Lightning Jeff

Then let me suggest that you are doing it wrong. Would LEOs here agree that attracting that much LE attention while caching is probably not good for the activity?

Not an LEO here, but I was a city prosecutor for awhile - does that count? Anyway, wanted to comment on this. I agree that this officer had no business telling you you couldn't be out at 1 a.m. (assuming you weren't in an area that is closed to the public at night), but I think I do want LEOs to "assume the worst" about people doing things at times and under circumstances that seem suspicious and set off the "just doesn't look right" alarm. I'd rather they check it out, preventing/stopping the occasional crime and mildly inconveniencing the occasional cacher (who probably has it coming at 1 a.m.!), than just assume it's nothing.

Is the fact that you can't accomplish this from the compass screen listed in the issues list as something it would be nice to have fixed? I didn't see it there, but the list has gotten pretty long.

I don't think I'd ever rely on a GPSr (or any device I turn off when I'm not using it) as my alarm clock. Maybe invest in a $15 wrist watch? Gotta say, this one would be way down on my list of things I hope Garmin fixes on the Colorado. Like, at the bottom.

That's a nice feature, but not the same as viewing the caches in Google Earth. Is the suggestion that the KML - broken for over a year, apparently - will never be fixed?

Same problem here (and unfortunately, Garmin's current Mac offerings do not replace MapSource). I've found that if Parallels is set to ask about connecting to USB devices, I need to hit "Yes" the instant the message pops up, or else OS X "grabs" the Colorado. Once that happens you have to disconnect and try again. If you have Parallels set to automatically connect to USB devices, then there should be no problem.

That thread seems to deal with the refresh rate/limited number of views - does that also cause the icon problem? And if so, is it fair to say that Groundspeak is just ignoring the problem, or is there some other explanation?

Looks good to me - probably more logical than by state. I had to share this. I don't know if anyone else does this, but I use my Nuvi to navigate to trailheads, then my Colorado from there. It just now occurred to me that I could probably load these trail maps on the Nuvi as well - yup! They show up great, including the trailhead POIs - most valuable.

This gets my vote. The great value I see in this project is knowing that someone has walked the route with a GPS. We know that the data is accurate, the trail really does exist, more or less in the location indicated. So, I really would like to see the "suspect" (not verified via GPS track) portions in a different color. Two different colors doesn't seem too confusing to me, but I see real value in distinguishing this data from what you collect via real tracks. Just so you know, I haven't decided what's cooler - this project or the caching features of the Garmin Colorado. I think this project has the edge. It is turning into an amazing resource. While doing some suburban caching yesterday, I was surprised to see a nice little red trail show up. It confirmed the proper approach to a cache that I might have otherwise ignored. Way cool. Edit: Okay, three colors - my eyes are so bad that I'd never noticed there was a maroon set distinct from red. Wow.

I guess that would be the same for these banners. That covers what I was wondering about. Or if not that, Washington's law has an exception for "insignificant, de minimis, or incidental use." I suspect the rotating images on the front page, drawn from images uploaded by members, would meet that exception. (Of course, I am not your attorney, this is not legal advice and if you rely on it, you're probably screwed.)

Or set the detail level to "Highest" - I can see them out to 7 miles. Jon, thanks for this. Great tool and one we can all contribute to. I have some tracks for some of the Marckworth forest (mostly roads but some trails too), and also some for Discovery Park (North Bluff and West Point areas) - let me know if you'd like these, and I'll clean them up. I looked at the trails in Tolt MacDonald Park. It makes the route to my TC there pretty obvious, as to which I have some mixed feelings. On balance, though, if this eliminates unnecessary bushwhacking, that's great.

Actually, Abby, the situation you describe is one of the ranger ignoring the Parks policy. The policy clearly requires the ranger to approve the cache container (including "inspection prior to placement"); requires the ranger to "pre-approve" the "exact location" of the cache; requires the approval of two higher-up administrators (the Regional Programs and Services Manager and the Regional Stewardship Manager); imposes a one-year expiration with a single one-year renewal; imposes a requirement that caches "must be checked by the geocache owner at least every 90 days," including proof of each such visit to the ranger; requires the boilerplate on the listing page ("Notice on geocache web site must state the following information..."); etc. I respectfully submit that the State Parks policy - and its "stringency" - should be judged by what it actually requires, not by what some rangers choose to ignore. And... Okay, I can't help myself; stop reading now if you've heard this one before, but I feel compelled to warn fellow cachers anytime this subject comes up. The State Parks policy also requires the placer to sign the following indemnification statement: "The geocache owner hereby agrees to hold harmless, defend and indemnify the state of Washington, State Parks, its employees, agents and assigns, from and against all claims, suits or actions arising from the placement, movement or removal of the geocache, or resulting from the contents of the geocache, or the use or misuse of said contents." If you sign this statement, and someone decides to "misuse" the contents of the cache - or simply gets hurt searching for it - you are on the hook for defending and indemnifying the state. Truly, nobody with assets worth protecting should sign this.

I'm not clear on the point of this. Wouldn't the "calibration" be short-lived? I mean, isn't it the case that with movement of the satellites, the positional calibration would be undone, and with changes in barometric pressure, the altitude would be? Just asking.

Not in my experience. I am notorious for shoving devices - GPS, Blackberry, iPod - in a pocket with other useful items such as keys. After putting nasty scratches in the screen on my old 60CS and my previous phone doing exactly this, I vowed to use an Invisible Shield on all such devices. Since then, I am just as careless, and haven't damaged a screen. And the point, of course, is that if anything does get damaged, it's a $12, replaceable hunk of film, not the screen of a $400 or $600 device. I don't think so. For one thing, the Invisible Shield doesn't even seem to use glue, as such. But even if there is some tiny reduction in brightness, to me that is well worth the protection. And I have never bumped up the brightness to compensate - my Blackberry has a set brightness that is just fine, and I don't even use backlighting on my GPS outdoors - not even with my Colorado. Demonstrably not true. And you wouldn't have even that minor scratch if you were using an Invisible Shield. You're kidding, right? How would that prevent a rock from scratching your Colorado's screen if you drop it out in the field? I know it wouldn't prevent damages from keys in my pocket. I'm left with the strong impression that you've never used an Invisible Shield.

Ah, but that makes for more entertaining viewing from my perch in Two Union.

Well, they do (AtlasQuest in particular has a pretty nice Google Maps implementation) but users can choose not to provide the necessary location info for the box to show up in the "right" place on the map. With many boxes, finding the starting point is a big part of the challenge. Since there is nothing illegal about any of the boxes that are there, and the parks people have not asked about non-geocache boxes in Discovery Park, I can't see disclosing them any more than I would post the coordinates for a puzzle cache - seems to me it would be bad form. (That said, I will contact the owner of the one box I found that was hidden in a way that might create a social trail.)

Well that, and that two of them are demonstrably harmless. "Demonstrably," meaning they could be pulled out and shown to the parks people* as examples of how boxes can be placed in a way that eliminates essentially all risk. It does occur to me, though, that that is more easily accomplished in letterboxing, where the entire basis of the search can be an explicit clue. That is, in caching, we go to coordinates and search (and some will not read the description or hint, which may be explicit). In letterboxing, if the clue is to "walk to the first bench, spot the hollow log right behind it and look in that log," there really is no opportunity for searches in other areas. Still, very-low-risk cache placements are possible. As for whether the park people know about "other boxes" at Discovery, I thought someone here said they did, but were focused on geocaches because they get the most traffic (it is also possible that I'm misremembering the comment or remembering it from another discussion). One of the items I have in mind would be very difficult for them to figure out, and another would be mildly challenging. At any rate, as far as I can tell, there is no "policy" regarding these things - just a request by parks that a particular class of boxes be archived by a listing site, which chose to cooperate. (I don't think it's a matter of only geocaching.com being "good citizens" - the same request simply has not been made to other listing sites, as far as I know. I know the operator of one such site and have little doubt that he would remove listings if asked by authorities to do so.) My understanding could be incorrect, but at any rate, I can say with near certainty that there is no written policy or directive in this regard (or at least not as of a few weeks ago). * If they were open-minded; however, they apparently are not and want us to just "back off." There is no written policy or directive prohibiting the boxes that are there and I therefore would not be inclined to disclose them.

Bump. And, I thought I'd mention that I had occasion to go on a nice hike through Discovery Park recently. While the geocaches are apparently gone, "other things" remain. Without giving too much away, two of the items I found were accessible directly from the trail, with clues or other factors that make it impossible for searchers to even attempt to search off-trail. These are perfect examples of hide types that present no risk of harm whatsoever to park resources. Identifying them might endanger them (and me?), but assuming open minds on the part of the parks people, would also demonstrate that, with thoughtful hides, our activity can be risk-free to the park. (As I walked, I spotted dozens of other such places - where a box could be hidden with no risk of trampling, social trails, etc. In fairness, the one other item I found was in a location where, with greater visitation, it would lead to a pretty obvious social trail; an example of how not to hide something, at least in this park.)

Here's a new annoyance: Terracaches no longer show up as "geocaches" - or at all, for that matter. I have a GSAK database that combines TCs in with GCs. I then export a GPX file wiht both flavors of caches to the Colorado. Previously, TCs showed up among the GCs. Now they're gone - the Colorado apparently just ignores them. Boo!

We used our 400t to complete our first Wherigo cartridge on Monday - J2B2: The Village Robot at Gas Works Park. It's a bit hokey, but overall a lot of fun - kind of like a virtual letterbox/geocache hunt all wrapped up into one. (If you have previously tried to deny to yourself that caching means you're a geek, there'll be no denying it as you're wandering around looking for "robot parts" and "charging energy crystals"!) I will be very interested to see how some of the more creative among us use this technology. It seems like the possibilities are just about endless - everything from complex puzzles leading to physical caches, to sightseeing tours in places that don't allow caches, to -- who knows? This is truly something new, and that's pretty exciting. (By the way, Garmin just released new firmware for the Colorado, and it is much closer now to being the ultimate caching GPS. There are still some kinks that need to be worked out, but if you've been holding off due to bugs, you're probably safe making that purchase now. When you do, be sure to give Wherigo a try.)

As mentioned elsewhere, a workaround is to put 2000 Geocaches on multiple SD cards. You just put in the SD card that you want to use. Kind of a lame work around, but a functional work around it is. No offense, but people keep citing this (being able to select a <2000 cache GPX file to use) as some sort of a solution. To me, it sounds like the same kind of kludgery I was hoping to avoid in moving from a GPSr-and-PDA to just GPSr. It's like the iPod. I wasn't happy until I got the 160G model that could store my entire music library. Anything less is work, sorting what you want to have with you at any particular time. I just hope we're not suggesting to Garmin that this limit is just fine.

"Ummm," I wasn't responding to you. I was trying to prevent a user who obviously does not yet have a Colorado from making an erroneous assumption about how much its "logging" feature can do. ("Ummm" has got to be one of the most overused and pointless forum cliches. So 2000.)

That right there is what might make me buy one. I love my 60CSx, but being able to leave the PDA at home? That might just make me jump ships. Hold your horses - or arses. Whether this replaces your PDA depends on how you use your PDA. If you only use the PDA to view cache info, you're set. However, if you use your PDA to take notes on cache condition, what you saw along the way, trades, etc., this is not a replacement as there appears to be no way to record such things.

I'm not peeing myself just yet. With this update, my 400t is crashing left and right. Sometimes when I hit the left soft key to pull up an Options menu, other times when I try to view certain cache descriptions - it just shuts off. When it works, it's much faster, which is absolutely a welcome improvement, but I am not anywhere near satisfied. The 2000-cache limit is arbitrary and needs to be eliminated. You still can't pan on the map and then search for items near the panned-to location. You still can't average a waypoint (unacceptable if you place caches and want coordinates that don't piss people off). You still can't add even the most rudimentary notes to a cache "log", rendering that function nearly useless if you ever trade or move travel bugs, since you'll continue to have to keep track of that information some other way. Kudos to Garmin for fixing some of the bugs that never should have made it to a retail unit in the first place, but they are far from done.

Yup, I ran into this early on, using my 400t with my MacBook Pro. I used Parallels/Windows to poke around on the 400t and found that OSX leaves a normally-invisible ".Trashes" directory in the "Garmin" root directory. If you use OSX's Finder to "delete" a GPX file, it is simply moved to that directory, and the Colorado still finds it. It seems that "emptying" the trash works. I hadn't tried that (wasn't ready to empty my MacBook's trash), but used Windows to delete that directory. The fix would be for the firmware to be changed so that the Colorado ignores anything in that folder, if it exists. (I assume the same problem would occur using a card.)