Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
I was about to suggest the WI-20/I-94 to 90th st. segment as well. Any of the US-45 segments would be good as well.
108 doing the BoB series.
52 doing “regular” caches.I know of a handy tool which can help to eliminate finds that cachers have in common…
All three people have to have their finds loaded into INATN. Each person then creates a PQ containing all the caches in the desired area and loads that query up into GSAK.
Each person runs the tool and compares their finds with one of the other cachers. Take the result and run a GSAK filter to eliminate those caches. Each person then compares their finds to the other cacher, takes the results, and further filters down the GSAK list.
The resulting list in GSAK (for all three cachers) should contain only caches that none of the three have found.
And, as long as each person does this individually, you wouldn’t be violating the Groundspeak TOU either, as this tool has been endorsed by Groundspeak.
First: Technically, your friend is violating the TOS for pocket queries by sending them to you. PQs are intended to be for your own personal use and are not supposed to be shared.
Second: When you get a PQ, by default, you get the last five logs for each cache in the query, unless it’s a cache that you’ve logged in which case your log will be included. The PQ they sent you will contain all their find logs, and yours would only be in there if you happened to have one of the five most recent logs for a cache.
In the GSAK preferences, there’s a space for you to enter your user ID. Once you’ve done that, GSAK will automatically know which caches you’ve found, and you can easily filter them out by selecting “Caches I’ve Found” when you create a filter.
But unless you’re using your own query, there’s no easy way to do it, short of going cache by cache and changing its status to “Found by me”.
At least you were able to succinctly explain what you were doing and they didn’t freak out.
If all you use it for is sending waypoints to your GPSr, there’s not much point in the upgrade except for speed improvements, and better Vista compatibility.
If you’re into macros or could use any of the feature improvements such as better child waypoint handling or improved CacheMate exporting or anything in the big list above, then it’s worth it.
If the ownership of the cache has been transfered to you then it’s as if you had listed the cache yourself. You can change the name edit the listing, etc. as you see fit!
@ecorangers wrote:
😯 3) I learned from Uncle Fun to fasten a hand warmer on the back of the gps to keep the batteries from being drained so quickly from the cold.
Lithium batteries are more expensive, but they do really well in the cold and don’t drop charge like alkalines do.
@cacheseekers wrote:
This story was hilarious. 🙂
I’ll have to make sure I don’t accidently drop an old computer motherboard on the sidewalk when moving equipment. It might get mistaken for a bomb because it has circuits on it. 😛
That, or an old Lite-Brite
This site will convert between the different coordinate formats for you.
Still wearing my Devil’s Advocate Hat, let me stir the pot a little more…
If a temp cache does not meet the Geocaching.com listing guidelines, is it really a cache?
There are other listing sites out there (Navicache, Terracaching, etc.) where geocaches can be listed, and many of them would be acceptable under GC.com’s guidelines, but the owners decided to list them on the alternate sites instead. If a person found one of those, would it be okay to log them on GC.com, perhaps by logging a find on an archived cache or one of your own caches?
In the 20,000 temp cache event example above, everyone pretty much agrees that the idea is silly, but what’s the line? How many loggable temp caches must there be before it becomes unacceptable? A dozen? Fifty? One hundred?
Does cache quality make a difference? Is it okay to log caches at an event where they are all “quality” caches that take some effort to find vs. “Find the film container hidden behind the napkin dispenser and you can log it as a find!”
Again, I’m not being judgmental against anyone here. I’ve both hosted events with temp caches and have attended events with both the “quality” kinds and the “napkin dispenser” kinds. I’m just tired of seeing Wisconsin being bashed by others in both the forums and by people I cache with (along with other “questionable” logging practices that I get teased about as well, as in “Let’s log this cache Wisconsin-style!”)
@abcdmCachers wrote:
Thoughts? Would people use this feature if it were available?
Some might use it, but unless it became standardized into the size, not everyone would use it, so (at least for my site) generating population stats would be inaccurate. That’s why I’m not rushing to put FtF stats on INATN either. I have doubts that everyone would check all their logs for FtFs, so building stats off that would be off from the start.
I proposed a similar idea to Greyhounder’s once. A cache owner could actually create a temp cache listing. You would fill out a small form: Name, coordinates, short description, a hint, and the GCID number of a real cache to link the temp cache to. These would all be referenced on the real cache page. People could log these to their heart’s content, but they would not count towards your find total. Like benchmarks, they’d be totaled separately.
Anyhoo… In response to Knoffer’s post, I haven’t bothered to go back and change my old finds to notes. It’s not worth my time. It’s part of my “caching history,” and If someone really wants to audit my finds and call me out on them, they can feel free. I’m not going to lose sleep at night over it.
@GrouseTales wrote:
Like I tell all these people, everyone is welcome to attend. Once you’ve attended a WGA event and found some of our temps, you can then make an informed decision regarding multiple logs.
I personally stopped logging the temps after they changed the “found it” to “attended”. I’d like to log the temps, but it seem silly to me to log them as “attended”, but that’s just my opinion 🙂
My opinion as well. I used to log them because when I was a new cacher, everyone else did, so I thought that it’s just how things were done. I think I stopped logging temps a couple of years ago when I attended an event and there were caches hidden around the room for people to “find” and log.
I think the fun in the events is meeting people and going around with them and finding the temp caches. My single well-written “Attended” log is all I need to remember the event. Logging every individual temp as an extra “attended” log or logging them as “finds” on an archived cache serves no purpose other than extra smilies to boost my find count.
The quality of the temp caches hidden at the WGA events has always been first rate, but logistically, what’s the difference between logging 40 quality temp caches vs. forty film container temps that were scattered around the event?
I do find it annoying that people like to keep bring this up over and over in the Groundspeak forums. That doesn’t change the fact, however, that I also don’t like the practice of logging event temps. I’m just not going to get my undies in a bunch and call people “cheaters” if they choose to do so.
Nope. The minutes value can only be between 00.000 and 59.999. Add one more .001 and the degrees values goes up by one and the minutes value resets to 00.000.
-
AuthorPosts
