_Shaddow_

Yes, can be VERY different. You CAN NOT trust your tracks or your GPSr to give you accurate information on your distance or elevation gain. GPS is a very valuable tool and can be extremely helpful in locating your position down to about 30 feet but below that is impossible with handheld consumer level units. But they try, and try to give the cumulative distance and elevation but due to the scatter under 30, and the unit counting it all, it will be off, even with the algorithms they have to attempt to cut out some of the extraneous info. Even with barometric barometers. With identical units I've seen differences in elevation of up to and greater than a 1000' one on hike, and miles off in distance on long hikes. To help you judge my opinions, I'm a civil engineer (structural) and trained in surveying. I'm also a tech geek and probably a little OCD and addictive personality (aren't all geocachers?!) and have an extensive spreadsheet for all my hikes, walks and runs over the last several years that I created in an attempt to develop my gut feel for GPSr use and accuracy (~2200 miles and 500,000 feet elevation). From that spreadsheet info I've concluded to figure at least 10-15% off on average for both. What I've learned is to ignore what the GPSr says and figure it out for myself using my tracks and Mapsource to view, edit and understand the track information directly. In Google Earth however, what I understand is that it does not use the elevation information from your tracks but instead first plots your position information only then directly takes the elevation from its elevation layer. So basically it's calculating the elevation on its own and it's therefore more accurate. Not perfect but I've become confident that's it's most likely within 5% or less. Vertical scatter in your track Horizontal scatter in my track from Sat I'm not sure what they are referring to, I've never looked much at the hiking sites for that type of info. I always plan my trip on my own and therefore have my own mileage and elevation estimates. Interesting that I just read one about Green Mt, I'm involved in the SAR mission going on up there, and though the whole write up, with video, was about summiting Green Mt, they misidentified the summit by three peaks... Personally, I take any information on the web, especially provided free or without a comment section, with a huge grain of salt. Doesn't answer your question directly but that's where I am at with it.

Hi nedyken and welcome to geocaching and the NW! Also to two of my favorite pastimes, hiking the NW and geocaching. You actually hit on a pretty interesting discussion topic among ele junkies, one that is at times confusing since elevation gain can mean one, the other, or both, depending on who you are talking to or the circumstances. Also, the language adds a twist; while 'cumulative elevation gain' is unmistakably clear, the use of 'elevation gain' is ambiguous and there is no elegant way to say 'not cumulative elevation gain but just the top-bottom.' If you're peak bagging aka the main intent of your hike is to start at a low point (trailhead) and head up to a summit, and there is not much other major ups and downs in between, then it's usually the top-bottom If the same peak bagging but with some ups and downs in between, it could be either top-bottom or cumulative If you're wondering around with ups and downs, like you did, then it could be either; in that case I would personally figure out the cumulative and go with that but others don't like putting in the effort and would just consider it top-bottom perhaps adding in a fudge factor for the extra ups Personally I feel that any heading up is part of the elevation gain for the day so I will almost always mean cumulative I'm speaking about elevation gain, though there are times where the little extra isn't worth figuring out, even for me. I consider anything over 20-100' to be large enough to include. Not to further complicate things but to point you to more information, consider 'qualifying elevation' in my elevation challenge which would also be a good resource to find excellent geocaching related hikes. A relatively easy way to figure fairly accurate cumulative elevation using Google Earth (GE) upload your tracks from the GPSr to Garmin's Basecamp or Mapsource go to View>View in Google Earth... in GE, right click the track in the side bar and select Show Elevation Profile See screenshot below

I use the saved profile method and it works fine. I have a file called 'maps' and just open it and transfer the maps over (after updated with the latest NW Trails and Topos of course)

Ok thank you. Given that information, then I think we all can agree that it looks like he didn't take the lid, and he most certainly didn't take the cache. At first that sure sounds like very good news but on quick review, it is actually very, very bad news indeed. How many people have you angered M10B? Just kidding I think we are beyond the stage of it being 'a rumor' that there is an active cache thief working the I90 corridor and taking mostly easy access trail related caches but also those along the length of some trails (GCD, Rattlesnake). If not motivated by anger or retaliation (right?) than it must be a do-gooder. I can't think of any other reason these specific caches would repeatedly go missing. Also extremely odd in my book that the individual(s) have not let their reasons be known (right?). I would expect it to be similar to the do-gooder along the HW2 corridor who she has voiced her reasons and demands very clearly; and thankfully her actions are focused one cache right now rather than going about it half random shotgun style. Regarding the topic: all of this is germane as we ultimately need to directly solve this problem to keep the cache in place over the long term. Which is a much better approach than dealing with the symptoms.

Except that he outright told you long ago. No, he taunted me with saying that he had gotten his hands on one of my geocoins (and was going to sell it on eBay) immediately after he visited the state and the lid of the APE cache went missing, with its attached geocoin. He never said "I took the lid" and may have just been trying to needle me, for all I know. A few months later a local cacher reached out to him to ask if he was responsible, and he laughed, saying no, but that he wished he had been the one. Thank you. Forgive though as I'm not completely clear, did he contact you before or after it was made public that the cache was missing? If before, than obviously it was him. If after, then there is still very strong circumstantial evidence pointing to him: motive, means, apparent confession, etc. Regarding his motive, you two obviously have some negative past history prior to the time of the highly valued cache that you maintained going missing and his taunting you shortly there after with apparent ill-gained treasure. Since he's come clean, was it the same person?

Except that he outright told you long ago. I'm apparently more direct than you, and I apparently also see it as a virtue. If it seems that I'm frustrated and feed up with this situation, and the handling of the well known TB thief as well, it's because I am.

I initially had the same suspicions, but your guess is wrong. There is evidence that that certain someone initially stole the lid of the APE cache, but he has not been to the state during the times that other caches - including the APE - were stolen. He has been in contact with other Lackeys recently and has expressed regrets for his past actions, and has even tried to mend fences with me. I do not believe that our I-90 thief is in any way related to him. Well that seems like good news and thank you for finally filling us in. The ape replacement went missing again just weeks so then we must assume that we have a second cacher whose is currently very vindictive, passive-aggressive and irrational. And also highly motivated. It seems odd that such a person would not also make it known their issues. Not a diss to you, M10B, but the issue surrounding the first person was kept tight under wraps. I hope this isn't another case of that as well.

I figured but it needs to be said clearly and I figure I can be the one to do it. I don't mind taking any heat for speaking up and saying / doing what needs to be done. Heat, if any, that should be directed towards the thief...

I would also go the PMO route. I believe the troll is a PM and this won't stop them, but their visits to the page will be logged and that information is all we have right now. As far as non-PM logging the cache, there is a known workaround. At least there used to be, not sure if still there or not. I've had some of my caches along I90 and near the pass go missing many times by this person. It's not just a rumor, it's quite clear that it's intentional and directed. All my caches but one were non-PM but he also got the PMO as much as the others. So like I said above, it really doesn't matter if PMO but there is at least the log for us to compare notes. All my caches that were attacked are now PMO. It's a guess on my part, but a very educated guess, that it seems very logical that the person responsible for these caches being stolen is also the same person that stole the Ape and related caches. From my understanding, this person's motivation is related to a beef with one particular person, a cacher, that now happens to work for GS. It should would be nice if that person would step up and resolve the issue so the rest of us don't have to suffer the consequences. Just say'n

That seems pretty clear to me too and though there are few true 'rules' in caching, actually finding the cache to log a find is one of them: "Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed." Link

I'm not so sure you can do that under the current guidelines for challenge caches. You would not be allowed to say some of The Jester's previous finds don't count because he was not participating in the old challenge, but those same caches could count for people who were participating. The qualifying caches have to be available to everyone and can't be restricted by date, or at least that's the way I read it. I guess we'll find out when you get the challenge published. I agree that it's a bit of a gray area. I'm not restricting Jester or anyone else, if they have found any on the current list, they count. I would only be giving partial credit to those who found caches under the original list, and only for those caches that have since dropped of the list. I'm not requiring something that could have only happened in the past, which would be against the guidelines. I think it's ok, and yes, we will find out.

What's so complicated about it? It's not rocket science. Note that the original and this cache are not based on getting the top 100, or any set number, but a combination of caches such that the total elevation above sea level is above a set number, in the original cache that number was 350,000 feet, which worked out to getting about 1/2 of the caches on the list. Read: 1/2 the effort, since you could get fewer higher (harder) ones or more lower (easier) ones. I see no reason to adjust that original number even though that number is no longer directly related to the average cache elevation, which continues to rise over time as new higher caches are added. The reasoning being, though you need less of them to complete the challenge, that the new higher caches are harder to get to. Those two contradictory changes should keep things evened out over time. Here's the problem with your idea: Say you care to toss out an elevation number, a line in the sand. It would seem at first glance that there is no reason that your line in the sand would be any more or less fair, logical or fun over any other arbitrary ones. The real issue is on the other side of the coin; it's about the caches that whatever elevation you choose would exclude by as little as a single foot. Very few, if any, people will be happy with your particular choice. Dealing with that issue and the related unhappy people sounds like the real nightmare to me. Besides then it would be the Washington Higher Caches, not Highest. Yes, everyone will have their own list. That's the very point that changes the challenge from frustration to fun. BTW The only people that would start with something are the people who participated in the original challenge. I didn't see your name on there so you'd be starting with zero. The reasoning for that is they put in some hard work to find those caches and I believe they should be able to keep the fruits of their labor. I may make the sticky rule retroactive to any cache that they found but later dropped off the list (before the original was archived) if I can find a reasonable way to do so. I think just going by their old logs would work but I haven't thought it all the way through yet. Sorry, I guess I not understanding what the challenge is. The orginial is unpublished so I can't look at that and was going by what was talked about here. Is it about finding the highest caches or the amount of elevation gained? I thought you had an elevation challenge already? Just put me down as confused. post #2 should clear things up. The first link there will take you to the original cache. There are links to my cache which isn't published yet, but those aren't the right ones. They were added so that when the cache publishes the first posts will point to the cache and make it easier to navigate; this topic will be the location for discussion into the future.

Lol, now now iPhone pHanatic everyone here doesn't know our recent history of banter Did'ga read my post?

What's so complicated about it? It's not rocket science. Note that the original and this cache are not based on getting the top 100, or any set number, but a combination of caches such that the total elevation above sea level is above a set number, in the original cache that number was 350,000 feet, which worked out to getting about 1/2 of the caches on the list. Read: 1/2 the effort, since you could get fewer higher (harder) ones or more lower (easier) ones. I see no reason to adjust that original number even though that number is no longer directly related to the average cache elevation, which continues to rise over time as new higher caches are added. The reasoning being, though you need less of them to complete the challenge, that the new higher caches are harder to get to. Those two contradictory changes should keep things evened out over time. Here's the problem with your idea: Say you care to toss out an elevation number, a line in the sand. It would seem at first glance that there is no reason that your line in the sand would be any more or less fair, logical or fun over any other arbitrary ones. The real issue is on the other side of the coin; it's about the caches that whatever elevation you choose would exclude by as little as a single foot. Very few, if any, people will be happy with your particular choice. Dealing with that issue and the related unhappy people sounds like the real nightmare to me. Besides then it would be the Washington Higher Caches, not Highest. Yes, everyone will have their own list. That's the very point that changes the challenge from frustration to fun. BTW The only people that would start with something are the people who participated in the original challenge. I didn't see your name on there so you'd be starting with zero. The reasoning for that is they put in some hard work to find those caches and I believe they should be able to keep the fruits of their labor. I may make the sticky rule retroactive to any cache that they found but later dropped off the list (before the original was archived) if I can find a reasonable way to do so. I think just going by their old logs would work but I haven't thought it all the way through yet.

Okay, just trying to clarify.. So the list is really a top 134 currently--not a top 100? We are able to count any caches that are on the current top 100 list as well as any of the 34 that dropped off the old list? And over time the list of eligible caches will only grow as more and more caches get pushed off the list? No of course not; the list is the current top 100, always just 100 But that is a moving target since new higher caches are sometimes placed and in the original cache people were losing a lot of hard earned elevation as the list changed. In the new cache, as the original, for a cache to qualify towards your elevation requirements, you must find it while it's on the top 100 list. But in my new cache, then that amount of elevation is locked in for you. In other words, you don't have to worry about losing your hard earned elevation if one of your found caches drops off the list or gets archived; it's 'locked in' or 'sticky' for you.

Note that the numbers for the original list in the comparison file don't add up to 100 (62 remain, 34 removed). That's because I'm going from a PQ of the bookmark list on the original cache and it contains only 96 entries.

Good news, I recently got some other geocaching items out of the way so can start giving this a little more time. Also, just noticed that today is 4 years to the day of the archiving of the first cache! Here's a comparision of the current set of highest caches versus the original set at the time of archiving. A lot has changed with a total of 34 caches getting dropped off of the list: 32 dropped and 2 archived. Highest caches compare 5/20/12 As a reminder, I plan to have finds 'sticky' both for the current cache and the status when the other was archived. By sticky I mean that if you find a cache that was on the Top 100 list at the time then it always counts even if it's archived or dropped due to a superseding placement(s).

I'll have to research it bruce. And I'll probably have to get back to you on another thread. This one is just.heading.down.hill... Do you remember how hot the 3GS would get? I could sit tinder on top of that and start a fire! Ok, ok I give up giving any kind of alternate view. Enjoy your iPhonefest

Old stuff.... iPhones can now be waterproofed.http://ocunwired.ocregister.com/2012/05/21/video-dunking-a-liquipelled-iphone-in-water/14510/ Standard Liquipel $59.00 + the effort $15, large and cumbersome, inhibits use, may retain heat to point that phone won't work All these things that cost (big) $, and then work to the work upload maps, just to get it to do what a GPSr does by default. I'm really not trying to dis you guys but at some point you're going to have to acknowledge the obvious advantages of a dedicated unit

Not that lol but the whole discussion. It seems to have been run into the ground and now is circling around for another dive bomb So, how much did it cost??? Because the GPSr is built to take the abuse while the iPhone isn't and personally I wouldn't want to risk damaging it. In case you forgot, it rains up here a lot What's nitty gritty stuff you'd use the GPSr for? Maybe you are in agreement with me and haven't realized it yet

oh boy, here we go again Lots of reasons why not, many already discussed in this topic. Here's one: 32GB iPhone 4: $749 "not waterproof" Garmin Oregon 550T: $396 "Both durable and waterproof, Oregon 550t is built to withstand the elements" Personally, if I had an iPhone and I was often in the elements then I would respect it by instead using my lowly GPSr

What a suprise . Most of the bells and whistles on the iPhone are available offline. What features does the Oregon have (other than the gps) that the iPhone doesn't? Maybe you were too busy playing with your iPhone but what I said is that they both have many of the same features. But that isn't the only deciding factor. jez

It's overkill. If you already have the iPhone, then you just need a basic GPS. You already have all the bells and whistles, why spend a ton of money on more bells and whistles! Unless you don't care about the money. In that case, I'm sure the Oregon is just fine. I can't say that I agree that it's overkill as it depends on your circumstances, though I would agree that there would be plenty of doubling of resources. But first, I'm not sure I'm clear on the core question: If the question is iPhone / GPSr, then there is already plenty of discussion in this topic and I'd suggest reading all the posts If the question is which GPSr, then a search of the forums for a more related topic or posting a new one might be the best way to go

any updates? Would love to continue to use the app, but it makes looking for MYSTERY caches basically a hassle when using the phone. Please update. It has been two months since you last posted on this. I spent money on the app and would hate to have to spend more money on ANOTHER app to do this. Can you say refund? Yes, at least some kind of time frame would be helpful as I want to know if it makes sense to find and delete all my corrected coordinates on the website.

Yes, it's typical for all GPS units http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=294046&view=findpost&p=5039907