Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bobbyfrass

  1. Trying to improve the situation down here in PC. I think I am headed up to the Tallahassee next week and will enjoy the caching you describe!
  2. Walk around talking to yourself. Occasionally slap an open hand on your head repeatedly. Rock back and forth. People will probably stare, but they won't suspect you are geocaching!
  3. Can't we just make mile markers virtuals? I'd like to get my find count up, and I've determined that if I average 70 mph on I-10 for 12.77 hours that I could reach my 1000 find mark. What an accomplishment! Plus, it would be so much fun. Anyone want to come along?
  4. How to stay cool in the summer and stay involved with geocaching at the same time? Stay at home and surf the forums . Or perhaps that's why we seem to have so many PNG's here in Panama City, FL. It really feels like a jungle here, in the summertime. Current conditions: around 96 F/36 C with 80% relative humidity. The heat index is over 100 F!
  5. "Better" is relative. It depends on what you are looking for in a unit. If its compact size, something like the Venture CX, Legend CX or Vista CX would be good choices. If its very sensitive reception, the 60X(s)X and 76C(s)X units are the way to go. The Garmin 60CSX and 76CSX are pretty much the cream of Garmin's handheld line. If you act fast, Garmin has a $100 rebate on their 76CX and 76CSX units (until July 7th). The 76 units are functionally identical to the 60 units, but have a different case and come with a bigger memory card. I found this to be true during my research. The big difference between the 76 and the 60 units is in their physical design. Some prefer having the buttons on the top, others below. I suggest you try holding the units to see which you like better. The more natural fit for me is the 60 unit with the buttons on the bottom, but this is probably because that's how my first gpsr was laid out. I can vouch for the quad helix antenna. The sat reception on the "x" series really is great! However, in my mind it is debatable how much that is going to help with geocaching--after all, your gpsr will only get you as close to the cache as the cache owner's gpsr's coordinates will allow. If you want to use the gpsr for road navigation, consider that the Garmin "x" series allow you to attach an external antenna, and their expandable memory means that you could load up maps for almost as much of the country as you'd like. I have used mine for road navigation and found it to be easy to use: the unit auto-routes you to a waypoint (geocache) or an address and will auto re-route you if you get off course. It also warns you when a turn is coming up with an audible beep. The screen is clear, crisp, and easy to read. Also, I have had no problem getting good reception in my Durango with the internal antenna.
  6. The scariest cache I've ever done was a virtual of a "haunted" area of town that was abondoned after the chemical dioxin killed a bunch of people. This thread is more geared toward "geo-terrorism."
  7. Is it still under warranty? That may be a manufacturer's defect. If it really happened just like you said, then something was wrong with the seal on the case. The 60c should be able to withstand full submersion for a limited period of time. Call Garmin. But be prepared for a wait. As much as I like their GPSr's, their customer service is lacking. Everyone I have spoken to is friendly but the last two times I have called it has been a 30-40 minute wait. Good luck!
  8. Sometimes the Magellan vs. Garmin debate can get kind of heated because some people are pretty devoted fans of one or the other. It should be noted, however, that these aren't the only two manufacturers of handheld gps's. You may want to look at Lowrance, for instance. I have both a Magellan SportTrack Pro and a Garmin GPSMap 60csx. I obviously prefer the Garmin--because it is much newer and has better accuracy, color, and higher resolution, as well as expandable memory. But I was very satisfied with my Magellan and looked at the explorist series. One of the things that sold me on the Garmin was the color (256 colors, as opposed to 16 color for Magellan), the antenna, and the menu set up. As with any high-end purchase the more research you do, the more satisfied you will be with your purchase. The look and feel of the Garmins is a little different than the Magellans. Ideally, try and go to a brick and mortar outdoor goods store to hold the two and compare. You won't need to necessarily find the exact model you'd be interested in, i.e. the Garmin GPSMap 60c will be the same size and shape as the 60csx, less some features. Then, when you decide on one you like, search online for the best deal.
  9. That is just a sad sight...a trusty companion has kicked the bucket.
  10. Sounds like I leave many of the same things as others. I try and leave things that will be helpful while out on the trail, or while geocaching. Each of the following items I have needed at one time, but not had: first aid kit, poncho, hand sanitizer, tissues, compass, and pen. So those are among the items I leave. I usually go a step further. I have a nifty vacuum sealer at home, so I usually seal up my items so that they are fresh, clean, and dry for whoever wants them. Almost all of the items above (except maybe the compass) can be found for around a dollar or less. I also like to leave new packs of cards, or other little games, toys, or stuffed animals--all sealed--for kids to enjoy. I always have more fun putting good stuff in then getting good stuff out. Get creative when thinking of swag!
  11. Thanks to everyone that has posted so far! I'm checking these areas out--and looking forward to using the new cache along a route function!!!
  12. Better yet, let's have a thread on the meaning of quality, itself!
  13. That's an excellent point. I didn't mean to help us spin off into a blackhole. My apologies.
  14. Your previous post did not address quality, only that 'Those that are passionately against micros see them as a problem that is hurting the entire sport'. To this argument, a simple graph of the growth of non-micro caches does do the job in proving that micros are not hurting the "sport". Remember, whether the "sport" is dying because of micros has nothing to do with the number of micros. If growth of non-micros is not being affected, micros cannot be killing the game. As I explained in my previous post, the 'Don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em' argument is appropriate if the caches that they don't like can be sorted out. In your example of people who are 'passionately against micros, it is elementary to avoid them. In fact, even people with more complicated dislikes can craft their searches carefully and avoid many caches that they will not enjoy. In the end, it almost always comes down to quality. With few exceptions, nobody would mind a ton of micros if they were all high quality. Let me illustrate by inserting one of the chief arguments of someone who began a thread on the subject, "Will Micros Kill Our Sport": That sounds mostly like a beef with quality, not quantity. I realize that there are some people who feel that micros, by nature of their size alone, are not in keeping with the original intended purpose of geocaching. But this isn't the only crowd out there who are not happy with them. I don't know the numbers that represent each camp, but I would guess that more people are concerned with the quality factor, not necessarily the size factor, or the total number factor. The argument being this: although bad caches of every size do occur, it is much easier for bad micro caches to pop up. In that sense they are hurting the "sport" because it lowers the overall quality of caches--it lowers people's expectation of the overall quality of geocaching. Furthermore, the argument would go on that this type of instance can't be "filtered out" using GSAK, for instance, because the bad caches still exist. And it is their very existence that harms the sport by lowering standards and expectations for future cachers and caches. I'm sorry I wasn't clear in the earlier posts. This was the argument that I was referring to throughout our discussion. For those who feel that micros harm the sport because they aren't in keeping with its original purpose, there is not much that can be done to assuage them. You may argue that they are incorrect about their perception of the original intention of geocaching, but in the end they may still hate all micros and want them gone. It is a valid opinion, as any other, but in that case you just have to agree to disagree. At least with the former argument there is a common ground--both groups want high quality caches that will improve geocaching. And the solution may very well be in the discussion. I do not, however, make a distinction between one argument and the other over their passion. Both arguments can be passionate--as is evidenced by the following thread started by James & Sheryl: Will Micro's Kill Our Sport. An analogy that I think works: We all hate litter. We know that litter occurs all over the city to different degrees. But we know of one particular neighborhood where it is especially bad. We "profile" that neighborhood and decide to discuss how to fix it. People then get mad because litter occurs all over the place, not just in that one neighborhood. Others say: yes, but...that one neighborhood is especially bad. If we could only get that one cleaned up then...yada, yada, yada. In the end I think my own opinions of micros are probably close to your own.
  15. I'd like to start by saying that I'm not making the argument that micros are hurting the sport. But on the other hand I very much doubt that that has been mathematically quantified. If you are referring to raw numbers or ratios of micro caches to regular caches, then you are assuming that the argument has to do with numbers of caches. Since quality hasn't been adequately quantified (at least not that I'm aware of), then mathematical arguments will do no good. Again, the importance of the problem is that it is perceived. If you can show somebody in a convincing way that there isn't actually a problem, but that it is only perceived, then you have done a good thing. Anytime there is a good argument for or against something, by all means use it. Show your graphs and equations to try and convince people. But the argument, "Don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em," doesn't convince anyone. As to your point about the frustration over many similar threads--I'll concede that point. People want to vent about the fact that there's already another thread going on that discusses a topic--I can understand that. But to say, "Hey, we had that thread a month ago--go read it, cause we're done with that," doesn't give those that are new to the forum or to the topic a chance to interact, opine, or vent their frustration. Again, I appreciate the discussion!
  16. You know, the more that I read this thread, the more I warm up to the idea of house caches, provided that they are a way for cachers to meet and interact with one another. I think I'd definitely have fun doing humanloofa's cache. I might even send my wife up to GPSaxophone's haunted hand house cache (I'd be ROGL near the car)!
  17. There is a problem with this logic, in my opinion. Let's assume that there are two basic opinions; people who hate micros and people who don't think the size of the cache is important. (Write your own joke. ) Imagine that a micro-hater starts a thread on the topic. Other micro-haters will pile on because they are passionate about the topic. If those people who don't think that micros are a problem (even if they don't love them) do not post in the thread because they are sick of yet another anti-micro thread, then it will appear as if there is a consensus that micros are bad. Your logic only applies to cachers who are interested in having a discussion, not shutting one down. There are always those that make statements like, "We shouldn't even have this thread--micros are here to stay and they're fine anyway, so get over it." Dissenting opinions are welcome--even ones that don't like the thread to begin with--but they usually seem to marginalize those that don't like micros by using logic that doesn't work. That was my point. MY point is not really that if you don't like these threads that you shouldn't participate in them, instead I was trying to illustrate that the argument, "If you don't like 'em, then don't hunt 'em," is not logically valid and that a similar simplistic argument can be used in retort. Those that are passionately against micros see them as a problem that is hurting the entire sport, not just them (as a matter of preference). This is the case whether their belief is valid or not. "If you don't like 'em, then don't hunt 'em," is just as dismissive and illogical an argument is the one that I posted. It doesn't address the perceived problem with micros even if they don't hunt them. Notice that I said "perceived" problem--the problem may or may not actually exist. That doesn't matter as much as the fact that there are plenty of folks who feel that it does. I'm not really for or against micros, per se, I just don't like really bad caches. I actually enjoy good micros as much as any good regular cache. I just think there happen to be more bad micros because they are generally easier and less expensive to place. It's a matter of convenience. I'm not sure there is anything to do about that, except to set a positive example by placing good caches. Cheers to meaningful discussions!
  18. I believe these recurring threads are not all bad. I completely agree, but I was asking a serious question. The subtitle of this topic is Let's Kill "I Hate Micros" Threads, but the topic title and the OP seem to be more about how to place better caches. The replies seem to vary with respect to what constitutes the primary theme here, so I was honestly looking for a bit of clarification. The way that I read it is that since most "I hate Micros" threads are usually more about "I hate horrible caches, many of which happen to be micros." So the thread, I think, is attempting to put an end to the recurring "I hate Micros threads" by getting rid of the root cause--really, really badly designed and placed caches. But of course, I could be wrong. BTW, it seems to me that there are a lot of threads that seem to revert to the topic of what threads are acceptable. Seems ironic, since most people who post things like, I hate another "I hate micros" thread could simply take the advice that gets posted most in those types of threads--"If you don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em!" "If you don't like 'em, don't read 'em or post in 'em!" Hmmm.
  19. We did Loofas cache. It is easily spotted from the street, so there was no intimidation factor. I even got out of the car myself for that one lol. Thak you for the gratutious plug for my cache, It has been well recieved as a wounderfull example of an anti-micro ( and we all hate micros). The cache is up for grabs if anyone wants it. I'm moving and hope to make an even bigger one, now where am I going to find a bigger log book and scribble stick???? The cache YIKES! Is that a cache or a coffin????
  20. great now that you've said that, some numbers hound is gonna claim hundreds of multiple finds on an archived cache for all the homes they visited back on October 31st, 1975 I seem to remember leaving some (stinky) caches on peoples doorsteps without a gpsr. That was when I was in high school and thought that stupidity was the first prerequisite for fun.
  21. I think male cachers in running shorts are killing the sport!
  22. I just checked out that GPS movie trailer....major cheese. I can't see that doing very well. I don't think anyone has to worry about that thing bringing the geo-world down.
  23. New to geocaching. Let me pose this question. Why haven't micros been banned yet. They seem like a total waste of time. Uh, I am new and don't understand the purpose. thanks for listening. Look forward to starting the game soon New GPS and I'm page 5 of 105
  • Create New...