jfitzpat

quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup: I'm curious about the averaging problem you mentioned. This past Saturday, we had our first MIGO picnic, and played a game with our GPSr's to get a taste of the differences in accuracy. The "master" coordinates were obtained with a 315, set on autoaverage for 20 minutes. A couple of hours later, when we did the actual "Pin the Coordinates" contest, all the readings...including the original 'master' unit...were about 35-40' to the west of the original location. (I'll have to e-mail the owner, and see if he's gotten the firmware update you mentioned.) Well, a 30' shift might not be averaging, it could just be the geometry of the available sats changing over time. There are actually several existing threads on the GPS315/GPS320 averaging and workarounds, those would probably explain better than I could (I've seen GPS315 users wave the unit around their heads, but I wasn't sure if the act actually effects averaging, or just gives them something to do while they wait for the averaging to catch up... ) I will say that averaging does not demonstratably improve accuracy, not that SA is off. So, I personally, would not go out of my way to buy a receiver that offers it. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup: I'm curious about the averaging problem you mentioned. This past Saturday, we had our first MIGO picnic, and played a game with our GPSr's to get a taste of the differences in accuracy. The "master" coordinates were obtained with a 315, set on autoaverage for 20 minutes. A couple of hours later, when we did the actual "Pin the Coordinates" contest, all the readings...including the original 'master' unit...were about 35-40' to the west of the original location. (I'll have to e-mail the owner, and see if he's gotten the firmware update you mentioned.) Well, a 30' shift might not be averaging, it could just be the geometry of the available sats changing over time. There are actually several existing threads on the GPS315/GPS320 averaging and workarounds, those would probably explain better than I could (I've seen GPS315 users wave the unit around their heads, but I wasn't sure if the act actually effects averaging, or just gives them something to do while they wait for the averaging to catch up... ) I will say that averaging does not demonstratably improve accuracy, not that SA is off. So, I personally, would not go out of my way to buy a receiver that offers it. -jjf

I think that the street price for a Garmin eTrex is < $100. It is certainly accurate enough for caching. Your friend might be referring to an old averaging problem in the Magellan GPS 315 [now discontinued [i think), but can be found for a good price). Most users do not find the averaging issue that big a problem, and I believe it has been greatly reduced in a firmware update. Your friend might have been talking about GPS receivers giving poor bearing indications when you are moving slowly, near a cache site. This is because most GPSr's don't 'know' true heading (which way you are facing). They infer heading by position changes over time. That is, they assume you are walking in a straight line, and facing exactly the direction you are heading. This is often not true at slow speed or stopped, or on rough terrain (like on a trail, looking around for a cache). Some GPSr's do have a built in electronic compass, which elliminates this problem, but you can solve the problem with a $15-$20 compass as well (which is also a handy thing to have when you hike outdoors). You can tell your friend that my young daughters have found over 30 caches now using just a Silva Ranger compass, a USGS topo map, and an aerial photo from http://www.lostoutdoors.com Just about any currently manufactured GPSr would easier... Good Luck! -jjf

I think that the street price for a Garmin eTrex is < $100. It is certainly accurate enough for caching. Your friend might be referring to an old averaging problem in the Magellan GPS 315 [now discontinued [i think), but can be found for a good price). Most users do not find the averaging issue that big a problem, and I believe it has been greatly reduced in a firmware update. Your friend might have been talking about GPS receivers giving poor bearing indications when you are moving slowly, near a cache site. This is because most GPSr's don't 'know' true heading (which way you are facing). They infer heading by position changes over time. That is, they assume you are walking in a straight line, and facing exactly the direction you are heading. This is often not true at slow speed or stopped, or on rough terrain (like on a trail, looking around for a cache). Some GPSr's do have a built in electronic compass, which elliminates this problem, but you can solve the problem with a $15-$20 compass as well (which is also a handy thing to have when you hike outdoors). You can tell your friend that my young daughters have found over 30 caches now using just a Silva Ranger compass, a USGS topo map, and an aerial photo from http://www.lostoutdoors.com Just about any currently manufactured GPSr would easier... Good Luck! -jjf

quote:Originally posted by VentureForth: Like I say, though, it IS tedious! But the street maps on it are high quality, and the GPS enabling is well worth it. For what it is worth, I've promised Daniel at our office that I will do a Palm version of his SkyEye (as well as add Magellan support to his program) as soon as I'm done with my current project. SkyEye is PocketPC only, and Garmin only. The program is $10, but you can generate free topo and aerial maps directly at http://www.lostoutdoors.com (yes, I had inside information ). The mapmaker at LostOutdoors will let you add markers, either by clicking on the maps or by entering coordinates - and those markers are transferred to the SkyEye map. (So you can seek on them, measure distance to them, etc.) I guess I should have given the link above: http://www.etree.com is where you can download a 30-day trial of SkyEye. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by VentureForth: Like I say, though, it IS tedious! But the street maps on it are high quality, and the GPS enabling is well worth it. For what it is worth, I've promised Daniel at our office that I will do a Palm version of his SkyEye (as well as add Magellan support to his program) as soon as I'm done with my current project. SkyEye is PocketPC only, and Garmin only. The program is $10, but you can generate free topo and aerial maps directly at http://www.lostoutdoors.com (yes, I had inside information ). The mapmaker at LostOutdoors will let you add markers, either by clicking on the maps or by entering coordinates - and those markers are transferred to the SkyEye map. (So you can seek on them, measure distance to them, etc.) I guess I should have given the link above: http://www.etree.com is where you can download a 30-day trial of SkyEye. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by Alan2: Fitz: Your history lesson may be more accurate, but my version's funnier! Alan Agreed. Your message made the rounds at my office. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by Alan2: Fitz: Your history lesson may be more accurate, but my version's funnier! Alan Agreed. Your message made the rounds at my office. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by Good Hands: can i hook my emap to my laptop and and follow my path on one of these maps on my laptop screen instead my emap screen There is a simple program called SkyEye at my employer's website ( http://www.etree.com ) that will let you track aerial photos or topo maps on your PocketPC. You can build the maps (and embed your waypoints, etc.) at my website, http://www.lostoutdoors.com I think that the program runs $10, and runs with a no restriction 30 day trial. The maps are free. The program currently only works with Garmin receivers (Daniel borrowed my Vista). I've promised to add Magellan support, as well as a Palm version, as soon as my current project wraps up. I think that Topographix was talking about a CE version of their mapping/waypoint management program for CE. And Doug Cox's excellent USAPhotoMaps could be used to track position on an aerial photo on a laptop. Good Luck, -jjf

quote:Originally posted by Alan2: I've heard this story too but I wonder if he was such a "moron". If he had not argued from the standpoint of a smaller earth, would Ferdinand and Isabella given him the money he needed to "set sail"? Can you imagine if he agreed with the big earth approach. "Yessa your highness, I knowa everyone elsa saying that while the earth isa rounda it'sa also too bigga and I'm going to runna out of water and food before I getta there. But I gotta a plan. Justa givva me a couple of millions doubloons and I willa prova it." As it was it took years for him to get the royals to kick in the moolah! That he never set foot on the Continent, and that he was arguing for an earth more than 25% smaller is pretty well documented. We also have many writings from the age showing what intellectuals of the period believed. As to why, that is a great question. He was certainly colorful - sea adventures at a young age, questionable background (there is no proof positive that he was even Italian, and he certainly revised his own background several times). He even married into a noble Portagese family that had fallen on hard times... From about 1484 - when King John II of Portegal turned him down, until 1492, he was turned down at least twice by the Spanish crown. He pitched his journey several ways, better standing for Spain, embarrasement for rival Portegal, and later, he argued that it would somehow further Spain's 'holy war' on the Moors. Some historians think it was this last approach that got traction, and point out that approval for his journey came right after the fall of Granada (sp?), the last Moorish stronghold in Spain. Certainly, a number of the Crown's advisors thought the journey dangerous and Columbus clearly wrong about the Earth's size. But, I guess I would say things weren't all that different... Even today, brains don't automatically equate to fame and/or power (or vice versa)! And, political decisions don't always adhere to science. Look at SDI and the current missile defense system push. We spent over $600,000,000 on some of Edward Teller's odder ideas (none of which panned out) when most of his scientific peers thought that the technology was not there. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by Alan2: I've heard this story too but I wonder if he was such a "moron". If he had not argued from the standpoint of a smaller earth, would Ferdinand and Isabella given him the money he needed to "set sail"? Can you imagine if he agreed with the big earth approach. "Yessa your highness, I knowa everyone elsa saying that while the earth isa rounda it'sa also too bigga and I'm going to runna out of water and food before I getta there. But I gotta a plan. Justa givva me a couple of millions doubloons and I willa prova it." As it was it took years for him to get the royals to kick in the moolah! That he never set foot on the Continent, and that he was arguing for an earth more than 25% smaller is pretty well documented. We also have many writings from the age showing what intellectuals of the period believed. As to why, that is a great question. He was certainly colorful - sea adventures at a young age, questionable background (there is no proof positive that he was even Italian, and he certainly revised his own background several times). He even married into a noble Portagese family that had fallen on hard times... From about 1484 - when King John II of Portegal turned him down, until 1492, he was turned down at least twice by the Spanish crown. He pitched his journey several ways, better standing for Spain, embarrasement for rival Portegal, and later, he argued that it would somehow further Spain's 'holy war' on the Moors. Some historians think it was this last approach that got traction, and point out that approval for his journey came right after the fall of Granada (sp?), the last Moorish stronghold in Spain. Certainly, a number of the Crown's advisors thought the journey dangerous and Columbus clearly wrong about the Earth's size. But, I guess I would say things weren't all that different... Even today, brains don't automatically equate to fame and/or power (or vice versa)! And, political decisions don't always adhere to science. Look at SDI and the current missile defense system push. We spent over $600,000,000 on some of Edward Teller's odder ideas (none of which panned out) when most of his scientific peers thought that the technology was not there. -jjf

FWIW, the only things I object to in caches are: Illegal items Food Bodily waste and/or fluids As a parent, I would prefer that certain items not be sitting on top when we look for the log book, but I can't shelter my kids forever. It doesn't matter if it is an adult calendar in a cache, or anti-Catholic literature left on our windshield (both have occured). I pretty much treat it the same. I acknowledge that it exists, and explain why I don't think it is appropriate, and answer their questions as best I can. Someone very wise once told me that the best way to see what principles a person stands for, is to see which ones that they stick to when it really costs them. Free speech is easy to stomach when you agree with what is being said. Supporting it when you vehementally disagree is something else... -jjf

quote:Originally posted by Hinge Thunder: Well we have a local park, where there once was a road with houses. They tore down the houses and left the paved road. At this point you can hardly see any signs that there were houses, or even a road. Only small patches of asphalt showing through dirt, mud, trees, and bushes. Children now have access to parks, well at least where there are paths. But they must stay on the path, so we save the parks so future generations can stay on the paths. Nothing is more natural than well manicured paths you know! *sarchasm intended* Nobody knows what is going to be happening in 2525! Think about it. Thats 523 years in the future. 523 years ago, Columbus hadn't even discovered America yet. Do you think they even had the most minor hint what would be happening in 2002? Wow, some stuff I happily would debate with you! Columbus never did discover America. Nor, did most people believe that the world was flat. Eratoshenes' applied an early form of the scientific method about 300 BC. He hypothesized that the earth was round based upon some solar phenomena he read about in a report. He then conducted several experiments, the most notable being that he measured the circumference of the earth using math and a short stick - and was within a couple of percent of the true value. By Columbus' time, it was widely excepted that the earth was round (Columbus even had some of Eratoshenes' maps and writings). Columbus argued that the earth was much smaller than everyone else believed. The generally accepted (and correct) size among intellectuals of the age, made the earth too large for his plan of reaching the far east to work - even if a gigantic land mass hadn't been in the way. Mostly, he was a psuedo certain moron. I was going to make a segue into the science behind water purity and biodiversity, and how your park story does not really address inceptor's points, but I'll leave you two to battle that out yourselves... -jjf

quote:Originally posted by DisQuoi: Any comments on this will be appreciated. Nice idea. I'm curious, is the base image GlobalXplorer 1m data in your mock-up? I've been trying to get those folks to let me use watermarked data online... -jjf

quote:Originally posted by DisQuoi: Any comments on this will be appreciated. Nice idea. I'm curious, is the base image GlobalXplorer 1m data in your mock-up? I've been trying to get those folks to let me use watermarked data online... -jjf

Actually, I think that the 'only 8M' thing is a little overrated. The basemap in the Legend is pretty darn good. It definately seems on par with the base map in a Meridian Gold. It will get you to most cities, and generally on a major road. It seems better than the old RM Atlas that has gotten me around most of the US for decades (the atlas still goes in the car though!) I guess the difference is that I use a GPS most on foot, and the topo maps for all the units just don't seem that useful. The Garmin's and Magellan's are too course, and the $600+ beasty that Markusby love's still has a miniscule view. The maps are a nice bonus for orientation when they are loaded, but they just have never seemed a reasonable alternative to good 'ol paper to me. Just my 2 cents... -jjf

I would have them plot from GPS to map and compass to map. True North vs. Mag North is an important lesson, and UTM (which can get you to withing a football field without a ruler) is nice to learn to (if your USGS Topo map is newer than about '89). Have Fun! -jjf

quote:Originally posted by Hinge Thunder: You're not talking about caching? What do you think these forums are for? When the talk of placing caches in parks comes up, and why they are not allow, people start talking about the damage from people coming to get will cause. Then some people start citing numbers such millions of people visit these parks, and what damage that would cause. As you said, large numbers of people visit The Grand Canyon, but stay in a small area. I have about 10 local caches, and from my experience, the easy caches with short walks, and easy terrain have gotten maybe 20-30 visitors, while anything with longer walks (over 1/2 mile), and some even minor hilly terrain don't get nearly as many. The same thing would happen with caches in the parks. Caches that were placed deeper in the park, and had some terrain, would not receive a huge number of visitors. So talk about MILLIONS of visitors is just not applicable. Such as if someone placed a cache near the summit of Mt. Ranier. in Washington State. Do you really think that large numbers of people would/could go after it? That it would cause significant damage to the park? Why ask what I think? You've yet to actually read anything I've written or respond to it in anything approaching context. I've made a small number of easily stated points in this thread: #1: The 'lynx' story about false samples is pure BS. #2: Comparing human impact to deer and other wildlife only works if you consider volume and coverage. Yes, we are all animals, but millions of deer do not converge on relatively small areas. #3: Dividing vistors by land area does not accurate model public land usage. This is demonstratable fact. #4: Compliance and cooperation with existing land management, regardless of how you feel about it, is the most likely path to reasonable access for the sport. #5: (For you) If you are going to directly address me, in the context of a thread, it is generally expected that you will relate your comments to something I've actually stated or remotely inferred. Agressively refuting something that I've never said or implied makes the thread, as a whole, difficult to follow. Seriously, wouldn't it be more satisfying for you to argue with someone who actually believes or says the crud you are trying to put in my mouth? Anyone who has read any of my posts here for any length of time knows that I have stated exactly the opposite of what you are attributing to me not once, but many times. Trying to stretch the simple points above into some sort of anti-caching enviro-fest is just a waste of time. I sincerely hope that you use better sense in the mountains. I've already hauled down my share of dead fools for this lifetime. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by The KGB: No worries, although not exactly a rant, I jsut enjoy debate, espically when the other side still hasn't refuted anything that I said other than what I say doesn't matter... Well, I specifically disputed a few of your facts (ex. 'false samples', 'unchanged for millions of years'). And, I argued that your mathmatical model was pointless because it did not match measurable reality (half acres in enormous parks receive in excess of 1,000,000 visitors per year). Yet, you keep speaking in absolutes like the quote above, and using ever more loaded personal language... Seems like full on rant to me. Seriously, you win. I have no aptitude for your type of 'debate'. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by The KGB: No worries, although not exactly a rant, I jsut enjoy debate, espically when the other side still hasn't refuted anything that I said other than what I say doesn't matter... Well, I specifically disputed a few of your facts (ex. 'false samples', 'unchanged for millions of years'). And, I argued that your mathmatical model was pointless because it did not match measurable reality (half acres in enormous parks receive in excess of 1,000,000 visitors per year). Yet, you keep speaking in absolutes like the quote above, and using ever more loaded personal language... Seems like full on rant to me. Seriously, you win. I have no aptitude for your type of 'debate'. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by Hinge Thunder: So you are saying that if we placed a cache outside this 8 acres, that it wouldn't get all this horrible damaging traffic that you are talking about! Great! Thanks for making one of my points for me! No, I'm saying that you have missed my points entirely. I have never even brought caching or cache location up in this thread, except to repeat my often stated position that it is a modest impact activity which is land management friendly. I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to dispute. The number of visitors to parks and wilderness areas is an objective fact. That is, we can count them. That visitation is overwhelmingly focused on small areas inside larger parks is also, a measurable, quantitive fact. If you are trying to dispute that areas with the highest visitation experience the highest wear and tear, or that land managers take steps to minimize that wear and tear, I don't have an answer for you. It is a free country, reconciling beliefs to reality is optional. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by Alan2: Who did I miss? You have it covered. I've said a number of times that geocaching could be a land manager's dream recreational use. By its very nature it is trackable and enforcable. But, it takes good behavior, friendly education, and constructive advocacy to get a reasonable system in place. Break rules, cop an attitude, or make demands, and you wind up with draconian restrictions. Been there, done that... -jjf

quote:Originally posted by Alan2: Who did I miss? You have it covered. I've said a number of times that geocaching could be a land manager's dream recreational use. By its very nature it is trackable and enforcable. But, it takes good behavior, friendly education, and constructive advocacy to get a reasonable system in place. Break rules, cop an attitude, or make demands, and you wind up with draconian restrictions. Been there, done that... -jjf

quote:Originally posted by The KGB: Thanks in advance for your maturity. PS thanks for proving my point! KGB, I'm sorry your lynx story was false. I'm sorry you went to all the trouble to lookup Joshua Tree, and perform calculations, only to find that you had forgotten (or had not realized) that land usage is not at all evenly distributed (picture your house on the .3 acres of Mather Point at the Grand Canyon - your 1900 square mile 'yard' becomes moot ). A bad citation and a poor use of math do not make you a bad person. Nor do they automatically invalidate your thoughts and feelings. The point I was trying to make was that it does not matter how you interpret natural history, planetology, or the ecosystem. It does not matter what you feel. Nor does it matter what I think or feel. Public land is managed, and the managers have rules. Respectful lip service and dutiful compliance generally means access can be negotiated. Vocal objections and defiance generally means that your activities have to move elsewhere. Bucking the system will get you little support from the general public, and you will almost certainly find that the majority of cachers turn against you when it comes down to a choice concerning their access vs. your principles. Getting worked up at me will not change this. Relax, enjoy come caching. Litter a little or cut off trail if it makes you feel better, just don't get caught by the authorities if you want to keep caching on public land... -jjf P.S. Don't worry, this thread has caused nothing beyond mild amusement at my end. I'm much to full of myself to let online rants get under my skin.

quote:Originally posted by The KGB: Thanks in advance for your maturity. PS thanks for proving my point! KGB, I'm sorry your lynx story was false. I'm sorry you went to all the trouble to lookup Joshua Tree, and perform calculations, only to find that you had forgotten (or had not realized) that land usage is not at all evenly distributed (picture your house on the .3 acres of Mather Point at the Grand Canyon - your 1900 square mile 'yard' becomes moot ). A bad citation and a poor use of math do not make you a bad person. Nor do they automatically invalidate your thoughts and feelings. The point I was trying to make was that it does not matter how you interpret natural history, planetology, or the ecosystem. It does not matter what you feel. Nor does it matter what I think or feel. Public land is managed, and the managers have rules. Respectful lip service and dutiful compliance generally means access can be negotiated. Vocal objections and defiance generally means that your activities have to move elsewhere. Bucking the system will get you little support from the general public, and you will almost certainly find that the majority of cachers turn against you when it comes down to a choice concerning their access vs. your principles. Getting worked up at me will not change this. Relax, enjoy come caching. Litter a little or cut off trail if it makes you feel better, just don't get caught by the authorities if you want to keep caching on public land... -jjf P.S. Don't worry, this thread has caused nothing beyond mild amusement at my end. I'm much to full of myself to let online rants get under my skin.