Archiving of 'International Space Station' virtual

[+Elde]

 

Trust me, I know how cool this stuff is. Friday night, I was working outside about an hour after sunset. Overhead I saw an Iridium Flare. They are short lived, they are very bright sometimes (this one was), they are very very cool... but the location I saw it at is not a waymarkable location. I was in a loading dock parking lot behind a building in an industrial complex. Not waymarkable.

 

 

A what??

 

An Iridium Flare.

[+Yellow ants]

Martin, I don't think you are in the minority here, it's just that many people are scared to post their true opinion for fear of being belittled by some people, which seems to be the case with many hot topics in various threads in the forums unfortunately.

I completely disagree. There is no shortage of opinions around here.

 

Chalk one more up for "sad to see it go". I still haven't understood what the geocaching community gained from this cache being forcibly archived.

[+forthferalz]

list all your innovative caches here geocaching.com.au

[+edscott]

Do you need a gps to locate the cache?

 

Not a true test. A GPS is not needed to locate any cache.

[+robert]

Do you need a gps to locate the cache?

 

Not a true test. A GPS is not needed to locate any cache.

True enough. Was a GPS needed to "hide" it?

[+edscott]

Do you need a gps to locate the cache?

 

Not a true test. A GPS is not needed to locate any cache.

True enough. Was a GPS needed to "hide" it?

 

Ahaa.. now this question is much tougher. Depends on the use of the word "needed". If you mean needed to stay within the rules, certainly... The rules clearly state that hiding sites must be visited by a GPS user to get the coordinates for publication... but if you mean needed as in to have accurate reproducible and reliable coordinates then no.... a GPS is not needed. Photos and maps do not lose signal, bounce you from place to place, get upset at clouds, leaf cover, overhead power lines, sunspots, or any of the other real or imagined problems that you can learn all about by reading these pages.

[+RoyalRed]

I believe this is the cache that raised all sorts of hell in our local geocaching group's first travel bug race. A few racers got wind of this cache and were logging race TBs into and getting outragous mileage to and from the station. This ended up raising cain with others and sparked a nasty war of words for the duration of the race.

[+Glenn]

Chalk one more up for "sad to see it go". I still haven't understood what the geocaching community gained from this cache being forcibly archived.

 

I don't understand what the community has lost with the archiving of this cache.

[+budd-rdc]

I believe this is the cache that raised all sorts of hell in our local geocaching group's first travel bug race. A few racers got wind of this cache and were logging race TBs into and getting outragous mileage to and from the station. This ended up raising cain with others and sparked a nasty war of words for the duration of the race.

 

Don't you just hate all those untold abuses? This cache could have been archived and locked way back in January, but it stayed active for 8 more months, so it's possible TPTB "overlooked" it for the benefit of the community. It's also possible people were complaining that this was active while other virtual/LC hybrids got the axe.

 

Idiotic, indeed, but people should reconsider where the fingers should point.

[+Team Maddie UK]

I looked at your stats, Team Maddie UK, and you said in the original post something about logging it at events, however you have as of yet not logged this. May I ask why it has now become such an issue?

 

You could try looking here.

 

Logged on September 2nd 2005 along with many others attending the Shrops 2005 event. If you are going to post might I respectfully suggest that you get your facts right first.

 

Had you looked hard enough, I'm sure you would have found it in the 'Lastplacewelooked'

 

Martin

Edited September 6, 2006 by Team Maddie UK

[+mtn-man]

Do you need a gps to locate the cache?

Not a true test. A GPS is not needed to locate any cache.

True enough. Was a GPS needed to "hide" it?

Ahaa.. now this question is much tougher. Depends on the use of the word "needed". If you mean needed to stay within the rules, certainly... The rules clearly state that hiding sites must be visited by a GPS user to get the coordinates for publication... but if you mean needed as in to have accurate reproducible and reliable coordinates then no.... a GPS is not needed. Photos and maps do not lose signal, bounce you from place to place, get upset at clouds, leaf cover, overhead power lines, sunspots, or any of the other real or imagined problems that you can learn all about by reading these pages.

Regarding what I have in bold in the quote above, you have basically defined geocaching. If you want to sit in your backyard at night or early morning and find the ISS, there are web sites for that. This is a geocaching web site, not a site to identify satellites. I have 3 programs loaded on my PDA that do that for me.

 

Team Maddie UK, your log is one thing that bothers me about the cache. You took a picture of your watch and a GPS in the grass. The GPS photo is way fuzzy, but knowing old yeller eTrex, I know you are on the satellite screen. There are *no coordinates* on that screen on the yellow eTrex. You basically showed us you had satellite lock. It would be nice if you showed us your coordinates. If I were the cache owner, I would have deleted your log. The page clearly says "Catch this event by either: Making a picture of the ISS crossing. Or a picture, showing your watch, gps and a printout of the crossing from the above mentioned website. You don't show your coordinates nor do you have the printed information from the Heavens Above web site (one of the sites sync'd to my PDA actually). Unfortunately, it was another of the "anything goes" caches. It was not being maintained properly. That cache and your log unfortunately are prime examples of why locationless caches failed on the GC site. I know you won't like hearing that, but it is what it is.

[+Team Maddie UK]

Do you need a gps to locate the cache?

Not a true test. A GPS is not needed to locate any cache.

True enough. Was a GPS needed to "hide" it?

Ahaa.. now this question is much tougher. Depends on the use of the word "needed". If you mean needed to stay within the rules, certainly... The rules clearly state that hiding sites must be visited by a GPS user to get the coordinates for publication... but if you mean needed as in to have accurate reproducible and reliable coordinates then no.... a GPS is not needed. Photos and maps do not lose signal, bounce you from place to place, get upset at clouds, leaf cover, overhead power lines, sunspots, or any of the other real or imagined problems that you can learn all about by reading these pages.

Regarding what I have in bold in the quote above, you have basically defined geocaching. If you want to sit in your backyard at night or early morning and find the ISS, there are web sites for that. This is a geocaching web site, not a site to identify satellites. I have 3 programs loaded on my PDA that do that for me.

 

Team Maddie UK, your log is one thing that bothers me about the cache. You took a picture of your watch and a GPS in the grass. The GPS photo is way fuzzy, but knowing old yeller eTrex, I know you are on the satellite screen. There are *no coordinates* on that screen on the yellow eTrex. You basically showed us you had satellite lock. It would be nice if you showed us your coordinates. If I were the cache owner, I would have deleted your log. The page clearly says "Catch this event by either: Making a picture of the ISS crossing. Or a picture, showing your watch, gps and a printout of the crossing from the above mentioned website. You don't show your coordinates nor do you have the printed information from the Heavens Above web site (one of the sites sync'd to my PDA actually). Unfortunately, it was another of the "anything goes" caches. It was not being maintained properly. That cache and your log unfortunately are prime examples of why locationless caches failed on the GC site. I know you won't like hearing that, but it is what it is.

 

You are, of course, correct. However, I'm sure that the placer of this cache took into consideration the fact that a large number of folks logged it at the same time from the same place. Many of the geocaching community are much less pedantic than others and make their judgements within the fun spirit of the game.

 

Additionally, I fail to see why a cache placers generous flexibility could lead to the failure of that type of cache.

 

Martin

Edited September 6, 2006 by Team Maddie UK

[+Moose Mob]

In an effort to close angst filled threads....

 

The OP's question was answered (whether or not they accept it) and all that is left is two doggy icons chewing on each others ears.

 

Please give it a rest. PM me if you have any questions.

 

Topic closed.