Seawind

I have submitted this question to Groundspeak, but with the long holiday it may take a while for a response. Maybe someone here knows. I tried changing my username to "Seawind". Before attempting it, I went to "Find Another Player" and searched for that name. It came up with similar names: Seawind Cacher seawind0721 seawind36 Seawind77 seawindak seawindbavaria Seawinder Seawinds seawinds4 But no just plain "Seawind" seems to exist. However, when I go to the name change form, I get the "not available" message. What does that mean? Was there at one time a user with that exact name who no longer shows as "Another Player" and the name is still unavailable? Do I have any chance of getting it? Thanks!

Firefox browser has Zoom Text Only function... It looks like for IE it is "Text Size", but there are a limited number of choices (no custom). I still like mine at 139% Zoom and Text Size "Medium". At least I know now why the photos appear differently! Thanks!

Kunarion, it was the zoom! Mine (Internet Explorer) was set to 139% for easier text reading. When I set it to 100%, the image looks very similar to the source. That answers the question. Now, is there a way to get 100% images and 139% text? Thanks so much for clearing this up!

I've noticed that when I upload a photo to geocaching.com and then link to it using HTML in my cache listing, that the quality of the photo seems to degrade. Even smaller photos such as 640 X 480 or smaller seem to degrade. For example, if I compare the uploaded photo as displayed in the listing with the same photo viewed locally on my computer with the Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer, I can usually see a difference. The local copy looks better. I have tried uploading to third party sites such as Photobucket and get the same results. I always resize the photos to 640 or less using Photoshop Elements rather than letting geocaching.com do the resizing. Why would the quality seem to be poorer in the listing? Does the Web site further compress even smaller photos? Or is it just that the browser renders the photo differently than the photo viewer? Any suggestions for getting great-looking photos in listings would be much appreciated!

Thanks! My idea for the "ALR" would be to suggest (but not require) the cacher to visit the wilderness site and take a photo. The text would indicate, "you will find the cache at the posted coordinates and can log it, but you will be missing out on a terrific hike...". The sites I have in mind are remote peaks and don't have any walls, signboards or structures, so it means relying pretty much just on rocks and trees which is not as easy.

A good deal of the hiking area around my home is designated wilderness and therefore off limits to placing geocaches. On several occasions, I have gotten around this by making it a puzzle cache that requires the solver to visit a site, such as a peak, inside the wilderness, gather some clues, then find the cache which is located outside the wilderness boundary. For example, visit a peak inside wilderness and identify which of the photos in the listing was taken there. Or, ask the cacher to take a photo of themselves at the wilderness peak and then find the cache at the posted coordinates outside the boundary. Or, answer a series of multiple choice questions at the wilderness site which leads to the cache outside the boundary. But, I'm running out of clever ideas! Does anyone have any ideas that require (or suggest) visiting a site inside wilderness and solving a puzzle there that provides the coordinates of the cache? Keeping in mind that nothing can physically be left as a clue at the wilderness site. Any suggestions greatly appreciated!

No guarantees, but this might do it: Setup - System - Configure Keys - User Key - Single Tap - Page Loop - Compass That lets you go directly to the compass screen when single-tapping the user key. It works great! himilecyclist

I discovered today that, contrary to its name, the Oregon 650t does not do very well in the rain! The problem I encountered was that the rain on the touchscreen was constantly causing various functions to be activated. I had the unit mounted to my bike handlebars, and the screen backlight, which is set to timeout in 30 seconds, stayed on continuously from the pressure of the rain on the screen. On several occasions, I found it almost impossible to use the screen as the rain on the surface was causing it to do all sorts of crazy stuff. But, one good thing came of this: I finally tried changing the Touch Sensitivity from "High" (apparently the default) to "Normal". BIG improvement! Making that change seems to have made a big difference, and hopefully I won't despise the touchscreen quite so much now. I can highly recommend trying the sensitivity setting change: Setup / Accessibility / Touch Sensitivity.

I believe the 3.10 upgrade has made a huge improvement in the compass. Until the upgrade, I had about given up even trying to use the compass, especially under tree cover. I even bought a cheapie regular compass as a substitute. On many occasions, the Distance to Destination would be correctly counting down, but the compass would be pointing the exact opposite direction! After applying the upgrade, I took the unit out for an extended hike. The compass now seems rock solid and no longer jumps around every which way like it did before. Even if I hold the unit upside down at my side while walking, when raising it back up, it is still locked on target. That is a much appreciated change! I tested it under light and moderate tree cover and it worked flawlessly. I haven't tried it under heavy cover yet. Based on what I have seen today, what was for me the biggest single flaw of the 600 series, has been fixed. Thanks, Garmin!

I have used both units extensively and definitely prefer the button interface on the 62. HOWEVER, the Oregon 650 has two huge advantages for me: First, it doesn't crash like the four other Garmins I have owned have (earlier Oregons and 62S). The second advantage is unlimited geocaches! No longer do I have to limit what I load and can include all the caches I own, have found or are likely to find. I have around 6,000 loaded so far, something the 62 can't do, or at least not easily. I would definitely recommend the new Oregon. But, if the 62 is ever upgraded to match its capabilities, I would very seriously consider switching! I recently spent a lot of time in deep Oregon Coast forests comparing the two units. Sometimes one did a better job and sometimes the other did. I do think the 62 may have had a very slight advantage, but I ended up doing fine with the Oregon. Good luck!

I have had the same experience with the compass. In any kind of tree cover, it is worthless. I have pretty much given up trying to use the compass very much, and, like you, just watch the numbers counting down. That brings up the question: If the unit knows its position relative to the destination, it should be able to display the compass accurately. And a question I have wondered about: If my $15 cheapie compass can always display directions accurately, regardless of tree cover, why can't the GPS receivers use the same method, but converted to an electronic format? I assume the answer is because they rely on GPS signals rather than magnetic fields, but why can't they use either or both? I also agree with you: The 6xx units have less reliable compasses than my older 62. I sure hope they can improve the situation with a software update!

Thanks for all the tips! I am trying the Geocache Dashboard. Looks promising.

I'm pretty sure I read one of the features of the new Garmin Oregon 6xx line is the ability to view photos included with geocache listings. But, when I view listings on my 650t, I don't get the photos. Am I missing something or is the unit not capable of this feature? Thanks!

While my Oregon 650t is far from perfect, it does have two HUGE advantages over all the older Garmin models: First it doesn't fatally crash on booting like the two older Oregons and three 62 models I have owned did. Second, I can store as many geocaches as I will ever possibly want on it. Those are HUGE advantages and worth putting up with bugs and annoyances. I'm pretty happy!

For the most part, I really like my Garmin Oregon 650t. I would say my biggest complaint is the touchscreen functionality for exiting the Map screen. When I select a geocache and touch "Go", it leaves me on the Map screen. I greatly prefer to be on the Compass screen, so always tap the "X" in the lower left corner to return to the Menu, then select Compass. The problem is the "X" is VERY sensitive. About 50% of the time, tapping it invokes the Mark Waypoint function, turning the "X" into a curved arrow to exit back to normal mode. There are many times when I have to tap the lower left corner over and over to finally get back to the Menu. I thought I would be clever and set the User button to invoke the Compass screen. That works great, but when you "X" out of the Compass screen, it still goes back to the Map screen and I'm in the same situation. Does anyone else have this same problem? Any workarounds? Thanks!

Larry, I actually live near their headquarters in Utah and went there (about a month ago). They had just finished installing the first 650 protector on another customer's unit (he got it free for being first!). Mine was the second one they did. So they have the "mold" for sure. They probably just haven't added it to their list yet. I would suggest calling them and asking. They have been very helpful in the past. Good luck!

ZAGG does make a screen protector for the new Oregons. I got the second one they made installed on my 650t and it is great!

Update: I repeated the hike described in my original post today, using both the Garmin Oregon 650t and my old 62S. At the first waypoint, the 62S had a reading about 30 feet better than the Oregon. However, at the second waypoint, the Oregon was better by about 25 feet. I stopped at a few other heavy-cover waypoints on the way back, and the Oregon did great. I now feel much better about the Oregon's accuracy. These are hard tests! I still don't know for sure if turning off "Lock on Road" did the trick or not, but making that setting change seems to be a good bet for hikers. Thanks again for all the input!

After loading my Garmin Oregon 650t from GSAK, I expected to find the "Child Waypoints" associated with caches under "Waypoints" on the Garmin. They weren't there. I finally found them under "Extras", stored in various confusing folders. On my previous Garmins, I believe they did load as waypoints. Any suggestions on how to load them under "Waypoints" on the Oregon 650? Thanks much!

Thanks for all the great comments and suggestions. I conducted another test, directly comparing the 650t and 62S, and had much better results. Gitchee-Gumee, I went to Setup/Routing. "Activity" was set to "Direct Routing", which sounded logical, so I left it there. I left "Route Transitions" on "Auto". But, "Lock On Road" was "Yes", so I switched it to "No". Capt caper, I turned the unit on and let it set to soak in the data for over an hour. I calibrated the compasses of both units and headed out on a hike to a geocache in very heavy tree cover. Neither unit did a very good job of getting me right to the cache, which wasn't too surprising. However, when I did arrive, the Oregon 650t had a reading of 25 feet and the 62S had a reading of 60 feet. I then spent about 45 minutes doing various approaches to the cache from distances up to 300 feet away. The readings of both units jumped around quite a lot. However, on average, the Oregon did a BETTER job than the 62S. Not a lot better, but noticeably so. This was very encouraging. I don't know if either of the above steps was the solution or not. Also, I plan to try the original hike again and compare both units. The trees are perhaps even thicker at that site. Right now, anyway, I am very encouraged.

I've been using my new Garmin Oregon 650t for about two weeks. In general, I have really liked it. Today, however, it seems to have failed a big test. I own a multicache (GCVDPE)on the Oregon Coast. It involves finding three stages in VERY heavy tree cover. I have hiked to the three stages many times, and the cache has been found 60 times with very few problems, so I am extremely confident in the coordinates. On my past hikes, I have used a variety of Garmin units, most recently a GPSMap 62S. With that unit, I consistently get readings of about 50 feet upon arrival at a stage, and then a reading of about 20 feet after waiting a few seconds. I have had that experience many times. Today, I used the Oregon 650t for the first time. I knew I was getting close to a stage, so kept an eye on the compass. It was jumping erratically. It also indicated the stage was over 200 feet off the trail, which is not the case. In fact, I was unable to find it at all using the receiver, and only finally found it by memory. At the first stage, I had a reading of 200 feet, bouncing around considerably. I waited, and couldn't get any better reading. So, I switched from "GPS + GLONASS" to just "GPS". The reading almost immediately jumped from the 200s to 100 feet. But, I still couldn't get any better than that. I switched back to "GPS + GLONASS" and waited for about five minutes. Finally, the reading narrowed down to around 50 feet. I had almost exactly the same experience quite some time later at another stage. If I were relying on the receiver and didn't know where the stages were, I wouldn't have found them. I wish I had had the 62 along for comparison, but on many previous visits, the 62 has done MUCH better than the Oregon. On all my units, including the new Oregon, I have WAAS/EGNOS "On". This is very disappointing after reading how spectacular the accuracy is supposed to be on the new Oregons. What have other users experienced? I plan to do some more testing, directly comparing the two units under heavy tree cover. Any comments or suggestions much appreciated!

Seldom-found caches, both mine and caches in my area that are very deserving, are a frequent topic of thought for me. There's no question that it is frustrating to see caches which are unquestionably high above the average quality level and yet which are only found a few times a year. Some personal observations: First, I try to think of it like this: If I enjoyed the process of setting up the cache and returning to it for maintenance, and if at least one other person finds it (almost a guarantee), then it is worthwhile. Second, on more than one occasion, I have been about to archive an ultra-lonely cache, but just before doing it, I get a "found" log for it in which the finder describes what a great experience it was. And so, I decide against archiving. Third, I have also had several occasions in which I consider archiving a cache since it seems like it hasn't had any traffic. But, when I review the logs over the past year or so, will find that there are quite a few more visits than I had thought. When you feel frustrated about a particular cache, just bring up the logs and reread them. Just hearing the positive comments that others have written may make you feel better. It is certainly true that cache traffic slows way down after the locals have had a chance to visit, but I have also noted quite a few instances of new names showing up, either brand new cachers or someone new in the area. Those folks will quite often go after a bunch of nearby caches and you will see a spike in finds. Always a nice thing! Owning caches and building up a lot of positive "found" logs is definitely a long-term undertaking. The best thing we can do to expedite the process is make sure our caches are of above average quality and that they are very well maintained. Having a good reputation as a hider goes a long way! Good luck!

Thanks for all the great info! One more question: My caches have somewhere around 10,000 finds at present. Is it reasonable to expect to be able to download all of those logs with GSAK? How does it handle limiting the amount of data per day? Does it continue downloads automatically each day if necessary? Thanks again!

Thanks! Does GSAK download directly from Groundspeak? Are you still limited to five files per day, etc? Also, is there a way to return the count of "Favorite" votes each cache has?

I would like to write a computer program that reads GPX files and builds custom statistics on my OWNED caches. In order to do that, I will need a file containing all the "Found" logs for each cache. The regular Pocket Queries I download have a lot of logs, but apparently not all of them. Some of my caches have over 1,000 finds. I understand GSAK might be an option for doing this, but I haven't yet used it. Before taking the plunge, are there any other options for getting GPX files with all data and logs for my caches? Any other suggestions related to this also appreciated. Thanks!