[GPS with these features]

eTrex 10, MSRP $120

 

No maps, no compass, very accurate, terrific battery life. Storage for 1000 waypoint plus 500 geocaches with full "paperless details."" -- descriptions, hints, and logs.

[iPhone 4S & GLONASS Support]

GLONASS capability will not (can not) improve accuracy unless you're already in EXTREMELY marginal reception conditions but have a better view of satellites from that system than the existing GPS space segment....

As common as it is for folks to argue around here, it's not often you see somone argue with themself

 

"Lee, you're wrong!" Yep, I was. After using my eTrex 10 for a few days, watching both the satellite status page and accuracy of this tiny and cheap GPS, I can see that combined GPS+GLONASS support is a lot more helpful than I thought it could be.

 

I think the biggest gain isn't simply that it can get data from more satellites - but the fact that having that many more satellites makes it much more likely to get a "good geometry." In theory, you could get a terrfic fix with as few as four satellites in view -- if one of them was directly over head, and the other three were eequally spaced around you and all between 35-50 degrees above the horizon. If there were all clumped together in one part of the sky view, there wouldn't be enough differnce in signal strength, timing, etc to get the best accuracy.

 

But combine all those GPS and GLONASS satellites together, and you're almost always going to have a dozen or more in view, and a good spread across the skyview more likely.

 

So bringining that back to the ORIGINAL question: If the iPhone 4S can simultaneously process GPS and GLONASS signals, it should be a big gain. I doubut this will be a simple firmware update for older phones though.

[eTrex 10 impressions]

I do have that menu and option, but setting it doesn't seem to change anything on the map screen or geocaching descriptions, where I've spend most of my time. The "big data fields" on the trip odo page work though.

[eTrex 10 impressions]

found the option to change text size?

Ha, I didn't even think to look

But I'm not too proud to ask for a hint. Do tell?

[eTrex 10 impressions]

Awesome battery life. Very accurate on averaged waypoints, but only so-so (still acceptable) on instantaneous readings and track logs. Small screen fonts may annoy some folks.

[Legality or common sense?]

You trust me because I explained my point of view ...

Sure, but only to a point

 

Whether you've explained your view or not, if I come across a cache and it looks fishy, I'd probably mention it. *HOW* I mention it, that's where personalities (online and real life) come into it.

 

From recent experience, I've come to generalize my best course this way: Usually it'll be a PM to the cache owner. But if the CO is someone I've tried to contact before with no result, or someone who seemed problematic in other ways, it'll be a PM to the reviewer instead I'll save the "NA" logs for the ones where I feel there's a likelihood someone could get hurt, or get hassled by local residents or police.

 

Choices, choices.... but overthinking is better than not thinking

[Legality or common sense?]

Rhino - you, I trust

And even though that implies I *don't* trust some other folks, it's nothing personal. I get to a site and make the judgment each time -- sometimes good, sometimes not.

[Legality or common sense?]

TheBruce0, I couldn't agree with you more.

 

One of the caches I mentioned, the one on Trimet property that has been over described and argued to death here, is a good example.

 

I posted an NA without a find, because I was pretty sure it was on private property. CO insisted first it wasn't on Trimet property, so he didn't need permission. Then he admitted it LOOKED like it MIGHT be on Trimet property, but he had permission, but that also he was gonna check again. Cache page didn't mention permission originally at all.

 

Based on all that, I revisited site this morning - and found it. It isn't behind the fence, but you don't need a map to see where the property line is -- and it might be a matter of a few feet but it IS on Trimet's side of the line. Like putting a cache on someone's front yard but not behind their fence. AND YET... if the CO does get permission, that's not even a problem.

 

See how much typing could be avoided and trust established if that quote had been in description originally?

 

"Cache is on private property, permission has been granted."

 

Thats all it takes!

[eTrex 10 impressions]

Other observations:

 

- The eTrex 10 holds only 500 Geocaches, and this is in addition to/separate from the 1000 waypoints advertised.

- There is only 8MB free for copying GPX files, so a pocket query containing lots of child waypoints and verbose logs might overrun that.

 

- There is a minor glitch in the satellite status display, where it will sometimes not draw the bar graph of signal strength completely. Intermittent and I haven't found a surefire way to reproduce the problem.

[Legality or common sense?]

Most of us would say, "well, it must be on this side of that sign, because it can't be on that side of the sign".

Sure, that would help narrow it down in some similar placements. But to clarify THAT exact location: What you don't see from that picture is that the "No trespassing" sign is not marking a border. The sign isn't posted along the edge of a property, but in a wide grassy area -- so it may as well read "Keep of the grass." Yet that's where the coords pointed. The cache was actually at the edge of the grass, some considerable distance away.

 

That's the difference between being there versus just armchair caching. On examples I've given, I've tried to describe as best I -- but you CAN'T always tell from a map or carefully worded descriptions the reality of the site.

[Legality or common sense?]

I answered privately because I was more interested in discussing caching practice in the forum rather than personalitiesof myself or other caches. But as a matter of forum and PM practice, I guess I'll ask openly -- why ask a question, AND repeat it, but then say "I'm ignoring your reply, I wasn't really interested?"

 

The two explicit questions Knowschad asked were: 1) Do I know any other cachers? (Yes). 2) Do I cache alone or with others? (Mostly alone, sometimes with a couple of friends). I also saw a rhetorical raised eyebrow from Knowscahd and others about having been a member for >10 years but not going to any caching events. I signed up on GC.com in 2001, but have been interested in GPS and mapping technology for longer than that. Even so, I've only been actively caching for the past couple of yers -- over 99% of my finds in the past two years and more than half of them THIS year. Haven't been to any events because I work during the week and usually hve other things to do on weekends. Haven't sought out many events though there have been a couple I wanted to attend - but couldn't work them into my schedule.

 

And that was the gist of what I sent Knowschad in PM. Anyone want to dissect it, to see if it speaks to the question of what to do when you cone across a questionable cache hide?

[Legality or common sense?]

I did ask you something about you in the very post that you quoted here. You didn't answer.

PM coming your way.

[Legality or common sense?]

Would be my pleasure. PM me for direct contact info.

FWIW, I'm far more comfortable with one-on-one interactions and small gatherings than with large groups.

[Legality or common sense?]

I may be totally wrong about you...

You could be. Some people have the strange idea that I look like Gary Sinise with a beard -- but I assure you I look more like my avatar picture than you look like yours

 

But for the most part I've tried to keep my comments in this thread abut caches and practices rather than about people and personalities. If you really want to know something about me as a person, and you can't glean it from my profile or other posts, feel free to PM me and ask.

[eTrex 10 impressions]

Just got it and have only played with it for a little while inside the house. Will have more to report in coming days, but so far:

 

- Feels smaller, lighter, more "pocketable" than my last eTrex, the Legend HCx.

- Thumb-stick on the right doesn't bother me, I can use it in either hand.

- Not keen on the battery compartment markings, I marked a small + and - in black Sharpie as soon as I could

- Works fine with Mac, OS X 10.7, tested with direct connect, Basecamp, Garmin Communicator, and GC.com send to GPS.

- Base map is pretty much country and state boundaries and major city names. No problem for me as this is just a geocaching tool and track logger for my bicycle, but if you're looking for a mapping GPS, look elsewhere.

[Legality or common sense?]

Once you finally found it, you posted the fact that it was a "game of inches". Apparently you did not need to trespass after all, huh?

I've said it before in this thread and this is another good example. It's always the ones on the edges that raise questions.

 

I had visited that site a few times, with different GPS units, and every device put the coords closer to that No Trespassing sign than where the cache really was. I did not post a NA log, just mentioned the signage in my DNF -- and had written it off in my own mind. But a while later another cacher emailed me a rather pointer clue -- and I went back for it. Now this one really was a game of inches -- it probably COULD be called trespassing but it was NOT in a place where someone looking for it would draw unwelcome attention.

 

That's the edge thing I keep seeing.

[Legality or common sense?]

Tell me which of those reporting mechanisms you think aren't "overstepping" - a way to voice a concern that's guaranteed not to upset anybody.

I don't need to. You already know the answer to that. You're simply ignoring that answer in favor of what you want to do.

No, really -- I meant that seriously. Let me try it again: You have a concern about a given placement. You have the options of ignoring it, sending a PM (or email) to the cache owner, or to the reviewer, or posting a NA, or writing a cache note that raises the question. I've seen folks use, and suggest, all of those options at different time.

 

Which do you (you personally) choose?

[Legality or common sense?]

I think that you are over thinking it, or over policing it, one or the other.

Nah, just applying what I think is my best judgement at the time. Can be different for different caches, and you can't know or "overthink" anything until you're there. If I seemed to be over DESCRIBING it though (very likely), it's because I was hoping to give you/anyone else who hadn't been on that location a feel for the spot.

[Legality or common sense?]

...You should go caching in Forest Park or Tyron Creek or Marquam Hill, or the Gorge more often. Your blood pressure will go down a notch or two. I know mine does.

My blood pressure's fine -- hope I didn't come across as angry. These kinds of debates/arguments/quibbles seem really low-key to me personally, even though I know a lot of people get pretty heated up.

 

I tend to do mostly urban caching and close to home because I don't own a car. But I do sometimes get out on the trails and buttes around here.

[Legality or common sense?]

Going up to the sign is not a problem; nor would finding a cache outside a posted fence.

I actually agree with you, up to a point. The disagreements on these things always come to an edge or marginal case. That's the case with the specific cache (Rockin 98) we're talking about at the moment.

 

For an urban cache like this one, you'd have to stand on the spot and ask yourself not only "Am I on the right-of-way here?" but also how it would look to the folks who live across the street or the police driving by. It's gonna be a case-by-case thing; the layout of fences, bushes, lines of sight, character of the neighborhood, property type, etc...

[Legality or common sense?]

If the cache is on my side of the fence, I'm not seeing your issue.

Which side is that? Everything from the edge of the street to the fenceline?

 

I grew up on a street where there were lawns, sidewalks, and a strip of grass (and sometimes trees) between the sidewalk and the street. I treated that bit of grass between pretty much the same as people's lawns - not "mine." I did consider the sidewalk a "right of way" even though I didn't know that term then.

 

If the city's GIS website shows the property line goes to the curb (along with the more obvious tall fence, barbed wire, no trespassing signs, and lack of sidewalk), I don't second guess where the line REALLY is and which is "my side" of the fence.

[Legality or common sense?]

It sounds, from their posts that you are gaining some notoriety in your neck of the woods as a cache cop. We do need to police caches ourselves, true... but I'm wondering if you aren't perhaps overstepping your bounds some.

Nah, I'm just annoying one or two folks by raising some concern about placements. And no matter how you do that -- PM to the cache owner or reviewer, NA log, note ont he cache page -- someone's gonna be unhappy about it.

 

Tell me which of those reporting mechanisms you think aren't "overstepping" - a way to voice a concern that's guaranteed not to upset anybody.

[Legality or common sense?]

Rockin 98th is on Portland Park properties, according to McKeeFamily's research.

You must have only read one of McKee's logs -- he followed up by saying himself that it looked to be on Trimet proeprty and he was going to check more closely. And that's not from Google Maps strictly, but PortlandMaps.com, fed from the city's GIS site (I linked that info in my own log). The nearest Portland Parks property is quite some distance away, not just a matter of being on one side of the fence or the other.

 

This is where local site knowledge comes in better than remote viewing. But visualize yourself in a similar situation: Residential property on one side of the street, a bus company site on the other that cover several square blocks. Tall perimeter fence of various types surrounds the site, some sections posted with "no trespassing" signs, some not -- but all topped with barbed wire. Your GPS tells you to go into the bushes between the road and the fence. Go too far into the bushes and hang around for very long, you think you may draw some unwelcome curiosity from the residents or police. Go home and check the city's website, and it looks like those coordinates are on private property...

 

Your call: Go back tomorrow? Give it up? Report it or not?

[Legality or common sense?]

SBell, there is no guideline "that forbids geocaches on private property." The relevant guideline (and common sense) suggest the hider should seek permission for such placements and indicate permission was given in the cache description. Fundamental guidelines, item 1.2:

 

You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property.

[Legality or common sense?]

.... a NA, however reasonable he might THINK is is, from an unknownis not going to make him any friends.

An unimportant detail up front: Unknown? I'm pretty accessible and open. Been on the forums for over ten years, though not always actively geocaching. Actively caching in Portland area for the past few years. For most of that time I've used my real name here; only switched to a "screen name" recently. My avatar is a real picture of me, not a cartoon character. Have introduced myself , giving away both real name and screen name, to other cachers I've met in the field. Would going to a CITO or other event a few times a year somehow make me more of a regular Joe?

 

But back to the important "a NA, however reasonable he might THINK is, is not going to make him any friends."

 

Probably not, and I'm not sure that can be helped. In any context, from a stranger or your best bud, saying "Hmm, there might be a problem with this one" is not going make anyone happy. And people's sensitivities vary. Some might take a problem report or even a raised eyebrow as a reason to check it out, others might act like you insulted them or their children personally.

 

I don't know if that variety of human nature can or should be changed. Some folks are gonna be unhappy - whether the problems or questions are presented to the CO, the reviewer, or any other way -- no matter how many CITO's and picnics someone goes to.