AJK

Topo! has a similar function: Not bad 3D renderings - you can download routes from your GPS.

I think your post find ratio is more like 5.7 (more finds than posts)

I'd try some concentrated hydrochloric acid first - use lots - any extra will run off into the ground anyway. Perhaps then you could blast at it with a sawn-off shotgun - give it that rotted look.

I would also vote for a Needs Attention flag - I found the First Mass cache a while back - it needed (needs?) a new stash note. I put in caps in my log it would be great if the next finders would take a note up there (shame to lose the first cache in MA), but no one has noted that they have done this. IMO, the Needs Attention flag would also add a red bullet point to the top of the cache description, similar to the archive/disabled bullets. e.g: Note: This cache needs some attention. Please see the the logs below to see if you can help. This flag could be cleared by admin or the cache owner.

For those who are using USAphotomaps, and want to import waypoints into it: As discussed previously, USAphotomaps won't import gpx files over a certain file size direct from GC.com Therefore you need to trim them down to remove data that photomaps does not use You can do this in GSAK by exporting your waypoints into a loc file - I used the tags to create a useful waypoint name. This drops most of the extra data Start a new database in GSAK, and import the loc file Export this as a GPX file (which is what photomaps wants). Set the waypoint name to %code as you have already changed the name. Import into photomaps - I imported 1500 waypoints in with no problems (though photomaps may have a max number that I have exceeded - don't know about this)

I was FTF on this one last week - Definitely a future geocacher, we'll just have to wait a while as he was a little early. He's also the reason I've not been hunting any FTFs recently - I think it's an okay trade....

Clyde , excellent work. The most useful added feature for me is the ability to easily rename waypoints. On my legend, I use the following waypoint name (the legend allows 10 characters): %drop2%con1%smart=05 I don't need the type as the map icon tells me if it's a trad, multi etc. First is the gc.com waypoint name, minus the redundant GC (drop2). This allows me to easily search by waypoint when I'm looking for a specific cache on my legend. Then the one letter container type (con), then 5 letters of the cache name (smart=5).

If cm reality were really possible, it would very difficult to have high difficulty micro or traditional caches. If I know a cache is within 10cm of my GPS, it's going to be easier to find than a 7m search radius. Hiding them up mountains would increase terrain rating but not cache difficulty.. For me, geocaching is about getting to the cache site, then spending time trying to figure out where it is. I find it less satisfying to walk to a general area and immediately find the cache. You may have a different perspective.

If cm precision and accuracy became a day to day reality, how would that affect geocaching? Maybe hiders would choose to provide slightly offset coordinates so that finders would still have to actually search...

Aside from bandwidth problems that can be solved as you suggest CR, this still leaves the problem of land managers and officials banning geocaching because of ill placed geocaches that exist outside of the guidelines. If gc.com doesn't change and adapt as geocaching changes, then yes, other sites could become more popular. But I can't see any of the current rules causing that. IMHO, the only way a 'competing' site will succeed will be by specialization - geocaching for just one country, maybe in a foreign langauge, or a site that specializes in locationeless only. With the time invested that cachers have invested in gc.com, with logs, hides, etc. there would have to be some radical and widely undesirable changes by TPTB.

Someone (wreck diver??, WH??, can't remember) has been doing this in New England recently - I've seen the notes - it isn't a problem or a distraction though.

Number of possibilities here: - Cache was just so well hidden you didn't find it (what was the difficulty rating?) - You were looking for a large box, container was a micro - Cache was gone (have others previously or subsequently found it) - Original coordinates were wrong (again look at all previous logs to see if someone mentions it) - You entered the wrong coordinates I was looking for a cache last week. - GPS jumping all over the place due to a hill and trees blocking signal. In this case the cache was well hidden, and the original coordintates were about 90 ft off. I had forgotten to take the new suggested coordinates. I found it though, but came close to leaving. Would averaging have helped? Probably not, signal was poor anyway (see definitions of accuracy and precision), and original coordinates may have been off. Keep searching.....

Well, in a way it does need to be maintained - what if it's removed by a non-geocacher prior to anyone finding it. The first DNF doesn't tell you anything - is it gone, or was it not found? Who is going to check on the cache to confirm? You'll have a number of people searching for something that may not be there. You end up in the same situation as a vacation cache. In the year that you have been away, geocaching has grown exponetially. With that comes guidelines (not rules, feel free to advertise your cache on navicache). I believe that these are necessary to ensure continued enjoyment of the activity. Equally, gc.com needs to have guidelines to protect itself legally and ensure that enough money is generated to pay salaries and buy new servers.

Another option (again limited to premium members) is to download 1 or more pocket queries, load them into GSAK (search on this if you don't know about it), then filter the caches based on a certain direction (N, NW, NE, etc.) This is done around a predefined point - you could choose your start point - though by the end of the route, you could still have widely distributed caches, or set the filter point to be in the middle, then filter for caches in both directions (e.g NW, and SE only).

My disjointed thoughts: Geocachers are often prone to criticism and ribbing from friends and others People sit at home and watch tv for hours on end, being fed information that is 99% useless, yet are not criticised (by the majority) It is likely that without Geocaching, we wouldn't get outside as much, and would conform more to the 'norm' Take TV out ot the equation, you can go geocaching, and still get lots of other stuff done (in my case rebuild my house, and hold down a consulting job...). PS. I'm not rabid anti-TV, but I do think it's the drug of the nation. We have a big TV at home - mostly for baseball and NFL (go sox) - just moderate it, like everything.

I use a garmin legend - no averaging - you don't need it to find a cache, and it has been a matter of debate whether it's useful for hiding a cache. So unless you're thinking of another application for averaging, don't worry about it. Tree cover will throw you off, but eventually you'll get to the general cache location. Even if averaging was available, would you want to spend 10 minutes in one spot waiting for the average? You'd probably be able to find the cache in that time. Have fun, akerin

Nightpilot: I took a recently created GPX file straight from GC.com containing 168 waypoints - it went straight into USApmaps, no problems. cache name and brief description worked okay - it only seems to choke on 500 waypoints or similar. So it seems to work okay for me - I was just trying to push it too hard.

In MA, a few hours is common, rare for a cache to go 24 hours without a FTF - there's a core of cachers here who go for them.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" standalone="yes"?> <gpx version="1.0" creator="USAPhotoMaps - http://jdmcox.com" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0" xmlns:topografix="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/Private/TopoGrafix/0/2" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0 http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0/gpx.xsd http://www.topografix.com/GPX/Private/TopoGrafix/0/2 http://www.topografix.com/GPX/Private/TopoGrafix/0/2/topografix.xsd"> <wpt lat="42.468596" lon="-71.346121"> <cmt>1</cmt> </wpt> <wpt lat="42.461004" lon="-71.349219"> <cmt>Cache location</cmt> </wpt> <wpt lat="42.380648" lon="-71.475469"> <cmt>tritown</cmt> </wpt> </gpx> I found the gpx/xml file that the program uses to store waypoints I've added. Don't know if this is different from other GPX/XML. If not it's almost definitely a problem with the program not liking 1Mb files.

Hmm, seems I don't know enough about formats. Let me try a few things out - maybe it's a limitation in the USAphotomaps program that hiccups when you try to add 500 waypoints with all of the extra info that it doesn't use - it only seems to make use of lat/long, waypoint name, cache name. akerin

Here's the thing - usaphotomaps won't import loc's, only gpx or xml. Cheers, akerin

I use USAphotomaps USAphotomaps. I would like to be able to use GSAK to import waypoints. USAphotomaps uses GPX files, but the ones generated by GC, and GSAK are too big (too much info). I have had success previously by getting a LOC file from GC.com, converting it using Babel, then loading it in, BUT I would really like to be able to use GSAK. Is there the possiblity of having an export for a "GPX Lite" file - prob just coordinates, waypoint, and cache name (or whatever the native loc file has in it???) Thanks.

I've not searched for caches in Santa Barbara, but I have been there for a few days. The front range of mountrains are quite steep, so take this into account (maybe a beater with more than one gear??). However. there may be plenty of caches near the coast. Have fun, it's a beautiful place.

Markwell Just discussed

I agree with Renegrade Knight's post, though topo! maps do show the names of about 50% of the roads - at least here in MA.