Geocaching Australia

Zalgariath wrote:Small bug - On May 14th I managed to get my daily 0.5 points twice according to my point log....

It's a feature
Actually what happens is if two updates for daily dZPoints fire into the database at exactly the same time, they both check to see if there is already an allocation for today. If not, it writes a record to the DB. In this case, they both got there at exactly the same time, they both checked and no prior records existed, so they both created one. There are million $ solutions to this race condition, but I'm not going to care about this scenario. If you happen to get two daily points ... excellent.

<sets ups 17 devices to all long on simultaneously tomorrow>

You need to beat the millisecond timer which is why I'm not overly concerned
10 points for highlighting the challenge.

I discovered an interesting one this morning. Whilst looking for a location to tether our wee horse so he can continue the good work of greening the State, I noticed that the co-ordinates at the bottom of the map don't work correctly whilst I have "Show Dragon Zones" ticked.
I was trying to note the E/W co-ordinates for a zone boundary and I had to remember the spot, un-check "Show Dragon Zones" and then return to the spot to get the co-ordinates.
I'm running XP. SP3.

nutwood wrote:I discovered an interesting one this morning. Whilst looking for a location to tether our wee horse so he can continue the good work of greening the State, I noticed that the co-ordinates at the bottom of the map don't work correctly whilst I have "Show Dragon Zones" ticked.
I was trying to note the E/W co-ordinates for a zone boundary and I had to remember the spot, un-check "Show Dragon Zones" and then return to the spot to get the co-ordinates.
I'm running XP. SP3.

It's a known bug in the Google Maps overlay. Where the overlay is clickable (i.e. You click to see the DZone details) the mousemove listener does not function. Sorry, but we have to wait for Google to fix this anomaly.

caughtatwork wrote:

nutwood wrote:I discovered an interesting one this morning. Whilst looking for a location to tether our wee horse so he can continue the good work of greening the State, I noticed that the co-ordinates at the bottom of the map don't work correctly whilst I have "Show Dragon Zones" ticked.
I was trying to note the E/W co-ordinates for a zone boundary and I had to remember the spot, un-check "Show Dragon Zones" and then return to the spot to get the co-ordinates.
I'm running XP. SP3.

It's a known bug in the Google Maps overlay. Where the overlay is clickable (i.e. You click to see the DZone details) the mousemove listener does not function. Sorry, but we have to wait for Google to fix this anomaly.

Ah-ha; thanks anyway. It's no big deal unless you're trying to position very accurately on the boundary.

Just something small I noticed today.

I was logging a Swaggie and wanted to put in a clan Smiley but they aren't there. All of the others (Gnomes, Frogs, Angels etc...) are there as options but not the ones I wanted.

Well, really I'd be happy with just but I suppose you'd have to include the others as well .

stagetree wrote:Just something small I noticed today.

I was logging a Swaggie and wanted to put in a clan Smiley but they aren't there. All of the others (Gnomes, Frogs, Angels etc...) are there as options but not the ones I wanted.

Well, really I'd be happy with just but I suppose you'd have to include the others as well .

All done and 10 points to stagetree.

Another little head scratcher that made me wonder if I'd gone colour blind or forgotten how to count>
Currently, West Tamar is 5/5 between Phoenix and Minotaur. When I look at the West Tamar caches I find GA1093,GA4237, GA6784 and TP4944, that are all Minotaur controlled. That makes four. Where is Minotaur number five?
My only theory is that it's a cache that's been archived and is no longer listed?

http://geocaching.com.au/cache/ga6787
Swampond #2

Was originally published as a traditional cache and then changed to a virtual. So when it was published it attracted dZPoints, but now shouldn't, but still has the points. I'll need to try and catch than anomaly.

10 points to nutwood.

Maybe I shouldn't mention this, but I got dZPoints for a virtual .

It's actually a Burke & Wills cache, not listed as a virtual. So I guess you decided that all of the Burke & Wills category counted, rather than trying to split them into which ones count & which ones don't?

http://wiki.geocaching.com.au/wiki/DragonZone

The more treasures and dragonZones controlled by your clan, the higher your prestige. Not all treasures are considered equal. The dragons are only interested in physical treasure. Virtual treasure is not considered worthy and does not contribute to dragonZone control. The exception to this are all Burke and Wills caches regardless of whether they are a physical treasure or a virtual treasure.

caughtatwork wrote:http://geocaching.com.au/cache/ga6787
Swampond #2

Was originally published as a traditional cache and then changed to a virtual. So when it was published it attracted dZPoints, but now shouldn't, but still has the points. I'll need to try and catch than anomaly.

10 points to nutwood.

Ooh, thank you. All offerings greatly received! Actually, I regret discovering this one. What a lurk. Publish as a traditional, change to a virtual. Give up and archive. There it remains, a sleeper!
On another subject, possibly more appropriate for the main Dragon Zone page, could there/should there be consideration given to the owners of caches having the ability to add points to caches they have hidden? Possibly on an occasional (monthly?) basis? As I raised elsewhere, there's some basic realities that come into play if a Dragon Zoner hides a traditional cache. It's a numbers thing and no matter how keen the owner is, their cache can be turned against them, simply by weight of numbers.
I've no problem with playing the game that way but it seems a disincentive to hide traditional caches.

That's really only a problem in the early days of the game. As more people get involved, each clan (should) have relatively the same numbers, so the playing field levels a little.

From the little bit I have played, I have noticed finds on a cache attract different amounts of points depending on the D/T/Size of the cache as far as I can tell. But ownership of a cache by a clan only seems to attract one point to ownership of the zone. So 2 1/1/nano caches are worth more than 1 5/5/large finds in a zone.

Am I getting this wrong or is zone control simply based on number of caches controlled and ignores the caches point value? Or does the difficulty etc of the cache somehow contribute to your clans ability to get zone control?