Calling all techno geeks, answer please...

2.1k · July 17, 2003

Did it get your attention? Ok now what I was wondering, is if there is already software out there that will do what I am thinking. What I am thinking is about my trip we are about to go on. Is there some software that will allow you to put in a route, lets say I-95 for example, that will tell you which caches are within a certain distance from it? Like if I wanted to hit caches along the way that were only 2 miles from the interstate. And not from just one point, but along a certain stretch, like New York to Florida or more detailed places. I know I could sit down and do it an old fashioned way, but I didn't know if something would do it already and quickly.

If there isn't something like that, do you think it's a good idea?

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

July 17, 2003

I think they have such softwares for planning vacations, only the destination options include hotels, motels, attractions, and other distractions...which can be specified in your search, using variables like cost, time, distance, etc...

Since geocaching.com is already partially integrated with mapquest.com, then I think it wouldn't be too hard to do your idea, because mapquest.com already has the option I mentioned above. Perhaps hotels.com has a similar system for the traveller.

It is definitely a good idea, if your trip is long enough (spanning several postal codes)...the shorter trips may simply be so short that all you need is a local postal code.

Also, in Canada, pilots receive a Canada Flight Supplement, which is like an airport-dictionnary, and you can look up airports alphabetically...and as you plan your cross-country flight, there is information in the book (for each airport where it applies), for services like (taxi, rent-a-car, avgas, hotels, food, etc.). I don't know if it integrated with the net yet. I would be very useful if it were, such as weather reports and weather maps (which are available and constantly updated on the net).

______________________________________________ Kanto

______________________________________________

1.4k · July 17, 2003

You outta try doing a search for this Woodsters. It has been discussed to death already.

-----

I think you'll find that most people hate it when someone says "made you look" or "did it get your attention"? It's just plain annoying. Sheesh.

The only thing that is more annoying than "made you look" is when a topic heading has nothing to do with the topic.

You're rapidly moving up my list of people to ignore.

*****

July 17, 2003

That is a great idea. I agree with Kanto that this is certainly possible via MapQuest, but I doubt that they have anything enabling you to this at this time.

personally when I am doing something like that I use: Buxley's Geocaching Waypoint Maps.

1.4k · July 17, 2003

Oh my, how convenient -- while we're at it with pet peeves -- isn't there a rule about advertising on this site? What's with the banner ad signature Kanto? It's pretty obnoxious man.

*****

1.4k · July 17, 2003

Kanto -- thanks for getting rid of the annoying banner ad signature.

*****

2.1k · July 17, 2003

Sorry Jomamarc5, I forgot to put a smilie there for you...it was an ice breaker on the "Did I get your attention?"

Please put me on your ignore list if you feel the need. If you feel it has been beaten to death then don't reply. I had a valid question. Astonishing to many, I'm not going to sit here and search through thread after thread, especially when they are full of "this has been beaten to death". I believe everything that is on the forum that DOES relate to geocaching has been discussed before.

Please stay on topic with the thread. If you have pet peeves you would like to share, then feel free to start your own thread or better yet, do some reserach as I'm sure they have been talked about before.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

July 17, 2003

I am not even surprised that of everyone's advertising of their own sites and their pictures in their own signatures, mine was the only one that insulted you. I thought a public grievance is more obnoxious than a private one.

Funny how when I meant to share a good quote and a positive activity, and combine them into one nice little package...you feel attacked.

I truly did not mean to impose anything.

Point taken nonetheless.

4.8k · July 17, 2003

Here is a link that addresses it. There is a useful link in there to Markwell's FAQ.

I recently used Buxley's maps to pull up caches along a route.

[This message was edited by carleenp on July 17, 2003 at 11:10 AM.]

July 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:
Kanto -- thanks for getting rid of the annoying banner ad signature.

*****

Er...you're welcome.

Also, since in the forums there is a lot of repetition...as there is in real life and in the news, and in all forms of media and communication, everywhere. Why do we continue to communicate, despite all the same stories that happen day in day out, year in year out, all over the world?

I do not wish to make an enemy here, but this is sincerely interesting. (The communication part).

ON a more sarcastic and defensive note...

What about that carleenP's pikachu, if that were combined with a quote caleenP liked, and placed in a box, and with a link to some pikachu site, would you ask her to rid of it as well? Maybe if it was smaller...

2.1k · July 17, 2003

Thanks Carleen!

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

1.4k · July 17, 2003

Smilie or no smilie it's still annoying.

quote:
do some reserach as I'm sure they have been talked about before.

Whatever smart guy. Going into ignore mode.

*****

July 17, 2003

1.4k · July 17, 2003

quote:
Kanto wrote:
I am not even surprised that of everyone's advertising of their own sites and their pictures in their own signatures, mine was the only one that insulted you.

The difference here is that others don't have obnoxious banner ads for their signatures.

*****

July 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:
Smilie or no smilie it's still annoying.

Whatever smart guy. Going into ignore mode.

*****

It's funny how in your response, you reveal a lot about how you interpret things (or how you see the world), isn't it?

How do you define a banner ad Jomarac5?

__________

Kanto

1.4k · July 17, 2003

Perhaps.

But I don't do it with a banner ad.

*****

2.1k · July 17, 2003

Kanto, your signature didn't bother me. I didn't want to go to the site so I didn't click on it, but I did read the message on it!

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

2.1k · July 17, 2003

Funny how he can now ignore me, but before he couldn't, or the fact that he couldn't ignore your signature...I don't think he's really ignoring anything....

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

1.4k · July 17, 2003

quote:
Woodsters wrote:
I didn't want to go to the site so I didn't click on it, but I did read the message on it!

Let's keep this thread on topic shall we?

*****

2.1k · July 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

quote:
Woodsters wrote:
I didn't want to go to the site so I didn't click on it, but I did read the message on it!

Let's keep this thread on topic shall we?

*****

Thought I was being ignored?

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

2.1k · July 17, 2003

Ummm, but you took it off topic there with your first post and every post you made....

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

1.4k · July 17, 2003

quote:
Woodsters wrote:
Thought I was being ingored?

You were for a few minutes, but this just got too darned entertaining to leave it alone.

*****

July 17, 2003

I appreciate how you didn't hate my signature, and I hope you liked the quote.

2.1k · July 17, 2003

Your right it is entertaining.....don't jump in someones thread and try to flame them with stuff that is uncalled for and then try to turn it around.

The band wagon for bashing me has passed, you missed it. Gotta wait for the next ride...

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

1.4k · July 17, 2003

quote:
Woodsters wrote:
The band wagon for bashing me has passed, you missed it. Gotta wait for the next ride...

Perhaps you were previously on the wrong train and the stage is just leaving Dodge now...

*****

2.1k · July 17, 2003

So you admit that you intentionally posted on the thread to bash ....

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

1.4k · July 17, 2003

quote:
Kanto wrote:
I appreciate how you didn't hate my signature, and I hope you liked the quote.

Whoa... I don't have a problem with your quote at all -- just the annoying banner ad. Quote on man.

****

1.4k · July 17, 2003

quote:
Woodsters wrote:
So you admit that you intentionally posted on the thread to bash ....

Nope. Not at all. I posted because of the SPAM technique that you used to get attention to your topic (a topic that has been discussed soooo many times already).

*****

2.1k · July 17, 2003

SPAM technique? "Calling all techno geeks, answer please..." is SPAM? I think you need to read some info on SPAM. Let me help point you the way, since you have not obviously researched SPAM and it was already discussed in another thread last week or the week before.

Spam Laws

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

3.2k · July 17, 2003

Slightly O(n)T

My boys are wanting to do the same thing for bike paths. They posted but got no luck. I will check the post above, however the way I have worked around now depends wholey on if you have software that can accept waypoints.

Using MapSource software for my Garmin, I take all the waypoints that are in my GPS (I get them in pocket query ) and put them into the software. I pull up the map of the area along the route and print those out. Kinda techno meets paper, but I have not found a better way yet.

Don't know if you can load the waypoints into DeLorme or other mapping software.

July 17, 2003

Can't we all just get along?

Sorry could not resist.

NeuroNomad & Sublonde's Page

2.1k · July 17, 2003

And while I'm at, some poor soul who is going to "search" on here about SPAM is going to be referred to this thread now and waste their time. This is one reason that when I have a question that I ask it. I don't want to sit through message after message of people bashing others as well as all the other crap that doesn't associate with it.

If you have an answer to the question, then by all means, answer it, markwell it, or post an outside link as Carleen was so nice to do.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

1.4k · July 17, 2003

quote:
SPAM technique?

Absolutely. How many junk e-mails do you get with a subject line like "Did you know?", or "Are you OK?" -- these are SPAM techniques used to get you to open an e-mail. What you did with the topic of this thread is not any different. It's deception. Plain and simple.

I would not have looked at this thread (and subsequently not posted to it) had the topic been "Finding caches along an Interstate route".

See how much sense that makes?

*****

1.4k · July 17, 2003

quote:
Woodsters wrote:
And while I'm at, some poor soul who is going to "search" on here about SPAM is going to be referred to this thread now and waste their time.

Ah, but if you hadn't used a SPAM techinque to bring attention to your thread, the word SPAM wouldn't have been used here.

*****

2.1k · July 17, 2003

Thanks Baloo..That was a way on the Markwell site. That is an added benefit of the pocket queries. I'm learning that part more as I go. I figured it had been thought of before and we are leaving at 3am on our trip and just wanted to see if there was a program that would do it on the computer, where I could print out a list of caches along the interstate...

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

July 17, 2003

I am not sure I follow the SPAM logic here Jomarac5. I certainly do not want to become SPAM bait, I am just trying to figure it out. Are you just refering to the subject being, "Calling All Techno Geeks?" because while it may not have been the best title for this subject, I have seen much worse.

Please enlighten, thanks.

NeuroNomad & Sublonde's Page

2.1k · July 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

quote:
SPAM technique?
Absolutely. How many junk e-mails do you get with a subject line like "Did you know?", or "Are you OK?" -- these are SPAM techniques used to get you to open an e-mail. What you did with the topic of this thread is not any different. It's deception. Plain and simple.

I would not have looked at this thread (and subsequently not posted to it) had the topic been "Finding caches along an Interstate route".

See how much sense that makes?

*****

First look up at what is SPAM and what is illegal. You were stating that the title I used was deceptive? Calling for the techno geeks of the board to ask a question that they would know is deceptive?

Get real....Stop looking for a reason to bi***...

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

5.3k · July 17, 2003

He said you used a spam technique...

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."

2.1k · July 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

quote:
Woodsters wrote:
And while I'm at, some poor soul who is going to "search" on here about SPAM is going to be referred to this thread now and waste their time.

Ah, but if you hadn't used a SPAM techinque to bring attention to your thread, the word SPAM wouldn't have been used here.

*****

Once again please read the spamlaws and try to understand the subject of SPAM some more....

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

1.4k · July 17, 2003

quote:
Michael Whitt wrote:
I am not sure I follow the SPAM logic here Jomarac5.

The subject topic name has nothing to do with the topic. There is nothing in that topic name to indicate that this topic is about finding caches along a highway route. It's a deceptive ploy to get people who have no interest in the topic to read it. Woodsters opening line confirms it -- "Did it get your attention?". Read my 11:36 AM post -- it explains it there.

*****

3.2k · July 17, 2003

quote:
... we are leaving at 3am on our trip and just wanted to see if there was a program that would do it on the computer, where I could print out a list of caches along the interstate...
_

If you find a better way, let me know. Me and the boys are all ears.

Thread is getting a little noisy, think I'll turn notification off.

2.1k · July 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Stunod:
He said you used a spam _technique_...

http://208.55.63.109/images/homer.gif

__"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."__

I understand what he was trying to refer, but saying hey come here is not a SPAM technique....

I asked for the techno geeks, I had a question...no deception, unless he thought I was going to start a techno geek posse or army...if so, then i'm sorry....

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

1.4k · July 17, 2003

quote:
Woodsters wrote:
Once again please read the spamlaws and try to understand the subject of SPAM some more....

I didn't say you were SPAMMING did I? I said that you were using SPAM techniques.

*****

1.4k · July 17, 2003

quote:
Woodsters wrote:
I asked for the techno geeks, I had a question...no deception

Of course there is deception. Why don't you start another thread and give it a name more fitting of the topic matter? I'll bet you won't have anyone accusing you of using SPAM techniques.

By not divulging the actual topic initially you are being deceptive -- and that's what SPAMMERS do.

*****

2.1k · July 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

quote:
Michael Whitt wrote:
I am not sure I follow the SPAM logic here Jomarac5.

The subject topic name has nothing to do with the topic. There is nothing in that topic name to indicate that this topic is about finding caches along a highway route. It's a deceptive ploy to get people who have no interest in the topic to read it. Woodsters opening line confirms it -- "Did it get your attention?". Read my 11:36 AM post -- it explains it there.

*****

Oh please, if that's what you feel, then go back out and go through every thread on here and see what in your mind is a SPAM technique and post there as well....and then why you are trying to enforce things, go to some of the threads that don't deal with geocaching at all and post there too....

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

2.1k · July 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

quote:
Woodsters wrote:
Once again please read the spamlaws and try to understand the subject of SPAM some more....

I didn't say you were SPAMMING did I? I said that you were using SPAM techniques.

*****

Ah but the laws define and state the "techniques" as that you speak of that are deceptive...

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

1.4k · July 17, 2003

quote:
Woodsters wrote:
Oh please, if that's what you feel, then go back out and go through every thread on here and see what in your mind is a SPAM technique and post there as well....and then why you are trying to enforce things, go to some of the threads that don't deal with geocaching at all and post there too....

Testy, testy.

*****

2.1k · July 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

quote:
Woodsters wrote:
I asked for the techno geeks, I had a question...no deception

Of course there is deception. Why don't you start another thread and give it a name more fitting of the topic matter? I'll bet you won't have anyone accusing you of using SPAM techniques.

By not divulging the actual topic initially you are being deceptive -- and that's what SPAMMERS do.

*****

You might not like the thread....

No I get plenty of SPAM that states specifically what they are selling...i also get SPAM that says "HI" in the subject. Is that deceptive? NO. If they said hey you want to buy a car and are truing to sell me a house, is that decpetive? Yes.

Once again, this is a pet peeve of yours that has been discussed before...go research it...

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

2.1k · July 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

quote:
Woodsters wrote:
Oh please, if that's what you feel, then go back out and go through every thread on here and see what in your mind is a SPAM technique and post there as well....and then why you are trying to enforce things, go to some of the threads that don't deal with geocaching at all and post there too....

Testy, testy.

*****

Am I wrong?

Please feel free to email me more on this if you would like to discuss it. I'm sure others don't care to see this thread extended with crap, especially those researching SPAM.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

1.4k · July 17, 2003

quote:
Woodsters wrote:
i also get SPAM that says "HI" in the subject. Is that deceptive? NO.

It absolutely is. The subject matter is ambiguous and is designed that way to deceive you into opening the message -- and then giving you a sales pitch to enlarge your genitals. It's very deceptive because it is not using the subject heading as it was meant to be used. Much like the topic heading that you used for this thread.

quote:
If they said hey you want to buy a car and are truing to sell me a house, is that decpetive? Yes.

Possibly, but why would someone tell you they were trying to sell you a car when they want to sell you a house? Pretty week argument.

(Edited this post as I misunderstood the response.)

*****

Calling all techno geeks, answer please...

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