kbootb

Tell you what, go into Argos armed with the catalogue, march up to customer services and asked 'what's this goecaching all about then?'.

Unfortunately GSAK doesn't work on a Mac. No idea if there is anything similar for the Mac.

I try and take a picture of the TB with the number visible so I've got a record. Even a mobile phone camera will do the job.

Well done Paul. Battled against all the odds to make sense. Not sure the presenter had a clue but seemed to be catching on by the end. Who was the third person offering to take the photo? What was the reference to N. Campbell, I must have missed that.

Do you think I should tell them? I might wait until my printer arrives - very cheap, might be a mistake the other way and I don't want them finding out until the printer is safely in my hands. A friend of mine was a victim of a fraud. The company that ran his website had a rogue in it that would lower the prices of certain items for a few hours and make sure that all his 'friends' knew when that would be. They then bought loads of these items for a few pence, then the price went back up to normal. The system was so automated that no-one noticed for ages. He lost a lot of money.

Looking for a new GPSr I came across this site. http://www.wopple.com/Spec___1S00.017___M024268.html I don't think they'll sell many.

Yes, when I was about 7 I was picking up a rake and didn't see the garden spider on the handle. Got a nasty nip like a wasp sting. I think that started my phobia... which is much better after I was forced to handle a red-kneed tarantula in from of my class of 30 kids. Couldn't let them see that I was a gibbering wreck! A few weeks ago we had a house spider and went for the glass and postcard method but the thing was so big a pint glass wouldn't fit over it without nipping a leg! Also been bitten by a ladybird. That hurt but it was more physical than chemical if you know what I mean.

Something like this ?+

I think a little finger slip occured there - irfanview surely? You can do it with Paint that comes free with XP (Start Menu - all programs - accessories - paint). Load your picture - click the text icon on the left, click where you want your text, select size, colour and font. If you want the back ground of the text to be transparent, click the bottom icon on the left. Big warning, save this file under a different name to preserve your original image. Putting text in like this not great as it is 'destructive' in that once you add the text it is part of the image, cannot be changed, moved, edited etc. That's why people prefer graphics programs that create layers. When you add the text it's like addind an acetate sheet over the top and the text is not fixed. Never used Irfanview, just had a quick look and it appears that it works like Paint, i.e. once you have added the text you are committed. There is a free piece of software that works in layers called GIMP, but it's not particularly easy.

Seems to be back in the land of the living today

I thought the only 'rule' was that you all had to stick together. Otherwise we could create a 'virtual team' and all go our separate ways at the same time and find thousands of caches in an hour.

Ditto.... doesn't work for me. Not working for us either. Finally sussed it.... in the GUID bit, delete every thing before the GUID. So it reads GUID=blah blah blah

Ditto.... doesn't work for me.

It does work amazingly well. Just put in my road name and it got it first time. Also tried a tiny place in Ireland that Yahoo and Google maps can't cope with and it was spot on. I wonder what's behind that....very impressed.

I got the same 6 events as Scanker. How does your home location effect the listing?

You learn so much from this forum... software now installed and having fun playing with it. Thanks

I regularly throw 6 megapixel images at it. Takes a while to upload. It will always compress them down to a size it is happy with, but saves me the effort of crunching them myself. It's never rejected one yet.

Just added my calculations to the other thread. Came to the same conclusion as yours, 7m circle just about covers it, but one unit does happen to be at a corner and is therefore 7.67 metres from the averaged centre. Not much on TV tonight? Damaged knee stops me going anywhere.

Thanks to Master Mariner's post in another thread that gave me the distance for minutes of Lon and Lat I have done some calculations. Taking the most northerly and southerly of the readings gives a range of 11.118 meters Most Easterly and Westerly gives a range of 12.86 metres The greatest north-south distance from the averaged centre is 6.86 metres The greatest east-west distance from the averaged centre is 6.99 metres The greatest direct distance of any one unit from the averaged centre is 7.67 metres, which happens to be the one at top left, which is probably about 20 cms from the centre of the array. There you go, the geek in me is now fully satisfied. I would say that this all fits well within the expected 'accuracy' of these units.

So that explains why Lacto archived one of my caches today.... fiddling the figures again

Master Mariner, what a star. I've been looking for this for a while on and off. Don't know if you saw my thread about having 10 identical GPS units all showing slightly different co-ords when placed side by side. So I was trying to work out the maximum distance the co-ords could describe, if you see what I mean, and now I can finish the job. The geek in me is fully satisfied

The "Accuracy" figure is a misleading misnomer. Accuracy is the difference between the indicated position and the true position. To know the accuracy of the position, your machine would have to know the true position. If your machine knew the true position, then surely it would tell you the true position, in which case the accuracy would always be zero. Your machine does not know the true position, which is why it cannot tell you the true position, which is why it cannot tells you its accuracy. Exactly why I put 'accuracy' in inverted commas. 'Error' would be more accurate, but people without a science background confuse 'error' with 'mistake' rather than 'limitations'. If it read 'certainty' or 'limit to accuracy' I'd be happier.

Interesting, I've just bought some new GPSrs (see my other thread on 10 GPS - 10 different readings). Anyway, on the waypoints page there is a category for geocaches already there by default. I wonder what commercial arrangements were made for Garmin to put that there. I also wondered how we felt about that. Everyone that buys a new Garmin gets to hear about geocaching. Somehow I always liked the idea that we only told people that we trusted about the sport. I was always concerned about too many people getting to hear about it and the possibility of cache trashing , too many caches per sq mile etc.

Did that correlate well with the estimated accuracy that the GPSr was reporting? Really fascinating stuff. Yes, all results well within expected 'error'. We set the waypoints up about 4 months ago when we did a pre-visit to plan the trip. This was the first unit I have had with an averaging function. We left the unit averaging for about 5 mins at each point. That was interesting, watching the 'accuracy' work down from about 15m to around 3m. So, makes me wonder why they give 3 decimal poitn accuracy when it clearly isn't and, what sort of distance does each decimal place equate to in terms of metres across the ground.

Yes we were surprised by that. These were fresh out of the box and we switched them all on at the same time so they were doing a cold start. Interesting that they found the satellites in different orders, but out of all the satellites on offer, only 2 were the first ones found. Once this was found they put 3 or 4 satellites in the correct place and then found another, which put a few more in the correct place. But as you said, they didn't all have the same list of satellites and didn't have them all in the same place in the sky.