normandcat

That's my concern as well, had I known that this would happen I may have listed less...

First time I've heard of this. Sure it was not a munzze'er that was unaware of your caches? The cacher that reported it to me said that a bunch of them appeared along the Cache Machine route. My cache that wasn't on the route was left alone. It was between them (just over .1 mile from each). Both of the Munzee's were within inches of the caches. They had to have known...

During the Cache Machine, some rocket scientist thought that placing Munzee's so close to my caches (and others that I've heard of) made at least two of mine a "gimme". I removed one but the other was attached with packing tape. Has this been happening at other cache machine routes? This is really lame.

The cables are fine... Pressure works on occasion to get power to the unit. Trying to get a data connection is just not possible. Two minutes to open it up and re-solder the lose USB jack that's broken off of the circuit board? I can touch the USB port and it just wiggles... This isn't a two minute repair, sorry...

Okay... Has anybody else had the same amount of problems with their Colorado units? I'm just so tired of sending them back. Now don't get me wrong on one front, I really like these units. If the back light wasn't so necessary to view the dang screen, it would be great (as long as the USB port worked). The unit has been extremely accurate and easy to use. I just wish there wasn't the engineering problem with the USB port. I have two Garmin Colorado units (the reason for two is a long story...) Both have been back to the factory at least twice for each because the USB port has broken. I'm an avid Geocacher but not that hard on my equipment (My 60CS took far more punishment and is fine). Yet again, my Colorado's USB port got messed up and is so loose that I cannot connect it to my computer any longer (just happened today). Just trying to see if I've been cursed... : )

Splitting the 'team' is cheating. In your opinion. Here's a different opinion Yup. In my opinion as well...

That's odd... I used an older version of C:geo (maybe a few weeks old) earlier today with no problems...

Wow... The idea of placing a foreign USB device into my laptop without knowing it's precise history makes me shudder. Although the vast majority of cachers are trustworthy. The number of completely inappropriate if not outright illegal items that I've found in caches makes me (with some computer security in my background) think that this would be a really bad idea. Ensuring that all cachers follow proper computer security is, well... not an achievable (although noble) goal.

Fantastic! Thanks for the laugh! -Dwight

I have a couple of Colorado 400t GPSr's and have mixed emotions. I absolutely LOVE the accuracy. But can't believe they abandoned any support for the Chirp. If it had a touch screen, that would have been great, but the Oregon just doesn't have the same quality antennae. If you can find a good deal on one, I'd go for it... But only if you got a good deal on it. Like a good deal on one of mine? : )

Yea... I noticed that it was released after writing my post. I checked just before I posted so I know it was minutes after I checked...

I have two Colorado 400t devices. The first one was purchased right after they were released. The reason for two? The first one completely failed the day before a big Geocaching event and I found another one at a local store. They have both been back to the factory for a refurbished replacement. They have either stopped receiving satellites or the USB port has gone bad. Twice on one and I think three times on the other (I've lost track)... That said, I've loved the accuracy of the Colorado. It really has been outstanding. The down side? There hasn't been a firmware update in almost a year. Even though they have basically the same radio for transferring data between units as the Oregon, they never updated the firmware to support the new "Chirp". I wish there was a GPS as accurate as the Colorado with the touch screen of the Oregon. Just my two cents... -Dwight

Not to upset GOF and Bacall (really!)... But I just had to add my two cents that as a fairly early USENET user, e-mail admin and network security folk, this is just plain wrong. And karma will hopefully prevail to nip these "Cachers" with the misuse of that concept

Still getting the error but we are now getting the Pocket Qweries via e-mail after the error message appears....

After re-booting, I'm able to get through the entire process of creating a route and then requesting a pocket query and I click "Submit Information" and now still get the same error...

When I try to "Create a Route" from my Profile page I (and my girlfriend with her account "Samm99") immediately get the error: Geocaching (icon) Waymarking (icon) Wherigo (icon) An Error Has Occurred Your request has resulted in an error. Please return to this site's home page to continue.

Showed up at a cache location where we couldn't find the dang thing. It appeared that the area had been recently maintained (mud and sawdust everywhere). A few minutes later, a fella walks over from across the street and says "you looking for this?". He has the cache container in his hands! He told us that there had been a big ol' stump (what we were looking for) in that exact location no earlier that that morning but some people had come along and removed it. He said the cache container was left just off to the side and that he'd taken it home. We thanked him and he said that there was a "Little something" left in the cache and it smelled "Like pretty good stuff". We looked inside as he was waking back to his house across the street and noticed a big ol' piece of MJ in a baggie inside the cache container. Instead of taking the cache home and asking the owner where to send it (our orignal plan), we just left it under a nearby bush and let the CO know of the location (CO still hadn't picked it up as of a few weeks ago and some people have still been logging it). Not sure if the contents are still there... : )

I made 2990 this last weekend so it looks like I may have to attend after all... : )

I think that's insane (Sorry, just my feeling here). If the cache has been found, the log is a bunch of mush, and I have a nice supplementary log that I can add to the container (as a courtesy), that's a proper find. If I cannot get to the original log, that's a different story. If not being able to log a find because the log book was a bunch of wet mush, I'd have to leave a "Needs Archived" log because the cache owner was irresponsible. I really don't believe that should be the case and I shouldn't have to come back when the cache owner took care of the problem. Wow!! It would do well for all of us to recognize a joke when we read it! This- - generally indicates someone was joking when they made the comment. If you really believe someone thinks you have to sign the "original" log, what happens when it is full? Does the cache get archived because any logbook put in after that is not "original"? As far as a wet log , most CO's aren't clairvoyant, nor do they go check all their caches every time it rains. They rely on the online logs and a NM to indicate problems. Many do make periodic checks on their caches without a NM posted, but most rely on the logs. The same online log... if people would use it correctly and log a NM, not just note it in the "Found It" log..not only alerts the CO, but also serves as a warning to future finders. If a cache has a log of "NM- logbook is wet", and you see that, you should be prepared to replace it if you insist on hunting the cache before the NM is cleared! (Sorry, just my feeling here) If you log a NA just because a logbook is wet... that is just insane. Of course some people feel they shouldn't have to read the online logs before they hunt a cache either . And yes... I do read the last few entries (at least) on every cache I hunt! They are not so prolific around here that I can afford to drive out to them, hunt the thing down, and not be able to sign because it was muggled, or the logbook is wet,ect... I carry extras just in case of this. (logbooks NOT throwdown caches) Aside from not wanting to spend my time, and not get a smiley due to a wet log book, I also do this because it is simple courtesy, and hope someone would pass the favor along! I didn't really notice the imoticon on the entry that I was replying to.. sorry... Wow! Didn't expect the response... If you read my response taking in count that I'd read it literally, I think we both completely agree. Thanks, -Dwight

I think that's insane (Sorry, just my feeling here). If the cache has been found, the log is a bunch of mush, and I have a nice supplementary log that I can add to the container (as a courtesy), that's a proper find. If I cannot get to the original log, that's a different story. If not being able to log a find because the log book was a bunch of wet mush, I'd have to leave a "Needs Archived" log because the cache owner was irresponsible. I really don't believe that should be the case and I shouldn't have to come back when the cache owner took care of the problem.

That's all fine and dandy but what about the one that was a legitimate find, other cacher's said the same thing, and yet their logs weren't deleted. Just my thought on it... -Dwight I linked to the procedure for having the logs restored. I did that in an effort to be helpful. I hope that the OP takes advantage of the appeal process described in the Knowledge Book. Thank you. I wasn't looking at all of the sections of your link. Just the ones that (I thought at the time) were pertinent. -Dwight

That's all fine and dandy but what about the one that was a legitimate find, other cacher's said the same thing, and yet their logs weren't deleted. Just my thought on it... -Dwight

I've had 5 Garmins at this point... Been happy with all of them except for the first Colorado, had to get it repaired but replacement (and an additional one) work very well. Girlfriend that I met while Geocaching had a Megellan unit that was supposed to be "Geocacing" feature-full. It was a complete piece of trash (once you'd gotten within a tenth of a mile, you were on your own for distance). Convinced her to use my old C60cs for an hour or two and by the end of the day, she'd e-mailed me that she'd ordered a Garmin Oregon. She's still happy with it to this day.

After dealing with a VERY early Colorado that I had replaced and have now worked with three Colorado 400t's and an Oregon 400t (both with regular firmware updates), I have two major points of view on these units. - The Colorado units tend to be notedly more accurate than the Oregon unit under most conditions. - The Oregon is far superior for user input. (I did say FAR didn't I?) Overall, we wish we had an Oregon with the accuracy of the Colorado. -Dwight

There are four of us now waiting at McMenamins... We're upstairs. If anybody knows where in the restaurant we should be meeting, please post a reply. Thanks, -Dwight