Xangxa

If it's not in the guidelines then it's not a requirement. It's a reviewer preference. There is no reason not to make their job easier. There is nothing that says you can't list out 37 sub parts to your cache in 37 different formats and 29 different datums. However it's really not your reviewers job to solve your cache so much as approve where it's at. When you make that part of their job easier you have just done yourself a favor. So why keep it a secret?

Yes, yes, that's it I dont' mind supplying the coordinates any whatever format GC requires. Or even in a format that a reviewer prefers and which will smooth their workflow. But unless players are made aware of the need, problems can happen (as did with mine, although it wasn't the thread you mentioned). I can't speak as to the percentage of people working with the required format, but I can say that DegDec (DD.DDDD) is being used. I have a GPS that will not work with any other format except DegDec. I recently bought a Magellan and it will TAKE coordinates in various formats, but it will only save track files and such in the DegDec format. I also have a mapping package that will only accept DegDec coordinates. And ironically, PQ's themselve send coordinates in the DegDec format. When I export from GSAK or GPXsonar to LOC they also use the DegDec format. And if you're performing math (e.g., calculating distances between waypoints, averaging, etc.) you'll want to use DegDec format. So I think both formats need to coexist.

I'm not suggesting a programmatic change, but rather textual. I think being proactive is smoother than reaction. The problem is rooted in assumptions and clear communications is always an improvement.

This would apply to offsets, multis, letterbox hybrids, etc. There is a requirement that the additional coordinates be specified in only HDDD MM.MM when placed in the reviewer notes. But the requirement is never articulated where a player can see it, and their cache may be denied because the reviewers will interpret the coordinates in the notes differently (making them miles apart). If players knew of the requirement it would make the process smoother for both parties.

It has come to my attention that HDDD MM.MM is the only acceptable format when specifiying coordinates for cache placements (re: http://www.geocaching.com/about/glossary.aspx#WGS84 ) Could this requirement be added to the "Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines" page?

What you want is a change no one is likely to be able to effect. I suggest you close this thread, and open a new topic in the geocaching.com forum, where Jeremy might see it. Good luck You mean the mistake of asking for locations in a certain datam and format? or is there something else i missed? Good point. Morphing this thread into something positive is obviously a lost cause.

Hello? McFly? Since there is a obsession with placing blame versus improving the game, I'll change my focus and play accordingly. Here is the "hostility" 1. The approver denied my cache on the grounds that I did not provide the offset. FALSE! The coordinates were duely attached to the reviewer notes per the guidelines. 2. The approver denied my cache on the grounds that the two coordinates were miles apart. FALSE! The cooridnates were within yards of each other. I went back and double and triple checked all the coordinates. There was no discrepancy, so I asked for clarification. 3. The approver denied my cache on the grounds that ONLY the format hddd'mm.mmm' is acceptable. Now that we've got that out of the way, can we do something constructive. LIKE POST THAT REQUIREMENT in a logical location like the cache placement guidelines?

It's not about a brand of GPS, or the brand of software. It's about communicating expectations and requirements. I would like those posted clearly and explicitly and in a logical location. I want to prevent future players from suffering in the same wringer. Making their FUTURE path easier is a better reward than flogging a reviewer for their PAST mistakes.

I did provide them in that format. AFTER they articulated their expectations. It'd be helpful if the requirements, or even preferences, were communicated.

YES! It exists, even if it's buried in the illogical location of the glossary like a difficulty 5 cache.

Not every GPS uses that format. I have two units that both capture data in ddd.dddd format. Why should I be penalized for using that format? If I'm not supposed to use that format, isn't common sense to tell people that? If I'm not allowed to use the ddd.dddd format, then why does the website allow it?

This looks like a great opportunity to clear a potential landmine. The datum requirements are quite clearly specified, but coordinate format requirements need to be clearly communicated. I would recommend this be spelled out in the guides in the sections explaining offsets, multi’s, and and letterbox hybrids. And it should definitely appear on the cache submission pages. Or perhaps a mechanism on the page itself to collect the data so that it is less subject to miscalculations.

You're assumptions have completely missed the mark. 1. I did read the rules and researched them quite thoroughly. 2. I did follow the guidelines very carefully. 3. I am not trying to change any rules.

Yes, there was more. I thought I'd get my facts straight first and perhaps you can help. Can you provide the URL where the format policy exists?

Well it looks like the process is broken. I sent an email on 03/18 and received a tracking number. I did not hear anything for 2 weeks, so I requested a status update on 04/01. I still have not heard anything, and now it's been a month. So it looks like I'll have to seek my answer here. My approver made the following assertion below: Could someone direct me to the page where this policy is stated? I have searched the FAQ, Knowledge Base, Guides, and Maxwell's FAQ and could not find a reference to this policy. In fact, what I found contradicts this assertion. You are allowed to enter coordinates using the format of your choice on the cache placement page (http://www.geocaching.com/hide/report.aspx), when you specify home coordinates, and when building pocket queries.

On the Microsoft MapPoint web site, one of the downloads is the "MapPoint PushPins" which also correspond to the MSST pushpin graphics. This file has each of the delivered icons in individual BMP files. So you can copy/rename them or edit/tweak them and then use them as custom graphics for caches. The link to the download is: http://www.msdn.microsoft.com/mappoint/map...ds/default.aspx

I know that a CF GPS will work with a PCMCIA adapter. But, drivers might or might not be an issue. I've tested a HAiCOM 303s GPS using a $9 PCMCIA adapter, and it worked great on the laptop. But with XP the needed drivers may have been native to the OS, so I can't be sure if they were required. It looks like an ordinary serial device to the laptop. Speaking of serial, another option is to use a serial connector between your PPC and a "regular" GPS. I know people have done that with Magellans and Garmins. The cost is going to be about the same or cheaper in the end. Plus you get a handheld GPS that you can take into terrain and weather that would be hostile to a fragile PPC.

HAiCOM makes GPS's in CF format. You might want to try the 303MMF if you want WAAS support. Look at http://www.BuyGPSnow.com for pictures and specs. As far as GPS software for geocaching, the main players are GPSTuner http://www.gpstuner.com/screens.htm , BeeLineGPS http://www.visualgps.net/BeeLineGPS/default.htm , and Vito Navigator II http://www.vitotechnology.com/en/products/navigatorii.html For your geocache database you'll want GPXsonar http://gpxsonar.homeip.net/default.aspx

1. You might try creating the map and push pins seperately. Start with a blank map, no waypoints, and no POI's visible. I was able to create a map 85 miles tall by 88 miles wide. Also, save it directly to your hard drive and not on the PPC. Then you can create pushpins using GPXsonar (it makes better pushpins than GSAK or MSST, since it gives each type a different icon). 2. Search your device from the \My Device level (e.g., using Resco Explorer) to make sure of all maps available (*.mps) in case there are duplicates. For example X.mps might exist in \My Documents and on \Storage Card. Also, be sure you're opening a map via the *.MPS file (map) and not the *.PSP file (pushpin data).

Sorry, I double-checked and the brand is HEFTY.

How long does the appeal process take?

The last two I bought were from NewEgg.com. But getting the best price requires watching the prices, which tend to fluxuate. I got a 1Gb SD for less than $70 and it didn't require those painful rebate forms My next SD will be the 2Gb, when prices drop just a bit more. Today they have 128Mb SD's starting at $13 http://www.newegg.com/app/manufact.asp?catalog=68&DEPA=0 (select type of SD)

http://www.Handicaching.com uses a rating system to inform the physically handicapped of a cache's accessibility. Most of the rating system is pretty easy to understand. But my wife tells me I'm a terrible judge of time, distance, and angles. I'm actually getting better at "distance" since my GPS spits out concrete numbers which I can correlate with my visual perceptions. But I still need help and wanted a tool more objective than my eyeballs. I couldn't find a tool on the web so I wrote a program! I've posted it online, along with instructions, at http://www.CraigGiven.com/caching.htm (in the TOOLS section).

I am a programmer, and I can attest that this would be a major undertaking. Not to mention copyright and financial hurdles involved.

Where might one get Mapsend Topo for $50?