as77

No. The way I do it is by filtering for the caches that should have been updated by the latest PQs that do not have a current "last GPX update" date. Thanks, that makes sense. I like the "full gpx" idea, though. Sometimes when I can't find a cache and I'm looking for a hint, I wish I could read all the previous logs instead of just the last five.

Before paying for premium membership, though, I suggest you go out and find a couple of caches to see what this is actually all about Even if you just print out the cache pages in the beginning, or you save the web pages in html or whatever format you can read on your PDA. For navigation, I suggest you use the trial version of one the programs I listed in my previous post. Any one will do the job. I used Vito Navigator extensively before I bought an actual handheld GPS device.

Are archived caches included in the PQs so that you can de-activate them in GSAK when you do the updating?

In the USA a significant percentage of cachers are premium members, but in other countries this is not the case: only a small fraction are.

High terrain rating has nothing to do with wether the place is interesting. By the "environment" rating I mean how unique, interesting and remarkable the place itself is. There is no attribute that shows this. Also, there is no attribute telling you whether the hide is something original and creative. These are things people judge for themselves, you can never make them an attribute. BTW this rating system (rate the hide and the environment) has been used for several years on the Hungarian geocaching website and it has been a great success. I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work here.

My idea is better because it actually looks into why people like or dislike a cache. I think the "principal components" of whether people like a cache are the hide and the environment. These are pretty much orthogonal to each other. If you lump the two together and just use favorites then you will have no idea why a cache is on the favorites list of many people. Maybe those people have different preferences than you. Let's say you like great outdoor environments and simple hides, and then you see that a deviously hidden micro in a supermarket parking lot is one of the top favorite caches in your area. Still, you will hate it. On the other hand, if you have the ability to look for caches where the environment is rated high, that will provide you with caches you will like.

Some programs for you to check out: Vito Navigator II GPSTuner Beeline GPS Navio All of these are shareware.

I suggest that there be two scores: one for the quality of the hide and one for the environment. Both could go from 1 to 5. Examples: Hide: film canister behind a trashcan: 1 unique, disguised container (e.g. fake stone, etc.): 5 Environment: Walmart parking lot: 1 Niagara Falls: 5 Some people prefer good, original hides and don't care too much where the cache is, while other people could care less about the hide but they want to see interesting places. With this rating system, both types can choose the best caches according to their preferences.

You must have gotten my coordinates wrong. I'm not in Canada, I'm in Buffalo, NY. However, there is still no 5/5 cache within 300 miles of me. I'm actually quite surprised at that. Surely Starve Island and Cormorant's Roost are inside your 300 mile window. they're in Lake Erie. You're right, I somehow missed those ones. Can someone create a map of all 5/5s in the US? (Or in the world?). How many are there at all?

You must have gotten my coordinates wrong. I'm not in Canada, I'm in Buffalo, NY. However, there is still no 5/5 cache within 300 miles of me. I'm actually quite surprised at that.

Cool. I already qualify. I have found all 5/5 caches that are within 300 miles from my home. I don't have a lot of stories to tell about them, though, given the fact that the number of such caches is exactly zero.

$315 with free shipping from www.caplinktechnology.com Minus the $50 rebate makes it $265.

BTW the Legend C and the old black-and-white Legend have nothing in common except the similar name. The Legend C is a completely new unit. Therefore, unfavorable experience with the old Legend (reception problems, etc.) is completely irrelevant with regard to the Legend C. Satellite reception, in particular, is greatly improved in the color unit, relative to the b&w one.

There is no difference. They are exactly the same.

Franson's GpsGate software (available both for Windows and Pocket PC) can translate the Garmin protocol into NMEA. This is the solution you are looking for. See more info at http://franson.biz/gpsgate/guide.asp?secti...ps&platform=ppc

Actually there is a small Island just before the falls, called goat island. It would have to be helicopter only cache... There's also an ancient rusty barge stuck just above the falls that might make a cool cache, again helicopter only. Problem is neither US nor Canadian officials probably wouldn't allow a Helo to land on either. Not sure which side owns goat island. Lynx Goat Island belongs to the US and a bridge connects it to the mainland. You can get to the island by car or walking, there is a state park on it. And there is a cache there, too (actually on a smaller island, but still approachable by walking): THE OTHER SISTER. I don't remember a barge anywhere near there.

Altoids tins have visible, wide holes at the hinge. I wouldn't even rate them as rainproof. Besides, they can rust, too, and that is not a pretty sight. For attachment to the back of a sign, underside of a railguard, etc., a magnetic keyholder is a better choice: usually almost waterproof (but certainly rainproof) and doesn't rust.

For long, multiple-day hikes during which you have no access to a power source, the eXplorist 600 might be problematic because you can't just drop in new batteries. But the built-in rechargable battery is good for about 14 hours, which will be enough for most day trips if you start with a full charge. And the fact that it can accept SD cards and thereby it can hold a virtually unlimited amount of maps is a big plus when compared to the 60cs.

Very useful page, thanks!

Nothing like admitting to stealing. I reject your unrespectful comment.

(deleted by moderator)

So in your opinion, gc.com-centric articles are for gc.com cachers and tc.com-centric articles are for tc.com cachers, etc.?

Thanks for sharing the article. Now that I have read it....I am amazed that it is not in the magazine that touts itself to be for cachers everywhere. But they really mean "for cachers everywhere IF you subscribe to gc.com rules only" Which I find perplexing because it would seem to be in their best interest to keep the scope of the magazine as broad as possible. I agree. It was a dumb thing not to publish it. And I don't think the article sounds like an advertisement, although it could have been written better. What appears to be an advertising tone comes, in my opinion, from the author's enthusiasm, which is fine: it's OK to show that people are passionate about caching. Also, even if the "market share" of gc.com in relation to other listing sites is 99,9%, I think most people would agree that diversity and competition are good, therefore I would expect an unbiased magazine to devote a disproportionately large space to presenting the new players in the field. After all, these are important new developments in the sport, especially if a new website is based on a whole new philosophy and way of thinking about geocaching.

Excuse my ignorance, but what's a "flop rag"?

Unfortunately this "coordinates only" method only works with simple, traditional caches. With multis, virtuals or mystery caches it doesn't because a puzzle may be involved or some other specific info is needed. But I don't find that cache pages in general contain too much information.