as77

http://boulter.com/gps/maps/ This server lets you upload a gpx file and will show the caches on Google Maps. And they are clickable!

Actually I had the opposite of this idea: Finding caches would be free, but hiders would have to pay a monthly or yearly fee for each cache they hide; it would essentially be a listing fee. And there would be no premium membership, everyone would get the premium member services for free; the revenue would be generated from the listing fees.

See also a list of links at http://yukongis.ca/bin/view/Main/HackGarmin

There could be additional waypoints in the gpx file. Not just for parking but for trail heads or other points of interest, too. They could be listed on the cache page, too. E.g. the cache has a waypoint name GC1234 and there would be additional waypoints with names like GC1234+parking, GC1234+trailhead, etc.

No, it was a complaint from my part and I don't see why we should leave Jeremy alone, he's the head of the company and it's him that should be bothered when there is a problem. It's part of his job to take the nagging from the users.

Shoot. I set up the query again and it didn't appear in the list. Then it turned out that I had to agree again to the waypoint license agreement or whatever. After I submitted my agreement, all previous PQs appeared in the list. Why did I have to submit the agreement again? Are you kidding me?

I was wondering why I hadn't received my usual Friday Pocket Query (which was my only one). I went to the PQ page and it is just gone, there is no pocket query in the PQ list, it's empty. It's a good thing I had not set up 20 PQs. I guess I'd be pretty mad if all those had been lost.

Thanks. This sounds to me like a temporary fix, though. The question is why it gets messed up repeatedly every now and then and whether you could fix it permanently.

I can't believe Jeremy has still not fixed this bug. Why the heck am I paying my membership fee for? Wake up, Jeremy! We expect you to fix this! Deadline: yesterday!!!

duju, black pointers?? What do you mean?

I have a Vista C and it has proven to be very good under heavy tree cover. Recently, I was hunting for a cache where the cache page noted that one of the biggest difficulties with this cache is the heavy tree cover and the weak reception due to it. Indeed, most finders complained about the poor satellite reception in their logs. I went there and I didn't have any problems with the reception, the Vista C led me right to the cache. On another occasion, I met a cacher with a black-and-white Legend. The Legend kept losing the lock while my Vista C had no problems holding it. I carry my Vista C on my belt in a leather case and in the woods it loses the lock easily in that position. However, when I remove it from the case and hold it in front of me, it regains the lock within a few seconds, no matter how heavy the tree canopy above is. Having said that, neither Garmin nor Magellan uses the latest GPS receiver technology. For about $150, you can buy a Bluetooth receiver with the new SiRFstarIII chip set. The receivers having that chip set are considerably more sensitive than any Garmin or Magellan unit available today. Both Garmin and Magellan are way behind current technology.

In addition to GPS Tuner and BeeLineGPS, other programs for off-road navigation include Vito Navigator II, Navio and GpsDash. I used to use Vito Navigator, it's cheap and does an OK job. I like Navio, too.

That's not terribly practical. You'll get hundreds of e-mails will all the logs, instead of just the archival events.

Good suggestion. I've had trouble locating the waypoint name on the page, too. It should stand out a lot more.

Perfectionism kills productivity.

The 60c's screen is a bit bigger, but the 60c always shows a status bar, which takes up space. The Legend C is smart enough not to show a status bar when it is not needed. Taking that into account, the difference is quite small.

I noticed that the number of people watching a cache is usually a good indicator of the quality of the cache. I would like to see this as a field in the GPX files.

Add up the difficulty and terrain ratings of the found caches and then the score will be more realistic. One 5/5 will have the same value as five 1/1s.

HTML cache descriptions in GPX files do. That's true, but images that are simply uploaded to the cache page but not included in the description do not appear in the GPX file in any form.

CacheMate doesn't do images on its own, no, but the file converter can create an HTML file linking to all of the images found in the GPX files, grouping them by waypoint ID. That file can be run through Plucker, or whatever else HTML reader you want to use. That capability has been there for some time now. I don't think the GPX files contain any images or links to images.

Another setting to check out is the navigation mode. I think the geocaching mode only works when the navigation mode is set to off-road.

Sure, Clyde, I do see your point. Thanks for the clarification.

Did you try to calculate the distance from the coordinates of the two points? There are many web pages that do this, e.g. http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~cvm/latlongdist.html

G7toCE can upload waypoints from PDA to GPS through a serial connection. I run Pocket PC 2003, therefore that CE program does not work on my PDA, but thank you.... Pocket PC 2003 is just an implementation of Windows CE. On the G7toCE page, you'll find a version of G7toCE specifically compiled for Pocket PC 2003. See at http://www.gpsinformation.org/ronh/ You're welcome

Well, since you mentioned that your work was with computer support, you better check this out because what you said is not quite correct. On Windows, go to Display Properties, Settings, Advanced, General. On XP, you'll find the following text there: "Display If your screen resolution makes screen items too small to view comfortably, you can increase the DPI to compensate. To change font sizes only, click Cancel and go to the Appearance tab. DPI setting: (here there is a dropdown menu with these items:) Normal size (96 DPI) Large size (120 DPI) Custom setting..." Ideally you want a 12-point font to be the same size on your screen as a 12-point font would be in print. For this, you should set the DPI setting in Windows to the same value as your physical screen DPI. To do this, calculate the number of pixels in the diagonal of your screen and divide it by the physical screen size. E.g. for a 15-inch screen with 1600x1200 resolution, the screen diagonal is 2000 pixels, and 2000/15=133.33. Therefore, your ideal screen DPI setting is 133. That's what you should set in Display Properties.