OokOok

Would like the GPX file and/or API to include (at least) a flag indicating that the cache description includes a Related Web Page and, (ideally) the link itself. This would allow cache management tools (GSAK is the particular use case I have in mind) to correctly render this info in offline display of the cache. Related Web Pages are often used in Unknown (puzzle) caches, and when viewing this with offline tools the existence of this extra information is often obscured.

Indeed, it is showing the same behavior on my system - no autorefresh upon toggle of selection. I hadn't checked this earlier because I thought that the definition of unfound = unfound by ANYONE vs unfound by me...and given that there are few caches around here matching the former criteria I hadn't tried that option. I haven't yet hidden any caches of my own (soon, I hope ) so can't check that last option.

Hmm, works for me. Are you using a dev build of Chrome? No, I'm not. I'm on 5.0.375.126, which is the current stable build. I just tried disabling all other Extensions to see if perhaps I had an obvious client-side issue but no change. I also tried toggling various display options (such as alternate cache graphics, cache labels, etc) in hopes of finding a trigger condition, but no luck. In the grand scheme of things this is a really minor nit, and I'm content to assume the problem is on my side until there's independent confirmation that it might be happening elsewhere. Again, many thanks for the script - I've only had it on the system for about 24 hours and I'm already hooked!

Wow - this is really nice. Thank you! A bug report: on the Geocaching Maps page, when you check/uncheck the "Hide Disabled Caches" box it does not automatically update the display when auto-refresh is selected - you have to click Refresh Map. The other options above it are working as expected. (I'm using the Chrome version.)

Frankly, the solution is obvious, and should satisfy all haters of micros, smalls, regular, larges, or otherwise. Henceforth, all caches shall be designated as one of Venti, Uber, Grande, Molto, or Timmy. Venti is larger than Uber (except on Tuesday, or when the cache is placed within 0.12674mi of a barbed wire fence). The relative sizes of the others are, of course, self-explanatory. See? I'm a uniter, not a divider. Gotta think outside the box folks.

Say, you don't happen to be a hamster, I suppose? Hamster? HAMSTER?! I, sir, am a Black Tailed Prairie Dog. Can a lowly hamster achieve something as pure and beautiful as a jumpyip signaling call? I think not! Can a lowly hamster infect you with bubonic plague? I think not! Hamster. Hmphf. The nerve...

Thanks everyone for the incredibly quick responses, and the hint about finding my local reviewers. Much appreciated!

I'm considering placement of my first cache. The spot I have my eye on is such an prime park location (in the Almaden area of San Jose, CA) that I simply can't believe no one has already placed something there! I'm wondering whether there might be a puzzle cache whose final destination is within 528ft proximity of my intended site. Will a local reviewer know of any "surprise" caches that I'm not aware of and let me know? If so, is there a process by which I can find my local reviewer before I place the cache to do a quick check?

Following up to my own post, a few weeks later, now that I better understand stuff. Essentially, I was thinking in PC terms, where RAM (memory for running applications) is different than storage capacity (typically, hard drive storage). For the GPS, "RAM" really is equivalent to "storage". A Garmin Oregon 200 w/24M vs a 400 w/1G really means that one starts with a 24M HDD, the other with a 1GB HDD. Both have, I assume, the same amount of RAM for executing the OS. Now that I've played around, I find that I can load (using MapSource) three different California maps (a routable OSM map, a topo map, and <name escapes me - ???cus maps>) in about 1.2GB, leaving me more than enough room for one-off maps that I load separately when traveling out of the area. 1000 geocaches in a GPX file is WAAAAY <24MB - so if I wanted to add POIs I'm sure I'd have no problem. What I'm saying: my experience is that, for a single state (California), I'm hard-pressed to use more the 2GB of storage, so I ended up making quite a fortuitous "mistake" when I ordered the Oregon 200 instead of the 400 as I had intended. The lack of audio bell and electronic compass have turned out to be non-issues.

I've been looking at Garmin Oregon 200 v 300 v 400t. A major difference is the amount of RAM available in each unit. The 200 has (only) 24M, while the 300 and 400 have 1G - a HUGE difference. But that begs the question - how much RAM does one really need to do paperless geocaching? I assume that my database of caches would be stored on the SD memory card, and not the core RAM...so what would I be sacrificing if I had only 24M of RAM vs a larger amount?