Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for '춘천출장안마,서귀포조건만남【TALK:ZA32】'.

  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Geocaching HQ Communications
    • Announcements
    • Release Notes
    • User Insights
  • General Geocaching Discussions
    • Getting Started
    • How Do I...?
    • Geocaching Topics
    • Geocache Types and Additional GPS Based Gameplay
  • Community
    • Geocaching Discussions by Country
  • Trackables
    • Travel Bugs
    • Geocoins
  • Bug Reports and Feature Discussions
    • Website
    • Geocaching® iPhone App
    • Geocaching® Android App
  • Geocaching and...
    • GPS/API/Technology
    • Education
    • Hiking/Backpacking
    • Photography
    • Design

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Location

Found 27836 results

  1. There has been talk of a system that would fulfill this requirement.
  2. Some odd reason, once in a while I forget that I went into the woods with a hiking stick. I always have a hiking stick. We don't usually buy cheap, so then I have to lug my can wherever I left it last. Talk about a spoiler ! "Yoo-hoo ! The cache is right here...!" The last time was only eight miles, but it was almost dark. I was second-to-find, so left a note if someone would grab it for me. - And they did. But I never forget a writing instrument.
  3. Here's an unpopular point of view. "One and Done", "Weekend Cachers"; whatever you call them. People who download the app and go out without knowing or caring what they're doing. We talk about them here in the fora all the time. This doesn't make them necessarily bad, just uninformed or uncaring. People tend to see what's in front of them as "it". The App can say "Go to the Website" on every screen, but the average person;e tendency is to say "Well, I'm here in the app, playing the game," so they won't. ---------- If you have to balance the 'business needs' of GS as a money-making entity against our needs of protecting the hobby against people on a joy ride through random things to do, I'll pick protectionism every time. This ISN'T Angry Birds or Candy Crush as someone alluded to above. At it's core this is a manually constructed, human effort hobby that exists in the physical world. It doesn't matter how many people have access to the top level of Angry Birds (if there is such a thing) because NOTHING is at stake except profit from app-sales. In Geocaching, what's at stake is the physical effort, time, expense and materiel that goes into the creation and maintenance of the playing pieces in the REAL WORLD, otherwise known as geocaches. Yes, you can play for free forever. You can even HIDE caches for free! That's a wonderful, respectable operating foundation of the company. But, it's SOOOOOO easy to ruin a geocache, even if you have no malice. Even if you have respect. Take stuff home, leave it exposed, log spoilers, relocate to make it easier, throwdowns.... We get all that from PAYING players who presumably should have a higher chance of knowing better! To allow access to all but the most elementary game pieces for players with NO skin in the game is irresponsible and abusive to cache owners. I WISH there was a way to give cachers more perspective and education. I WISH human nature didn't tend toward ONLY self-fulfillment. I WISH that there was a way to immediately get across the concept that the COMPANY didn't hide this stuff; your fellow PLAYERS did, and maybe people wouldn't treat caches like they do public facilities. So, no, the unlockable features of the app should be a reward for actually joining; investing in the hobby. Basic membering which involves using the website may not be the most efficient way to play, but think of it as a toll road. You can take the smaller roads for free, or you can 'join' and get a smoother, faster ride. With reststops and bathrooms. But, it's said, how can people really tell if they want to join unless they can play? Well, I think caching is something that will grab you if you're the right type. Want to try 'higher' stuff? Get yourself a one-month inexpensive membership (or whatever it is). Put SOMETHING personal into the game to be granted access to the shared property of cache owners. Otherwise, there are LOTS of "Angry Birds" games to play. The unpopular part of this? I suppose I'm all for a 'smaller', well-played game. "After all, Bill," my Dad would say. "If everybody does it, then EVERYBODY would do it."
  4. Re: cerberus1 wrote: "You're saying the Geocaching Regional Policies Wiki isn't good enough ?" Yes. I am saying that. The Wiki is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far nor cover a very large percentage of current cache placements. Let me define the issue as narrowly as possible. The goal is to have good caches placed in interesting area with the permission of the landowner. The guidelines require that anyone placing a geocache get landowner permission. Let's assume for the sake of argument that this is actually a requirement that The Reviewer follows. Let's say I want to place a geocache where one has never been before. I need to get permission. It's up to me. I accept that. I figure out who to call, get permission, place the cache. No problem. It's something I've done many times in several different states. In my expirience permission, is either flatly denied without explanation, or granted after some process is followed. Now lets say I want to place a cache where one or more caches have previously been placed. Supposedly whoever placed thse caches, got permission, and passed that information on to the Reviewer. It's a very simple matter for The Reviewer to look up that information and supply it upon request. In the discussion above it was stated that if a landowner objected The Reviewer would relay the information to the landowner about who gave permission, so why not relay the same information upon request to a cacher who requests it? It is still up to the cacher to make the call, get permission, or if the "things have changed" figure out who to contact. Not a big deal to supply some possibly helpful information upon request, is it? For caches placed "where caches have been before" there are really only two reasons for The Reviewer not to answer "Who have other people contacted to get permission?": 1, The Reviewer has the information but chooses not to share it. 2, The Reviewer does not have the information because it was not previously provided. This is an instance where the person enforcing the Rules could be helpful to the person attempting to follow the rules. Why not be helpful? If someone asked me "who did you talk to toget permission" I would be happy to pass it on. Why aren't Reviewers willing to do so upon request?
  5. That's fair enough, but some people talk as though it's the only way, and the website is redundant. Personally when I started geocaching, I found my first 180 caches without a GPS or a phone, and I could only see some caches, and had no idea other caches even existed. I LOVED that, as when I finally became a member all these other caches appeared near where I lived. Rather than get upset I couldn't see them, I was thrilled I hadn't been able to see them, as now I had a whole lot more local caches to find. It was like a birthday present for me. Also, not having a GPS or phone for my first 180 caches, taught me to look for other clues when searching, such as moved pebbles, broken twigs and bent grass.
  6. If you're looking at just putting a bit of metal with the code, or the code and a small amount of text such as the TB name then you could look into letter stamps for metal which come in a variety of sizes and styles. Many hardware stores carry the heavy duty ones that will work on steel, some craft stores carry light duty (read: cheaper) ones that will work on aluminium or thin stainless steel. If you get friendly with some local engineering or engraving place, you might be able to talk them into laser engraving some metal tags for you on some scrap metal for only a few dollars. I haven't had any TB's go missing (yet), not sure how much a difference it makes that I've only sent out proxies. But I've only sent out a few and none have been out long.
  7. Hi all, today I had a rather frustrating experience with Adventure Labs. After more or less ignoring the cache-type completely, I tried one next to my homezone called Rothsee. Went to the first station, entered the answer... wrong. Again... wrong. Verified the correctness with some friends who already did it. Right answer, no typos... wrong. Thing is, while we in fact are in Germany, my iPhone runs English. So we pulled my wife's iPhone (running German), installed the app, logged in, provided the exact same answer... correct. So while we were able to complete the cache, I still wonder if there is a problem with the internationalization of either that particular lab or the app itself. Answers should the unique b/c e.g. the solution on a plate is always the same word (in this case the name of the manufacturer), no matter the nationality of the player, or clearly state "provide the translated version of the word." What should not happen is that the app fails with particular language settings. What does a tourist do, if he can't easily switch his entire phone to German? If there are any developers of that app listening in here... we need to talk. #Carsti
  8. Thanks! I finally found it. The blog entry was posted way back in November and isn't in any of the categorized lists, so it took me a while to track it down. No reason for you to apologize, but you might want to see about the souvenir description giving some slight hint about what the souvenir is actually granted for. With every other similar souvenir I looked at, the description always ends with "You earned this souvenir by...". It's as if Last 2020 was done by "the new guy" who didn't realize there was a defined formula they were supposed to follow. (I'm not complaining, mind you, I just think it's funny, especially because thread came up at just the right time for me to even look at the souvenir.) I did find the newer 2020 Geocaching HQ souvenir moments blog entry which doesn't mention Last 2020 but does talk about the traditional 12/31 and 1/1 souvenirs. I assume the person writing that newer article hadn't heard that the one day souvenirs have been replaced by these week long versions this year.
  9. First, I agree with RuideAlmeida: if you want to be strict, that's fine, but in order to reject the find, you really need to know for sure whether they signed the log, so physically check it. If you want to let it slide, that's OK, too. To avoid the problem cerberus1 mentions, when you check the physical log, that counts as owner maintenance, so post an OM and mention the missing signature and admit you've giving this one person some slack, but no one else should expect any. (It doesn't matter whether that's true or not. ) In my opinion, what you do or don't do about it as a CO are somewhat secondary to the question of how to teach the seeker about multicaches in case they really don't know about them. Whatever you do with their log, they'll likely never notice or won't understand. To help them learn, don't worry about being a CO: you're just another friendly cacher. I agree the message center is probably out, but they'll notice an email if their address is set right. (If it isn't, then there's nothing you can do unless you meet them in person sometime.) So I tend to send email with enough information to make them realize how multis work if they don't know without flat out accusing of them of not knowing what a multi is in case they do. The most important thing is to think of it more like you're explaining what a double IPA is to your drinking buddy and forget anything about the original owner/seeker, somewhat antagonistic dynamic in which they technically did something wrong that you have to prevent or correct. Imagine you noticed this in a log for someone else's cache so when you're dealing with the newbie, there's no need to talk about whether you'll reject his find.
  10. Here in Australia we also have events for the following: May 4th - Star Wars Day September 19th - International Talk Like a Pirate Day November 14th March 14th - PI Day June - World Wide Flash Mob December 23rd - Festivus
  11. Now that you've had the DriveAssist 51 for awhile, what do you think? I just dropped by DriveAssist 50 (which we loved) and totalled it. I tried to order another, and they sent me the 51. I'm not really sure what the difference is. I've heard talk about having to use a smartphone app while driving, which I'd rather not do. I used to upload caching routes from GSAK or Cachetur thru TripPlanner.
  12. No, I believe I am reading exactly what they wrote in the blog post - you're inferring something more positive from it. And that's fine... Seems you selectively disincluded the following point I made: And there has been plenty of talk about 'mundane', 'run of the mill' geocaches proliferating in various places of the community, so they're not pulling this 'archive' idea out of thin air. I'd wager this advice is based on general community feedback. Some people are labeling this advice to consider archival a negative thing. Clearly that opinion is contested. I'm not inferring something positive, I'm saying there's no need to infer something negative. It is what it is. And since clearly the rest of the intent is to encourage more positive geocache hides, why would one infer that considering archival of a cache the cache owner feels is worth archiving, a bad thing? Unless you consider merely asking a cache owner to consider archival for any reason (let along reasons generally to be considered good things) a bad thing? How am I dismissing opinions? You're entitled to them. We all are. But yes, let's start going meta in this disagreement and try to discredit the other person's position by saying they're discrediting yours. Disagreeing is not dismissing. Probably because of a lot of community discussion and complaints and feedback about the proliferation of mundane geocaches, powertrails, lack of maintenance, lack of creativity, etc etc... Again, it's nice seeing your stats. But it doesn't apply everywhere. And not everyone likes the same cache styles or hides. So, if I enjoy mundane caches, does that mean they should be protected against archival because they "can" be enjoyed? The intent to encourage cache owners to consider things that indicate a geocache may be more widely providing a positive experience. If a good cache gets archived because the cache owner decides it's time, sure, if I found it before I might sad because I may know some other people who'd enjoy it like I did. But it's that's CO's choice, their decision. I can only hope that perhaps they're thinking of another good idea for a cache. HQ wants to encourage that. Let them. They're not telling people to archive caches. They're implying, rightly I would say, that favourite points and regular (which is a relative term) finding of a cache is a good sign it's a positive experience. I would not expect a 3 day wilderness camping excursion cache to expect 15 finds a day to be 'regular'. Likewise, I wouldn't simply look at FPs to determine quality, but the tone of the logs that are posted. So if I were the cache owner I wouldn't archive that 3 day camping trip cache solely because it's found twice a year and has 2 FPs out of 15 finds, especially if all the logs are praising the experience. There, I've now considered the suggested indicators of a good cache and chosen not to archive. That's all it takes.
  13. This has come up before. Encouraging a positive isn't discouraging everything else. You have to infer that everything else is a negative. They are encouraging people to create quality geocache listings. And there has been plenty of talk about 'mundane', 'run of the mill' geocaches proliferating in various places of the community, so they're not pulling this 'archive' idea out of thin air. I'd wager this advice is based on general community feedback. They didn't say no one like mundane caches. They simply asked cache owners to consider their geocache hides more carefully and aim towards quality hides. Again, I never said the wording was the best, but I never got from them that people should archive all their caches that don't get FPs or are found rarely. Seems like the people who are inferring that are more likely the ones who are or have been critical of HQ's leanings for a while - ie, have a bias already. If someone wants to hide geocaches, and they infer that they should archive their FP-less, lonely geocaches regardless of any other factors, most likely they will hide new ones, and having already 'heeded' the advice, they'll probably aim better with that mentality in mind. Or, they may keep those old hides without archiving them and just start placing more towards that mentality. Who knows how people will interpret the advice. But the fact is, the advice is entirely towards geocaches that are attempts at being more "FP worthy" (generally excellent advice) and more likely to be attractive to more geocachers to find (also generally excellent advice). And all of those concepts may be regionally interpreted; there are no objective standards or thresholds or universal definitions provided, which means one must interpret it for one's area, and consider providing geocaches that people will enjoy - whatever that may mean.
  14. If you want to tell someone you liked their log, email works... We do that all the time. +1 - if your intent is for the CO to show appreciation to the writer of a log, a message or email will do that. It's happened to me (CO messages me with thanks for a helpful log or glad that I enjoyed their cache, etc.) and I, as a CO, have also contacted finders when I liked their write up. It's a bonus when you meet each other at an event, and can talk about each others' caches in person (which hasn't happened in a loooooong time, and I miss the interaction). Back on topic - a personal note is more direct if you want to show appreciation to the finder who wrote the log. Unless I go back to visit a previous find and read other logs, I'd have no way of knowing if the CO marked my log for "appreciation".
  15. We kinda understand except for this jumping through hoops thing... We never knew of a "wiki" until entering the forums. Never called or emailed anyone, instead heading personally to township buildings, county offices, and the like to find out who to talk to. - One cache had the other 2/3rds attend months of township meetings before they could "fit her in" to discuss it (no parks director). We found that a plus with standing in front of a parks director is it keeps the "paper shuffling/passing the buck" at bay too. The "wiki" is only reference. It says on their page "This site may not be a complete or accurate list of land policies.", and, "if no policies for the area you’re looking for are listed, that doesn't mean no policies exist. You must still obtain permission to place your geocache from the landowner or land manager..." - We've asked for permission since starting, and never considered it "jumping through hoops", but respect to the landowner. On the page (to the right) it does say, "If you have an update, email the community reviewer(s) listed." Why not be proactive and offer known areas to your Reviewers to get things rolling?
  16. I'm not sure in which category I should put this in. There is a Jewish cemetery in my neighbourhood. It was used from 1904 to 1941. There are no funerals here since ca. 1945. It is not abandoned, because there is a person taking care of the whole old complex. So it's not fitting in "abandoned cemeteries" You can see some part of the cemetery, because of the low situated wall. But it's also not open to public. You can't enter there just like that, you would have to talk to the keeper. So i don't really think it fits into "cemeteries worldwide". There are some graves with no names, but many of them are visible, so it's not exactly "graves of the unknown". I can't fit it in any category so it would meet the standards of it, but this is an important place on the map of my small city. What do you think?
  17. I have read (much of) the above and cannot help thinking about a sport you do not talk about here: strolling. Not a sport, you say? Indeed it has no element of competition, you do not get any points added to whatever, heck you don't even have the effort that is associated with trekking/hiking. You only walk to a place, maybe to another place, then in the end you return. That's it. Lots of people do it, only: they are not geocachers. The latter kind of animal seems to be motivated by a treat, a reward at the end of the effort. I don't know how many geocachers are aware of Groundspeak's proprietary version of strolling, but there can't be many, as GS decided to leave out of the new dashboard the link that has been present in the old one for as long as I can remember. My guess is that hardly anybody clicked it to go visit the Waymarking.com website in the last so many years. Like AL, Waymarking has a separate website and isn't really connected to geocaching. And of course the animals don't get a treat to lure them there. As I see it, AL is the new flavour of strolling and this time, GS decided to include the reward. That's how I interpret the fact that you can increase your counter really fast with it. For the record: I don't particularly like AL, but I don't fulminate against it, I just choose to ignore it. Those who like AL should go strolling. Live and let live.
  18. To cerberus1: Re: "Are you referring to the "frisbee rule", where people assume that if other hobbies are allowed, this hobby "must be" allowed too ? We took months at meetings until a township would talk to us about this hobby (asking for permission...), and were very restricted on what they'd allow. Within weeks people who never bothered to ask placed caches there too. Some in sensitive areas we were told to stay away from. - We knew they never bothered because the park told us to take our carp and leave, and they don't allow caching there now." I hadn't heard of the "frisbee rule" but understand what you mean. I'm actually refering to land use that is open to other hobbies such as hunting, fishing, and hiking which I consider equivilent to geocaching as they involve walking on the land while minimally disturbing it. What you point out about getting permission and then having others not bother is the inverse of my point (other's didn't get [permission but I was required to) but it makes my point rather nicely: Since a cache can't be placed without "The Reviewer" giving the "OK", that fact that you took the trouble to do so, and noted it, meant The Reviewer was aware of the land policy and who to contact yet they did not inform other cachers, nor follow the policy of the landowner which was known to them. To me this is the same issue: if The Reviewer is aware of a landowners policy then they should share that information. The fact that contact people change all the time makes no difference. They would supply what information they have and if it turned out to be dated, they could update it with the new info. Sharing information on which office to contact even if who is changeable is an improvement over not sharing. edexter
  19. I came here to see if there was talk about it. My DNF drafts show up as finds. As there is already a thread, I don't have to create a new one or try to recreate, lots of others see it also.
  20. Some people talk about High D/T ratings. Some people talk about solving a difficult puzzle. Some people talk about the cool places they go. But I'll be honest, I'm still chasing that high from the first time I submitted an EC to the Geoaware and said "looking for feedback on what needs to change" and he said "I can publish it right now." Whoosh. Blew. My. Mind.
  21. I'm curious if anyone knows of any gadget caches in Ireland. Search by field puzzle attribute turned up a few, but I know that not everyone is exceptionally diligent on their attributes and I'm sure many caches were placed before their introduction, and they do seem to be mostly visual puzzles rather than the more physical gadget caches I've seen discussed elsewhere. I see a lot of US cachers talk about these types of caches, and I do think they look very intriguing and engaging - are there any around? Or do I need to start planning some post-pandemic trips abroad?
  22. Anything you're not sure of, feel free to ask. You may get more appropriate and / or faster replies if you join a local group on Facebook or other social media. Though I'm sure your Brother would love to go out on a caching trip with you now that you're interested and would probably talk your ear off with advice and hints if you don't live near each other. Welcome!
  23. Sent my info to Laval K-9: Nov. 17Name received from Laval K-9:Sent my gift:My gift arrived at destination:I received a gift: I heard about this in The Geocaching Podcast and then on Geocache Talk podcast. It sounds fun for a first timer. Looking forward to the excitement.
  24. It's because the Wherigo Foundation site is an alternate listing service. It was supposed to demonstrate to Groundspeak what we were intending to do with Wherigo so we could run Wherigo for Groundspeak, free of charge for everyone involved. The other Wherigo player apps and builders are on Groundspeak's ban list because of the same reason: they're an alternate to something else--their PocketPC app and their builder, respectively. Though I worked to get community work officially recognized, those at the top of Groundspeak never communicated any of their verbal support to those enforcing Groundspeak's guidelines. Throughout Wherigo's lifetime, regardless of individual intentions at the company, Groundspeak's apparent attitude has always felt one of apathy and passive hostility towards anyone attempting to make their product more accessible to the community. I coined the term "the Wherigo Foundation is Fight Club". They've always told their reviewers not to allow any mention of the Wherigo Foundation or other non-Groundspeak Wherigo applications in cache listings. It's just that the reviewers aren't consistent with each other that caches in some areas were published and others not. Part of the partnership agreement I was reviewing did state that, if the Wherigo Foundation site were to be discontinued, all cartridge files would be provided to Groundspeak for dispersal to community members. I was planning to do that, anyway, so that was fine. There was one other clause I haven't before talked openly about. Suffice it to say, the way I interpreted it, if I ever walked away from Wherigo and did not transition its running to others, the entire game would come to an end. I did not like that Wherigo would then seem to rely on one person's continued health, existence, and interest. The partnership agreement never panned out because Groundspeak took too long in replying, which further showed their apathy (I'd say nine months, several times, classifies as too long, regardless of how patient you are--while waiting for one such reply, I had a house built and moved into it). An odd quirk to all this is this Wherigo forum. Why can we openly talk about these applications? The answer is a combination of me and Groundspeak's apathy. Back when matejcik and charlenni first presented their applications, the forum rule was that moderators needed to clear through Groundspeak talk of new applications. So, as the moderator, I hid the threads and sought approval. Groundspeak did not reply for a month, so I unhid the thread. When that second application was announced, I hid the thread again and asked Groundspeak. I again didn't hear a reply and unhid the thread. Later, I did get a reply, saying it was fine and that there wasn't anyone at Groundspeak who could speak for authorizing these, so that's why it took so long. I asked, then, for something no other moderator has: the authority to make these decisions on my own. It was granted. Ever since then, so long as something wasn't commercial, I allowed it. Now, mind you, Groundspeak's employees have definitely changed since then, so no one there remembers that this responsibility was delegated, so would likely take it away. Another odd footnote is Wherigo\\kit. I am able to use Groundspeak's API for authentication, which does require approval and a review. More recently, when I had to submit an updated overview of this application, I was asked by someone at Groundspeak if I wanted Kit to appear in the list of official Groundspeak partners. I guffawed, pointing out that Groundspeak's reviewers do not allow caches to be published if they mention Kit, the Wherigo Foundation, or any other application, so listing Kit as an official Groundspeak partner would thoroughly confuse the situation, so Groundspeak should really consider its stance on the matter. This was about two years ago. Finally, something that irritates me. Groundspeak allows cachers to mention GSAK and Project GC in their cache listings. Both are commercial applications--GSAK was up until recently and Project GC pushes a subscription model. Groundspeak also allows mention of other commercial applications in cache listings. But, yet, when it comes to everything the community has done to help Groundspeak with Wherigo--and everything we have has always been free, with the individual developer shouldering 100% of the continued cost--Groundspeak has this as their official position. And, believe me, there are ongoing costs. I average about $200/month for hosting, storage, SSL/TLS license, and domain registrations between Kit, the Wherigo Foundation site, DevOps/TFS, and the staging areas I use when publishing. I could decrease the cost by doing a shared hosting plan, I suppose. I suppose I could have still continued to create things. But there comes a time when one needs a solid support group to provide feedback and motivation. I don't have that. And you'd figure people in my own area would be really supportive of my endeavors, be it Wherigo or having found almost 95K caches. They're not. There's a distinct anti-Wherigo feeling in my area. There have been some that would like it if I quit geocaching altogether. So, no support there. One can continue only so long against the flow and apathy before exhausting oneself. So, later, my job became the beneficiary of some of my free time. I worked uncompensated overtime 300 hours last year and 400 hours this year (and no time off). You'd think they'd be grateful, but instead I get managers telling me they're not asking me to work extra hours and they're apathetic about all the things I'm doing to fix their aging application single-handedly. No encouragement, no support, no appreciation from there. Sigh. So, anyway, that's my view on the matter. There are always other sides to it, though I've tried to be neutral.
  25. Several other people have posted about receiving similar notes on their cache listings as well. Groundspeak has always been clear that a Wherigo geocache has to be hosted on Wherigo.com and it appears now they are enforcing the rules about this. I'm not sure why they won't allow anyone to host a Wherigo on the Foundation website, but it is unfortunate as much of Wherigo.com is out of date and does not work well, and the Foundation website works very well. It has long been the running joke in this forum, Wherigo Foundation is like Fight Club, "No one talk about Wherigo Foundation." For what it's worth you could try contacting them to see why the Wherigo Foundation is not allowed as a hosting website.
×
×
  • Create New...