drfred

The Garmin Colorado (and presumably the Oregon) have several routing modes. If you are routing to a waypoint using one of the "on-road" modes the unit will keep pointing you back to the closest road. You have to switch to "Off-Road" to navigate right to the cache. This usually is not an issue as navigating to a "geocache" is different from navigating to a "waypoint" but becomes an issue for multis and puzzles. From what I understand many of the car models don't have the "off-road" navigation feature.

Man, can I kill a discussion or what? Anyway, check out the Yahoo group GeoConundrum

Huh?!?!? There was a nasty 5 stage multi around here some years back and I got to the final stage expecting at least a STF. Opened the log to read "We're just 5 air conditioning guys who found this thing"

Multis are great and a fantastic twist on the traditional cache. They usually take more effort on the part of the cacher, however, and the "average" (in quotes-don't flame me for stating the obvious) cacher does not want to take the extra effort for 1 smiley. If you want any volume of finders, if at all possible I would recommend making the stages separate caches. You can make the final a "bonus" cache. I hate that multis are so disrespected. I have a fun one that is 7 stages, but only a handful of people are even willing to try it. Why? The numbers game... Why spend all day looking for this tough multi when you could get 20 close by lampskirts. Don't mean to open Pandora's box, but we keep it here close by to open from time to time.

You're supposed to log them??

So what kind of puzzle do you want? There are tons of ideas out there... Do you want a puzzle for novices/experts/computer geeks/art fans/music lovers/geo-nerds? Easy/medium/hard/impossible? The thing I love about puzzles is that they often challenge me to learn about something I had not had exposure to before. My best advice would be to pick something that intrigues you - interests YOU - and that you find a fun challenge. Then work on using that to hide a set of coordinates. I can give you a bunch of ideas for puzzle caches that I've had and never got around to (probably hundreds) but the bottom line is to pick something that YOU think is fun so it doesn't become a chore to answer questions about the cache from people trying to solve it. Feel free to e-mail me with questions about fun ways to hide coords. I try to look at puzzles around the country and have a good idea what is out there. Also, to anyone who wants to discuss these things, there is a Yahoo group called GeoConundrum that has been dead for a while but should get active again before GeoWoodstock. The idea is not to give out coordinates or spoilers but to have a forum for puzzle nuts around the country to point out good ones to look at. (There are still a few in CA driving me nuts, and though I'll never get out there to find them it is still a fun challenge - maybe we should be able to get a 1/2 smiley for figuring out the puzzle...) Enjoy, and remember, have fun!

Found a whole truckload of fish dumped right by the cache site. I found the pile first but lots of others got to enjoy the smells while the pile decomposed: GC1CGJ8 The cache was renamed in honor of the sacrifice (and in honor of a cacher named We5Fish, FTF on the cache before the dumping) and is now called "WeSmellFish"

This frustrates me every time the topic comes up in the forums. People panic and think that their GPSr will just "run out" one day. What they don't understand is that the actual problem is due to a geodetic effect. Although the mathematics have only been worked out in spaces containing up to 9 units (the equations become exponentially more difficult) it is not impossible to extrapolate to larger numbers, at least in theory. In a typical Riemannian manifold, defined as a smooth manifold with a smooth section of the positive-definite quadratic forms on the tangent bundle, the computation of geometric dilution of precision of any unit should be understood to be affected by the presence of other GPS units in the defined space. Although this effect theoretically extends to infinite distances, for practical purposes (and to simplify the math), units greater than 528 feet away are usually ignored (you didn't think that number was just made up, did you?) Anyway, to make a long story short, the theory actually seems to indicate that additional GPS units in the defined space actually stabilize the effect of any other given unit in the space. So the most stable situation would be to have a GPS unit placed in a grid every foot in a circle 528 feet in radius around a cache. All of this ignores the Lense–Thirring effect, which (theoretically) should also add to the difficulty of getting an accurate reading (i.e. during the drunken bee dance). This may have as much (or even more) effect than the de Sitter effect, although it has not yet been measured - or even proven to exist on the scale of recreational geocaching.

I have a 300 and still like it. The sad thing is that Garmin has never really supported the Colorado and clearly put their energy into the Oregon software development. Either that or the software team leader for the Colorado was just an incompetent loser. Anyway, now with rumors that the Oregon x00 series is going to bite the dust next, and the latest trail unit was the stripped down Dakota, what does this say about where Garmin is going in the high-end trail market? If Garmin is making all of these changes for purely market-driven reasons then they will discontinue all units except those for the auto market which is clearly much bigger. The problem comes a few years out when most ordinary drivers who wanted a unit have one (and most won't see a need to upgrade), and new cars come with units built in. Then any GPS company who has abandoned the tech-savvy-geek-fanatic crowd (yes, I'm one too) will have to face the music. I've always liked Garmin's designs and ease of use. MapSource has always been a nightmare but I don't have to use it too much. I've also invested in maps and so forth. Despite that, I'm having to look hard at other GPS units for my next one, and will probably end up buying one from a company who still cares about the trail/geocaching crowd. I'm waiting (hoping) for an announcement of a new platform from Garmin.

I love puzzles and try to solve lots of them, even if I have no chance of logging them. Two come to mind recently as being over 10 miles from the posted coordinates. Solved 1 while in TN for GWVII and got ticked off because I wasn't about to drive 10 miles out of my way just to grab this puzzle cache. Another I was FTF on nearby, but was surprised at how out of the way the posted coords were... Seems like common courtesy to me to keep the posted coords reasonably close to the final - never mind what the official guidelines say!

What's a FAQ?

It should probably be a check box on the side that defaults to not active - hey wait, hasn't this been discussed before? Anyway, I have a few active at sites where 3 or 4 were before...how many could be archived at any one site? 10? 15?

My apologies to the whole twitter/facebook/needalife crowd, but doing anything from a handheld is like tying fly lures with boxing gloves. Take the gloves off and get a real keyboard. You'll speed up your soft brain and simplify your life. I'll challenge anyone on a thumb-board to a type off. I doubt you'll get anywhere close to 100 wpm, and nowhere in the universe of twice that. Ten fingers beats two any day of the week.

How about when an event gets thrown for your 500th FTF? We have a local cacher with such an honor. I got to where I was very proud to take a STF in our area because the first line was always a given. I'm happy to have more STFs than FTFs here...

A bit off topic, but I'd generally agree. Nothing ticks me off more than somebody who couldn't find a 4 difficulty micro and hides a keyholder nearby as a "favor". On the other hand, if it is a 1/1 cache, the description says "magnetic keyholder in the usual place", and the hint is "skirt lifter" and the thing is missing, I don't see a problem with replacing it. If I can't get the owner on the phone while on site I'll send them an e-mail saying what (if any) broken parts I found, how I replaced it, and making sure that is OK. People do it for me, and as long as I know about it, greatly appreciate them saving me a trip (although I usually go by to make sure it is the way I wanted it anyway...)

You can tell a LOT about a person just by what they read into other people's logs. You can tell a lot about a person in what they tell in a person from their post about what they read in a cacher from their logs. My head hurts... Not a log. I didn't mean a log. I don't have a log. I mean, I do but not in the sense that you think I think I said. Which I said but not meaning what I said when I said it.

Actually I'm a softie when it comes to caches put out by kids or someone's first cache - there is one that I've been offering to replace for a few months, but have gotten no response. Have no idea how the cache was originally hidden, so I'm a bit stuck.

I'm getting more cutthroat as time goes by, or impatient, or likely both. I try to be nice, and don't see "Needs Archived" as something malicious, but unfortunately some cache owners don't agree. Really I hate to see any caches archived, but I'd rather see places open up for new caches than a disabled cache in my query for months on end. Typically I will post a note on the site such as "any news on this one? I'd love to hunt it if you get a chance to replace it" - usually accompanied by an e-mail to the owner. If a month goes by then a "Needs Maintenance" with a terser "owner needs to check on this one" follows. Another month and no response, and its "needs archived" with a note to the reviewer saying that the owner has not responded. Sometimes I get a nasty e-mail after this saying that I was being mean and that I should have replaced the cache myself (which I often do, but only when the original idea of the cache was clear). Sorry. You can always request to get it un-archived, or even better, relisted as a new cache.

We had a cache here that was an ammo can full of golf balls. One of the golf balls had a nano inside...you just had to find which one...

Try: Garmin Colorado Wiki There is lots of information there about features as well as bugs and their status. One thing Garmin definitely needs to work on is making a manual. Their full manual had less information than most products' quick users guides.

So I went out to the park today and found that once I am inside the area of the new map the routing works fine...I just can't build a route ahead of time on the GPSr. Biggest problem I had was that it would not stick to the trail. Under map setup I set lock on road ON, but it would still tell me "S to trail" or whatever, even when I was on the trail. This was annoying because the distance to the target would go up instead of down as it was trying to route me back to the point I "left the trail". It was better once it locked onto the trail, but still would drift off every few minutes. I know that I can't expect the trails I drew from old tracks to exactly be the same as the new track I am on, but it seemed that the room for error was quite small (especially given the Colorado drift issue, but I won't even get into that ). The routing is set up for "Pedestrian". The routing setup was "On Road for Distance". The trails are defined in the map as trails - would roads give more leeway for locking on?

No, I checked that again - it was checked... When I put in a test route in MapSource, it first draws a direct line between the points - then I click "recalculate" and it draws a route on the trails. No "recalculate" on the Colorado, but perhaps it will do it when I am actually walking on the trail - I'll try it later... Maps are pending on mapcenter2... thanks!

Actually I just installed it and it is an evaluation version - it gives me text on the map about registration...I wasn't sure if this version would do what I wanted, but was surprised to see it routing in MapSource.

I'm not sure if this exact topic has been discussed - please direct me to thread if so... I have made a map of trails at a state park and am trying to make it routable on the Colorado. Used GPSMapEdit 1.0.53.0 to create the map and put in routing information. Used cGPSmapper Personal 097c to create the .img file. Then used MapSetToolKit v1.50 to install into MapSource. Map is pretty simple and goes through the above processes without errors. Map is transparent and I plan to use it on top of topo maps. I still have several issues to still work through: 1) The map will route properly on the trails in MapSource, but when the map is loaded on my Colorado 300 the routing on the GPSr does not work (only draws straight lines between points, not on trails). This occurs even if other maps are turned off in the map setup on the GPSr. 2) Using City Navigator maps in combination with the trail map causes an error when routing from a point off the trail map to a point on the trail map. How do you define points on the trail map that link to points on the City Navigator map?

Hey, a little late, but congrats nonetheless!