-
Actually, I believe that sharing pocket queries is against Groundspeak policy. It will never happen again. I am sorry for any conjestion that i may have caused in my enthusiasm. I was attempting to fullfill the myriad requests, by members of this list, for cache opportunities related to this weekends events.
in my defense, i did not actually share any PQs but they were the source data for the .GPX which was a compilation of multiple PQs which were sorted and filtered using GE ,GSAK, and other applications.
If anyone does use the .GPX please note that all caches that I have already found in the area/on the route are excluded.
------ Original Message ------
Received: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 05:29:46 PM EDT
From: Weymouth <wey6567@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [GeoStL] Re: Branson Caching
-
I also thought you were talking about the attachment
from Bob. I actually created a PQ with a 30 mile
radius from Branson and had it sent to my email. Easy
to do and it works.
Jeff
--- Sarah Chisholm <sarah_cf30@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ok, I get it now. Actually, Roger, THOSE attachments
> came from Hoosier Daddy, not Bob. Bob just sent a
> simple .doc file of a list of caches. I have no idea
> what a .prc file is and did not try to open those.
>
> Sarah
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "rogbarn@xxxxxxxxxxx" <rogbarn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Steve Bromley <bromley@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:24:55 PM
> Subject: [GeoStL] Re: Branson Caching
>
> -
> I show the entire email as 3 MB but it doesn't show
> fractions so I'm sure that is a rounded number.
> When I read the email, I see 3 attachments listed
> with sizes as follows:
> 63122toBranson.prc (160.9 KB)
> Spfd400.prc (1106.6 KB)
> StLtoSpfd+Branson.gpx (1416.4 KB)
>
> When I download the attachments, their sizes are:
> 63122toBranson.prc 118 kb
> Spfd400.prc 808 kb
> StLtoSpfd+Branson.gpx 1,034 kb
>
> So the attachments are about 1,960 kb, but in email
> they are 2,610 kb, an increase of 37%.
>
> Beyond this I can not shed any further light.
> Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about email, file
> sizes, etc can.
>
> I apologize for sending off my complaint, it caught
> me at an inopportune time and it is very unusual to
> get attachments on any list (at least that I am on
> and I'm on several).
>
> Roger
>
> ---- Steve Bromley <bromley@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > -
> > The attachment may only download as 25K but when I
> looked at
> > the size of the message on the mail server (the
> real test),
> > I see this message.
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > This Email and its attachments total to 2756k
> bytes in size
> > which could take a few minutes to download.
> > -----------------------------------
> >
> > 2756k bytes is about 2.7 meg. I know that Outlook
> does a
> > lot of fancing wrapping of the messages, and the
> encoding
> > takes room but I'm not sure how much. Anyone with
> dialup
> > will feel the full pain of 2.7 meg.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Sarah Chisholm <sarah_cf30@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [GeoStL] Re: Branson Caching
> > Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > >It was only 25kb in my e-mail box, Roger. How did
> you end
> > >up with 3mb?
> > >
> > >Sarah
> > >
> > >----- Original Message ----
> > >From: "rogbarn@xxxxxxxxxxx" <rogbarn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >Cc: HoosierDaddy <_rnx_@xxxxxxx>
> > >Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:55:33 AM
> > >Subject: [GeoStL] Re: Branson Caching
> > >
> > >-
> > >sending 3 MB to a list is wrong. the list
> allowing
> > >attachments is wrong. Next time, please indicate
> what you
> > >have and offer to email it privately. Some
> people can't
> > >handle such large email easily.
> > >
> > >Thanks.
> > >Roger
> > >
> > >---- HoosierDaddy <_rnx_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > ****************************************
> > > For List Info or To make _ANY_ changes,
> including
> > >unsubscribing from this
> > > list, click ----->
> > >//www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
> > > Missouri Caches Scheduled to be Archived
> > >http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > ****************************************
> > For List Info or To make _ANY_ changes, including
> unsubscribing from this
> > list, click ----->
> //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
> > Missouri Caches Scheduled to be Archived
> http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
>
>
> ****************************************
> For List Info or To make _ANY_ changes, including
> unsubscribing from this
> list, click ----->
> //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
> Missouri Caches Scheduled to be Archived
> http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
>
>
>
>
>
****************************************
For List Info or To make _ANY_ changes, including unsubscribing from this
list, click -----> //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
Missouri Caches Scheduled to be Archived http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
