Approve: Rob Lakes' WebCam (Edmonton) Cache?

May 21, 2003

Do you think my cache should be approved? If so, or not then please leave a note on the page!

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=70061

This is Edmonton's only remaining public webcam, and if I can't get it appproved we have no chance to do a webcam cache in our city.

Thanks!

RB&R

3.8k · May 21, 2003

Ranger Bob

Only you can see this page while it's waiting for approval. Could you copy and paste the text to a forum posting so we can see what it's about?

PDOP's GPS Pages

May 21, 2003

Thanks for asking, did not know that! Here goes....

<center><h2>Edmonton, Alberta's First Webcam Cache!</h2></center>

This live photograph comes from the University of Alberta campus and is updated once every minute. The camera (an <a href="http://www.sgi.com/products/remarketed/o2plus/dig_media.html">O2Cam attached to an SGI O2</a&gt is pointed to the south and is located in an office on the 2nd floor of Athabasca Hall. The view looks to the southeast corner of Quad.

<h4>Southeast View of Quad from Rob Lake's Office</h4>

Press F5 or your Reload button to refresh the image above now.

</center>

To Log The Cache:

NOTE: There is enough information provided in the description and image to help you find the webcam. The posted co-ordinates will get you near by it, but they will not plop you right in front of the lens. You will still have to figure out where the camera is (based on current view).

This cache should be done with a cell phone and a good friend on a computer at the other end of the line. Even if you don't own a cell phone you can still participate. Simply ''phone a friend'' from the nearby Superman change room.

Please visit Rob Lake's website @ <a href="http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~lake/cam/index.html">http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~lake/cam/index.html</a> for near realtime updates (in 20 second intervals). When you are CLEARLY spotted in the frame holding up your GPS have them Right Click over the image and 'Save Picture As..' to their hard disk. Upload this image along with the date and time the photo was taken. In addition to submitting the photo you need to also email RB&R with the phone number and address of the phone booth (found inside) or your entry will be deleted!

Happy posing, and thanks to Rob Lake for hosting this awesome camera!

</center>

May 21, 2003

Alberta's first webcam cache is here GC8760 by radcanhig It was approved?

May 21, 2003

I don't see why it shouldn't be approved. What's the problem anyway?

May 21, 2003

outforthehunt -- I didn't say it was the first Alberta cam. I said it was Edmonton's first webcam cache.. and ONLY operating camera.

I knew about the Calgary cam already (do a search in Google for 'Canadian Webcams' actually Cowtown has more). Of the three listed for Edmonton (only Rob's is still active). Telus and Wave are down!

http://www.abirdseyeviewof.com/Canada.html

The views in the Calgary camera and others I've seen are just as ambiguous (see reason for archive below).

BTW, if you reside in Calgary I invite you to participate in this cache with RB&R (GC4226) ''Sister Cities''. We are good to go with pics and all.. read rules and lemme know if you are a go for a log entry. 8^)

[This message was edited by Ranger Bob & The Rangerettes on May 21, 2003 at 09:55 PM.]

[This message was edited by Ranger Bob & The Rangerettes on May 22, 2003 at 10:48 AM.]

May 21, 2003

Reason it was archived is below. There are no guidlines or rules posted on GC site about webcams. Ours is just like the others posted on the site (re ambiguity!).

I even provided them with examples to some poor excuses for webcams (as I will do again for you here).

I followed his ''request'' below and made the image size larger on the page. Yes, the image can be poor at times because of sun or clouds. I don't control EITHER the camera or the weather however, much like many of the other webcams out there!

Part of the hunt would be to time your arrival accordingly!! Daylight hours, and geeh so you can see yourself in the image clearly holding up your GPS.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Geocaching.com Automated Bot" <newcaches@geocaching.com>

Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 8:09 AM

Subject: [LOG] Archived: Rob Lake's WebCam (Edmonton)

> Greetings from Geocaching.com.

>

> This is an automated message letting you know that the cache has been archived. In case you plan to unarchive the cache in the future, keep this link for your records:

>

> http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=70061

>

> Message:

> Hello,

>

> Thank you for your recent geocache submission. Unfortunately, geocaching.com cannot approve the cache as it currently exists.

>

> Images in webcam photos must clearly show the cacher without any ambiguity. Your camera does not appear to be situated such that cachers can clearly be identified. Can yo perhaps increase the resolution of your image or reposition the camera to improve the image quality?

>

> I hope this adequately explains why your cache cannot be approved.

>

> Thanks,

> Cache-Advance

> Geocaching.com Admin

>

> NOTE: Do not select reply in your e-mail program if you wish to respond to this message from the geocaching.com mail bot. Go to your cache page and e-mail cache-advance from this log entry. PLEASE INCLUDE THE CACHE NAME AND WAYPOINT NUMBER IN ALL CORRESPONDENCE.

>

> If you did not archive this cache, please refer to the cache listing to read the log as to why it was archived and to contact the administrator. Responding directly to this message will not be answered.

>

> Cheers,

> Geocaching.com Team

[This message was edited by Ranger Bob & The Rangerettes on May 21, 2003 at 09:57 PM.]

May 21, 2003

Here is a link to 69 other webcam caches on GC. Check them out and decide for yourself!

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest_cache.asp?key=webcam&submit4=Find

The last one RECENTLY approved was on May 12, and 2003 is no better then this one!

THIS ENTRY BELOW IS A TOTAL JOKE!

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cachelog_details.asp?ID=227651&L=1385641

But again the point of a webcam cache IMHO is to have fun in the HUNT!

The ''cache-admin' guy said something about high standards for geocaches (I will dig up his note someplace). Must be able to recognize people in the image! Yeah right!

[This message was edited by Ranger Bob & The Rangerettes on May 22, 2003 at 12:31 PM.]

May 21, 2003

Sample image Mrs RB took when we went out to find the camera, and get additonal details from the phone booth for the cache.

http://img.Groundspeak.com/cache/70061_700.jpg

Anyone in the Edmonton area hunting for the cache, and having seen our other posted photos would be able to tell it was us! Also, I made a second part for the cache to provide information like a virtual! So it's beyond me why it hasn't been approved!

1.4k · May 22, 2003

I don't see the problem here.

Appears to me that it should be OK'd.

*****

3.8k · May 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:
I don't see the problem here.

Appears to me that it should be OK'd.

What he said.

PDOP's GPS Pages

May 22, 2003

Thanks PDOP! I continue to get nothing but support for this cache being approved:

=====================================

From "Geocaching.com User Email BOT"

Sent Thursday, May 22, 2003

Subject **ANONYMOUS CACHER*** contacting you from Geocaching.com

THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL MESSAGE FROM GEOCACHING.COM

---------------------------------------------------

User **ANONYMOUS CACHER*** has contacted you with the following message:

Hi Ranger Bob,

I read your thread about the web cam cache, I don't see the problem here but then again I don't see the problem with alot of the caches that admin is not approving. This site is slowly degrading in my opinion I think that Jeremy and some of the admin's are realy spoiling the fun for alot of people. Hope you get your cache approved soon.

**ANONYMOUS CACHER***!

PS. The admin that would not approve your cache alias Cache-Advance is Mr. Gigabyte from Vancouver he is not well liked out here for many reasons this being one of them. He is really letting the power thing go to his head and is quite close to Jeremy.

=====================================

Thanks for your support ####ANONYMOUS CACHER#### It means a lot to me to hear this frustration from fellow cachers!

Yes there is MORE TO THE STORY HERE & WHY I WENT TO THE FORUMS! I am starting to to feel the same vibe y'all are about degraded service here. A guy can only chase tupperware for so long! The site would not exist if we didn't stash the caches, and buy the GeoGear!

Below is another email I got back from admin a few days ago (before bringing this on-line) when I tried to rebut why the cache should have been approved, and mentioning the subject of why they are always declining new and inovative caches!

AGAIN, ISN"T THIS SUPPOSED TO BE A FUN SPORT?

R.B.

[This message was edited by Ranger Bob & The Rangerettes on May 22, 2003 at 10:17 AM.]

May 22, 2003

Once again I ask you to SHOW me your PUBLISHED guidelines [REQUIREMENTS] on WEBCAM CACHES.

If you do NOT have one then I'd ask you to approve my cache without question. According to

the guidelines on GC if I get enough support on the forum you have to approve it!

=====================================

May 20 by cache-advance (0 found)

You can [delete] or [permanently encrypt] this log entry.

Thank you for your recent email.

We are sorry you have trouble with every cache you submit. Perhaps all your cache simply fail to meet the requirements. I cannot speak for previous cache submissions, only your most recent.

If I may suggest, just submit a cache that does meet the requirements and it will be approved without question.

You may wish to submit your recent cache to one of the many other geocaching web sites that do not bother to uphold a level of standard in the caches they list.

Regarding your comment if you had read the description, I did indeed read it. That is where I determined the details of your cache submission.

Thank you

----- Original Message -----

From: "Geocaching.com Automated Bot"

Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 8:09 am

Subject: [LOG] Archived: Rob Lake's WebCam (Edmonton)

> Greetings from Geocaching.com.

>

> This is an automated message letting you know that the cache has

> been archived. In case you plan to unarchive the cache in the

> future, keep this link for your records:

>

> http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=70061

>

> Message:

> Hello,

>

> Thank you for your recent geocache submission. Unfortunately,

> geocaching.com cannot approve the cache as it currently exists.

>

> Images in webcam photos must clearly show the cacher without any

> ambiguity. Your camera does not appear to be situated such that

> cachers can clearly be identified. Can yo perhaps increase the

> resolution of your image or reposition the camera to improve the

> image quality?

>

> I hope this adequately explains why your cache cannot be approved.

>

> Thanks,

> Cache-Advance

> Geocaching.com Admin

>

> NOTE: Do not select reply in your e-mail program if you wish to

> respond to this message from the geocaching.com mail bot. Go to

> your cache page and e-mail cache-advance from this log entry.

> PLEASE INCLUDE THE CACHE NAME AND WAYPOINT NUMBER IN ALL

> CORRESPONDENCE.

>

> If you did not archive this cache, please refer to the cache

> listing to read the log as to why it was archived and to contact

> the administrator. Responding directly to this message will not be

> answered.

>

> Cheers,

> Geocaching.com Team

>

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=70061

Aww come off it now! You have got to seriously be kidding me! Every cache I have ever created here you guys have some inane reason to go and archive it, and then I have to justify it over and over before it finally gets restored ANYWAYS! I'm getting VERY TIRED of it ALL, and it's frustrating me and my family to the point of wanting to completely give up on Geocaching all together! Anytime we come up with a neat new original cache idea.. you guys shoot it down! WHY!?

Look, I went the extra distance and provided you sample images in an initial cache entry, showed it was do-able, and explained that they were poor because of reflected light. I do not have direct control of the camera, if you had read the description you would have noted that it is our city's only web camera! So by not approving this one you deprive our local geocache community NOW of any chance for having a web camera cache at all.

ALSO, why would the person HAVE to be clearly identified on the camera? Most people do not even

upload their own images into log entries. So, to add to the challenge I asked visitors to email me

with additional information from the phone booth. Much like a virtual cache... so in a sense it's

two caches in one.

Show me where your PUBLISHED guidelines exist that indicate that the persons face must be clearly visible... proove their identity... and I might buy into it. SO, let's ALL try to be somewhat reasonable here on the matter.

Signed, a frustrated cacher!

Ranger Bob

[This message was edited by Ranger Bob & The Rangerettes on May 22, 2003 at 05:26 PM.]

May 22, 2003

MODIFIED CACHE DESCRIPTION:

Please visit Rob Lake's website @ http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~lake/cam/index.html for near

realtime updates (in 20 second intervals). When you are CLEARLY spotted in the frame

STANDING BETWEEN THE TWO TREES, and as CLOSE TO THE CAMERA AS POSSIBLE holding up your

GPS have them Right Click over the image and 'Save Picture As..' to their hard disk. YOU

MUST THEN upload this image along with the date and time the photo was taken. In addition

to submitting the photo you need to also email RB&R with the phone number and address of

the phone booth (found inside) or your entry will be deleted! If at all possible, hold up

a sign or banner with your geocaching name to CLEARLY identify you as a GeoCacher will

also help!

May 22 by Ranger Bob & The Rangerettes (lancetay) (89 found)

You can [edit], [delete] or [permanently encrypt] this log entry.

''If I may suggest, perhaps you could require cachers to come as close to the camera as possible before the image is captured. Would this be possible?'' - C.A.

Yes, it would be -- but do I really have to give the exact WAYPOINT for them to stand at to do this? Would it not defeat the purpose of going after the webcam?

I indicated that they should make themselves CLEARLY visible in the image. I could FURTHER stipulate that they must be standing between the two trees and as close to the camera as possible? Would that help? ## I HAVE MODIFIED THE DESCRIPTION ABOVE -- DOES THIS HELP?? ##

I really want to get this cache approved, so let's please try and work together on it. Remember, I have no direct control of the camera.. this is what we have to work with.

## ALAS IT ALSO ANOTHER CLOUDY DAY OUT IN EDMONTONTCHUCK! ##

Thanks!

Ranger Bob

[upload an image for this log]

May 22 by cache-advance (0 found)

You can [delete] or [permanently encrypt] this log entry.

Hello,

Your cache was under review by the Approvers. You have now deleted all the relevant correspondence in the notes I have posted, including the archive. This information is critical in the review process. This will only delay the review. Please do not delete any logs the approvers leave on any unapproved cache.

Please be aware that your cache is not on my watch list. I do not know when you post a log. All correspondence should be emailed to me directly.

You have listed other webcam caches. Please note that there is no precedence on cache approval. This is clearly explained at the top of the requirements page, located here, http://www.geocaching.com/articles/requirements.asp

Each cache is evaluated on its merits and and the ability of the cache owner to work with the approver.

I have stated that we do not belive that anyone could be clearly identified in the photo taken by this web cam. I have spent quite a bit of time viewing at various times of the day and watching people come and go by the phone booth.

A person must be able to be identified as this is a the method of verification. If we cannot see the photo clearly, then the find cannot be verified. If we rule out the photo, then we must evaluate the cache as a virtual cache of a phone booth that also is not unique enough to be approved.

If I may suggest, perhaps you could require cachers to come as close to the camera as possible before the image is captured. Would this be possible?

Thank you for your cooperation. We are as anxious as you to get your cache approved. Please email me with your confirmation or any additional information you can provide regarding these concerns, as soon as convenient.

*** PLEASE INCLUDE THE CACHE NAME AND WAYPOINT NUMBER IN ALL CORRESPONDENCE.

Thanks,

Cache-Advance

Geocaching.com Admin

NOTE: Do not select reply in your e-mail program if you wish to respond to this message from the geocaching.com mail bot. Go to your cache page and e-mail cache-advance from this log entry.

May 22 by Ranger Bob & The Rangerettes (lancetay) (89 found)

You can [edit], [delete] or [permanently encrypt] this log entry.

http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=3516058331&m=93260295&r=95360395#95360395

[upload an image for this log]

May 22, 2003

(Duplicate of above. Deleted)

May 22, 2003

Looks perfectly fine to me! What's the big deal?

1.4k · May 22, 2003

Am I missing something here?

It looks like Ranger Bob is jumping through hoops to get this cache approved. What's the deal here -- why is this the case? There have been NO posts saying that the cache should not be approved -- only that it should be approved.

If there is a problem with a cache approval, Jeremy suggests taking it to the forums if it cannot be resolved with the approvers -- but why? It doesn't seem to make a difference.

Mr.Gigabyte approving caches again?... hmmmm.

*****

[This message was edited by Jomarac5 on May 22, 2003 at 01:11 PM.]

May 22, 2003

I have looked at the cache, and the web cam but , I hunt alone and think most cachers do. To try to have someone at home do half of my work for me they should also be able to log it as a find. It only makes sense, it took two people. Because I can’t hunt it and if showed up on my next closes cache page I would be Pooooooooo. You are putting a hardship on someone for not having a caching buddy. I would raise cane with somebody for approving one around here like this one.

That’s my 2 cents worths ( FLAME ON )

JOE

PS I have had more caches archived by approvers than most folks have hidden and I am not brown noseing

2.6k · May 22, 2003

quote:
Images in webcam photos must clearly show the cacher without any ambiguity. Your camera does not appear to be situated such that cachers can clearly be identified. Can yo perhaps increase the resolution of your image or reposition the camera to improve the image quality?

I hope this adequately explains why your cache cannot be approved.

This webcam cache was apparently approved without any questions. You certainly can't identify any cacher from the image. That's why the hider told the hunters to brace themselves against the streetlight. Two logs so far, no problems. Why should Ranger Bob's cache have any problems?

- From the shallow end of the gene pool. -

May 22, 2003

Joey.. not trying to start a Flame Fest with your or anyone here (although Ranger Bob can flame with the best of them). Your point is moot as the website also has a daily archive of images. So, if one was geeky (and thoughtful) enough they could even pluck themselves out of the MPEG video. I did not provide that as an option though, given it is difficult.

This cache is also MORE accesible to others in our LOCAL area in that a phone booth is nearby for the "phone a friend" option [not so in many other webcam caches]. Ergo, not even a cell-phone is real requirement here (but helpful).

Thanks for you input though JoeGPS, it is truly appreciated!

RB

[This message was edited by Ranger Bob & The Rangerettes on May 22, 2003 at 05:21 PM.]

6.4k · May 22, 2003

I don't have the problem with it that Jo does, I personally wouldn't do one like it because I don't carry a cell phone, nor do I usually have someone I could get to snap the shot. That doesn't mean we can't have webcam-type caches. I will never do a cache that requires me to repel down a cliff, but they are fine by me too. Only problem I see with both the one here, and the one Divine mentioned, is verification. Since it is so hard to to make out the person, some additional verification might be nice. One I saw had a file to d/l that printed out a full page geocaching logo you had to hold up. Even holding up your GPS would be enough in my eyes. Just something so the cache owner knows its a geocacher and not just someone waiting to use the phone. Add that and I think the cache would/should be approvable.

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

2.6k · May 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by JoGPS:
You are putting a hardship on someone for not having a caching buddy.

It can be done without buddy. Just use wireless internet connection and do it yourself.

You don't have one? Tough luck, but there are different kind of caches. (I'm sure you have noticed it with your number of finds.) Some people don't have buddys to download their webcam cache pictures. Some people don't have rope and/or skills to solve some rock climbing caches. Some people don't have mathematical skills to solve this or this cache. Or do you think the guy who helped me with maths with the other cache should be able to log a find because he did half of the work?

Don't do caches that you're not able to do. Let others who can do.

- From the shallow end of the gene pool. -

24.7k · May 22, 2003

It doesnt' appear to be that hard to see someone. Right now I'm looking at a phone booth (one of those rare fully enclosed ones) and if someone I knew was there I would recognize them.

If the only objection was the lack of clarity I don't think it's valid. Yes you could have better photo sharpness but what do you expect on a cheap webcam?

=====================

Wherever you go there you are.

May 22, 2003

Originally posted by Mopar:

===================================

I don't have the problem with it that Jo does, I personally wouldn't do one like it because I don't carry a cell phone, nor do I usually have someone I could get to snap the shot. That doesn't mean we can't have webcam-type caches. I will never do a cache that requires me to repel down a cliff, but they are fine by me too. Only problem I see with both the one here, and the one Divine mentioned, is verification. Since it is so hard to to make out the person, some additional verification might be nice. One I saw had a file to d/l that printed out a full page geocaching logo you had to hold up. Even holding up your GPS would be enough in my eyes. Just something so the cache owner knows its a geocacher and not just someone waiting to use the phone. Add that and I think the cache would/should be approvable.

====================

Agreed, also see the latest incarnation of complete description. It meets everyones valid concerns addressed here I feel.

==========================

Edmonton, Alberta's First Webcam Cache!

This live photograph comes from the University of Alberta campus and is updated once every minute. The camera (an O2Cam attached to an SGI O2) is pointed to the south and is located in an office on the 2nd floor of Athabasca Hall. The view looks to the southeast corner of Quad.

[iMAGE HERE]

Southeast View of Quad from Rob Lake's Office

Press F5 or your Reload button to refresh the image above now.

To Log The Cache:

NOTE: There is enough information provided in the description and image to help you find the webcam. The posted co-ordinates will get you near by it, but they will not plop you right in front of the lens. You will still have to figure out where the camera is (based on current view).

This cache should be done with a cell phone and a good friend on a computer at the other end of the line. Even if you don't own a cell phone you can still participate. Simply ''phone a friend'' from the nearby Superman change room.

Please visit Rob Lake's website @ http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~lake/cam/index.html for near realtime updates (in 20 second intervals). When you are CLEARLY spotted in the frame STANDING BETWEEN THE TWO TREES, and as CLOSE TO THE CAMERA AS POSSIBLE holding up your GPS have them Right Click over the image and 'Save Picture As..' to their hard disk. YOU MUST THEN upload this image along with the date and time the photo was taken. In addition to submitting the photo you need to also email RB&R with the phone number and address of the phone booth (found inside) or your entry will be deleted! If at all possible, hold up a sign or banner with your geocaching name to CLEARLY identify you as a GeoCacher will also help!

Happy posing, and thanks to Rob Lake for hosting this awesome camera

[This message was edited by Ranger Bob & The Rangerettes on May 22, 2003 at 02:17 PM.]

2.6k · May 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Ranger Bob & The Rangerettes:
MODIFIED CACHE DESCRIPTION:

LOL! 'Don't forget to bring a shrubbery and cut the tallest tree with a ...herring!'

Hope Mr. NIgabyte approves it now.

- From the shallow end of the gene pool. -

May 22, 2003

“If your cache has been archived make sure to read the log to see why. If you want to dispute your archived cache, feel free to post a message in the forums to see what others think. If the majority believes it should be posted, your cache may be unarchived.”

Your cache may be unarchived… no where does it state that if the majority agrees we are obligated to unarchive your cache. But if it does meet guidelines then you do have a good chance. We encourage creativity, and that is why we have guidelines that are open to interpretation. But the final decision is up to the admins and geocaching.com.

Keep in mind that there is no precedent for placing caches. So bringing up examples of a cache that was approved yesterday, last month or last year does mean that your cache being similar will be approved.

One thing every cache must have is a verification method. A fuzzy photo that you can not identify who is standing there does not verify if you were actually at the location. The cache owner has worked with the admin to modify this cache so that it has a valid verification method.

hydee

8.9k · May 22, 2003

Not that it really matters as far as the approval goes, but I see one thing I'd correct if it were my cache:

quote:
<img alt="Right click and choose ''Save Picture As...''" width="720" height="592" src="http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~lake/cam/jpg/large/201.jpg"></a>

Why increase the size of the picture? I took it out and created a standard HTML file, and the image is actually only supposed to be 512x384. That's why the clarity is down so much.

I'd suggest either taking the width="720" height="592" or making it width="400" height="300" which is the 1.333 ratio of the original picture, but SMALLER. That would actually INCREASE the clarity of the shot. I wouldn't go any smaller than that though.

Also, displaying it in a forced smaller ratio doesn't affect how the image would be saved. It would still be saved as 715x384

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

May 22, 2003

Hydee... kewl looking frogs. Actually, my next Travel Bug is going to be a frog too. 8^)

Anyways, I just did a PAGE REFRESH and noticed that Edmonton now has it's first WEBCAM CACHE!

THANKS to ***ALL OF YOU *** for your tremendous feedback! Thanks CA et al ADMINS for reviewing.

You can NOW visit the page here:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=70061

RB&R

May 22, 2003

I too am mystified as to why this cache hasn't been approved. Here is the image from a webcam cache I did recently:

Although you can see four distinct people, no one who doesn't know us and our clothes could tell whether we are really standing there. Other webcam caches I have seen are just as indistinct.

I appreciate the need to keep cache quality high, but I think when it comes to webcam caches we are stuck relying on the honor system to some extent.

1k · May 22, 2003

I just looked and it seems your cache has been approved!

TEAM SHIBBY!!!!

Krs, Kar & Na

May 22, 2003

Oops, I cross-posted with RB&R. Nice work!

May 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:
Not that it really matters as far as the approval goes, but I see one thing I'd correct if it were my cache:

quote:
<img alt="Right click and choose ''Save Picture As...''" width="720" height="592" src="http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~lake/cam/jpg/large/201.jpg"></a>
Why increase the size of the picture? I took it out and created a standard HTML file, and the image is actually only supposed to be 512x384. That's why the clarity is down so much.

I'd suggest either taking the _width="720" height="592"_ or making it _width="400" height="300"_ which is the 1.333 ratio of the original picture, but SMALLER. That would actually INCREASE the clarity of the shot. I wouldn't go any smaller than that though.

Also, displaying it in a forced smaller ratio doesn't affect how the image would be saved. It would still be saved as 715x384

http://www.markwell.us

http://www.chicagogeocaching.com

Great suggestion! I implemented it and not only is image quality improved, the page loads faster! 8^)

RB&R

May 22, 2003

Well, since y'all read this far... I figured I should provide you with a "STELLAR CACHE!" Remember this day... it's akin to 1968!!

NASA Science News for

May 22, 2003

NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft turned away from the red planet for a while on May 8th and took a unique picture of Earth from Mars-orbit. This first-ever image of its kind not only shows our home planet as a tiny alien world in the vast darkness of space, but also includes Earth's moon and a view of the giant planet Jupiter.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/22may_alienearth.htm?list618398

Earthrise Photo 1968 From Apollo 8 (For a little perspective!)

http://www.heritageflight.org/info_&_Gen_Pages/Earthrise.htm

"Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives," Sagan wrote.

AND EVERY GEOCACHE YOU EVER FOUND! [This camera showing but a miniscule part of it!]

Lance Taylor

a.k.a. Ranger Bob

Webmaster: http://www.edmontonrasc.com

[This message was edited by Ranger Bob & The Rangerettes on May 22, 2003 at 08:19 PM.]

May 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Ranger Bob & The Rangerettes:

THIS ENTRY BELOW IS A TOTAL JOKE!

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cachelog_details.asp?ID=227651&L=1385641

Hey! My entry is not a total joke! If you notice Crew's entry (we did this one together), we included an up-close photo as further proof that it was us.

May 23, 2003

Well you've got two visits to your webcam cache already... I suspect it will be popular!

May 23, 2003

Fair enough Wadel... PLEASE let me rephrase that then in the context I meant. 'Of a joke' in that the size of the people in the final image which made them so small as to make them look ambiguous'.

It's actually quite cool that you photo enhanced the area around you going the extra distance. ALSO, did not know about providing a "Near The Webcam Cache Image" either. Also a good idea! I have taken some of the above and rolled them into my cache.

If anything, this thread has given some new great suggestions to Webcam establishments. All of the which had merit.

Thanks again,

Nuff Said!

RB

PS - I joined as a Premium member today, my faith being restored that the system works!

1.6k · May 23, 2003

Oh boy, this is fun.

Opinion of course, but I don't think webcam caches are 'true' geocaches in the sense of the original idea of the game. But I digress.

Due to the general full-hearted endorsement of the SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY, by allowing ONE webcam cache, we now have to allow them all.

I'm not sure that posting the e-mails from Cache-Advance and tying that name to MrGigabyte, along with other possibly unneccessary comments was such a great idea. I think hydee has it right in what she said.

Good luck with your cache. Hopefully the camera stays working. We once had a webcam cache approved in Vancouver with no debate, and it turned out to be non-functional almost immediately.

canadazuuk

(yes, I do peruse the forums from time to time...)

1.4k · May 23, 2003

quote:
Canadazuuk wrote:
Opinion of course, but I don't think webcam caches are 'true' geocaches in the sense of the original idea of the game.

So what is the original idea of the game? Is there some stone tablet where a description is available?

I recall a question in the FAQ of this website that states:

"Are there any variations in the game?"

The posted answer to this question is:

"YES! We strongly encourage it, actually. Geocaching is a game that constantly reinvents itself, and the rules are very flexible. If you have a new idea on how to place a cache, or a new game using GPS units, we'd love to hear about it."

This is why I think a lot of people are confused about what exactly this activity is -- if someone tries to add a different perspective or twist on the activity there are others who jump on them immediately stating that this doesn't conform to the original idea of the game. Seems to me that a webcam cache is a variation of the game that utilizes a GPSr.

Zuuky, no one says that you have to do a webcam cache (or any other cache for that matter).

quote:
Due to the general full-hearted endorsement of the SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY, by allowing ONE webcam cache, we now have to allow them all.

So what? Where's the harm? If you don't like it, don't do it. Who are you to deny others the pleasure that they get by finding and logging it? Is it hurting you in any way? Didn't think so.

quote:
I'm not sure that posting the e-mails from Cache-Advance and tying that name to MrGigabyte, along with other possibly unneccessary comments was such a great idea.

I suppose that this could be said of your post as well.

Looking forward to seeing that great monument that has every detail of what is and is not allowed when placing a cache. Perhaps you could post a picture of it, if you happen to find it.

*****

1.6k · May 24, 2003

J5- just admit you are anonymous cacher and a s++t disturber so we can get on with life

My reply was more tactful than you acknowledge

Uniform duplicity runs in many varieties, and you are oh so quick these days

zuuk

1.4k · May 24, 2003

quote:
canadazuuk wrote:
J5- just admit you are anonymous cacher and a s++t disturber so we can get on with life

Zuuky, where does this drivel come from? Are you not taking your meds again?

I can assure you that I AM NOT the anonymous cacher in question. You should know by now that if I have something to say that I'm certainly not afraid to say it -- I certainly don't hide behind a veil.

Next time you decide to point a finger at someone, you should get your facts straight first -- otherwise you could find that your own integrity might come into question.

*****

1.6k · May 24, 2003

J5- you continue to flaunt the same old diatribe about how everyone should be able to do whatever they want with a privately owned and operated site

It is a privilege, not a right, to post anything on this site, and that includes caches and comments

I'm sure this thread was intended to follow previously indicated procedures on how to get a questionable cache approved

But it is dubious at best to use it to bring up all the old war stories of yester-month

Drivel you say? Fine. Whatever. Opinions are just that. Why encase your brain inside concrete?

Watch for my newest cache:

WARLOCKS OF MEDIOCRITY- THE PHONELESS CORD

All the best, and talk to you again soon at a cache somewhere :-)

canadazuuk

1.6k · May 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Divine:

Hope Mr. NIgabyte approves it now.

- From the shallow end of the gene pool. -

Good work! Let us be racist!

How shallow is your gene pool?

Oh, I'm sorry. What pool?

canadazuuk

1.4k · May 24, 2003

Well Zuuky,

I should just leave this alone BUT...

I don't see anywhere that I said or even inferred that everyone should be able to do whatever they want (privately owned site or not). That would be ridiculous. What I did allude to was that everytime someone comes up with a deviation to the game, there are some who feel compelled to say that it shouldn't be. I reiterate, where is the harm with a webcam cache? Is it hurting you in some way? No it isn't. You don't have to do it. So why go about denying those who like them?

You still seem to be fixated on this false illusion that I was the one who sent Ranger Bob the anonymous e-mail. Quite frankly, you are questioning my integrity when there is no reason to do so. If you have proof, then get it out. But the reality is that there is no proof because it wasn't me who wrote the comments to Ranger Bob. Go ahead Zuuky, post whatever proof you have here. But it doesn't exist because I wrote and/or sent no such message.

What is it about "I AM NOT the anonymous cacher in question" that you don't understand? And if you go back and read the posts again you'll also see that I was not the one who brought up the connection between cache-advance and Mr. Gigabyte.

You are the one who keeps bringing it back up -- so stop chastizing others for what you yourself are doing.

BTW: Divine's comment is racist? Your imagination must be running in overdrive. I read it to be a slight on the word NIGGLE.

All the best to you too Zuuky.

*****

1.6k · May 24, 2003

I am glad we're all agreed then.

MrG is not cache advance, and J5 is not anonymous cacher.

Who is the bully now?

1.6k · May 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

I should just leave this alone BUT...

But what? What but?

quote:
I reiterate, where is the harm with a webcam cache? Is it hurting you in some way? No it isn't. You don't have to do it. So why go about denying those who like them?

I was denying them? Okay, so maybe I am cache advance is what you are saying?

I'm not denying anything. You keep belly aching everytime someone's cache doesn't get approved. Ad nauseum. Ad infinitum. Why do YOU go on about it?

quote:
Quite frankly, you are questioning my integrity when there is no reason to do so.

So your previous forum topics meant to draw a circle of doubt about the approvers who spend 20 hours a week of their own time approving caches has nothing to do with the contnuum of events? (like here)

quote:
You are the one who keeps bringing it back up -- so stop chastizing others for what you yourself are doing.

Uniform duplicity. What can I say.

You pour the concrete, you plant your feet in it...

Then I'll create a geocache so we can track the rate of decay, complete with pictures et al.

And start another thread when it doesn't get approved.

canadazuuk

1.4k · May 24, 2003

quote:
MrG is not cache advance, and J5 is not anonymous cacher.

Well, I know that I'm not the anonymous cacher. Can't say about cache-advance/Mr. Gigabyte.

quote:
Who is the bully now?

Who's taking about bullies?

Keep it on track Zuuk.

Enough of this already. It's getting tiring.

*****

1.6k · May 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:
Can't say about cache-advance/Mr. Gigabyte.

Oh, but you can say. You do say.

quote:
Enough of this already. It's getting tiring.

You can dish it out, but can't take it?

zuuk

May 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

quote:
MrG is not cache advance, and J5 is not anonymous cacher.
Well, I know that I'm not the anonymous cacher. Can't say about cache-advance/Mr. Gigabyte.

quote:
Who is the bully now?
Who's taking about bullies?

Keep it on track Zuuk.

Enough of this already. It's getting tiring.

*****

In defence of J5 he was not the one who sent the email. I do regret posting that P.S. note (it was in bad form) and I apologize to both the ANONYMOUS SENDER & CA. It will not happen again. Time to head out and find some caches now guys! Remember, this is supposed to be fun!

Happy Trails!

RB

1.6k · May 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Ranger Bob & The Rangerettes:

In defence of J5 he was not the one who sent the email. I do regret posting that P.S. note (it was in bad form) and I apologize to both the ANONYMOUS SENDER & CA. It will not happen again. Time to head out and find some caches now guys! Remember, this is supposed to be fun!

Happy Trails!

RB

Happy trails. I actually read this thread BEFORE J5 jumped in. You did exactly what was expected to be done, post a topic about your disapproved cache. And it ended up getting approved.

All the extra stuff we all heaped on it was just old left over war stories from yester month and forum topics a few pages back.

Folks, maybe we could just let the 'disapproved' threads serve their purpose, rather than turning them into remark recyclers. Or doesn't everyone know everyone else's OPINION yet?

zuuk

1.4k · May 24, 2003

>> Yawn... <<

quote:
canadazuuk wrote:
I was denying them? Okay, so maybe I am cache advance is what you are saying?

I'm not denying anything. You keep belly aching everytime someone's cache doesn't get approved. Ad nauseum. Ad infinitum. Why do YOU go on about it?

If I thought you were cache-advance I would have said so. When it comes down to it, I didn't say that Mr. Gigabyte is cache-advance either.

Well, you certainly voiced your chagrin regarding this webcam cache and about locationless caches in the past as well.

I don't go on about every cache that is not approved -- only the ones where it seems that there are underlying and unfair reasons for not approving them.

quote:
So your previous forum topics meant to draw a circle of doubt about the approvers who spend 20 hours a week of their own time approving caches has nothing to do with the contnuum of events? (like here)

If you go back and read the forum discussion that you are referring to you will realize that I was not drawing a 'circle of doubt' about the approvers. My reasons for identifying the approvers was quite sound -- they are representatives of this site and it's policies. I only wanted to find out who was who. Nothing nasty there. Just trying to clarify who's opinions in the forums carry any weight. That reminds me... we never did get a list of who approves caches or represents the site, perhaps we should discuss that one again?

I think I've had enough of this discussion Zuuky. There's no where left to go with it. See you later.

*****

Approve: Rob Lakes' WebCam (Edmonton) Cache?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment