate for earthcaching, I often talk to people about earthcaching. Of those who aren't into earthcaching, here are the top 3 reasons why they don't do it: Number 1 - Too much work to do, too complex, hard to complete requirements, don't know what I'm looking at, don't have something to write down answers on, etc. (Some of this is being unprepared, some of it relates to overly complex ECs they have looked at, or even poorly written up ECs that don't give enough background info) Number 2 - It's virtually impossible to get an EC published, even when you jump through all the hoops, more hoops get created and there's so much inconsistency in the reviewing. (Well, no offence to the reviewers in this thread who have been very helpful in this discussion, but I tend to agree with this one - from my experience I have wasted many many many hours, probably 100s trying to get ECs published and then given up because of sometimes outrageously stretched and pedantic interpretations of guidelines, sometimes entirely made up ones) Number 3 - Oh, there isn't a number 3... Nope, I have never ever heard the reason, in the hundreds of people I have talked to about earthcaching, that they don't do ECs because of COs deleting their logs too quickly and upsetting them. Not once.
  7. FRS/GMRS Radios are, as the name implies, dual-band radios that can transmit on either the FRS (Family Radio Service) or GMRS (General Mobile Radio Service) bands. The European PMR radios transmit on yet another band, can have more power output and external antennas, but of course are not legal in the US. Generally the channels 1 through 15 are FRS and 16-22 are GMRS. FRS does not require an FCC license. GMRS requires a ridiculously expensive FCC license that practically no one buys. If you are old enough to remember what happened with CB licenses, same thing... it seems that the FCC learned nothing. Geocachers have chosen channel 2, an FRS channel, as the primary contact channel. What this means is that everyone monitors channel 2 and when a contact is made the participants move off to another channel to carry on the conversation. The FCC giveth and the FCC taketh away. They gave us civilian access to these bands and frequencies, then limited the type-accepted radio's power and antenna capability. Limited them so much, in fact, that if you can't hit who you are talking to with a rock then they probably can't hear you! The FRS band is limited to, I think, 3 watts and the built-in antenna. The GMRS band is limited to, I think, 5 watts and may have an external antenna. In radio it's all about the antenna, power isn't so important. Since geocachers have chosen channel 2 (FRS) as their contact channel (in order to avoid buying the GMRS license), and the built-in stubby antenna on FRS radios can't transmit or receive very well, don't expect a lot of contacts from anyone who can't actually see you. If you are properly licensed then once you make contact on channel 2 you can move to a GMRS channel and get a bit more distance. When it comes to radio specifications manufacturers lie. They do so by telling the truth in ways that you don't expect. An FRS/GMRS radio advertised to communicate 17 miles won't do it in your hands. It will do it, at night, under certain atmospheric conditions, from the upper levels between boats over salt water. Since it can do it, albeit under laboratory conditions, that's what the advertise, thereby lying to you by telling you the truth, just not the whole truth. The radio waves on both FRS and GMRS are line-of-sight. How many times can you see the person you want to talk to 17 miles away? Even 1 mile away? Rarely. If you can, if there's nothing between you, if there's no sun activity, and if atmospheric propagation is just right, you might can talk that far. Realistically... you can't. You can expect decent FRS/GMRS communications up to a maximum of one-half mile, and much less than that in an urban environment, reliably... there will be exceptions based on topography and atmospheric band conditions. {Someone will invariably reply to this "I regularly talk 7 miles on mine!" ... great... show me. You won't often do it even in Alabama's mild hills!} So, here's the interesting part... FCC type-accepted FRS/GMRS radios all have exactly the same capabilities! The $19. Cobra set from WalMart will work just as well as the $79 Motorola set from REI! The expensive sets usually have more whistles and bells, none of which you need, but they all transmit and receive under the same FCC limitations. Just read the specs for output power and if the radio transmits at 3 watts FRS and 5 watts GMRS then it's as capable as any other of its type on the market. CB Radio (11 meter) is a step up, allowing up to (I think) 7 watts and much more effective antennas, but very few geocachers have CBs, especially hand-helds. Amateur (ham) radio is another step up, with up to 100 watts output from a hand-held (Handi-Talkie), and very effective antennas with dozens if not hundreds of miles range, but extremely few geocachers use them. Where there is cell coverage, your best bet is cell phones (they are radios but without some of the limitations) and the PTT (Push-To-Talk) cell phones can be used just like a hand-held radio... in fact they are one, just with world-wide range! Where there is no cell coverage, any FRS/GMRS radio is about equal. Save your money. 73 de Ed W4AGA
  8. I'm not infuriated, but it does seem stupid. If ever there was a good example for posting an NM, this is it, yet they don't even mention that. Instead, we're supposed to quietly talk to the CO in order to to keep it a secret so no know else that might want to look for the cache knows it's a piece of junk. Sheesh. I'm not surprised by the "replace with fresh paper" suggestion even though it's unbelievably silly: ignoring the signatures, the log they show might have been added yesterday from the looks of it. By the time I get through all that, I'm only mildly amused by the idea that they are, it's true, telling seekers that they are supposed to perform maintenance if they can. Astonishingly counterproductive.
  9. 14 in 24h?!? That is so Amazing Race. Every so often I talk up the idea of doing the 8 countries from Panama City to Cancun, and - because things aren't that efficient down there - I keep wondering if 3 weeks might be rushing it. Interestingly, it looks like last-minute one-way flights home from Cancun cost next to nothing. I'd never have guessed. So it leaves the door open to an open-ended trip. Find a paradise beach along the way? Stay a while.
  10. I know you're (probably) not serious, but #2 and #3 sound like good ways to (1) get your cache archived when the foreign reviewer finds out, (2) lose all trust with your local reviewer(s) when the the foreign reviewer lets your local reviewer(s) know you are not to be trusted (reviewers talk all the time, you know), and (3) potentially have Groundspeak suspend your account or take other sanctions. I would recommend instead: 1. Plan a non-physical cache, such as an earthcache or (if you have one) virtual reward, and plan it so that maintenance will not be necessary. 2. Plan a meaningful event that will give local geocachers and other travelers a chance to meet and greet. 3. Find a local maintainer who will actually maintain your cache BEFORE hiding the container and submitting the cache for review. 4. Failing #1, #2, and #3, don't hide a cache.
  11. If you've been to the cache site for sure don't be timid. If you've never been to the area, mind your own business. That's my philosophy. But then I am not perfect either. Geocaching is a community thing, if all of us just mind our own business, geocaching will die. TRIM Oh pu-lease. Was my point that difficult to see? Was your point that you're not perfect either? I think I see the point and I think I agree with it. We can and should all identify problems so they can be resolved, one way or another. Posting N/A is a serious action. We all know that n000bs sometimes post it too quickly (they search for 5 minutes and assume it's missing). To me, posting N/A on a cache you've never visited is a bit extreme. IMO that crosses the line to becoming a "cache cop." I was making a joke unrelated to the topic. I agree with bflentje, but I disagree with two parts of your response. NA isn't "a serious action". It's just a log type, and people sometimes get it wrong. If you think it's "serious", then you take the game too seriously. Then, there's the "cache cop" thing. We're all "cache cops", and I'm really sick of seeing this tossed around as an insult. Yes, yes, people can be overbearing or deliberately inflammatory when posting NAs. But that's a HUGE minority of cases for how the NA log is actually used in the overwhelming majority of cases. And in those where it is not, see "taking the game too seriously" if someone gets undie-bundled over a NA log. It's not just the job of a Reviewer to look at a cache and weigh the evidence for a log. If I can tell that a cache needs maintenance as I'm researching for a trip, I can certainly log that. And if the case seems very clear that a NA is possible, then there's really no reason not to log that as well. Now, if you want to talk about a big difference here--then we can talk about where someone is not a "cache cop", but just a plain "jerk". That is when one might simply start couch-clicking through cache listings and logging NA from their armchair with Cheeto dusted fingers when they have no plan whatsoever to ever be at or near that cache.
  12. Well, of course you do. Let's look at this user friendly block of BOLD ALL CAPS RED TEXT that appears on your earthcaches. So friendly! Reminds me of the signs I see on the way to work, except those have less bold, red, and upper case text, despite the fact that they talk about the use of deadly force, not log deletion. In light of the moderator note below, let me clarify my intent. I don't mean this as a personal affront, but as an illustration on how subjective reasonableness is at play here. You have similar approaches to warning of deletion, so you view this as reasonable. I do not, so from my perspective, it is not as reasonable. But unless either of us work for appeals, then ultimately these are just our personal opinions and approaches.
  13. I think it's more of a simplification for purposes of discussion than a presumption. Certainly replacing a damaged container with an identical container on a historically well maintained cache is less of an issue, but it's just a difference in degree. Like most things in geocaching, nothing's black and white even though we love to talk as if they were. Replacing a damaged container is more likely useful, but it can also be a problem if the cache is habitually damaged and the CO never does maintenance. In that case, although replacing the container seems like a nice thing to do, it results in keeping a cache going that really should be scrapped. I do think it's a good example for the people that claim all non-CO maintenance is done by number grubbers. You can sign the log in a damaged container and already claim the find, so the complaint that seeker maintenance is only done for selfish reasons can't be applied when a failing container is replaced with a good one.
  14. Friendlyness? Sometimes a cacher simply forgets to sent the answers. Or we had the situation that one of the team (let's say me) said he sent the answers and forget to do so and others logged reffering to the answers sent in by frostengel - oups! So why always state the guidelines and make anything a threat? "I will delete your log..." Try to be kind a find a good formulation - than you are on the safe side and others will be happy, too. I have an unknown cache where regularly cachers log though they only have found the empty nano cache which is a red herring at stage one. The puzzle comes afterwards and in the end a tree awaits. So they find a kind of 1.5/1.5 traditional which should be 4.5/4.5 unknown cache - and the rating is correct. I have never deleted the log at once, I always send a message and give them some time to respond. And if nothing happens I still can delete the log - up to now I never had to quote any rules of the guidelines. Some of the cachers respond and apologize (and are interested in the cache and we have a nice talk), others don't react, not before and not after the deletion. Too complicated? Not for me, it does not take soooo much time....
  15. 1) just wait for a week (or so) 2) then remind the cacher via PN or message center that he has to provide the answers; say that it is okay if they'll need time but then they can write one sentence to you about it ("I am on vacation, will do this in three weeks.") so you know what is up; add and excuse in advance that you have to delete the log if you here nothing for the next three days 3) if nothing comes: delete the log I don't think anyone can blame you for doing so and as you already have excused you don't have to take any further action. Sounds laborious but you just use the same E-Mail anytime. If nothing happens after 3) it is okay (for you!) If the cachers answer your message afterwards it is okay - you can talk to each other. If they simply repeat the cache log without telling you anything restart with point 2) once (perhaps using slightly different mail) and if necessary delete it again. Contact Groundspeak if they don't stop found logging without sending any answers. You have sent them three or more messages (perhaps you can use different systems) so I think you are on the right side and no one can blame you haven't tried anything to make the log a regular one. After all what happened the guidelines force you to log the find. I don't think somethink like that will happen very often!? Then it should be no problem. :-)
  16. You seem to think Bundyrumandcoke is complaining, but I see this as just a conversation about some behavior by a reviewer that seems inconsistent or confusing. I'm not sure what your reviewer is doing, but people rarely post DNFs or NMs on powertrails, so there's no reason to expect a reviewer to have any reason to step in. From what I can tell, the reviewer that's changing things in your area is reacting to things in the log, so that's a different kettle of fish. There has been a general tightening up of standards including quicker unilateral action by reviewers, and this might be even more disconcerting when a reviewer with tighter standards steps in and starts acting in an area that has a tradition of looser standards. The best way to find out what's going on and provide feedback is to talk to the reviewer. Maybe he needs some lessons in local standards, or maybe he can give you an update on the newer GS policies. One of the trends I'm seeing is towards more universal standards and ignoring local preferences, and, from what you're saying, that would hit your area particularly hard. Talking it over is the best way to approach issues like that. I'm no expert or anything, but I think in years past, reviewers were more personally involved with the caches, so in many case they weren't just passively ignoring certain problem caches, they were actively protecting them. I think that's fine. What's important is whether people are enjoying a cache, and I consider the rules just something to help us do that. Recently, I think reviewers are becoming more detached from the community for various reasons, although I think shear volume of caches is the main one. I understand that, too. That makes them more likely to react to a cache that's having a little trouble than they might have back when there were fewer caches, many of which were planted by the reviewers' friends. One mantra the guidelines have always stressed is that there's no such thing as precedent in geocaching. Just because you've seen something somewhere else doesn't mean it will be allowed for you.
  17. The rule is there for the benefit of the cache owner. It allows them to delete finds, they believe to be bogus, in which the log was not signed. Other than that it's completely up to the cache owner to decide what's an acceptable find. Talk about geo-litter. I'm probably responsible for a box or two of pens I've lost in the woods over the years.
  18. Yes, ALL those things! Arrgghhh! If you don't know why I said that, look up "International Talk Like a Pirate Day", matey!
  19. What if you liked "Send To GPS", but it's gone? There's an interesting thread here on the GSAK forum, about how you may be able to load a GPS that otherwise doesn't accept "GPX" files directly. "GSAK" can talk to many of the old GPSs. Sorry, I don't have a list of them. The process will be something like, click "GPX File", and send that to GSAK, which in turn sends the cache info to the GPS. Looks like it's not "one click", but maybe it will do. Remember that GSAK is full-fledged Geocaching database software, so you could do pretty much everything, more or less without having to visit the web site.
  20. The maximum distance you can move it on your own is the 0.1 mile/528 feet/161 meter distance mentioned by hzoi. The system will prevent you from moving it farther than that in an "Update coordinates" log. Side note: Don't ever try submitting multiple "Update coordinates" logs in a row to move a cache farther than that, because the reviewers don't like that. Talk to the reviewer to move a cache farther than 0.1 miles/528 feet/161 meters.
  21. Talk about being way too prevalent in major cities - just looking at the map of Boston, it's worse than Waymarking McDonalds.
  22. It seems like that one is all messed up. That's all on the TB Owner. It's his prerogative. The Owner gets to make it as weird as he likes. It may not be all that playable nor remain in play that way. But there's no one stopping him. Probably nobody could talk him out of it, either.
  23. Dear Computer experts, I am a geocache user who enjoys walking and finding a cache every now and then, that is my pleasure. I used to press a button and the Garmin 60CSx would know where to take us to. Now I have to do things with files and move them to places I do not understand. Can someone translate all the GPX computer talk to human speech so I can go for my hike? In other words, how can I easily move the waypoints to my GPS?
  24. Hey, not funny. I am still figuring the website out. If we are able to log in with our Facebook account, then can our Facebook friends view our geocaching activities and stats? I was also wondering if this website has a chatroom. It would be nice to talk to other geocachers.
  25. In addition to the tips you may find in these forums, and the links that @cerberus1 provided, the best thing you can do is to go to an event and talk with other cachers. There is an event, 2nd Annual USU Botanical Center CITO, just 11 miles north of you in 3 1/2 weeks. There will be several very-experienced cachers in attendance, all of whom will be very happy to discuss tips and tricks with you. Some may even offer to take you caching with them. I happen to know the event host. He is a pretty cool guy. By the way, I previously tried to find the cache you DNFed and failed a couple times. After the cache owner checked on it and said it was still there, I was encouraged to try again. I finally found it, thought it was quite clever, and even gave it a favorite point. You will have to read my May 12, 2018, Found it log. That is the best I can offer without giving it away.
×
×
  • Create New...