ThePropers

As far as I know, you cannot. However, like most things, there is a workaround. Go to Google's Advanced Search, type in your phrase, and have it only return results from the domain Geocaching.com. Of course, this would only return those caches which Google has already crawled, so newer caches may not be returned. Why Geocaching.com doesn't have this ability, I do not know (or if they do, I am unaware of it).

I too like this idea. It kindof had a sortof similar idea in this post but unfortunately it was part of another thread that kindof turned into a flame-fest. I'll just quote the relevant info below. I too await the inevitable "if it ain't broke, there's no room for improvement" responses.

It looks like your email probably split up the link along two lines. You'll need to copy the last 4 digits onto the end of the URL. Which begs the question on why do they use the GUID in the link rather than the waypoint code? It would look like this: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCK78M That would prevent it being split across two lines.

Short answer: You can't. Long answer: create a new account and relog all of your finds. Longer answer: Type in "change username" into the search box and you will find about 100000000000000000000000000000 (give or take 5) threads asking the same thing. Lots of info.

Works fine for me (on both counts).

Are you sure that's right? I thought PQs (other than the my finds query) can run once per day, but it's not confined to every 24 hours. I was pretty sure they just get thrown into a queue and run as soon as the server is able to run it. If it was every 24 hours, the time it ran would keep getting pushed back and back until it's not even running on the scheduled day anymore...right?

Thanks for the suggestions. I have been playing around with Photoshop and still have problems getting acceptable quality under 125k, so I will try them out. Keep in mind this is more of an issue with photos that I would like to be in landscape dimensions (800x600) as opposed to portrait dimensions (600x800). However, for TPTB, is there a reason we can upload a 600x800 image but not an 800x600? I mean, it's the same sized image, but just rotated 90 degrees. It seems a bit silly to limit it to "600 wide" but as tall as you want. I would think a better limit would be "either 600 wide or 600 tall" Also, can someone please tell my how ShadowAce (from his post above) got this image uploaded to a cache? It's both over 125k and over 600 pixels wide. Again, I fear I may be a bit confused on what is allowable, but the wording is not that clear to me either (probably because of the word "largest"):

As others pointed out, using a map and compass in the middle of the forest is hard, but it is possible and there are people who do that. I typically go one step further and only use the position of the stars overhead. I'd use the sun, but doing it in the daylight just makes it too darn easy. Maps and GPS units are for suckers.

I found one while doing an earthcache. I signed the log (that already had 4 signatures on it) and went home. Discovered through a reviewer that it was a new cache that hadn't been published yet, and still isn't. Apparently the hider lost interest, and it's probably still sitting there.

No animated gifs and animated backgrounds that hurt my eyes or background music that hurts my ears? LAME!!

I must be doing something wrong, but I'll be the first to admit I'm not a photoshop expert.. My images are typically about 3 or 4MB (using my 8MP camera). Assuming a landscaped photo, I resize it to either 1024x768 or 800x600 in photoshop. I save it as a "3" (low) quality but it's still usually over 150k. If I tried to save it as a "7" it would be a lot bigger. Take the picture I posted above. That's saved at a 7, it's 768x1024, and is 265k. I just resized it to 600x800 and it's still 162k. Granted, that one would be able to uploaded since it's only 600 wide, but if it was landscaped (800x600) I wouldn't be able to because of the 125k limit....without it being resized automatically anyways. I have to reduce the quality to a "4" in order to make it under 125k...which makes it look pretty lousy. Although your second picture you posted is both over 600 pixels wide and over 125k (it's 186k), so how'd you get it onto the site? Shouldn't that have been resized automatically? Of course your first photo is 600x800 so it can be uploaded but if it was landscaped (800x600) it wouldn't work because it would be both over 600 wide and over 125k (133k). Am I misunderstanding the size requirements?

I find responses to 4 year old threads hilarious. As for the original topic though (since I'm sure the OP hasn't been able to decide this in the last 4 years), the appropriateness of the cache depends on one factor only: Is this a hottie nude beach, or an old-person nude beach?

I added a few things last night. Someone informed me that the Vista series required a different naming convention, so I added another folder for the Vista. I added in a short waypoints vs. POI discussion I added in the limited geocaching mode setup section. I have also received a macro from Cache U Nuts that should automate GSAK so you don't have to set up the custom waypoint mapping by hand. I have put it into the file, but am still testing it. I was having a bit of trouble with the child waypoints while using the macro, but it may have been error on my part. I'll have to look at it when I get back home tonight.

Not quite sure what you mean there...it's an automated process once you set it up the first time, and you shouldn't have to go each multi and change them. PM me if you're confused.

If I'm reading you right, you just need to press the "mark" key and then you can just edit the coordinates. It's pretty simple to figure out once you press "mark"

The units already have this capability. Just click quit.. Then click find... geocaches... nearest... takes me about 10 seconds to do this. However a real geocaching mode would be nice. The question is, is it worth it to Garmin and others to do this when nearly all their profits aren't in handheld GPS units but car based navigation systems? Yes, but that's not quite the same as being included in the geocaching mode, which was what I was referring to.

I am thinking consuming rum while you're around this is not a good idea: Took Rum...left my charred, withered corpse after drunken fall into lava crater.

You might be interested in this thread. It will at least get the symbols on the unit for you and have them assigned to each cache, but you do lose a bit of the geocaching mode functions. But I use this system (since I created it of course) and it works well for me. As for what I would like to see other than what you've mentioned, would be after you found it, to have an option to display the nearest caches, rather than just go to next closest. I don't always want to go to the nearest one.

I'll just reiterate. There should a screen on your GPS that tells you your accuracy. I find that typically this will be around 20 feet, give or take, but for now assume it's 20 feet. That means that if you are trying to find a certain spot, and your GPS is saying 0 feet away, that it could, in reality, be 20 feet in any direction. This is why your GPS arrow is bouncing all over when you are 6 feet away....because everytime it recalculates your position, it has that 20 foot accuracy thing. One time it might think you're 6 feet South, the next time it might think you're 15 feet Noth, and the next time it might think you're 2 feet South-East. Now say that the person who hid the cache also had a 20 foot accuracy when they were getting the coordinates you are trying to find. That means their coordinates could be up to 20 feet away. So now, when you go to find it, the cache could be up to 40 feet away from your ground zero (given the hider's 20 foot accuracy and your 20 foot accuracy). That is of course assuming the original hider actually got decent coordinates also. I have found caches up to 100 feet away from ground zero (I won't mention the one that was 1/4 mile off, but that's a different story and unusual). Anyways, as others have mentioned, I typically will quit looking at the GPS when I'm about 100 feet out and look ahead roughly 100 feet for any obvious hiding spots. I know once I am down in the 40, 30, or 20 foot range, the GPS starts becoming a bit more useless, but at 100 feet out, I can really narrow down the area. Another nice trick is once you are near ground zero, just set the GPS down and go look for the cache. With the GPS standing still, it will keep recalculating the distance, so if you come back to it after a few minutes, it tends to give you a better reading than if you are carrying it around while circling the same small area. Hope that helps, and good luck.

.loc files contain the "basics" of a cache. If I remember correctly (it's been awhile), it might just be the name and coordinates. GPX files contain pretty much everything. Description, hider, hints, recent logs, child waypoints, difficulty/terrain...etc. Much of this information can be stored in newer GPS units (such as the Garmin 60 series. You can also store all of this in a PDA or Pocket PC to take along with you...otherwise known as going paperless because you don't have to print out sheet after sheet of cache pages to take with you. The advantage of getting/loading 500 at once is there are always new caches, caches are being disabled/archived..etc. For people like me, I am never sure exactly where I will be when I find myself with a few minutes (or a few hours) to cache, so having a wide area covered and readily available is pretty advantageous. I run my primary PQs (two separate ones that give me about 900 caches within a radius of 40 miles of my house) three times a week. Other people store several thousand at once.

Found another one yesterday (#900 actually...hold the applause. Dangit, I said hold the applause!) Swatara Falls which isn't too far from Harrisburg. Since a picture is worth a thousand words:

I think leaves are the worst thing I've ever found in one of my caches. Of course, I have a 5 year old, so it's impossible to go caching without him picking up several sticks and rocks and leaves that mean oh-so-much to him. Of course, if he tried to leave any of that in a cache, I would somehow sneak it out while his back was turned. I know of at least one instance (not my cache) where someone did their...uhm....business in the cache. I would have to say that's the worst "trade item" ever. Unfortunately I can't remember what cache it was, only that it was one of CCCA's. She was not happy.

Correction: GSAK is free for all time. After the trial period, you do get nag screens, but it is still free and fully functional. The nag screens basically are a window that comes up when trying to open it, and it counts down to zero, then lets you into the software. The wait period increases the longer you wait to register (I had it up to 80 seconds before I bit the bullet) but if you're willing to wait, it'll be free forever.

While I see your point regarding bandwidth (as I pointed out in my original post), I will have to disagree that this hobby is just about hiding and finding caches, as sharing experiences plays a big part of my enjoyment of the hobby. Otherwise, why bother having the picture thing at all? Everyone would just be logging "found it" if it was really only about finding caches. Actually, I have an idea! Gimme one sec....[cue muzak]...ok I'm back I just hosted my own image and then put HTML into the notes field to link to one with better quality: View Log Notice how crappy the image looks? Now, notice the "click here for full sized version" link. Genious! Ok, it's not exactly genious, but it does get the job done, and that much better looking image is only 260k. I had to save it at a little lower quality than I normally would have (a 7 in photoshop) to prove a point, but with me hosting it myself, I could save it any sized/resolution I see fit. I'd much rather not have to go through that whole headache of course, but I suppose it's an acceptable workaround, if the image size can't be upped on the site itself. Edit: Just noticed that doesn't show up as a link on the cache page, only when viewing the log on it's own separate page. Oh well.

As I was uploading photos today, I wondered why we are limited to 125k or 600 pixels wide. Both of those make pictures woefully small (600 wide is pretty small given today's resolutions) or woefully low-quality (125k...really?) I find myself trying to take photos off my digital camera and make them at least 800x600, but even then trying to keep it under 125k requires me to save it as a quality 2 or 3 in photoshop, which make it ugly as sin. Ugh. What are the odds the image size requirements could be upped? I understand there's the whole bandwidth and storage thing, but even allowing a 200k or 250k photo would help out tremendously. With that, I could probably at least get an 800x600 photo at a decent quality uploaded, or maybe even a 1024x768 photo (at a lower quality) loaded.