Listing Caches by Province?

[Guest Nemesis]

Jeremy, I like the way you have organised the Canadian and Australian caches by province!

 

Maybe we could do the same for the New Zealand caches?

 

To date, I have included the name of the nearest significant town or city to each of my caches in parentheses at it end of its name. I would like to continue using this system (maybe without my parentheses), with the New Zealand province listed at the end of the name (as in Canada and Australia).

 

The only problem I can forsee, is that all of the existing New Zealand geocaches would need to be edited to show the province in which they reside. I could provide you with an annotated list of all of the caches in New Zealand showing their province (that is, if cache owners don't get around to editing their own caches).

 

Anyway, here is a list of provinces (actually regional councils and unitary authorities from section 1.5 of the Atlas of New Zealand Boundaries 1996; I have seperated Stewart Island from Southland):

 

North Island:

Northland

Auckland

Waikato

Taranaki

Bay of Plenty

Gisborne

Hawkes Bay

Manawatu

Wellington

 

South Island:

Tasman

Nelson/Marlborough

West Coast

Canterbury

Otago

Southland

 

Other Islands:

Stewart Island

Chatam Islands Territory

 

These provinces can be split up onto even smaller regions (e.g., using the Mereorlogical services regions from section 2.1 of the above reference, Otago can be split into Central Otago, North Otago, South Otago, and Dunedin and Canterbury can be split into Canterbury High Country, Canterbury Plains, and Christchurch City and/or South, Mid, and North Canterbury (using the Federated Farmers provinces shown in section 4.7)). As you can guess, the local interpritation of the boundaries between provinces varies depending on who you talk to, it is usually a mixture of all three of the systems mentioned above.

 

What does everyone else think? Have I made any mistakes? I would probably stick with the major govenmental provinces that I listed at the beginning, in that way we won't have to scroll down a massive list of provinces to find the right one (the list currently contains all of the provinces/states for the USA, Canada, and Australia).

 

Cheers,

Donovan.

[Guest Nemesis]

Maybe my previous list did not fairly represent the South Island (as the South Island is bigger than the North). I therefore propose this revised list of New Zealand provinces (my comments are in parentheses):

 

North Island:

Northland

Auckland

Waikato

Taranaki

Bay of Plenty

Gisborne

Hawkes Bay

Manawatu

Wellington

 

South Island:

Tasman (west of Nelson; including inland Buller)

West Coast (west of the Southern Alps; including costal Buller)

Nelson/Marlborough (north of the Waiau River; including the Sounds and the Kaikoura Coast)

North Canterbury (north of the Rakaia River)

South Canterbury (north of the Waitaki River)

Central Otago (this is difficult to define)

Costal Otago (north of the Clutha River and excluding Central Otago)

Southland (excluding Stewart Island and Fiordland)

Fiordland (Fiordland National Park)

 

Other Islands:

Stewart Island

Chatam Islands Territory

 

I hope that seems more fair. Those provincial boundries are not set in stone however (they are simply to be used as a guide). I only really wanted to split the South Island up a bit more.

 

Cheers,

Donovan.

[Guest Nemesis]

I have just found some online maps showing the boundaries of the regional authorities and the local authorities in New Zealand.

 

Cheers,

Donovan.

[Guest rediguana]

I'd like to see this happen if you're listening Jeremy I'd be more than happy to help out listing regions for current caches.

 

Cheers Gav

 

[This message has been edited by rediguana (edited 03 September 2001).]

[Guest Nemesis]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rediguana:

...it's been a little while since I was lurking here. Am just about to get back into it...I think the regional authorities would be the way to go...

---

 

It's good to have you back.

 

I agree, regional authorities would be best. I still think it would be fairer if the south and north islands had an equal number of provinces however.

 

I mentioned it in the general geocaching questions forum and Jeremy thought it would be a good idea. He will need to find the time first however.

 

Regards,

Donovan.

[Guest rediguana]

Hehe its good to be back Have a little on my plate but will still manage to fit some caching in.

 

I think fairness is a good thing - as you mention when it comes to regions - but I would probably prefer to see less rather than more regions. Perhaps we could merge some more so the we can perhaps get 10 with 5 in each Island? Say

 

South Island

* Nelson/Marlborough

* Canterbury

* West Coast

* Otago

* Southland

 

North Island

* Northland/Auckland

* Waikato/BOP

* Taranaki/Manawatu/Wanganui

* Gisbourne/Hawkes Bay

* Wellington

 

I don't think having 14-15 regions would serve much purpose at this stage as some would have none or only 1-2.

 

I have also considered just having NI/SI but I think that is too coarse. I like another idea of having say six which could be

 

* Lower SI - Southland/Otago

* Central SI - Canterbury/West Coast

* Upper SI - Tasman/Marlborough

* Lower NI - Wellington/Manawatu/Wanganui/Taranaki/Hawkes Bay

* Central NI - Waikato/BOP/Gisbourne

* Upper NI - Auckland/Northland

 

The name of the region would also reasonably clearly indicate where region is too.

 

Just some thoughts.

 

Cheers Gav

[Guest Nemesis]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rediguana:

I think fairness is a good thing...but I would probably prefer to see less rather than more regions....perhaps get 10 with 5 in each Island

---

 

Yeah, I see your point.

 

Finding caches by province can be problematic also, for example if I know that a chache is in Canterbury, I don't have any idea where it really is (I might have to drive for hours from Christchurch to find it). That is why I use the system of listing the nearest large (or well known) town or city in my cache names. In this way a local will immediately have a idea of the general location of the cache. I developed the format originally to avoid naming mine 'geocache' (as they where often called), this meant that you had to look at the details for each one to find out where they were.

 

Cheers,

Donovan.

[Guest rediguana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nemesis:

Finding caches by province can be problematic also

---

 

That they can

 

My reasons for supporting regional grouping are solely for the purpose of identifying possible caches. That is how I have used them in Australia. Grab either NSW or Victoria and it gives you a list of possibles. Perhaps at this stage you don't need to know exactly where they are, but you do need to know that they are within your target range - that is, a particular area.

 

Once I have a filtered list, then there are various ways of getting a better idea where everything is - most of them free My favourite is just to download the way points into EasyGPS, make a point I know active, and then look at the bearing and distance to get a good idea of where it is. If there are any further clues in the cache description then that is a bonus hehe. I have also been playing around with ExpertGPS recently and that allows you to plots waypoints in relation to each other, or on scanned maps. Being a visual person, I find maps much easier to grok where something is located.

 

When/if we change to a regional grouping system, I will be removing the region from the titles of my caches. I may add the district for slightly finer accuracy, or I may just leave it so that its part of the adventure

 

Cheers Gavin

[Guest Nemesis]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rediguana:

My reasons for supporting regional grouping are solely for the purpose of identifying possible caches.

---

 

Gav, I agree that it would be useful.

 

I also agree that it would be better to have fewer regions instead of more.

 

I have modified my original proposed regions in line with your suggestions, there are now 4 in the North Island and 5 in the South (just to be fair):

 

North Island:

Northland/Auckland

Waikato/Bay of Plenty

Gisborne/Hawke's Bay

Taranaki/Manawatu-Wanganui/Wellington

 

South Island:

Tasman/Nelson/Marlborough

West Coast

Canterbury

Otago

Southland

 

Cheers,

Donovan.

[Guest rediguana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nemesis:

I have modified my original proposed regions in line with your suggestions, there are now 4 in the North Island and 5 in the South:

---

 

That looks pretty good to me, and seems fair given the amount of caching activity in the mainland

 

Cheers Gav

[Guest rediguana]

d noted that they have split the country up into 12 regions. Perhaps we should keep in line with the govt? It's simpler and fits in with peoples day-to-day understanding of regions? Just another thought to add.

 

Cheers Gav

[Guest Nemesis]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rediguana:

LandInfo NZ...split the country up into 12 regions. Perhaps we should keep in line with the govt?

---

 

Yeah, I have noticed that the location and naming of regional boundaries depends on who you ask, for example the govt., the AA, LandInfo NZ, Federated Farmers, and the Met. Service all use different boundaries. I agree that we should simply stick with the govt. boundaries, as these are the most commonly known.

 

Cheers,

Donovan.

[Guest Nemesis]

Well, it seems that everyone is happy with my allocation of boundaries, that is:

 

North Island:

Northland/Auckland

Waikato/Bay of Plenty

Gisborne/Hawke's Bay

Taranaki/Manawatu-Wanganui/Wellington

 

South Island:

Tasman/Nelson/Marlborough

West Coast

Canterbury

Otago

Southland

 

I will send them off to Jeremy to see what he thinks in a week or so. Maybe I could combine Tasman and the West Coast along with Otago and Southland (just a thought)? I still don't know what to do to shorten Taranaki/Manawatu-Wanganui/Wellington? Maybe I'll just leave it as it is? If you have any comments or ideas I would be happy to hear them.

 

Cheers,

Donovan.

[Guest rediguana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nemesis:

Maybe I could combine ... I still don't know what to do to shorten ... Maybe I'll just leave it as it is?

---

 

Hmmm, its a tough one in my mind. I still think it would be best if we used the 15 major Territorial Authorities.

 

* Northland

* Auckland

* Waikato

* Bay of Plenty

* Gisbourne

* Taranaki

* Manawatu-Wanganui

* Hawkes Bay

* Wellington

 

* Tasman/Nelson

* Marlborough

* West Coast

* Canterbury

* Otago

* Southland

 

These are our common political boundaries. These are our sporting boundaries. They are geographical/geological boundaries. They roughly mirror our population. Whilst there are currently a lot of caches in the SI, if geocaching takes on as it does overseas, cache density should closely mirror population density (Esp if we get a Nemesis or RedIguana equivalent up there! LOL). We should design the boundaries based not where we are now, but where we are going. And I'd hazard that by the end of summer there could be a lot more caches in the North Island than South - hence more regions would be appropriate.

 

If we used the ~15 major territorial authorities, we could use their individual names. If we create supersets of multiple TA's then I believe we need a naming system that reasonably clearly identifies them, without being too long. This could add to some confusion.

 

I think that whilst the 15 regions mentioned above are a lot, they are what everyone knows, and people can easily migrate to them. It also will keep us in line with other countries using unified regions such as Australia, Canada and the US.

 

Cheers Gav

 

[This message has been edited by rediguana (edited 19 September 2001).]

[Guest rediguana]

Hehe I've changed my mind a few times during this topic, but I think my most recent post is where I'll lay my hat.

 

Cheers Gav

[Guest Nemesis]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rediguana:

Hehe I've changed my mind a few times during this topic

---

 

Yeah, It's a bit of a major U-turn for you!

 

Your reasons for doing it are similar to the reasons why I chose my initial system.

 

I think we will use the standard regional boundaries then.

 

Cheers,

Donovan.

 

[This message has been edited by Nemesis (edited 19 September 2001).]

[Guest rediguana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nemesis:

I think we will use the standard regional boundaries then.

---

 

Yes, well I had a really good think about it last night One note, Tasman/Nelson were merged in mine, rather than Nelson/Marlborough.

 

Cheers Gav

[Guest Nemesis]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rediguana:

Tasman/Nelson were merged...rather than Nelson/Marlborough.

---

 

That is a great suggestion!

 

Nelson city is a real pain as it's so small.

 

The only reason I paired it up with Marlborough is because that's the way the AA does it, but on reflection it might just as well be paired up with Tasman.

 

So this is our final list of provinces:

 

North Island:

Northland

Auckland

Waikato

Bay of Plenty

Gisborne

Hawke's Bay

Taranaki

Manawatu-Wanganui

Wellington

 

South Island:

Tasman/Nelson City

Marlborough

West Coast

Canterbury

Otago

Southland

 

Does any one else have any comments? Going once, going twice... I will sit on it for a week or so to give others a chance to reply.

 

Cheers,

Donovan.

[Guest rediguana]

Nemesis:

Going once, going twice...

---

 

I second that

 

Cheers Gav

[Guest Adman]

I think you should reconsider your boundries idea. Some of those boundaries cover huge areas maybe the nearest city/locality would be more helpful. The region idea can be very subjective and not give a good idea of where the cache is. What region would the cache in the Wairarapa be put in? or the one in the Rangitikei? or the one in the Horowhenua? I'm sure the same problems could occur in the south

 

Hehe there had to be someone through a spanner in the works

[Guest rediguana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adman:

Some of those boundaries cover huge areas maybe the nearest city/locality would be more helpful.

---

 

This would be useful, and it would be nice to set up a list of major centres that links to the search page using coordinates to provide a list of caches and their distances from the centre.

 

And, if we go with regions as proposed, there is nothing stopping someone using the nearest centre in the title as Donovan has done all along. In fact, once regions were used, I would remove them from the title of mine, and adopt nearest major centres too. Of course if we had a links page using as mentioned above it would remove the need for using nearest centre in the title as that wouldn't be very diffent from doing a coordinate based search.

 

But I still think going with the territorial authorities is the most objective method by which to group caches at this stage.

 

Cheers Gav

[Guest Nemesis]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adman:

Some of those boundaries cover huge areas....The region idea can be very subjective...

---

 

Adman, you are right, but we had to chose the most commonly accepted boundaries (see the links to the govt. maps near the beginning of this thread).

 

The whole reason for doing it at all is that when NZ has over 1000 caches (maybe in a year or two? ) someone looking for a cache near Auckland will not want to have to scroll through a list of caches in Southland (for example).

 

But, as RedIguana said, I have included the name of the nearest significant town or city in my cache names from the beginning.

 

BTW, that is a great idea RedIguana, it would be nice to be able to do a nearest search from place names instead of the coordinates we use at present. It would be reasonably easy to do this, provided that you could easily find the cordinates of each town or city. Maybe you could mention it to Jeremy?

 

Cheers,

Donovan.

 

[This message has been edited by Nemesis (edited 24 September 2001).]

[Guest rediguana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nemesis:

It would be reasonably easy to do this, provided that you could easily find the cordinates of each town or city.

---

 

I was actually just thinking of ripping the coordinates from my GPSR, and setting up links from geocaching.co.nz to the search coordinates results page - when its up and running We can already do a coordinate search now, we just set up a few preprogrammed ones. Of course it would be nice if Jeremy could build it into geocaching.com - but there are other features I'd like to see first

 

Cheers Gav

[Guest Adman]

Yeah I can see your reasoning for the regions, I think Nemisis has got the right idea putting the nearest locality as well

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nemesis:

it would be nice to be able to do a nearest search from place names instead of the coordinates we use at present

---

 

Adding a range as well , may be useful so you can show all caches within a certain range of a placename or co-ordinate

[Guest Adman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rediguana:

These are our common political boundaries. These are our sporting boundaries. They are geographical/geological boundaries. They roughly mirror our population.

---

).

 

Maybe the Super 12 boundaries would be the way to go.

 

• Blues
• Chiefs
• Hurricanes
• Crusaders
• Highlanders

lol

 

Cheers

Adam

[Guest rediguana]

In keeping with the size of regions used overseas, we could just stick with

 

* South Island

* North Island

 

Wouldn't be many arguments there LOL In the meantime, waiting for more suggestions

 

Cheers Gav

[Guest rediguana]

>quote:

---

Originally posted by Adman:

Adding a range as well , may be useful so you can show all caches within a certain range of a placename or co-ordinate

---

 

Have you tried a coordinate search from the search page? It does this and goes up to approximately 100 miles from the entered coordinate. All you need is the coordinate of a place. If people want to help me build a database of placenames and coordinates, then I'll do a web page, that allows you to select a placename, and it will automatically submit the coordinates to the search engine. It would be nice if Jeremy could do this, but its something we can tack on in the meantime.

 

Cheers Gav

[Guest rediguana]

As an example, here is the link to the search using rough coordinates of Christchurch.

 

sample url

 

And I think it goes up to 150 miles, not 100 as previously mentioned.

 

Cheers Gav

 

[This message has been edited by rediguana (edited 25 September 2001).]

[Guest Adman]

Excellent, I can do a placename database, no problem.

 

I meant a user selectable range, i.e. the user can select 10/20/100/200 miles/km etc. This may even be able to be added to your website. What platform would you host it on?

 

Cheers

 

Adam

[Guest Adman]

This lot is from the LINZ Place names database, it's not super accurate , but should do to start with. I have a more accurate list somewhere , I'll try and hunt it out for you.

 

Akaroa,43.80,172.97

ASHBURTON,43.88,171.75

AUCKLAND,36.83,174.76

Balclutha,46.23,169.73

BLENHEIM,41.51,173.94

CHRISTCHURCH,43.53,172.64

Dannevirke,40.21,176.09

Dargaville,35.94,173.86

DUNEDIN,45.88,170.51

Gisborne,38.65,178.01

Greymouth,42.45,171.17

HAMILTON,37.78,175.27

HASTINGS,39.63,176.82

Hawera,39.58,174.27

Hokitika,42.72,170.94

INVERCARGILL,46.43,168.36

Kaikohe,35.40,173.80

Kaikoura,42.40,173.68

Kaitaia,35.10,173.24

LEVIN,40.61,175.27

MASTERTON,40.96,175.66

Motueka,41.10,173.02

NAPIER,39.50,176.89

NELSON,41.27,173.29

NEW PLYMOUTH,39.05,174.06

OAMARU,45.09,170.98

Ohakune,39.41,175.40

Opunake,39.45,173.83

Owaka,46.45,169.64

Palmerston North,40.34,175.55

Picton,41.29,174.01

Queenstown,45.04,168.64

Raetihi,39.42,175.26

Reefton,42.11,171.86

ROTORUA,38.14,176.26

Stratford,39.34,174.26

Taihape,39.68,175.77

Taumarunui,38.88,175.26

Taupo,38.69,176.07

TAURANGA,37.68,176.17

Te Kuiti,38.32,175.17

Thames,37.14,175.53

TIMARU,44.39,171.26

TOKOROA,38.22,175.84

Turangi,38.98,175.79

Waimate,44.73,171.05

Waipukurau,40.00,176.56

Wairoa,39.04,177.42

WANGANUI,39.93,175.02

Warkworth,36.40,174.66

WELLINGTON,41.28,174.79

Westport,41.75,171.58

Whakatane,37.96,176.99

WHANGAREI,35.72,174.29

 

Cheers

Adam

[Guest Nemesis]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rediguana:

...here is the link to the search using rough coordinates of Christchurch

---

 

Yep, that's what I was suggesting.

 

Yeah, it would be cool if we could dynamically generate seach queries given a place name and a database of their coordinates?

 

I know that there are databases of worldwide place names (including the minor ones) and coordinates out there. But it may cost.

 

Maybe Jeremy might like to invest in one and allow searches using a given place name as the origin? He would need to allow the search to be narrowed to include only one country and/or region (to avoid ambuguity, there is a Dunedin in Florida too).

 

To see what I mean about a large place name database check out http://www.heavens-above.com/ and select your location (they got their information from various sources). Maybe Jeremy could use this kind of interface for selecting place names?

 

Adman, thanks for the list of coordinates, they will come in handy.

 

Cheers,

Donovan.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Nemesis (edited 25 September 2001).]

[Guest Nemesis]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nemesis:

Maybe Jeremy might like to invest in one...

---

 

How stupid of me , Jeremy must already have access to a large place name database to generate the nearest place names to each cache.

 

Oh yeah, Gav, you might want to shorten your link to the search in one of your previous posts (use a hyperlink with a short label), it's causing havoc with my browser.

 

Cheers,

Donovan.

[Guest Adman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rediguana:

...then I'll do a web page, that allows you to select a placename, and it will automatically submit the coordinates to the search engine...

---

 

I may be able to help you with this if you want

[Guest rediguana]

he site - that would be cool. Feel free to start coming up with design ideas, and we can start building the site.

 

Cheers Gav

 

PS The site seems rather slow tonight - not sure why - shared servers hmmmp

 

[This message has been edited by rediguana (edited 25 September 2001).]

[Guest Nemesis]

quote:

---

my sample site...start coming up with design ideas.[/b]

---

 

Looks good.

 

I will try to come up with some ideas.

 

Cheers,

Donovan.

[Guest Adman]

Very Cool

 

Cheers

Adam

[Guest Adman]

Maybe you could stick all the towns in alphabetical order. The uppercase cities don't seem to necessarily be the larger cities (Palmerston North pop. 70000 LEVIN pop. 5000)

 

Cheers

Adam

[Guest Adman]

I have started a topic for the website thing

 

Back to the original topic,

quote:

---

Originally posted by rediguana:

In keeping with the size of regions used overseas, we could just stick with

 

* South Island

* North Island

---

 

maybe just a North/South split would be enough, as rediguana has mentioned earlier. If you look at the size of our population compared to Aus, Canada or the US.

 

Cheers

Adam

[Guest Nemesis]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adman:

maybe just a North/South split

---

 

Maybe, in the near future anyway.

 

I still think it woiuld be nice to include more regions so that geocachers could see geocaches within their immediate region.

 

See the Canadian cache listings, you intitialy default to listing all of them, you can then choose to view those in only one province.

 

Oh yeah, the Canadian provinces are of a similar size to ours (well, maybe slightly larger ).

 

Maybe we could do both? We could have links to North and South Island caches, along with links to each province (I assume Stewart Island would be part of the South Island, as it's part of Southland).

 

I assume that Jeremy could implement this if the province is specified when each cache is submitted and if I specify which provinces are in the North Island and which are in the South.

 

I will have to give him a list of the provinces for all of the existing caches however.

 

What does everyone think of this new proposal?

 

Cheers,

Donovan.

[Guest Adman]

Great Idea

 

Cheers

Adam

[Guest Nemesis]

BTW, here is our final list of provinces again:

 

North Island:

Northland

Auckland

Waikato

Bay of Plenty

Gisborne

Hawke's Bay

Taranaki

Manawatu-Wanganui

Wellington

 

South Island:

Tasman/Nelson City

Marlborough

West Coast

Canterbury

Otago

Southland

 

Any more comments, anybody?

 

Cheers,

Donovan.

[Guest kim]

Originally posted by Nemesis:

BTW, here is our final list of provinces again:

 

I am amazed at all the floundering around trying to classify spatial coordinates. Are you GPS experts not aware of a map technology called GIS? Instead of trying to add attributes to a spatial feature you just submit a spatial query like NEAR, ADJACENT CONTAINS and so on, similar to an SQL query that only uses provincial names.

 

It is an extremely simple matter to map all the geocaching sites on top of a simple map.

 

Why limit to a regional council boundary? Surely a query like all points IN Canterbury and NEAR Rakaia river and Difficulty < 3

is a more useful query?

 

Besides the area required varies. Hence the discussion ranging from South Island being too large to Regions being too small. I think its much worse than that... what if you want to look up urban caches for a short run on a Sunday afternoon? Then you need suburbs, parks or localities. Localities are available for the whole of NZ from the Gazetteer which has lat long coded for every official name in the country. Free from the LINZ website.

[Guest rediguana]

g.com/hideseek/" TARGET=_blank>http://www.geocaching.com/hideseek/ to do a reasonable job of locating caches anyway. Simple facts like, we cannot write the code, nor install software on the geocaching.com server mean we can only come up with practical suggestions.

 

And yes it is easy to plot waypoints on a map => http://rediguana.co.nz/topomap/topomap7.jpg

 

Of course, being able to download caches into arcview and run a few queries would be pretty cool, but I don't think anyone has done that yet.

 

Cheers Gav

[Guest Nemesis]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kim:

I am amazed at all the floundering around trying to classify spatial coordinates...

---

 

Yeah, Rediguana summed it up very well (thanks ).

 

Kim, it would be great if Jeremy Irish (who works so hard maintaining the geocaching.com site (for free)) would set up a GIS containing the boundaries within New Zealand (the information might not be free) and then allow us to query it through his site. But, as Rediguana said, it's easier for Jeremy to simply add an option specifying in which province each cache is.

 

The only problem is that I will have to send him a list of the provinces for every existing cache (I will get around to finishing it soon, I hope ).

 

Cheers,

Donovan.

[Guest Adman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kim:

I am amazed at all the floundering around trying to classify spatial coordinates....It is an extremely simple matter to map all the geocaching sites on top of a simple map

---

 

Is this your website Kim? IntraMap

 

Perhaps you may want to contribute some of your talent to the free sport of Geocaching? It certainly would be a appreciated by many a Geocacher around the country.

 

Cheers

Adam

 

[This message has been edited by Adman (edited 23 October 2001).]

[Guest Nemesis]

quote:

---

Perhaps you may want to contribute some of your talent to the free sport of Geocaching?[/b]

---

 

Now that is a constructive suggestion.

 

Cheers,

Donovan.