jfitzpat

quote:Originally posted by The KGB: So using your example, I would love to have 1,000,000 visitors to my 800,000 acre home espically if I can tax tehm to maintain it and then charge them to come over. Oh yeah, and whats with the weather they have there, seems pretty rough, and it's odd that after all these billions of years, its still there. You are making one significant mistake. You are assuming that the vistors spread out evenly in the parks. That is not true in almost any of the national parks, wilderness areas, and national monuments, including Joshua Tree. The vast majority of Joshua Tree is essentially inaccessible to any but the most determined vistors. On the other hand, very specific spots, like 'Thin Wall', in the Hidden Valley area, or Wonderland of Rocks can gets hundreds or thousands of visits in a single day. Grand Canyon National Park is about 1,900 square miles in size, but virtually all of the 5,000,000 visitors each year go to the same 8 acres of the park... But of course, the logic (or not) of this, and how it relates to my point does not matter. No matter how vastly superior your logic, and no matter how mortally wounded I become from your rapier wit - the people who actually control the land use policies lean towards my way of thinking. And, have done so pretty consistantly despite pendulum shifts between left and right in US politics over the decades. So... we wind up back at the *original* post in this thread. Fail to follow the rules at your own peril. Unless you like complaining about the unfairness and stupidness of the rules more than you like caching, a 'my land, as I please' attitude is quite dangerous. And, this is the part that is hard for some to swallow, there will be no grassroots uprising against the tryranny of banning geocaching. The vast majority of your fellow citizens will care no more about your right to play hide-and-seek for Happy Meal toys than they cared about my right to claw up many unique rock formations all over the country. -jjf P.S. I am surprised that you bothered to research the park for your cutting analysis, but did not look more closely at the environment. Geologically speaking, JT may have had its rocky landscape formed a million years ago, but the fairly unique ecology, which supports all the plants that give it its name, is not nearly as old. The ecosystem has problems aside from trail wear and tear, route bolting, and gym chalk. Palm Springs and Palm Desert have grown significantly, as has 29 Palms and the city of Joshua Tree. Polution, and a somewhat taxed ground water system is taking a measurable toll on the ecosystem of the park. That's not to say people should build and live. It just means that it is incorrect to assume that JT has been the place it is now for the past million years, or that it will remain essentially the same, regardless of what we do, for the foreseeable future.

quote:Originally posted by Hinge Thunder: Wow! Millions of people visiting caches! You must be thinking of some really good caches. Actually, I was trying to explain, for the least slow, why comparisons between human impact and, say, deer, in a park or wilderness area is pointless. Like a lottery being a tax on people who are bad at math, it is generally simple arithmetic and facility maintanence, not enviromental-extremism. But, as I indicated in the previous message just because a person can count does not mean that he/she will get it. Don't take this personally, but I sincerely hope that by "climb" you mean class 3 scrambling. Most of us who love technical rock and ice climbing are having enough difficulty keeping areas open for the sport as it is. -jjf

I've never seen the video, but a USB->Serial adapter won't make transfers any faster. The Vista will still be receiving the data via its built in UART at a max speed of 115K baud. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by laraley: And social trails are bad because...? We are animals on this planet just like deer. Do we prohibit deer from making trails? Or prohibit them from bedding down in matted down bushes? I try to bring this up every time the point is made. I generally don't expect most people who use terms like "eco-nazi" to get it, but other people might stop and think it through. Take Joshua Tree National Park. It is not a particularly popular national park, but it receives more than 1,000,000 visitors each year. That is, twice as many human beings roam a small area each year, than there are bear on the entire continent. Now, have those 1,000,000 folks visit your home. Even if they just take a quick peek and critique your furniture, the wear and tear on your property would be huge. Now, assume that you want to keep your home looking even remotely nice for all visitors, and tolerably habitable for you. You would find that you would have to put constraints on where folks go and what they do. Walking through flower beds would certainly be taboo, but just cutting across the yard, instead of using the sidewalk might make the difference between having a grass lawn and an unsightly barren mud hole. If you think about it, could you really even live and maintain any quality of life without keeping some portions of your home completely off limits? Parks have no need to "attact visitors" as one poster suggests, the problem is that huge numbers of people come to relatively small areas. Compromises like marked trails and developed campgrounds don't exist to appease radical environmentalists. They exist to keep some semblance of a natural environment for many more human visitors than an area could normally sustain without significant visible change. When animal populations get out of control and start damaging an area, we take steps to control or reduce the population. Since it is "our" public land, and we are a supposedly cognitive species, we generally opt for restricting actions and permitting maximum visitors, vs. allowing unlimited activities but only small numbers of visitors. What I find truly amazing about this 'I should be able to go where I want and do what I want' attitude is generally only applied to natural environments. Do you cut across your neighbor's garden climb through their windows, and cut through their house to save a few steps on your way home when you are out for a evening stroll? Do you get outraged at the idea that you cannot drive and park your car however you feel like, even though they are PUBLIC roads? For some reason, rules and constraints are OK to preserve quality of life and minimize damage to highly developed areas, but unacceptable in more pristine areas that are being intentionally preserved. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by on2vegas: It is amazing how quickly everything begins to look the same when you are lost. Sometimes, the piece of mind that comes from having a little emergency gear is worth even more than the gear itself. Fear and panic really sap your strength (been there!) And can also cause you to make some bad, hasty decisions. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by Jamie Z: In retrospect, I don't know if we would have been better to carry our gear. The stream we paddled was very difficult to paddle in an empty canoe. If we'd had gear, we may not have made it through the low water and swampy areas. It was a concious calculated risk that almost left us uncomfortable for an evening. Many times, a few ounces can make the difference between a night of discomfort and real risk. For non-alpine multipitch climbing, I carry the following in a little bag on the back of my harness: Ultra-lightweight, breathable, water resistant jacket w/hood. Thermal headband and space blanket stuffed in the pockets. Sometimes I also carry a clean pair of warm socks, which can double as gloves or just mean warm feet at a forced bivy. Petzl LED headlamp. Small knife. Small box of matches. Partial roll of athletic tape (my on-the-wall first aid kit ) A couple of power bars, and/or tubes of 'goo'. One 32 ounce Nalgene bottle of water (slung seperate from the bag). If it is really hot, I'll use a power drink instead of plain water. In my backpack at the base of the climb, I have an extra bottle of water, small first aid kit, map and compass, ultralight breathable pants to go with the jacket, and extra batteries for the headlamp. While climbing, that's about 2 pounds for the water and 2 pounds for gear (another 4 pounds in the backpack). Over the years, that 4 pounds on my fanny has turned many potential 'epics' into minor inconveniences. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by Jamie Z: In retrospect, I don't know if we would have been better to carry our gear. The stream we paddled was very difficult to paddle in an empty canoe. If we'd had gear, we may not have made it through the low water and swampy areas. It was a concious calculated risk that almost left us uncomfortable for an evening. Many times, a few ounces can make the difference between a night of discomfort and real risk. For non-alpine multipitch climbing, I carry the following in a little bag on the back of my harness: Ultra-lightweight, breathable, water resistant jacket w/hood. Thermal headband and space blanket stuffed in the pockets. Sometimes I also carry a clean pair of warm socks, which can double as gloves or just mean warm feet at a forced bivy. Petzl LED headlamp. Small knife. Small box of matches. Partial roll of athletic tape (my on-the-wall first aid kit ) A couple of power bars, and/or tubes of 'goo'. One 32 ounce Nalgene bottle of water (slung seperate from the bag). If it is really hot, I'll use a power drink instead of plain water. In my backpack at the base of the climb, I have an extra bottle of water, small first aid kit, map and compass, ultralight breathable pants to go with the jacket, and extra batteries for the headlamp. While climbing, that's about 2 pounds for the water and 2 pounds for gear (another 4 pounds in the backpack). Over the years, that 4 pounds on my fanny has turned many potential 'epics' into minor inconveniences. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by The KGB: These are the same folks that will place hair from an endangered species in a park, to make people think that that area needs to be sealed off because some non-existent lynx has passed through. KGB, in the same spirit, this is not a flame either, but that statement is completely false. I know exactly what 'scandal' you are referring to. I also realize that it has gotten a lot of comments from some conservative politicians and commentators, but most those statements are completely incorrect. The actual story is that scientists from the National Interagency Canada Lynx Survey were concerned about the accuracy of the lab doing DNA testing on Forest Service provided hair samples. It was not a matter of 'hey, they never report Canada Lynx...', it was 'how could there possibly be more Feral Housecats in these wilderness areas than bobcats and other expected species?' So, the scientists informed at least one supervisor, in writing, that they intended to send known, but unlabeled samples to the lab. The labs accuracy was about 0%. As in, you'd have better odds of winning the lottery than the lab getting a solid test result. The scientists then committed the true 'scandal', they suggested that, since really large amounts of money was being paid to the lab, the lab should, perhaps, provide accurate testing... Well, it turns out that, in an arangement that could only be governmental, unlabeled test samples are prohibited under the lab's contract with the Forest Service (apparently, the lab would have charged more in the first place if some form a quality assurance was to be included). The lab protested and the top management of the project, who had never been notified of the test samples, launched an investigation and removed the scientists and at least one supervisor from the project. The Washington Times ran a wildly inaccurate version of the story and alledged "biofraud". Many conservatives took the story at face value and proceeded to elaborate on it. Here are the things that I really like about this story: 1. The lab is still taking our money for doing basically nothing 2. The Washington Times drafted a large ad, outlining the inaccuracies of the original "biofraud" article (which the Times broke!) A salesman then contacted the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE), showed them the pre-drafted ad, and proposed that the group pay the paper $9,450 to run the ad and 'set the record straight'. The Times finally ran a partial retraction of some aspects of the original story after the 'sales pitch' was covered in other papers. 3. Triggering the Endagered Species Act with a Canada lynx would almost certainly not have an impact on logging or development. The species is easily relocated and accomodated. 4. Despite a partial retraction, and an attempt to extort ad money, the Washington Times ran still another story, spinning the General Accounting Office's report on the matter, as a partial vindication of the original story. No where does the ad quote the actual summary findings (IE, no criminal intent). However, it devotes several paragraphs to 'angered lawmakers', who give us such memorable logic as: "If the biologists were testing the lab, 'it shows a fundamental mistrust that these scientists have for the very science they are using. This is very, very troubling,' said Rep. James V. Hansen, Utah Republican and committee chairman." -Washington Times, March 7, 2002 I find it somehow comforting that congressional committee chairman would have absolutely no grasp of the scientific method whatsoever. I find it even more comforting that some Republican Leadership in the House puts more trust in the Washington Times (owned by the Reverend Sun Yung Moon's Church of Unification). Than in the non-partisan General Accounting Office... -jjf

quote:Originally posted by pizzachef: I'm not trying to downtalk the Garmins, but my Magellan floats. I even tried it...the battery compartment is watertight, so it traps a little air, which I guess provides enough bouyant force even with batteries in it. I don't know the depth/time ratings though -pizzachef The rating is IPX7 for Meridians, same as the eTrex family. For some reason, TY's green almost floats (rides a few inches under the water in my pool). My Vista definately does not float, though it has been wet well beyond the 30 minute, 1m rating many times. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by pizzachef: I'm not trying to downtalk the Garmins, but my Magellan floats. I even tried it...the battery compartment is watertight, so it traps a little air, which I guess provides enough bouyant force even with batteries in it. I don't know the depth/time ratings though -pizzachef The rating is IPX7 for Meridians, same as the eTrex family. For some reason, TY's green almost floats (rides a few inches under the water in my pool). My Vista definately does not float, though it has been wet well beyond the 30 minute, 1m rating many times. -jjf

I just had a reminder of the importance of the old Boy Scout motto. A few days ago, a friend and I decided to do a casual climb together to kick off the spring at "Tahquitz" (Lily Rock near Idyllwild, CA). We've both been there many times and decided to keep the day casual by picking moderate routes. The approach was sunny and warmer than we expected. By the time we dropped our packs at the base of "Traitor Horn", we were both wishing we had worn shorts. We both seriously considered leaving our fleece pull overs with our packs, but decided it would be windy on top. Three pitches (rope lengths) up, the sun was gone, the temp had dropped about 25 degrees (F), and the weather was toggling between sleet and snow. We work well together, and made a quick, safe, retreat. But, had the weather turned any fouler, or had we run into any snags, we almost certainly would have put the space blanket and matches that I have lugged, unused, out of habit, for years, to good use. When we got back to Humber Park, we were glad to see that the cotton shorts and t-shirt hikers that we had seen in the morning had made it back to their car and departed. We joked about how cold and wet they must have been, but as you can see from the picture below, we were a little cold and wet ourselves. Remember, even just a mile or two in the freezing rain can be miserable, or even dangerous. It is worth carrying a few extra pounds of stuff to be prepared. -jjf A cold, but happy Tracy...

quote:Originally posted by TimC: Shoebox - thanks for the link. I have topos of the places I frequent most often but the last area I was in I only had the forest service map and neither the trail I started on nor the trail I ended up on were marked. A lot of times, trails are not marked on USGS topo maps. That is why you can also check the cache coordinates on the NAPP aerial image data on our site (LostOutdoors). Good Luck, -jjf

quote:Originally posted by mcb: [snip] That said, I found that the longer I read this thread the more I was moving to lookingalone's side of the issue despite it being a general bad idea. The general air of supremecy and condicending attitude toward one geocacher's mistake really anoyed me. [snip] I don't recall anyone conceding that a mistake had been made. I read a post that basically stated 'To heck with trees, I am master of all I survey... Ya gotta a problem with my actions, step outside...' More tact would be nice, but sugar coated or not, pills like this are poison for a sport looking for outdoor access. I've seen this before, there is always a few folks who think that they should pick and choose rules that apply to them. To heck with rock art, and a moritorium on bolting, I'm gonna put up my lines... Bang, Hueco Tanks is greatly restricted to climbers. Of course, the folks creating the friction never see themselves as selfish, raining on the parade for others. The stupid-powers-that-be are to blame... After your post, I re-read this thread. Most of the strongest insults were directed at an abstract description. I wish that less direct language had been used, but a thread that asked about this as a conceptual practice, IE not citing existing caches, would have drawn strong language as well. It seems possible that 'lookingalone' would still have felt insulted. Tact and consideration not withstanding, there is still the problem of the shoe's fit, so to speak. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by lookingalone: Besides, I wouldn’t bat an eye if I cut the whole tree down and put the cache in the stump. You see, we were put on this earth to rule it, not be ruled by nature... What about the rule of law? I'm sorry that people spoke as if you were an abstract person - welcome to the internet. As you noted, it is easier to talk trash on the keyboard, than face to face... Still, there are two factors that you are either purposely ignoring, or are too hurt and angry to have gotten from the posts: #1. This activity is illegal on most public land. Check the laws. In many cities, this may be illegal for certain species of trees on your own land. If you don't like it, work for democratic change. In the mean time, try to keep activities legal with regards to the sport. #2. Drilling even a modest hole into live wood often creates a real risk of death and disease for a tree. Go to a nursury and ask. A tree is a surprisingly fragile living organism. If you want to keep it in perspective, look at your comments. You talk like a tough and sturdy customer. So, would you want to put a 1/4" bit in the drill and drill half the length of the bottle into your own body? Would it kill you? Probably not, but if you did not treat and cover the wound, your chances of serious complications would greatly increase... When you get over the insults, the factors above remain. This is not a good practice for the tree, the sport, or for earning the respect of the majority of your fellow cachers. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by harrkev: It is almost maddening. Spending an extra $1.00 to add a couple of inductors and caps to the power input would solve so many problems. I wish that they would fix problems like these. If only it were that simple! Having taken a dozen or so products through FCC testing, I can personally attest you can cover your circuit board with caps, inductors, and fer. beads until it looks like a fancy Chia Pet, and still not nec. pass the open field test. I've had a case where we were whisper quiet, changed wall adapter suppliers, and been back in RF hell. Still, you're right. I know that a lot of HAM operators would get along better with their neighbors if receiver makers would spend a few dollars more. It's a little funny to watch a guy (or gal) with a big radio ant. on the roof explain to his neighbor that the problem is the cheap radio receiver, not the transmitter next door, but many times the HAM enthusiast is right. -jjf

Oh, one more thing - NEVER go by leaf color!!! Most of these plants look dramatically different from season to season, and can have leaves of almost any color. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by laraley: heh, heh, heh, evil wicked laugh. I am NOT allergic to those plants. Never have been. Unless you are almost 60, cross your fingers and don't gloat. It is quite common for people with a exceptionally low reaction to urushiol (that nasty poison oil in these plants) to suddenly develop a fairly severe reaction somewhere between their late 20's and late 50's. It might be hormonal, there is actually a binding protein involved, or it might be slight enzyme variations, but it happens. I once saw a camper learn this first hand. She attempted to show off her immunity by squating in a large poison oak bush and answering the call of nature. By Sunday night, she was a truly, and I mean truly, miserable camper. Sometimes, Fortuna smiles on us...

quote:Originally posted by laraley: heh, heh, heh, evil wicked laugh. I am NOT allergic to those plants. Never have been. Unless you are almost 60, cross your fingers and don't gloat. It is quite common for people with a exceptionally low reaction to urushiol (that nasty poison oil in these plants) to suddenly develop a fairly severe reaction somewhere between their late 20's and late 50's. It might be hormonal, there is actually a binding protein involved, or it might be slight enzyme variations, but it happens. I once saw a camper learn this first hand. She attempted to show off her immunity by squating in a large poison oak bush and answering the call of nature. By Sunday night, she was a truly, and I mean truly, miserable camper. Sometimes, Fortuna smiles on us...

quote:Originally posted by gnbrotz: Everyone else: How about it? Who will match my pledge? I'd match your $3. For one thing, it is a nice gesture, for another, it seems a small price to pay to avoid another heated MOC discussion. -jjf

FWIW, I think that this is a small Meridian display issue. We just lined up an eTrex yellow, a Legend, a Vista, a GPS315, a GPS320, and a map 330x and the times were essentially the same. The Meridian green is about 3 seconds behind. -jjf

FWIW, I have been writing to the web site about once every two weeks for a couple of months. I did a Canadian page for http://www.lostoutdoors.com but wanted to get formal permission before posting it. I can't get anyone to write back, even to say "No"! Perhaps if I pretended to be Canadian I'd at least get a response. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by phantom4099: mark(1) your current position then project a point past the fire(2). Move down the road and mark position again(3) then again past the fire Unless I'm missing something, it seems like you would still want a compass of some kind to determine the bearing to project each waypoint. -jjf

quote:Originally posted by darford: Alan, Your suggestion would also work on my Meridian Gold. Without the compass, I would have to move in the direction of the smoke a short way to get a heading (bearing) for it, then I can project a waypoint way beyond it. If I had my Brunton compass with me I wouldn't need to move. Do the same for a second sighting and download to Mapsend or TOPO!. Thanks for the suggestion. But a compass, built in or external, will generally be more accurate. Remember that most GPSr's infer bearing based on positional shift. A slight change in unit orientation or body position can easily create an error of 20 degrees or more (there was a good article on this in a magazine recently, but I can't find it here at the moment - I'll try to dig it up). -jjf

quote:Originally posted by macro: For the benefit of us who arent trained as cartographers, what is the actual difference in the different standards? Also, when referring to "datum", exactly what are you all referring to. I would love to understand this a little better and this seems like a good place to break it completely down. Basically, the problem is that the earth is, geometrically, a form of 'spheroid' - a slightly flattened sphere. A spheroid is an 'undevelopable' shape, that is, there is no way to unfold it to lie flat. The implication is that there is no way to simply 'flatten' the earth onto a printed map and maintain accuracy regarding distances, relative bearings, etc. So, cartographers use 'projection systems' to flatten the earth onto maps and try to preserve some semblence of accuracy. There are lots of projection systems, or mapping datum - and they use different mathmatical methods depending upon their use (cylindrical, conic, planar, etc.) - ie, what mapping aspect they are trying to keep the most accurate. The problem with NAD27 is that the model is old and flawed. You basically calculate a result, then apply a century of empiracally gathered offset data to correct for problems with the model. -jjf

As mentioned, NAD-83 and WGS-84 are essentially the same. NAD-27 is, thankfully, becoming a thing of the past. If you love accuracy, I would avoid NAD-27 except when your printed map has no other scale. -jjf