Geo Fan

Not sure why this continues to be thrown at us as the reason for archiving caches. Is it now the stance of GC HQ to archive every cache globally that does not have a signed letter of permission! This is not productive to the issue at hand.

I know of one cache that was forcibly archived for the Milpitas GeoTour that certainly appears to not have been on Milpitas property. I suspect that 99%+ of all cache hides globally don't have permission for placement in the classic sense, so most caches are at risk of archiving to pave the way for "paying" cache hiders.

Pacific Flyway GC20008

I too use this feature on a regular basis. Certainly not everyday, but then again I don't look at the Forums everyday. While there are other tools out there, this one was very convenient! Please reinstate.

Please just revert the logs back to the way they were. The avatars are dumb, and add zero value. Seeing the same avatars over and over and over in all the logs, becasue amazingly I live amongst a familiar gropu of geocachers will quickly get tedious. In fact for everyone that hates the avatars in logs, please eliminate your avatar so that only the avatar placeholder remain. As for the dates, I see they have reverted back to their correct format, but they are way over in right field. Just revert the log format back to what it was like before. As for Challenges, I don't get it. My Profile Page now shows all my finds with the Traditional Icon. Challenges are separate....theyh actually deserve their own tally??????? Come on guys, I know it is tough to admit this update was not thought through, but you will get a lot more respect by reverting the log format back and freezing challenges, until you can get the concept vetted out.

The PO in SF Bay Area has been real bad this year, IMO. Ticks have been bad as well. Seems like all the late rains has made for an extended growing season and the stuff is thriving. I have seen more trails overgrown this year than the past, but that can also be due to lower trail maintenance frequency. My doc recommended Zanfal after I had a bad episode, and it seems to work well at preventing rashes when i use the scrub within 8 hours of exposure. The stuff is bloody expensive though!

I have looked at both Oregon 400 and 450's and agree, there is a slight difference giving the 450 an edge, but it still is nowhere as good as my Colorado 400t. It must be the touchscreen technology, that makes the screen harder to see than the Colorado. I also found the touchscreen to be difficult to trigger with my thumbs, so I was stuck using the Oregon's with 2 hands. Hope they are looking at a screen colser to the iPhone style.

Not really. Have you read the proposal in detail, especially the part on how it will be financed? There will be special taxes on ammo cans and hamsters. It's an outrage, I tell you! Hey aren't you supposed to be solving Kablooey's puzzle

I have a Colorado 400t, and a friend just got a Oregon 400t. I played with the Oregon and was highly disappointed in the screen visability outdoors, my Colorado was much brighter. In fact I would have to say the screen visibility would be a deal breaker for me. As mentioned, I would look at the x50 series Oregons or a Dakota.

I would like to receive mt PQ's at the same time, especially on weekends. I get several PQ's during the week, save them, and load them into my GPS'r as needed. I also would like to see the ability to run one mega PQ say on a weekly/daily basis similar to My Finds PQ. I know that PQ size will be increasing soon to 1000, but the ability to run 2000 or more in a specific PQ would cut down on my need for mulitple PQ's. I could then supplement this with a daily New Cache PQ to capture any new hides or hides that were re-enabled. I may still want seperate smaller PQ's depending upon what I am doing during the week, but a Mega PQ would be nice.

You get what you give. I have found most cachers to be responsive and only a couple of cachers who aare unresponsive. One thing for sure is to give people ample time to respond, and don't assume that they received your first email. Keep it nice and you are more likely to get a response and if you don't, just move on because it is not worth it. For all you know the other cacher may have become incapacitated.

I have a Colorado 400t and like the Rock 'n' Roller and paperless caching functions. It allows easy one-hand operation for most field use. The biggest hassle is text entry IMO. I have also used an Oregon 400t and the screen was harder to see and the touch-screen funciton required 2 hands, because my thumbs would not trigger screen changes. I must have dead thumbs . I have not used the Delorme PN series GPS'r but have heard they are solid units as well. Garmin has discontinued the Colorado 400 series, but is continuing the 300 sereis. There may be good deals on any of the 400 series models like others have indicated on the 400i.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case. I know WRT to waypoints this is how the 60cs(x) works, and I've verified that the Colorado works the same way for waypoints (but not geocaches). There's some limit on the number of waypoints placed in the nearest waypoints list based on number or distance. The only way to see all waypoints is to search by name. The problem on the Colorado is you have to input one letter to start that search, which makes it impossible to see all waypoints without filtering (unless you know that it is a character not used in any waypoint name). What worried me was an earlier post which indicated it wasn't just the geocaches furthest from the current location that were missing. That would be bug. GO$Rs Aprroximately 25 miles away from Home Coords, and rechecked Cache List. Again, 244 caches showed up in the list. So changing locations seemed to have no affect on number of caches viewable in the list.

I loaded 500 caches both as Geocaches and as Waypoints. This was a GPX file from GC.com, and consisted of the 500 caches nearest to my home, which were as far away as 10.9 miles. After turning the unit on and acquiring satellites, I counted only 244 in the Geocache list and the list of Geocaches under the "Where To" area (I did not assume these would contain the same quantity, so I checked). Both searches contained the same caches, but the list excluded caches beyond 9.10 miles from my location. However, searching for caches by GC code or Name, yielded all caches beyond 9.1 miles. I am going to move my location to see if the list of caches changes depending upon where you are located. Running Software v2.3/GPS Software v2.6.

I have used it for years for "semi" paperless caching. It does not display images, but does a great job with all required text.

I am a 400t owner, 1 week now, and probably not as Happy as I will be in a few months after many of the issues are fixed. This is my first Garmin product, and I like the form factor, the screen, and for the most part the Rocker Wheel (but text entry could be improved). I don't need to re-hash all the issues, but I do have to state that the North Up while Panning is an issue, not a nice to have, that needs to be fixed. If this is standard for all Garmin's I would be shocked. I can work around the geocaching issues by loading them both as geocahches and waypoints or POI's for now, but the Panning issue is irritating.

I'm seeing that much drift in less than one hour! So if someone wanted to test their Colorado to see if it had this problem they could turn it on, put the GPS in demo mode, let it sit for an hour and see if the clock was off by a significant (5 minutes?) amount? GO$Rs Just turn the unit completely off for, say overnight, then turn it back on somewhere where it can't acquire satellite signal after boot up, push the light/clock/start button and see what time the clock display is showing. Is it correct? Just ran the test on my 400t after being off for almost 24 hours and found the time to be accurate. I am in my office with no satellite reception at all.

I appreciate the compilations you have created, just wish I would have stopped by the forums before ordering my 400t. My problem started before turning the unit on or reading the supplied "manual". The packaging was poor and the unit sustained considerable abrasion damage. Putting into a Bag, Bubblewrap, or Foam wrap, would have prevented all the issues. I had my wife hit up REI and exchange it for one with minimal abrasion. She went through 4 of them to choose the best. I know, a little picky, but for $600, I wanted to be the first one to scratch the unit. As I am new to Garmin devices, is there another Garmin Device Manual that would be worth reading to provide assistance with Colorado until they come out with a true Manual? Geo Fan