Jeep_Dog

I agree, but on the more remote caches in the woods, this is hardly a problem. Indeed, muggles are more prone to steer away from a kilt-clad cacher, as opposed to drawing them. A kilt in the woods is sort of anti-muggle wear.

Yawn on OP. Been there, got cache, wore plaid. Jeep Dog caches in a kilt. Utilikilt pockets are fine, but I prefer traditional plaid with belt. Between hooking things on the belt and the Sporan, I've got all the space needed. You are right. It is darn near impossible. But, who cares? No, it wouldn't work in Scotland, either. They wear jeans. On a sidenote, my lower legs got pretty well torn up by yucca and cactus, but that just added to the fun, especially when I got to the games. After a few shots of scotch, I hardly noticed the stings from the cuts.

Oh, golly. Thanks for the suggestion! I didn't even consider the PQs. I'm a newbie premium member, and still figuring out all the nifty capabilities available to those of us "paying to play." Well, I ran the query, with some interesting results. Less than 100 miles: 3 MOCs Less than 200 miles: 29 additional MOCs. Less than 300 miles: 6 additional MOCs. Less than 400 miles: 5 additional MOCs. Less than 500 miles: 4 addtional MOCs. Total within 500 miles is a "staggering" 47 member-only caches. Wow, hardly an incentive to joing the "pay to play" club. Objective lens shows that portion of the "history" is bogus. Oh, I'll hardly go out of my way to hit those 4 MOCs 400 miles or more away.

How many members-only caches are really out there? I haven't seen any yet in any of my searches. I'm certainly not disgruntled about this fact, I'm just curious as to the numbers... I'm trying to stay objective in reading this "history" of geocaching. I'm finding this both interesting and irritating. I put history in quotation marks, since the writing is obviously slanted, almost to the point of obsurdity, to slam Jeremy. In reading actual postings and emails, I realize Jeremy isn't perfect, but heck, who is? Computer and tech geeks are not exactly renowned for their social skills... At any rate, I was considering the "evil move of GC.COM to make the sport a pay-to-play sport" concept, and my experience thus far as a premium member trigger my instincts that this concept is certainly as ludicrous as some of the other assertions made in the "history."

Wow! The new look is cleaner, and fits a smaller monitor very nicely. Well done, Jeremy and team!

Here, I'll answer your question without giving you links to 17 pages of information. I've only done two, and there's a reason for it. I'll do them only if they are very close to another physical cache and very convenient to complete. In other words, I won't go out of my way to find one. I will, however, go to great pains to log a physical cache. The two caches I have been to, I couldn't help but think "sheesh, a well-thought and planned micro could have been placed here!" Put a micro at the site of your famous OK dude. Folks will get the same educational experience.

Actually, I don't see the relevance, either. I'm still trying to figure out why I responded to this thread to begin with. In fact, this all hurts my head so much I'm not using a compass OR a GPSr the next couple of caches.

LOL sbell. Same here. While I know how to apply triangulation techniques, I follow my little GPSr arrow until 100 feet out, then meander along the same bearing and keep my eyes open for a cache. It's worked so far. Oh, yeah, I generally have fun rooting around with my daughter trying to find them. Yeah, that's right, fun.

Perhaps all of them? Again, you asked if we knew the exact coordinates of the cache, would triangulation be worthwhile. Your proof starts off with a GPS known given, which is not an "exact" coordinate. The only precise way to determine a location is, once again, if the cache owner utilized an intersection techinique. In this example, the cache owner placed the cache then took a look around. He saw across the lake hill 747, and shot an azimuth (bearing) to the peak of the hill that determined 10 degrees magnetic. He also clearly saw the peak of hill 721, and shot an azimuth to that point utilizing a compass and determined 70 degrees magnetic. He converted the magnetic azimuth to a grid (map) azimuth (I won't get into a declination discussion, there's plenty of threads on that topic) and plotted the back azimuth lines to the cache, noted the coordinates, and utilized them for the cache. Now, I come along as a hapless cacher, knowing the cache owner is very anal retentive and determines coordinates using this method. I'd note a prominent terrain feature on the maps (such as those two hills across the lake) I'd walk around that loop road, pick up a 070 magnetic azimuth to hill 721, pace off distance, and close to the cache break shoot an azimuth to 747 until I determined I was precisely 190 degrees off that hill, and look down, because the cache would surely be there. AGAIN, I assumed your premise we knew the exact location of the cache. Is this quicker than using a GPSr? It depends on how good you are with a compass. Folks that have been orienteering or been avid outdoors people can use a compass in this way without much of a second thought, and would find this technique quicker, and more accurate. Oh, sidenote. The above photo is from the vicinity of one of my caches. It is moved, since the cache is a multi, so no spoiler here. At any rate, I took a GPSr reading at the cache with 7 birds, WAAS enabled, and my GPSr stating it had 7' accuracy. I also used a technique as above to determine three azimuths to prominent features. These three I converted to grid, plotted on a map, and X marked the spot. I then plotted the GPSr coordinate, and what would you know, the GPSr was one meter away from the intersection coordinates, exactly where I'd expect it to be with 7' accuracy.

If the cache owner placed the cache using an resection technique with a magnetic compass, and thus knew the EXACT coordinates of the cache, then yes, indeed, triangulation (intersection) technique utilizing a magnetic compass would certainly be a better way to locate the cache.

This thread is officially sanctioned by the Federal Department of National Redundancy Department. At this department, an excessive number of government employees will do absolutely nothing for the next few years. Edit: Link to the other thread that has a couple more replies and suggestions than this one.

First, go by the suggestion made by strikeforce above. Are you getting a successful transfer message? Keep in mind if you search by name, the GPSr will wait for you to enter an alpha-numeric digit before it will let you scroll through the waypoints. If you just hit the OK without entering a letter or number, all waypoints stored will show. Next, when you have EasyGPS open and your GPSr connected, select the GPS pull-down menu and select TEST SERIAL CONNECTION. If the connection works, then who knows where the darn waypoints are going. If it doesn't work, one of your connections (on the GPSr or serial port) may not be seated properly. If you check these, and all look/feel good, then click the Preferences pull-down menu. Select My GPS Receivers, select Add GPS, under Manufacturers select Garmin, then under Models seclect eTrex Legend. Ensure your com port is configured correctly (varies from computer to computer, but normally COM1 will do the trick). There's a remote possibility your computer's serial port may not be working if the transfer is still not working. You may want to give it a try on another computer. Good luck.

Will need more information to help you. Otherwise, we are searching for a waypoint that isn't there. 1) How are you "downloading" the points to your Legend (what type of file)? 2) Are you using an interface program such as EasyGPS? If so, please tell us what it is.

Markwell: "Using a compass to triangulate on a location based on the bearings taken from your GPS will not get you to any more accurate location than just using your GPS." HRRRM. You are certainly correct. I have no idea why one would triangulate based upon GPSr bearings. However, one could bring up a topo map, find two prominent terrain features, determine magnetic bearing to those, then go to the field and spot those, use triangulation off them with a magnetic compass (called a "re-section") to determine the precise spot on the ground. To the inch! Much more accurate than a GPSr ever will be. The problem is, if the cache owner did not determine the coordinates this way, we STILL have to deal with the 22-30 foot best accuracy of THEIR GPSr. Ack! As several very experienced cachers (or those extremely proficient at navigation techniques) have pointed out time and again, based upon all of this, it is so much quicker to use a GPSr, expect at least a 40' inaccuracy, and enjoy the stinking fun of the stinking hunt. Oh, markwell, I am not suggesting you are stinky.... (nor anything in the second paragraph, for that matter).

GPSrs do not tell you X distance away at Y direction if you turn off maps and navigation modes. Within 100' of a cache, I switch to satellite mode and glance at signal strength and actual position coordinates. When closing within 50' of the cache, I note general direction (landmark, etc) and put the GPSr away and look for the cache (no kidding, the "where would *I* hide one here technique works really well!). Hips does the same thing, but from 300 feet out. Last weekend I did a really long cache (I think the total hike turned out to be over 5 miles), I used the GPSr pointer to find a landmark in the distance and put the GPSr away (much over 300 feet, even). This just makes sense, for it is better to watch where you are walking and pay attention to your surroundings then have nose glued to GPSr. Plus, if the GPSr dies, Bush shuts the system down, or sun spots clobber signals, you have SOME clue as to landmarks you recognize to get back out. Once I get to the cache, I put the GPSr down at the actual cache location and note distance and direction the GPRr tells me the cache is located. It is ALWAYS amusing. If it shows more than 40' for a micro, or more than 60' for an ammo can, I'll let the cache owner know.

Check out this great discussion on WAAS. Opinions and reports about both accuracy and battery life are covered, and is worth the time reading.

I've got a good memory. That, and I cache with a two year old, so 6 or 7 caches in a day is a REALLY good day, so not too many to keep up with. Anyhow, to keep track of where I've been, when I find a cache, I replace the Geocache icon on my Garmin with a Geocache Found icon for the waypoint. If there are any particular notes or a details I suspect I may forget, then I write it on the cache page print up (before I went paperless) or just write a note on my PDA.

Go to My Cache Page and click the Run Pocket Queries. Fiddle around with it, and you will figure it out. There's more related subjects to do with your PQ, such as paperless caching up there in the FAQs.

Well, you can place new caches at all those nifty caches and kill two birds with one stone.

What, you regulars abstained by design? Shoot, I thought you were out geocaching!

Some folks recycle them, making it somewhat difficult to determine FTF.

LOL. I haven't found muggles that I've mistaken for geocachers, but as a geocacher I have been mistaken as a muggle. I guess this points to my geneeral lack of geocaching skills and aura.

I cash with my two year old daughter, so when confronted by muggles or authorities, she is an excellent distractor (if I don't have the time or am not in the mood to explain geocaching). For example, a monkey impression always works.

Is that all it takes? Dang, I could have saved 30 bucks!

Where in the heck do you "sneak" it on to your uniform? Sounds like a 1SG butt-chew if you ask me....