Jump to content

Rich in NEPA

+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rich in NEPA

  1. quote:Originally posted by GeckoGeek:Suppose Joe Blow geocacher logs a mark as destroyed. You come along later and find it - and have photos to prove it. If Joe Blow was thorough and positively identified the station, this shouldn't be an issue. That's where NGS comes in. When you submit a station recovery report and list the condition as missing or destroyed, you need to supply them with certain evidence—specifically a photo of the detached mark, or photos of the area and a detailed description of the conditions. DaveD has been very instrumental in helping us understand the standards of proof and the submission process, and I've seen cases where Deb Brown at NGS has been extremely willing to help with questions and following up on the reports. The bottom line is that when the proof is inadequate, the result is that the station is simply described as not found. We need to set good examples for others to follow. As it is now there's too much confusion and ambiguity in the logging process. I'm still learning the fine points of this activity and am grateful to all the experts on these forums for taking the time to explain and answer questions. There needs to be a better-designed form which makes logging more accurate and reliable. We need FAQ's where questions and issues like this can be answered and defined. Nobody's trying to take the fun out of finding benchmarks as a casual activity. I'm doing it 'cuz it's fun! But I've found that in general most people are willing to listen and want to learn. [Edit added later:] BTW, here's a very good example. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. --- [This message was edited by Rich in NEPA on October 06, 2003 at 04:31 PM.]
  2. quote:Originally posted by Colorado Papa:Rich and I are on the same page except I disagree with the not allowing subsequence finders to log a _DESTROYED_. It doesn't bother me to have someone confirm my findings, or, heaven forbid, an error! CP, that's not the point. I'm as willing as you to have my work subjected to scrutiny and constructive criticism, and I'm certain to make plenty of mistakes. The problem, however, is how do you reward the person who puts so much time and effort into proving that a station is missing/destroyed. Do you think it's proper for someone else to read your logs and based on your evidence submit a "Find" for this station? You do realize, of course, that's it's much harder to prove that a station doesn't exist than to locate one that does? I already have a few "Not Founds" where I've searched for stations and discovered an empty hole in the rock where the disk should be. I accept the fact that in these situations I have not been able to positively identify the station as the one in question. I'm sure there will be many others like this. There would be nothing preventing any another person from searching out a station mark that you or I have listed as missing/destroyed, and if they did find it (highly doubtable, since "positively identified" means just that) they are free to report their findings to NGS and contest the previous determination. I don't see where this is a problem. On the benchmarking site, remember, there would be no "Destroyed" logging option, only a place on a "Found" log to list the condition of the station as either Good, Poor, or Destroyed. The evidence should be sent to NGS and they will decide if the datasheet gets updated with the new classification. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---
  3. quote:Originally posted by dgarner:What's your goal here? To bring this to the NGS level of accuracy? Actually, yes. NGS is and should be the final aribter in the determination of the status of a station. Once the evidence is presented to NGS it is up the them to decide if it is sufficient for their purposes. (You may not always like the calls of the umpire when your favorite team is playing, but everyone has already agreed to trust his judgment beforehand. Does NGS make mistakes? Certainly. But they've also corrected their mistakes when they were pointed out and the evidence found justifiable.) No system is ideal, but it can be made to suit the requirements quite well. There are plenty of stations in the NGS database right now that are designated as destroyed. Anyone is free and able to go out and find them and submit the evidence to NGS. I'm sure they'd be willing to make whatever changes are necessary. [Edit added later:] I'd like to address the comment about human nature. When the benchmarking website first appeared a certain few surveying professionals became aware of this activity and they immediately responded with their concerns that we were nothing but a bunch of yahoos who would go around prying up disks for souvenirs and performing other malicious acts. But those within our group who are quite serious about participating in this activity's truly practical aspects went a long way to assure the skeptics that our goals were indeed noble and that our intentions were to help protect and preserve a valuable national resource and heritage—to the point where we now are recognized by NGS with a contributor ID of our very own. I, for one, intend to do my part (for as long as I'm involved with amateur benchmark recoveries) to ensure that our reputation remains as unsullied as possible. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. --- [This message was edited by Rich in NEPA on October 06, 2003 at 02:53 PM.]
  4. quote:Originally posted by GeckoGeek:1) What's the problem? Perhaps the resize is only done if the photo exceeds some limits. Perhaps the limits need to be better stated? The problem is that any resizing and subsequent JPEG compression during saving degrades the image quality. The degradation is cumulative. You may not notice it, but I do. They're my images and I prefer not to have them modified. What's next? Rearranging the words and editing the text of our cache logs to suit someone's formatting whims?! quote:2) Be aware that IE6 will auto-resize images. I have no control over what somebody does to the images when they're downloaded to their computer for viewing. I'm well aware of the recommended sizes and formats for Web images and I make every attempt to be considerate of the fact that most people don't have large high-resolution computer displays or fast broadband connections. Therefore I'm already voluntarily resizing my photos to around 640x480 pixels. The trouble for me was trying to stay under the original 100KB filesize limit. So now that the limit is lifted I should be able to take advantage of improved image quality, but this is not the case because now the website reduces them to 600x540 pixels and adds even more JPEG compression. (If the image is less than 600 pixels wide it is not resized but it is still recompressed and resaved.) Maybe this is a difficult concept to comprehend but I consider my photos to be an integral part of my cache logs. I'm not interested in any photo gallery where images are displayed out of context, but if a gallery is deemed necessary then it should be a simple matter for the website to create smaller photos and thumbnails in a standard format for use with the gallery only. I see absolutely no reason to have cache log images modified. I've also heard the argument that most people don't know how to resize and save their images. This is pure bunk. Anyone who can figure out how to use a GPS receiver to go Geocaching and then buys a 6 megapixel digital camera certainly has the capacity to learn this simple task as well. Every digital camera on the market comes with the software to resize and edit photos. Windows XP will resize images automatically for you. My 75-year old mother, who never touched a computer in her life until two years ago, knows how to resize photos and send them in her e-mails! Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---
  5. quote:Originally posted by GeckoGeek:What should it be if you declare "destroyed" and I later find it with photos? What is it about the terms positively identified that you don't understand? Let me give you an example: a triangulation station with a missing station disk, two intact reference marks, and adjusted coordinates. This station is identifiable beyond any reasonable doubt. As a matter of fact, it is still considered a viable station since the exact location can be precisely determined from the reference marks. But according to NGS standards, the station will be classified as "destroyed." Here's another example: I'm about to log the recovery of an old airway beacon tower that was used as a third order control station. The tower has been dismatled and no longer exists. I know this to be true because the evidence at the site is adequate to prove it. The coordinates were adjusted so I know that I'm standing where the tower was while my GPSr indicates the same WAAS-corrected coordinates. Three of the original anchor points for the legs still exist at the site. One of the legs was used in the description of a positively identified triangulation station not more than 18 feet away. I intend to log this station as "Found" with its condition described as "destroyed." A formal recovery report will be submitted to NGS for final determination and will be noted with the banchmark log. quote:Just recently I found a BM by accident – blocks away from where it’s description indicated it should be. Either the marking on the datasheet is wrong, or the description is wrong. (or maybe there is two disks with the same marking within a mile of each other.) I've found many marks with errors in their descriptions. The errors are usually obvious if you take the time to verify the directions. The historic description is not the only way of identifying a station. It's probably the least reliable method. Note also that the coordinates listed on the datasheets for many marks are "scaled from topographic maps." In this case it's quite likely for listed coordinates to disagree with the actual coordinates by hundreds of feet or more. I seriously doubt that there would be two marks in the same general area with the same stampings. Have you actually witnessed this? If so, I feel quite certain that there's a way to resolve the dilemma. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---
  6. I'll second RACooper's suggestions and add: fix the "skull bug." Also, I'm not entirely happy with the manipulation (resizing and/or recompression) of photos on either the GC site or the BM site. This is not acceptable. If thumbnails are needed for a gallery or some such other purpose, create them as necessary but leave the cache log and BM log photos alone! They are an integral part of our logs and as such should be treated with the same degree of respect and integrity. I can't stress this more. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---
  7. quote:Originally posted by Colorado Papa:I pride myself in not finding a BM. I would much rather confirm a BM was wiped out by a railroad being abandonded and all tracks and signals removed. Or a road being relocated. Or read about a flood. Unfortunately, no credit is given for NOT FINDs, but more time was spent at a library researching old documents than in the field. There really needs to be a major change in the paradigm used for logging benchmarks. Based on the concept of positive identification I am now logging missing/destroyed marks as "Found," but only as long as I can positively identify (beyond any reasonable doubt) that I've located the station itself. The "Destroyed" option needs to be removed immediately from the BM logging form, and a "Condition" field (with dropdown list or radio buttons) added for all "Found" logs. This field will indicate that the station is either "Good," "Poor," or "Destroyed." In most cases I would hesitate to mark a station as "Destroyed" until I could file an official recovery report to NGS and a determination was made by them and added to the datasheet. I'd go back and edit the BM log afterwards. (Also, once a station has been logged as "Destroyed" subsequent "finders" should not be allowed to log it as "Found." This will give the credit where it's due.) The "Not Found" option should remain as it is now—that is, the mark wasn't found, or if there is any question about its identity. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---
  8. quote:Originally posted by Elias:If you upload an image <= 600 pixels wide, it will be left alone. Ooops!!! Disregard what I wrote above. The problem is NOT fixed, it's just been changed to something else. Now, if the image is greater than 600 pixels wide it's being scaled down to 600 pixels. This is not good, either. We're still not getting anywhere. I just tried uploading a typical 650x490 image to my last cache log and it gets changed to 600x452. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. --- [Corrected typos.] [This message was edited by Rich in NEPA on October 01, 2003 at 05:02 PM.]
  9. quote:Originally posted by Elias:So this should be fixed now. If you upload an image <= 600 pixels wide, it will be left alone. [Edit: please refer to my subsequent post below.] Yes, Elias. That does indeed take care of that problem. Would you care to try to explain the need for all of this rigamarole involving image manipulation for our uploads? It all seems so unnecessary to me. Thanks much. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. --- [This message was edited by Rich in NEPA on October 01, 2003 at 04:58 PM.]
  10. quote:Originally posted by Markwell:I just uploaded the Star Trek picture to _this log_ I don't see it resizing it up. Is this now fixed? Markwell, no it's not fixed. If you read my last post you'll see that if the image that you uploaded is less than 600 pixels wide it will not be stretched or reduced. That's why your Star Trek photo was not dimensionally modified. Since I don't know what the original filesize was, I can't determine if it was subjected to further JPEG compression and degradation. I can see that the photos I've just uploaded to my last cache log have indeed been recompressed at a higher level and with a noticeable reduction in image quality. JPEG artifacts are cumulative. It's a "lossy" process, meaning that image details are thrown away every time a JPEG image saved. This is made worse when a JPEG image is "unpacked" and then subsequently saved again with even the minimal amount of JPEG compression. More and more image information is thrown away. Not an acceptable solution. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---
  11. Time to bump up this thread and ask for a status report. It doesn't appear that much was done to alleviate the problem with stretching photos for cache logs. As it stands now, if an image is less than 600 pixels wide, it is not resized. That's fine. If it is more than 800 pixels wide it is reduced to 800 pixels. Not an issue for me since I seldom if ever upload images wider than 650 pixels. But it could be a critical issue for someone else. However, if the image is between 600 and 800 pixels wide it is stretched to 800 pixels. This is what my gripe is about. My question remains the same as it was at the start of this thread: why do images need to be resized at all? If someone (Jeremy?) would explain the rationale for doing all this image manipulation on the website it might make trying to deal with the related problems a lot less frustrating. If the reasoning has something to do with bandwidth usage and/or server storage, I'm having a hard time understanding how resampling and resizing images is an effective solution. The simplest approach is generally the best solution. Simply raising the filesize upload limit to 150KB would appear to be a very simple solution. Not everyone who uploads images would exploit this new limit right off. As a matter of fact, the only time I myself need larger image filesizes is when images contain a lot of detail and therefore require higher levels of JPEG compression in order to keep the filesize (and download times) tolerable. But this tends to wreak havoc, for example, to the faces of people included in the image, turning them blotchy and unrecognizable. Admittedly the JPEG standard sucks, the trade-offs are frustrating as heck! But a small increase in the upload limit would go such a long way to allowing me to preserve as much image quality as possible. Like Cornix, I have found a temporary work-around to prevent unwanted resizing, but it's more of a kludge than a reasonable solution. I resize my images to 650x490 and then increase the canvas size to 800x600 by adding a thick white border (similar to the way images are displayed on the benchmarking site). This prevents the GC.com website from either stretching or reducing the original proportions of my photo, but it still makes viewing awkward or difficult for people with smaller, lower-resolution computer displays. That's one reason I've tried to stick with the recommended web dimensions (standard VGA proportions) for all images. I've been Geocaching and using this site for well over two and a half years. Photography happens to play a major part in my caching and benchmarking experiences. I realize that this is not the case for most cachers. With all the changes going on with the website recently, my caching experiences have not been enhanced. Quite the contrary—I'm finding myself less and less enthused about the activity and with the direction that things are going. Sorry, but that's the reality of it for me. I've always been grateful for having this website and I became a Charter Member the very same day that the option was made available so please don't take these comments the wrong way. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. --- [Corrected typos.] [This message was edited by Rich in NEPA on October 01, 2003 at 06:12 AM.]
  12. Wow! Nice going. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---
  13. Jeremy, something is still screwed up with the imaging software. I just uploaded three test images to one of my recent cache logs as follows: Blooming Grove Hiking Trail Cache The Test3 image is in landscape orientation and is the same dimensions (650x490) as "Enjoying a quiet moment ..." except that it was redone with less compression (for higher quality) resulting in a larger filesize (~150KB). As you can see, when you select Click Image To View Original the image is upsized to 796x600. It should remain at 650x490 like the next test will demonstrate. It also degrades the quality of the image even more so than when I had to deal with the old 100KB limit. The Test4 image is in portrait orientation and is the same dimensions (490x650) as "Trailside Scene ..." except that is was redone with less compression resulting in a larger filesize (~149KB). This time when you select Click Image To View Original, the image dimensions stay same as the original ... as it should be. I'd be VERY happy if the landscape orientation worked like this! But then there's one other quirk. The thumbnail view of Test4 in the "View A Cache Log" page is truncated at the bottom and is shown in landscape mode. The Test5 image is just a repeat of what I had done for Test3. Just wanted to make sure I was seeing what I was seeing. I hope I'm explaining this clearly. I'm willing to work along with you in order to get this sorted out as needed. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---
  14. I really do appreciate the fact that I can now upload images larger than 100KB (actually it was more like only 98KB), but why in the world do they have to be upsized dimensionally??? I'd prefer my images be displayed at the same pixel dimensions that I originally made them. For example, using the new system I uploaded a photo at 650x490 (148KB). It then dispays at 796x600 (120KB) with much degraded quality having lost considerable sharpness. Is there any reasonable way to get around this problem? Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---
  15. Nice going, Greg! That's a good piece of detective work. I'm impressed! I'm sure your technique will come in handy someday for me, as well. Thanks. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---
  16. I'm sure the goal is to maintain a certain amount of parity of form with the Geocaching side, and I can understand that not everyone using the Benchmarking site wants to get involved with the formal aspect of making official recovery reports, updating "to reach" descriptions, submitting photos, GPS coordinates, etc., to the NGS. That's fine, but I think the site can easily accommodate those of us with more serious aspirations, too. Changing and limiting the logging options to "Found," "Not Found," and "Note" will not affect the ability of casual hunters for enjoying the activity and recording their experiences as they always have. On the other hand, adding a condition field to the "Found" option (Good, Poor, Destroyed) allows logging missing/destroyed marks, as well as giving credit for the effort of the recovery itself. Remember, if you can't identify the station then it should be logged as Not Found, much the same way that not signing the logbook constitutes not finding a Geocache. (Personally, I really don't feel it's OK to log a Geocache as found if the container is gone, even if you believe you found the hiding spot, but that's my opinion and I've always been true to it. If people want to log having seen only a reference mark as an actual find of the station itself, there's really nothing to stop them except their own integrity and sense of fairness. I'm generally satisfied that NGS requires proof of identity.) There are plenty of cases where stations with missing marks are still identifiable and useful. NGS recognizes this, too. Examples could be provided in a Benchmarking FAQ or some such similar guide to help users make that determination for the purpose of logging it, or the station in question could be brought to the attention of the forum for discussion and resolution. In this way we can all learn something new. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. --- [This message was edited by Rich in NEPA on September 19, 2003 at 08:02 AM.]
  17. quote:Originally posted by RogBarn: Unfortunately, GC.com currently only tracks benchmark finds. If and when they also track not founds and/or destroyed, I'd be more than happy to track those too. In my opinion destroyed marks should rightfully be logged as "Found." I know this sounds counter-intuitive to some of you but in order to claim that a mark is destroyed it needs to be positively identified. It's not as self-contradictory a concept as it may appear. Think of it as, "The 'station' itself was found, but the mark/landmark is missing/destroyed and the 'station' is no longer viable." The station that is the subject of this post is a very good example. The evidence from RACooper's research is certainly adequate. Perhaps a more qualified forum member could explain this better than I can. For benchmark hunting purposes, once a station has been officially (NGS) reported or listed as destroyed, it can not be logged again on the GC.com website as "Found." This gives the "recoverer" the credit he deserves for his efforts. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---
  18. ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---
  19. quote:Originally posted by Tennessee Geocacher: Yes we are listening. TG Thanks. It's nice to be reassured every once in while. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---
  20. quote:Originally posted by DustyJacket: I do not agree that the Power Squadron "sucks". The USPS does a lot of good work. But, their "area" is boating and that is where the USPS shines. The subject line was more or less meant to attract attention, but the fact remains that this sort of thing is quite common for the USPS and has been discussed before. What exactly is the motive for making official NGS reports when it's so readily apparent that little if any effort was put into the search. And that sucks. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---
  21. Thanks, Mike. I was thinking that it might be some sort of standard surveyor's notation and was curious about the meaning. It's the first time I've encountered anything like it in the field. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---
  22. quote:Originally posted by BeachBum22: I'm not trying to "look like" anything. I don't carry a clipboard or wear my badge from work to try and look "professional" when I'm benchmark hunting. ... It fits in with my other hobbies - digital photography, web site design, running around the beach, learning to use a GPS in the boat. That's why I got interested, not because I ever had any aspirations of becoming a professional surveyor. I guess if you want to read about adventures you stick to the adventure magazines. Personally, I prefer to go out and make my own. And nearly every Geocache and benchmark I've hunted as been just that. I treat them as mini-adventures, and I incorporate Geocaching and benchmarking into my other favorite activities—mountain biking, hiking, skiing, photography and my love for the outdoors—wherever and whenever possible. My Geocaching logs tell a bigger story and a lot more about my experiences because I feel a certain obligation to the cache owner who provided me with the opportunity for some fun and a challenge, and I'm sure a lot of other cachers enjoy reading something more than the simple, "Found it. Nice cache. TNLNSL." I even started my benchmark hunting by injecting a little of my personal experiences into my logs, but quickly realized that the two websites are entirely different, in spite of the supposed relationship to Geocaching. I realized that if professionals outside the Geocaching community were someday to find my benchmarking efforts to be of some value, they weren't going to be interested in my personal adventures, but that they'd want me to provide as many of the plain facts as possible. Even if that means making four photographs in each of the cardinal directions. I don't look at it as a job at all, and just because I don't described my entire adventure in minute detail and with the drama of a high adventure, that doesn't mean I'm not enjoying myself to the fullest. I remember every benchmark hunt as fondly as any Geocache hunt I've ever done or any epic mountain bike ride, if not more so. I think we agree on this aspect, at least. Let's face it, like most techno-geeks, we buy these high-tech toys and then look for a reason to play with them and to rationalize the expense of owning them. Eventually they evolve into everyday appliances that through their unbiquity we find we can't live without. But in the meantime Geocaching, and subsequently benchmarking, provides GPS users with the proverbial "problem to their solution." (Just like balancing your checkbook and organizing your recipes was at one time justification for owning a personal computer. I was in on the ground floor in the mid-70's so I've seen first hand how this happens.) When I say that we should strive to be "professional" my intent is that we should not settle for doing things half-assed, but doing them in a professional manner. Nobody said anything about becoming professional surveyors (although I'm sure that a few who have gotten bitten by the benchmark bug are finding out that they have a certain real inclination to make a career out of it). It's painfully obvious that you're missing the point entirely. It's about standards. If you actually read my previous post you'd see that's what I'm trying to get at. I've already seen Geocaching get dumbed down, sanitized, sterilized, and the creativity and innovation sucked out of it now that it's become a mainstream activity for the masses. This de-evolution has turned me off almost completely. I'd hate to see the same things happen to benchmarking, and at least I'm trying to help prevent it, if only by speaking out a little at first. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---
  23. Maybe he's the exception that proves the rule. Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---
  24. quote:Originally posted by BeachBum22: It's easy to yell at the webmaster when you aren't familiar with what's involved. And please don't forget that all of us aren't trying to look professional.... Two points: 1.) Nobody is yelling at the webmaster, so why exaggerate? 2.) So what, pray tell, is it you're trying to look like if not professional? What's the point of someone submitting accurate recovery reports if it's not to be taken seriously? It seems to me you are saying that those with higher standards should allow themselves to be dragged down to the lowest common denominator because some people aren't interested in or willing to do things in a skillful and thoughtful manner, or who don't care to contribute something of value to a fascinating profession and a growing body of knowledge? The fact is, however, that by maintaining the highest of standards, those of us who are willing to improve and who want to learn will always find a helping hand here. Many of us come here for a sense of community and an opportunity to learn, and yes, maybe a bit of peer recognition. It's the constant interchange of information and opinions that attracts us. You don't get that by being a loner and dealing exclusively with the NGS. Otherwise what's the point of having the benchmarking website in the first place? Why bother going there or to the forums? What started out as a quirky sideline to Geocaching is now struggling to evolve into something of real value—by and for people who recognize it's importance and who want to be a part of it. As for the issues involving updating the database ... where there's a will, there's a way. And if there's a way to make money from it, I'm sure a simple, cost-effective solution will be found. (I, for one, would buy a few benchmark hunting T-shirts, if that's what it takes!) Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---
  25. quote:Originally posted by GeckoGeek:From the reponses so far, that seems to be the key. Well, it may or may not be the key. I couldn't really say that for sure. My foremost reason for using the remote amplified antenna is that I like to include my GPSr in benchmark recovery photos by laying it flat on the ground next to the mark. In this position signal reception is severely hindered. The GPSmap76 series (or any unit with a quad-helix antenna) prefers to be oriented vertically. But even in the vertical orientation and with WAAS correction available, it seems to provide single digit accuracy figures when I'm navigating out in the open or on high prominent points. I have noticed that there is some increase in signal strengths with the remote antenna attached, and that may be a good thing. I only wished to state my amazement that position fixes at known high-precision survey marks are often solid and dead on with the published coordinates. As a matter of fact, I just noticed in the example I gave above that the half dozen or so photos I took of the unit at the station mark shows the elevation alternating between 1405 and 1406 feet. The datasheet lists the elevation of the mark itself at 1405 feet! Cheers ... ~Rich in NEPA~ --- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---
  • Create New...