ecanderson

Seems intermittent. I noted the same thing, and copied/pasted the content of the email into the MC when I later noted that the email didn't seem to have hit there. Unfortunately, it seems to be hit and miss as to whether email-to-MC transfers are going to occur, which is making email MC replies too unreliable to use at the moment.

Didn't know you'd been a popular topic here for a bit, eh? Can't tell you how many times we've gone to log a cache, and your name is already there!

+1 using Firefox. Stuck at login. First time this link has failed for me. +1 using Edge. +1 with Chrome. It's broke (sigh). I wonder if we were enjoying a feature that they planned to take away from us, or whether it's just hosed at the moment.

Wish you'd taken enough log info to get a couple of actual caching handles with dates. With that kind of info, you can look at the logs of specific cachers to see where the intercept occurs.

Si. Preferimos Quintana Roo.

Sweet. As an early adopter, I can only imagine the features this will bring to an AA platform. Very much looking forward to it.

Not as nicely done as the one in Utah.

All I'm seeing with Firefox 83.0 is blank white on both this page and the Dropbox page. Dropbox starts to produce an image (I see the gray/white checkered image space), but then just white.

Yes, as I say, it comes up FINE on the phone display, but when Google Maps on the phone is rendered on the Android Auto screen version of Google Maps (the one with the completely different UI), you don't see those points.

Step 1 will hang up most people. Opening Google Maps on a phone and using Android Auto or Car Play might work, except even then, the mobile version (at least for Android) of Google Maps does not seem to support pulling in the MyMaps for display through Android Auto. They show up fine on the phone, but not the vehicle version of the map. I find it much easier just to export the day's run to my TomTom from GSAK.

Yup. Dozens more requests.

It's not that they are 'recorded' differently, it's that they are displayed differently. Still, consistency in rendering the database content for display would be nice.

I don't think that's what was meant by 'environment'. I believe it's referring to what I originally called 'context'.

And a new CO learns nothing from that.

Some finders look at a cache rated too highly, and call it 'caching karma' (making up for others that were rated low and hard to find). Others of us will comment either way if we feel the rating is 'off'. I've written quite a few logs where I said something along the order of "Felt guilty taking the 3.5 for this one". An example:

An excellent description of "context", Jeff.

To start, D ratings do tend to be a bit regional. As I have traveled, I've noticed easily a full point difference in how D is viewed from one region to another. Since most of your finds are in the same area as your hides, you should by now have a good feel for what the locals think is a 1.5 vs. a 2.5, etc. Many people will point to the Clayjar (http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/) method for evaluating their D/T ratings. There, you see 1.0 through 5.0 (you have to interpolate the .5's based up those). But there are SO many factors involved since each of the Clayjar levels is also subjective. "Cache may be very well hidden, may be multi-leg, or may use clues to location." What is "very well hidden"? We used to see a CO here who couldn't sort out hide difficulty from overall context. Yes, if you knew where to look, it was easy, but with loose coordinates in a 'haystack' of a forest ... The context of the hide MUST be taken into account to provide a fair estimate of the difficulty to find a cache. That could be part of the issue you're facing. What hints are being provided in the description, or as specific hints? The time to make the find, especially in a haystack, can be changed GREATLY by either of those.

Duplicate thread to this one

Guess the old Oregon 450 is even better than I thought! (Still available used at bargain prices.) 'Normal' resistive screens haven't done that. They were successfully used for eons in automotive PND applications where temperature extremes are FAR greater than you'd experience with any handheld. If true, the problem is with the Montana, not resistive screens in general.

+1 to 700 UNLESS you want to pay extra for camera and Garmin's maps.

Who's going to be in charge of bringing in a tibia or two?

You can buy new gloves that do this, but even then, a small screen with fat glove fingers can be difficult to hit correctly. Heck, I screw up often enough on an Oregon sized screen with just my fingers. Much depends upon how heavy the gloves are. Still, the idea that the resistive screens don't like cold weather -- just not true. I'm NOT in Arizona, I'm here in Colorado where we actually do get winter (though this year, I'm beginning to wonder!) and have had plenty of time caching in cold weather with a couple of previous generation Garmin touch screens. All good. There may be other reasons for preferring capacitive screens, but that wouldn't be one of them.

Gotta get out of Arizona more often! We had nothing but resistive screens for YEARS and they were actually easier to use in cold weather - you could use the tip of your closed logging pen to activate the screen without even taking off your gloves. Touch my pen tip to this new Oregon 700 and you get nada.

Nowhere. I typed that COMPLETELY in reverse! Should have read "are NOT also notified". I would love to see followup logs.

You need to do some reading on that topic. Cell triangulation is a pretty rough estimator, and is nowhere near accurate enough to use to locate a cache. THREE HUNDRED FEET in ideal circumstances (urban areas with many towers) is a commonly quoted figure by those that do this for a living.