ertyu

Yes, G7toWin will do what you want. Drag one or more GPX files to the program. You will see a spreadsheet with track segments showing each track point. Columns show distance between track points, and total cumulative, for each segment and track. Right click on the page, choose "Select all Tracks", then right click and choose: "Sort Tracks by time, and combine into one track." You can then export into one of many formats. Choose GPX, because you will then want to open this file in the program: SportTracks This program will give you great statistics for your all of your activities over time. That looks like a great suggestion, something to work with anyway. On the first try the output of one days worth of track from G7 is producing a track of ~500,000 miles when imported to Sporttrack and a really messy map full of tracks. Will have to play with it some.

It should be fairly straightforward to connect points in a monotonic time manor I would think. I'm looking for total distance primarily. Beyond that, breakdowns and groupings by time and date. Perhaps even a guesstimate if the distance was covered by foot (<10kph?) or vehicle.

I don't see the need for this option.

I keep my track log running non-stop on my gps, like most do. I was wondering if there was a tool that could calculate the total distance travelled within a track log gpx file? Following the track and connecting the points between tracks where the gps was off or not tracking. And extending that further, stitch together multiple dated files and even throwing some stats if possible. Is anyone aware of a tool or a starting point for accomplishing this?

I'm not a fan of the recycled caches. It means I have to go find the same cache again to clear it off my unfound list. I enjoy the journey and the experience and finding the same cache or a similar cache in near the same spot really isn't enjoyable for me.

I can drop off travel bugs around Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

I still think this would be a great addition.

It certainly would be handy to know when edits take place. Otherwise you have no idea of what is posted without polling the listed logs.

I think I've cached in pretty much every weather that happens here, from -40c+windchill, to +30c+humidex, rain, snow, sleet, ice, light, dark and even a tornado. With the right clothes and preparation, its all doable, some more pleasant than others.

We're down to the last 10 of the limited edition gold coins, last chance to get one.

That alternating color scheme on caches listings needs improvement. The light blue color is way too similar to the light gray color used to highlight found caches. Its near impossible to do a quick scan through a list and pick out found vs unfound.

I'd like to see more common use of geocheckers and this could be a handy way. Certainly it can be tricky to limit people fishing for an answer, but there are solutions that seem to be working fine.

I think it would be a good idea to strip the info by default.

FYI: all existing orders not being held for pickup were sent out today.

The coins have arrived! Come and get them. We'll start shipping out orders ASAP.

I'm for putting out a notification of the change with data provided for testing and a date of implementation and then just do it. Don't bother supporting multiple versions and allowing a choice, just declare what the change is and when it well happen.

The Manitoba Geocaching Association has produced a brand new geocoin to commemorate its 5th anniversary in 2010. The coins are currently available for pre-sale directly from the association. MBGA Geocoin Store Store and Sale Information

I certainly want my caches to be found and found most of the time they are tried and I want to find every cache I look for. I'm not really interested in caches that require NIH searching especially when dumped in a muggle district, it's just not fun and way too easy to end up talking to the authorities.

It doesn't take much effort to come up with something unique to say for each cache. I understand its quite hard to find something to say for every log, but the hider put an effort in to hide the cache for you to find, I think taking a few seconds to come up with a log is a reasonable request. I just hate copy and pasted logs on dozens of caches or even worse a single acronym log, it just seems rude.

99% of the time when I'm using the Geocaching.com Google Map feature I'm checking the 'Hide My Finds' and 'Hide My Caches' boxes. Meanwhile the map is by default loading all caches in view and limiting the maximum in view to be under 500 and then filtering off by the check boxes. For areas where I have found a significant number of caches, this limits my view to an overly small view port. It would be nice if there were an alternate filtering option, such as filtering before loading that could be implemented to improve this situation and allow larger viewing areas when smaller amounts of caches are in the filtered view.

I created a custom map generated from the My Finds PQ. My Found Caches Map

Try posting a note in the MBGA Forums. If you're still have troubles let me know and I can find some time to go find some caches with you.

I know of no consumer grade GPSr that supports L5 or even L2 or any of the more obscure usage cases that are being used for other things.

What happens to these "modern" challenge caches? They are using banned ALR, even if they are converted to obscured co-ordinates, someone could still make the find using the once posted co-ordinates. Further to that, having to obtain the co-ords from the owner in that method seems to be frowned upon. I don't see any exemption for "special logging requirements". I don't think the guidelines really define what a challenge cache is all that well. I think this is especially important as it affects existing caches. If an existing cache is using logging requirements of some sort and it is deemed not to be a "challenge cache", then those requirements become optional and the cache owner can't enforce them. If on the other hand it becomes a "challenge cache" then they remain as requirements. Since "Challenge Cache" isn't a cache type, how is one to tell if the requirements are required or not? Who deems the cache to be a "Challenge Cache" and how is it indicated? There is a big messy grey spot here. Personally I don't forsee myself ignoring any current requirements, but this change needs to be more clear and straightforward.

I'm confused by the changes. Whats the definition of a Challenge Cache? Is a Challenge Cache allowed to be a virtual or is it a physical cache subject to the Logging of All Physical Caches paragraph?