Forum: General Discussion
Topic: 500 MPH Club
started by: TEAM 360
Posted by TEAM 360 on Nov. 17 2003,2:33 pmAny other members of the 500 MPH Club out there? This would make a great locationless cache!
Posted by Volvo Man on Nov. 18 2003,12:49 amGreat Idea, I wish I'd gotten a picture of the time my GPSr went mad and had me travelling at mach 7 65 feet above the mediteranean, IN MY WORK VAN!!
Posted by TEAM 360 on Nov. 20 2003,7:15 amMan, I thought for sure I would get this idea approved. It's not another "highway sign" cache (although THAT would get approved)...I thought this would be a fun cache to do, especially with all the airliner travel coming up in the holiday season, just around the corner....Here Navicache has the chance to be forward-thinking and allow the worlds only airline cache, and it got shot down...am I back on GC.com here?
Posted by PC Medic on Nov. 20 2003,6:18 pmYou mean there is a "Highway Sign" cache? and here I though I would be the first one!
It was already explained to you when the cache was not approved that we are not accepting "locationless" caches.
Your reply contained some perfect examples why, including some others we have declined in the past (man hole covers, phone booths in specific settings, etc). Outside the fact it does not fit in with the concept of geocaching, just try to imagine the wasted server space and bandwidth that would be consumed by 1000's of pictures of Man Hole Covers, phone booths, yellow VW's and other oddities that this would open the flood gates to.
Now I would certainly hate to see you stop visiting Navicache.com simply because one of your cahes were not approved. At the same time, the mention of it does not change the fact that this type of submission are not currently being appoved. While we are extremely liberal in our approvals, any site must maintain some limits. If they don't then they are doing the sport a dis-service.
Posted by TEAM 360 on Nov. 20 2003,9:05 pmI agree that there are some stupid locationless caches that should not ever get approved. On the other hand, there are REALLY stupid physical caches that DO get approved, i.e., the Big Gulp cup with a scrap piece of paper for a logbook, tossed behind a pile of garbage (yes, that is a real cache). However, I don't think that there would be a measurable detraction from bandwidth on approving GOOD locationless caches. Ask yourself now: How many people are going to actually be able to claim a find on the "500 MPH Club"? Not too many, I would bet. It would be a pretty exclusive membership.
But they ARE the rules, for now, anyways, so I shall abide by them on your site. And no, you can't get rid of me that easily. Sorry, Charlie, this troublemaker is here to stay.
Posted by Scout on Nov. 20 2003,9:21 pm
It's not true that man hole covers and phone booths are locationless. All the ones I'm familiar with have very specific locations. Just create new cache categories (micro, virtual, man hole, phone booth, etc.) and these would fit very easily into the geocaching model.
What's unusual about TEAM 360's idea is that it truly is locationless. Or rather, it's not the location registered on the GPS receiver that matters, it's the speed. Congratulations, TEAM 360, for a novel idea. Too bad it'll need a new section of the Web site (or new Web site altogether) to use it.
Posted by PC Medic on Nov. 20 2003,10:14 pmAhh but the example I provided (from attempted submissions by the way) were locationless. For instance, "Find a man hole cover manufactured by (xxx ironworks) and post a picture of it to claim a find". If I remember correctly that was a German submission and the particular covers are rare. There were others of the same nature involving yellow VW's and other oddities.
I am not knocking the idea, only saying that it does not really fit as a geocache. As pointed out here, its goal is to mark a particular speed, not location. And while it it may be unique as a cache submission, the idea of sharing gps info from plane trips (altitude and speed) is one I have seen discussed from time to time in the Usenet groups. I want to say it was alt.satellite.gps but can't swear to it. In fact a lot of the conversation was from just after 9/11 when apparently arlines started giving some of them a hard time about having the GPS on board.
Posted by PC Medic on Nov. 20 2003,10:17 pm
First, I for one am glad we can't get rid of you that easy
Now, please tell me this isn't listed in our database!
Posted by Volvo Man on Nov. 21 2003,12:59 amOne tiny problem with this, a couple of minutes in the armchair with a magellan meridian Gold, and I could post a claim from my front room. the simulate mode can easily be made to replicate the required photo.
Why anybody would want to fake a cache find, I don't know, but there are those out there that do. As for the limited membership of the club, pretty much anybody who travels on an airliner is going to be able to claim it, and I believe thats more than a few million a year. ok, so they would have to take their GPSr with them, but a lot of the GPSr owners out there are the travelling type.
I can see why Navicache doesn't list locationless caches, some of them are a little on the lame side. I've also got a couple on my watch list, and they get loads of logs, up to 4 a day, that would quickly fill the webspace.
You could always leave it as a forum thread, but that too would take a bit of space with the photos and all.
Posted by PC Medic on Nov. 21 2003,4:41 am
And this is not what the forums are intended for
Posted by TEAM 360 on Nov. 21 2003,5:45 am
I don't know how anyone can fake the altitude while in the "simulate" mode on the Meridian series.
Well, on to the next idea....sigh....true genius is never fully appreciated in its own time...
Posted by TEAM 360 on Nov. 21 2003,5:53 am
From the cache page,
"I went cheap on this one and placed all the goodies inside a tall BIG GULP container - washed of course. I sealed the straw hole with some duct tape. Please let me know how this one holds up and please put everything back EXACTLY how you found it! PLEASE??!! "
Approved, believe it or not.
Posted by PC Medic on Nov. 21 2003,8:15 am
I have searched and searched and do not find this. It should have never made it through the approval process and I ask again, is this listed here on Navicache?
Posted by Scout on Nov. 21 2003,8:27 am
They were posed as locationless, but can easily be converted into a traditional cache just be extending the cache types, adding manhole cover to the existing types like micro was added at some point in the past.
The original GPS stash idea was "locationless" in the sense that Dave Ulmer challenged readers of sci.geo.satellite-nav to find cool places to hide things, then post their "finds" on the Internet, giving coordinates.
Now, later, someone comes along and says find manhole covers and post your finds on the Internet, giving coordinates. Same concept exactly. Whether you are looking for Tupperware or benchmarks or manhole covers, it's the same thing. Only the object of the search is different. That's what the cache type field is for. Calling these "locationless" caches just confuses the issue.
TEAM 360's idea is something else, because it's not location that's important, but speed.
Posted by welch on Nov. 21 2003,8:33 am
Did you look that up in a 'worst cache' thread? or did you find the actual page???
and PCmedic, no its not in the database here
Posted by TEAM 360 on Nov. 21 2003,10:14 am
Hey welch, actually I got it from your posting in the thread!! That just cracked me up...I looked through your "caches found", but did not see it. So tell us, how was that Big Gulp cup cache?
Posted by welch on Nov. 21 2003,12:43 pm
Its in there you just didn't look hard enough.
It started leaking... When I found it, all there was was the cup part, sunken in the little stream it was next to. The cache got an upgrade (new everything) , but not too long after the placer lost interest in maintaining their caches. They had several, thankfully not big gulps!
Actually, whatever is left is currently in the process of being adopted by other cachers (on the site that listed them).
How does Navicache handle caches that become abandoned anyway??
Posted by PC Medic on Nov. 21 2003,3:28 pm
Well, getting a bit off topic but a good question.
Truth is that to this date we have had a 2 folks I am aware of put their caches up for adoption (both due to moves), but have not had any reports of abandoned caches.
To go further with "what ifs", lets start another thread on this topic.
Posted by Volvo Man on Nov. 21 2003,11:48 pm
That's real easy, on your Meridian, press MENU, select setup, Elev Mode, Select 2D then enter whatever altitude you want.
Posted by TEAM 360 on Nov. 23 2003,10:42 am
What about the speed, can you set that, too? Just wondering.
Posted by PC Medic on Nov. 23 2003,12:55 pmCertainly can. As seen here during a recent High-Speed internet connection
Posted by TEAM 360 on Nov. 23 2003,4:08 pmAlright, alright...so let's see ya fake an AIRPLANE WINDOW....HA!
Posted by Scout on Nov. 23 2003,4:43 pm
With Photoshop, anything can be faked. But so what?
I guess if you like the mental challenge of trying to rig contraptions to keep squirrels out of your bird feeder, well, there are worse ways to entertain yourself. But if the squirrels manage to frustrate your best designs, so what? The birds still manage to get their share, too.
Posted by TEAM 360 on Nov. 23 2003,9:21 pm
Yes, but I can see that the "Simulate" mode is on as well....
Posted by PC Medic on Nov. 24 2003,4:58 amThis is correct, but not what you had asked. While I think few would take the time even that could be fixed in less than 30 seconds.
Posted by TEAM 360 on Nov. 24 2003,10:10 amWell, just because a cache idea is not 110% airtight, and that someone can sit at home all #### day and fake a photo with Photoshop or Picture It! or whatever else they might have, does not mean that it should not be posted as a cache. I can go and fake a photo, too, or just log onto any cache I want and claim a find, and unless the owner is willing to actually PHYSICALLY go out and check the cache logs to disprove it, I can rack up the find numbers. Most owners are too lazy to go out and check their caches anyhow. Maybe we should just not approve ANY caches because finds can be faked on all of them.
Getting back to the 500 MPH Club cache, I realize that NC is not approving locationless. It's too bad that the good ideas for locationless caches have to be denied because of the crappy ones that flood that particular category.
Posted by Scout on Nov. 24 2003,10:51 am
Navicache is not denying caches because logs can be faked. I have submitted several virtual caches where I don't even ask for proof of visit. They were all approved.
Navicache denied your cache because it does not represent a unique location. The quality of the idea is irrelevant. If you can't give coordinates for the location of your cache, it won't be posted on this site.
(There's another way to look at such caches, which I mentioned before. But Navicache isn't interested in expanding the list of cache types to cover these so-called locationless caches. So, you're out of luck on this idea. But hold on for a while. If the opencaching database is as flexible as I hope it will be, there'll be a place for your cache idea there.)
Posted by TEAM 360 on Nov. 24 2003,2:04 pm
I realize it didn't get approved because it's a locationless.
No big deal. Thanks for the OC advice. I will be waiting.