Add option to select which GPS wa used on cache hunts

[+incaorchid]

It may be interesting to add a drop down box to indicate which gps the geocacher used to find the cache.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

You could always create a "Unknown" type cache with special logging requirements. Then require they provide the GPS model/make in their log. (the special logging requirement makes it an "Unknown" type.)

[+Tequila]

You could always create a "Unknown" type cache with special logging requirements. Then require they provide the GPS model/make in their log. (the special logging requirement makes it an "Unknown" type.)

 

 

I think the OP had a more generic approach in mind that would work for ALL caches.

 

It is an interesting request. As technology improves, accuracy improves as well. Knowing what GPS was used (particularly in placing the cache) would be helpful but I suspect it would require a significant amount of programming to include. And it would require constant maintenance as it seems new models are coming out quarterly.

[+incaorchid]

Tequila is right, that is what I was thinking.

It would be interesting to see which gps makes or models were the more successful in geocaching.

 

Then there is the problem with keeping up with the new models just as

you mentioned.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

I realized when I originally responded that you were looking for such an option to be programmed into every cache page. However, programming takes time, even if TPTB decided to add such a feature. Thus I was suggesting a way to get at least some of the data you are looking for via a cache placed by you. The results you get off of your page would probably be pretty close to the overall results for your entire area.

 

Of course, other areas may give you different results as region preferences vary (just look at the recent Presidential Polls and Electoral vote results).

 

I was just providing a way to do a local poll.

[+Prime Suspect]

You could always create a "Unknown" type cache with special logging requirements. Then require they provide the GPS model/make in their log. (the special logging requirement makes it an "Unknown" type.)

No, you couldn't. That would be a TOU violation.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Why? We have special logging instruction requirements on many "Unknown" caches here.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Sorry. Timeout crash. Dup post.

Edited November 10, 2008 by Cache O'Plenty

[+Prime Suspect]

Why? We have special logging instruction requirements on many "Unknown" caches here.

 

You can have an ALR, but not if it violates the TOU.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Why? We have special logging instruction requirements on many "Unknown" caches here.

 

You can have an ALR, but not if it violates the TOU.

I understand that, but what is the violation here, in this instance?

[AZcachemeister]

Considering the huge number of potential manufacturer/model combinations, that 'drop-down box' would be very unwieldy.

There would certainly be a 'not selected' option, which is what I'd bet most geocachers would choose, if they were forced to make a choice.

In the final analysis, I doubt that it really matters anyway...

[+Prime Suspect]

Why? We have special logging instruction requirements on many "Unknown" caches here.

 

You can have an ALR, but not if it violates the TOU.

I understand that, but what is the violation here, in this instance?

Collection of the personal information of other site users.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

That might be a stretch of the term "personal information". The GPS they use???? I always presumed "personal information" was address, phone number, birth dates, etc. provided to Groudspeak to establish an account.

[+Wacka]

It doesn't matter what type of GPSr. I have a 5 year old one and find them as well as someone with an Oregon.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Wacka

[+Tequila]

It doesn't matter what type of GPSr. I have a 5 year old one and find them as well as someone with an Oregon.

 

I don't agree with that statement. One local cacher uses a older Garmin eTrex to place caches and his coordinates are consistently off by 10 to `15 meters. Which is a real pain because he tends to hide very clever micros......in the woods.

 

I have a 7 year old eTrex Vista and it is not nearly as accurate as my 60CSx.

[+pppingme]

That might be a stretch of the term "personal information". The GPS they use????

I think to a lot of users, the GPSr they choose is almost a pride factor and they love to share that info, at least us Garmin users anyway . Maybe Magellan users aren't quite as proud ?

 

At a lot of events (where users aren't carrying gps receivers anyway) its probably one of the top questions asked.

[+SUp3rFM & Cruella]

That would be interesting, and solely by that point of view. Interesting. Like statistically interesting.

 

I have no doubt that it would raise angst towards Magellan users, Garmin users, Lowrance, Bluetooth Antennas users, etc.

 

I've seen more human errors than the ones from the GPSrs, even the ones with, 5, 7, 8 years old (the GPSr, of course).

 

The most common one is take coordinates close to a wall or a building. No matter what GPS you're using, the error will be great due to poor reception caused by that wall. I always remember the phrase "There's no GZ by a building or a great wall!

[+markandsandy]

It doesn't matter what type of GPSr. I have a 5 year old one and find them as well as someone with an Oregon.

 

I don't agree with that statement. One local cacher uses a older Garmin eTrex to place caches and his coordinates are consistently off by 10 to `15 meters. Which is a real pain because he tends to hide very clever micros......in the woods.

 

I have a 7 year old eTrex Vista and it is not nearly as accurate as my 60CSx.

 

Tequila,

 

If you look again at his posting, he says that he FINDS them as well as someone with an Oregon. He doesn't claim he can HIDE them as accurately.

 

The OP was looking at what GPSr was used in finding a cache. In most cases, the cachers ability has more to do with the finding of the cache than the accuracy of the GPSr. I think that if this was included, the statistics will closely reflect the distribution of what GPSr's are owned, and have little to do with accuracy or any other meaningful result.

[+Prime Suspect]

That might be a stretch of the term "personal information". The GPS they use????

I think to a lot of users, the GPSr they choose is almost a pride factor and they love to share that info, at least us Garmin users anyway . Maybe Magellan users aren't quite as proud ?

 

At a lot of events (where users aren't carrying gps receivers anyway) its probably one of the top questions asked.

That's fine. You just can't require the disclosure of personal information (such as what items a person might own) as part of a cache.

 

[typo fixed]

Edited November 12, 2008 by Prime Suspect

[+nelson crew]

That's fine. You just can require the disclosure of personal information (such as what items a person might own) as part of a cache.

I assume you meant can't. I don't say that to be rude or ridicule in any way, but because some people will ignore the obvious.

[+pppingme]

That's fine. You just can require the disclosure of personal information (such as what items a person might own) as part of a cache.

I assume you meant can't. I don't say that to be rude or ridicule in any way, but because some people will ignore the obvious.

No, I think he's taking it a bit personal for some reason. A point that many people consider a point of pride he seems to think is quite personal. I'm actually quite shocked at his reply.

 

My advise, if he doesn't like the logging requirements, don't hunt the cache.

 

I know in my area, a cache was set up for this very purpose, I think the owner was doing a school paper or something, so for several months he asked everyone who found it to list their GPS, I didn't hear one complaint or grumble. In this case I think the owner has since lifted the extra logging requirement because he finished his research, but the cache is still in place.

[+nelson crew]

That's fine. You just can require the disclosure of personal information (such as what items a person might own) as part of a cache.

I assume you meant can't. I don't say that to be rude or ridicule in any way, but because some people will ignore the obvious.

No, I think he's taking it a bit personal for some reason. A point that many people consider a point of pride he seems to think is quite personal. I'm actually quite shocked at his reply.

 

My advise, if he doesn't like the logging requirements, don't hunt the cache.

 

I know in my area, a cache was set up for this very purpose, I think the owner was doing a school paper or something, so for several months he asked everyone who found it to list their GPS, I didn't hear one complaint or grumble. In this case I think the owner has since lifted the extra logging requirement because he finished his research, but the cache is still in place.

I meant as in it was a typo. Some people point to a typographical error and say "see? I'm right and you're an idiot" and I was just trying to make it clear that that is not what I was doing.

[+Prime Suspect]

No, I think he's taking it a bit personal for some reason. A point that many people consider a point of pride he seems to think is quite personal. I'm actually quite shocked at his reply.

 

My advise, if he doesn't like the logging requirements, don't hunt the cache.

 

I know in my area, a cache was set up for this very purpose, I think the owner was doing a school paper or something, so for several months he asked everyone who found it to list their GPS, I didn't hear one complaint or grumble. In this case I think the owner has since lifted the extra logging requirement because he finished his research, but the cache is still in place.

No, it was just a typo (now fixed).

 

The "well, you can just not hunt the cache" argument doesn't fly. You can't, for example, put a cache on posted property, and then say "don't hunt it if you're worried about getting arrested."

 

The TOU is an agreement you consented to abide by in order to use this site. You can't pick and choose what you will and won't follow. At least, not if you want to keep your site account active.

[+pppingme]

The "well, you can just not hunt the cache" argument doesn't fly. You can't, for example, put a cache on posted property, and then say "don't hunt it if you're worried about getting arrested."

Sure it does, your free to hunt or not hunt any cache you like or don't like. I believe the site even accommodates this via the IGNORE feature.

 

The TOU is an agreement you consented to abide by in order to use this site. You can't pick and choose what you will and won't follow. At least, not if you want to keep your site account active.

You seem to be the ONLY one here that see's a TOU violation, If thats your interpretation, feel free to ignore the cache. I don't think you'll find very many cachers that feel that same way. Its not like anyone is asking for your real name or address of social security number here, you know, things that the average person considers personal versus a pride point of the hobby/activity.

 

MOGA says the park requires a release to be signed, since that does require real information maybe we should just archive that this year and not have it. After all, MOGA clearly violates this part of the TOU.

[+StarBrand]

....

 

I have a 7 year old eTrex Vista and it is not nearly as accurate as my 60CSx.

Thats a curious statement........

 

The signal from the sats has not changed one bit. The calculations the units perform to get the lat/long have not changed. Sure we have more sensitive recievers and better anntenas but they just get and keep a signal better under different conditions. The processors are faster so they can update faster. The bells and whistles are newer faster and better. But seriously when they can get a good solid signal both at the heart and core - a 7 year old GPS is doing exactly the same thing with the same information as a brand new unit.

[+Prime Suspect]

The "well, you can just not hunt the cache" argument doesn't fly. You can't, for example, put a cache on posted property, and then say "don't hunt it if you're worried about getting arrested."

Sure it does, your free to hunt or not hunt any cache you like or don't like.

No, it doesn't. Saying you don't have to hunt the cache if you don't want to doesn't give you license to ignore the guidelines. But feel free to try it sometime, and see how fast your cache gets shot down in the review process. "I'm putting this cache in a daycare playground, without permission. But since people can choose not to hunt a cache, that makes it perfectly okay." Yeah, right. Good luck with that.

 

The TOU is an agreement you consented to abide by in order to use this site. You can't pick and choose what you will and won't follow. At least, not if you want to keep your site account active.

You seem to be the ONLY one here that see's a TOU violation, If thats your interpretation, feel free to ignore the cache. I don't think you'll find very many cachers that feel that same way. Its not like anyone is asking for your real name or address of social security number here, you know, things that the average person considers personal versus a pride point of the hobby/activity.

 

MOGA says the park requires a release to be signed, since that does require real information maybe we should just archive that this year and not have it. After all, MOGA clearly violates this part of the TOU.

Why on earth would you think that the Groundspeak TOU would apply to land managers? Oh, that's right. It's the only way your argument works. The TOU only applies to those who have agreed to it, and it only applies to activities conducted on the site.

[+pppingme]

The "well, you can just not hunt the cache" argument doesn't fly. You can't, for example, put a cache on posted property, and then say "don't hunt it if you're worried about getting arrested."

Sure it does, your free to hunt or not hunt any cache you like or don't like.

No, it doesn't. Saying you don't have to hunt the cache if you don't want to doesn't give you license to ignore the guidelines. But feel free to try it sometime, and see how fast your cache gets shot down in the review process. "I'm putting this cache in a daycare playground, without permission. But since people can choose not to hunt a cache, that makes it perfectly okay." Yeah, right. Good luck with that.

But you have yet to show where there is actually a TOU issue, except that you, and only you, seem to think the model of GPS receiver you own is a national secret. I, nor anyone else here, has said ANYTHING about placing a cache that otherwise doesn't meet TOU of the site. You seem to be taking the attitude of "I don't think I personally like this so I'm going to equate it with placing a cache in middle of a day care, which I know is inappropriate, doesn't meet site TOU, and will clearly cause issues".

[+nelson crew]

Ok, that's twice, so now I feel compelled to say something.

 

The fact that Prime Suspect is the only one who bothered to post his opinion of how this request would be handled by the TOU does NOT automatically make it untrue. This is a flavor of ad hominem, and holds no water. The TOU is not subject to popular vote anyway.

 

Second, an opinion on whether knowing someone's make of GPSr is important also does not have any bearing on whether requiring said information violates the site's TOU. The hyperbole isn't helping your argument, either.

 

There's also the concern that this might teach the less-observant/responsible newbies that asking for this kind of thing is ok. I'm sure we all know how things tend to snowball.

 

So ask away, no one's stopping you. Just ensure the information exchange is 100% voluntary.