Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Certainly miss the hybrid option for a satellite view – what road is that????…. it forces us to jump to the original cache page, where the old Google and Bing options are still accessible…..when that’s gone, we’ll need to go directly to Google or Bing and plug in the coord’s…..but don’t do it too much, or you’ll be part of the .35%
Suppose, given time, OSM/mapquest will catch up, but who wants to wait and get wet in a whiz match. GS can spin it all they want, but until there is a replacement as good or better than what we did have, can’t fully make the switch. Just an opine..
@huffinpuffin2 wrote:
This won’t be won on paper….just an opinion. This will be won and lost on the web vote . . .
Cough! Cough! Cough! Pardon, but having a hard time eating those words…. 😳 :no2: And they don’t taste like chicken………….
@labrat_wr wrote:
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate
– unknownThink that was by ‘Super Nate’, or his Aunt, Professor? 🙂
Tock, Tick, Tock, Tick . . . 🙂 🙂
This was an interesting place years ago………if you’re into a bit of history and beach: Fort de Soto Park
There’s also a neat bridge to drive over next to it…….likely the highest elevation in the state 😉
@Team Black-Cat wrote:
@huffinpuffin2 wrote:
Might FB obsolete the forums, for the majority? Anyone recall BB’s?
I doubt it. A FB page seems to end up being a single, long runnnig thread with no real topic. :unsure: . . .
(and there’s the setup………….)
Makes sense. Then that helps explain the drop in the WGA’s Google Search Ranking for ‘Geocaching Useless Drivel’! 🙂
Might FB obsolete the forums, for the majority? Anyone recall BB’s?
Like tossing a nano back into the marsh…. 😈
Anyone check out the coords for the final? 😈 😈 You’d think they’d actually point to something of brand value. Missed ‘viral opportunity.’
(Apologies to beccaday for stealing this thread one more time?????)
No, TBC, you get bonus points for causing a review of the past and of the rules!
Regarding the need to confirm the condition of all stages, it looks like that only applies to Revisits (called ‘confirmations’ in the rules) hope I don’t lose any points for this:
_______________________________________
from the rules:5. How to score points! There are five primary ways to score points for a lonely cache.
. . .
b. You find a cache that you have found before and confirm its location and condition in a note on the cache page. If it is a multi, you must confirm the condition of all stages. See rule clarification d in section 12
Score: Terrain + 2 points (+ 1 point if a multi) . . .Sorry – misunderstood this was a multi….thought it was a series with a Mystery final. Hmmmmm. ….. Didn’t read the description, but with it clearly marked as a Mystery Cache, guess it’s not a multi, even if is describes itself as such?
So for Groundspeak, if you find the final and sign the log you get a smiley, for purposes of the LCG, you may not. Ooops………Threadstealer…………. sorry ’bout that. :ohmy:
Not sure what you have for coords, but one ray of light is the fact there are an awful lot of logs to be mined on that cache, some that might be of use.
1) It’s possible that you can still narrow it down to a few high-probability locations with the information available. Look at it as a D5. 😈
2) Additionally, the CO still appears to be active, so you might approach them, explain your situation and findings, and get a nudge in some form.
3) As a fall-back in the face of no response from the CO, (crack goes the opening can of worms) you could contact a prior finder for a nudge.
Depends on how accessible this cache is to your home-base, and how bad you want it. 🙂
Thanks kc9gbo! We look up GeoAware, which leads to http://www.EarthCache.org, which clearly spells out the requirements, and leads to “Sponsors & Partners” links, which ……….Hmmmmmmm…… perhaps a line on the EC page could read something like this: “This EarthCache was made possible through a grant from Subaru of America.”
Are Challenges free to ‘place’ in a NP and list? Definitely not the same thing, or are they – in terms of impact on the Parks? Or another question: does the park really care if these ‘imaginary’ challenges are placed there or not, as long as no park rules are violated……just incentive for admission-paying members of the public to do a bit of research to write about.
If this is all centered around administrative fees, and if those fees are based on a Groundspeak requirement for Park Approval, it then looks like a burden imposed by Groundspeak. Groundspeak could remove the burden by finding a creative approach to validating a safe, non-intrusive and quality EC placement, without the need for a fee-imposing blessing by the NP.
Just a thought from a noob to this area. But to this noob, something doesn’t smell right. :blink: :unsure:
Somebody is going to be in for a shock when they fire up their computer in a couple hours! 🙂 🙂
-
AuthorPosts
