| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
King Boreas
Geocacher
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 2350
Location: Exploring Minnesota
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:01 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Which is the earlier waypoint?
GCP9JP
GCPW3A
HOW can you tell? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Moe the Sleaze
Geocacher
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 1130
Location: Champlin, MN
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| King Boreas wrote: |
Which is the earlier waypoint?
GCP9JP
GCPW3A
HOW can you tell? |
The "alphabetical" order used is 0-9 then A-Z (skipping some letters like I and O that can be confused with numbers). So GCP9JP is the earlier waypoint.
_________________
"Hi, I'm Moe, or as the women know me - Hey! You in the bushes."
-Moe, The Simpsons |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RubberToes
Geocacher
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 222
Location: Apple Valley
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| King Boreas wrote: |
Which is the earlier waypoint?
GCP9JP
GCPW3A
HOW can you tell? |
What Moe said.
Also, using GeoCalc to convert Waypoint ID into Cache Number:
GCP9JP = 253511
GCPW3A = 270332 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
King Boreas
Geocacher
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 2350
Location: Exploring Minnesota
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
thanks
grrrrr |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RubberToes
Geocacher
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 222
Location: Apple Valley
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| King Boreas wrote: |
| grrrrr |
Curious as to why this matters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
King Boreas
Geocacher
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 2350
Location: Exploring Minnesota
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
distance
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?lat=45.074217&lon=-93.16835
That cache was not active when I placed mine. It might have been disabled, but usually mtn-man catches that.
The dates don't mean much, because there's over a month before the FTF on his. Mine was found the first day, but my date could be off. The simple solution is archival: it's been disabled four months.
I'm trying to get MOST of mine legal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RubberToes
Geocacher
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 222
Location: Apple Valley
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| King Boreas wrote: |
| distance |
Ah, I see.
I doubt that either the waypoint name or cache number really makes any difference, though.
For example, I had a cache almost ready go go in August. The cache page was done and the container was ready. However, when I went to place the cache, I determined that the location I had chosen just wouldn't work for what I wanted to do, so the cache was never listed.
I'll probably get around to making some adjustments and getting this cache placed at some point, and when I do my waypoint name and cache number will be much older than new ones being generated at that time. (Thankfully, you don't procrastinate the way I do, we'd only have 6 or 7 KB caches to find.)
Placement date doesn't help either since that can be changed at will.
I don't seen any definitive way to determine who staked out a spot first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 6261
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
RT, I do exactly the same thing. I have numerous cache pages in various stages of development at any one time. I usually archive most of them when I don't get around to actually placing them but I have been known to use super old cache pages for mine.
Poor mtn-man! 
_________________
Sad state of affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 5597
Location: north of Duluth
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RubberToes wrote: |
| I don't seen any definitive way to determine who staked out a spot first. |
It should get easier with newer caches now since they put the 'published' log when it is approved, so it will be easier to tell which cache was approved first. To me it's not who staked the area out first - it's who placed the first active cache there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 6261
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pear Head wrote: |
| RubberToes wrote: |
| I don't seen any definitive way to determine who staked out a spot first. |
It should get easier with newer caches now since they put the 'published' log when it is approved, so it will be easier to tell which cache was approved first. To me it's not who staked the area out first - it's who placed the first active cache there. |
I'd ask mtn-man how he determines it as he's the one that needs to be able to figure this stuff out. Just because a particular cache was "published" before another doesn't necessarily mean it was placed first. It just happened to be listed in the visible approval queue ahead of another cache.
If KB had a cache dated 11/1/2005 (he likes to keep the dates of when he actually placed them on the cache page for historical reasons) that was skipped over or just not in the visible queue it could be passed up for a newer addition to the queue dated 12/8/05.
_________________
Sad state of affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mtn-man
Geocacher
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 70
Location: Not in MN. . . well, sometimes
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Note that the cache is not at those listed coordinates. Proximity to those coordinates does not matter. All that matters is proximity to the final, since those are listed only to get you in the general area. It is not like you go to those coordinates to get a clue or anything. They are totally bogus. It is like a bunch of mystery caches that all have posted coordinates in a lake.
Your cache is fine.
_________________
mtn-man... (formerly) Keeping an eye on the King!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mtn-man
Geocacher
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 70
Location: Not in MN. . . well, sometimes
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pear Head wrote: |
| To me it's not who staked the area out first - it's who placed the first active cache there. |
Yes, and the key word is "active". If you are working on a cache page and it is disabled, then another cache might get placed and edge you out of your spot. It happens every now and then. I've seen caches placed the same day that were too close to each other. The first person to enter the cache page wins.
| Marsha and Silent Bob wrote: |
| If KB had a cache dated 11/1/2005 (he likes to keep the dates of when he actually placed them on the cache page for historical reasons) that was skipped over or just not in the visible queue it could be passed up for a newer addition to the queue dated 12/8/05. |
Perfect example SBob.
_________________
mtn-man... (formerly) Keeping an eye on the King! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
User list
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
