as77

I just received the following e-mail about a cache on my watchlist: Now it's great that Maxtrax found this cache in August 2002 but it's 2004 now and more than 40 logs have been added to the cache page since this log.

I am a premium member myself but I still respect non-paying members and consider them equal members of the community. They are the ones who place the majority of the caches and contribute the majority of the logs. Why they don't buy a premium membership is none of my business.

No, I wouldn't think so. However, MOCs are different in the sense that it's not the ability of the cacher or the equipment or the placement of the cache that prevents non-premium members from finding it. It's that the owner intentionally chooses not to reveal the location and the description of the cache to non-paying members and they are also excluded from logging the cache. If you said that you wouldn't share the location and description of your cache with a handicapped person, or a person with a different hair color than you, and you would prevent them from logging it even if they managed to find it then I would call you an elitist. Or something worse.

Omitting the parts I'm not replying to is not editing. Changing the quoted part, e.g. replacing some words to change the meaning, is.

That exactly makes you an elitist.

Well, not entirely. The history I linked is well documented, with links to copies of e-mails, newsgroup postings and other documents throughout. Also, anyone can take a look at the trademark office's online database regarding the word geocaching. I didn't want to start a debate with this, my only purpose was to show that yes, gc.com is a for-profit business, it has been such from the beginning, there is nothing non-profit about it. I personally, when I pay my premium membership fee, I don't feel that I donate or that I support a cause; I feel that I'm paying a fee for certain services, it's a commercial transaction, nothing else.

I also think MOCs are generally elitist. However, a local cacher recently placed an MOC with the explanation that it is a sensitive area and he wants to minimize the number of cachers visiting the location. That seems to be a valid reason to me. The parking is in a quiet residential neighborhood in a dead-end street where people always notice strangers parking in front of their houses and they may not like hordes of cachers appearing.

Well, if you still have any doubts about it, read this interesting history of geocaching. who freakin' cares. Maybe the person whom I replied to?

Well, if you still have any doubts about it, read this interesting history of geocaching.

Now it seems to work again.

I think the pannable and zoomable maps are an attractive feature and they would attract more new members. So I don't think it was a good idea to make the panning and zooming a premium feature.

I found this on gpsinformation.net: "For a GPS to lock on, it must receive a COMPLETE navigation message that takes 30 seconds to transmit from each satellite. If you are moving, the slightest blockage from a tree limb or reflection from a building will prevent perfect reception, so the 30 second cycle is repeated -over and over. The best thing to do is hold the unit perfectly still so that the signals to the unit don't "flicker" and ruin the reception. Once locked on and under way, there is so much signal redundancy, the unit will remain locked even with partial signal reception. So, get lock first, and travel later!" In my experience, this really helps a lot. When you get out of your car, while in the open, before going into the woods, put the GPS on the top of the car and wait a few minutes so that the unit can get a perfect lock under the open sky with as many satellites as possible. After that, it will hold the lock very well even in the thickest of woods.

He mentioned that he'd bought his GPS for $30 and he bikes to the caches.

The new one is supposed to work much better than the old one, so I would only suggests new ones for comparison.

I like it, too, but in the form of e-mails, not popups.

Because several people have reported that it's much better than the old Etrexes because of improved technology.

It is true. The maps are not working correctly. E.g. go to the cache page of GCJ8HF and then click the link for the gc.com map. It will show Emery Park without any caches (provided you haven't found any of them), although there are 3 caches in the park. If you select Identify and click the center of the map, it will show them.

This surprises me somewhat. Others have reported very good results under tree cover with the Vista C.

OK, I updated the bookmarklet on my web page. It now supports both IE and Firefox, and it probably works in a number of other browsers as well. See the web page.

That's a very good question. The fact is that I have neither a Garmin nor a Magellan yet. I'm using a Pocket PC with a Globalsat GPS unit plugged in the CF slot. In a few cases when I found the cache coordinates to be off, at home I used USAPhotoMaps to check whether my GPS or the hider's GPS was off. In all cases, the areal photo showed my GPS to be accurate and the cache coordinates actually being off. Of course, USAPhotoMaps can be inaccurate, too, but it's unlikely that it's the same way off as my GPS. My CF GPS uses a patch antenna and I believe it behaves very similarly to an Etrex. It loses lock under tree cover relatively easily and it doesn't show any sign of noticeable dead reckoning. I also noticed that in the cache logs, if I complain about the coordinates being off then other people with Garmins complain, too (and they find the given coordinates at the same location as I), and the hider used a Magellan. I believe others reported that in difficult conditions (canyons, etc.) the Garmins usually lose lock while Magellans hold it but they report extremely inaccurate positions.

I observed that whenever it turns out that the coordinates of a cache are off, the hider invariably used a Magellan to measure them

BTW I do have a popup blocker (the Google toolbar) but it doesn't block the ROT13 popup window of the bookmarklet, so that is not a problem.

OK, I have a working version for Firefox now. I'm going to add it to the page tonight. For those who are impatient, just replace document.selection.createRange().text by window.getSelection().toString() and you get the Firefox version.

That's not a bookmarklet. BTW if people want, I can try to add support for other browsers. But most people use IE anyway.

Well, read my opening post again