U.N.C.L.E.

I hope this isn't a case of me overlooking the obvious but I am having trouble with the following situation: My premium membership is almost due to be re-newed. I have had a new credit card issued this year so went to the 'Update Credit Card Details' section on the gc.com website. I entered the new details (i.e. account number and name is the same but expiry date and security code is different). The website told me that my account was updated but when I check my details online the old expiry date is still there (obviously the security code is not shown but I have to assume it hasn't updated either). Tried again and same thing. I am now unsure whether gc.com has my updated card info. If not, when they come to re-new my membership later this month the transaction will be declined. Can anyone offer a thought?

I took the offending etrex 10 to a Garmin agent and they have just phoned to say that they reloaded the software with the latest version and all is now functioning perfectly. They have no explanation for what may have happened and it is the first time they have encountered anything like this with an etrex 10. So a happy ending even if we don't know exactly what happened. Many thanks for your help. I learned a lot about the etrex 10 from your advice!

Nope. Made no difference downloading the GPX file from another PC. At least that is eliminated and we can be certain that the fault is internal to the etrex. When it says "Adjust your search parameters" what does it mean? I pressed the menu key and it gave me the options of Spell Search, Search Near, Apply filter, Show found and Setup Geocaches. I selected "Search Near". What would the other options offer me? Is there some other way of setting up search parameters that I may not be aware of?

It definitely has picked up satellites and the test cache I'm using is only about 200 metres from where I am. I'm just booting up my old PC that I used to download caches until about a year ago. I'm interested to see if I can get a file downloaded via that to work properly on the etrex. Probably a stab in the dark but I don't like coincidences and it seems coincidence that the trouble started immediately after downloading updates to my PC. Will let you know what happens (should take a minute or two). Failing that, do you think I have an etrex 10 that has gone rogue?

It definitely has picked up satellites and the test cache I'm using is only about 200 metres from where I am. I'm just booting up my old PC that I used to download caches until about a year ago. I'm interested to see if I can get a file downloaded via that to work properly on the etrex. Probably a stab in the dark but I don't like coincidences and it seems coincidence that the trouble started immediately after downloading updates to my PC. Will let you know what happens (should take a minute or two). Failing that, do you think I have an etrex 10 that has gone rogue?

How do I know if it has found my location. Do you mean waiting to ensure that the device has picked up satellite coverage after turning it back on or does it mean something else? What do you mean "search by name"? BTW, if I input the co-ords for a cache manually as a waypoint the receiver works perfectly. It is just GPX files that are tripping it up. Sorry to be difficult !!!! Really am appreciating your help.

I should have also mentioned that the GPX file is showing in the registry.

Have done as suggested. Deleted all GPX files and done a master reset as per Garmin's instructions. Downloaded a cache near to home to test and when I went to Nearest Geocaches got the message "No results found- Try adjusting search parameters". Went to menu and selected "Search near" and "My current Location" and still nothing.

Thank you for helping me with this. My lack of tech-knowledge may be coming to the fore here! I have been through all the various files that appear when you connect the receiver to the computer (and yes, a PC running Windows). I cannot see any hidden GPX files. All the GPX files are in the directory where they have always gone. I will delete all GPX files as you suggest. Reboot (I assume you mean turn off and on?), load some fresh GPX files, reboot and try again. If that doesn't work what is a "hard reset"?

Absolutely! All files are deleted after the cache is found. There would be, at most, thirty cache files on the receiver.

Throwing myself at the mercy of others more technologically-savvy than myself! I have been using an etrex 10 for 18 months. It has worked fine. Suddenly GPX cache files will download from gc.com and will be listed as being present in the receiver but when you go to "Geocaches" (listing the nearest twenty) all freshly loaded caches will not display (even though they ARE in the nearest twenty). Caches downloaded before yesterday still display fine. I have not altered any settings on the receiver. I checked the Garmin Communicator plugin I am using is the latest version and it is. I am downloading from a PC. Downloaded updates to Adobe Flash Player and Java two days ago and this problem has only occurred since then. Coincidence or a possible explanation? Is anyone aware of a fault with gc.com downloads? I really am not tech savvy so any suggestions would be very gratefully received.

Hi Jumpin Jack. I didn't realise that the matter was being looked at by a Groundspeak paid employee. I was under the impression that the reviewer who contacted me was a volunteer reviewer. Now I understand the delay in replying and the references to it being the weekend. I had no idea that "lackey" meant the person was an employee. I wish that had been made clearer to me. I agree that if that is indeed the case then this thread should go quiet now. Thank you for that information.

Repeating a fact does not make it an agenda. It depends on the reason the person repeats the fact. If they repeat the fact with the intention of promoting it then it may be an agenda. If a teacher stands up in front of a class and says "Hitler killed people" does that mean they are advocating that others go out and do the same thing? Of course not. Therefore, the stating of the fact is not an agenda.

Walts Hunting, the concerns that G had have been well canvassed in our local geocaching community. In simply acknowledging that that is the reason he left it isn't stating anything that any of the local cachers don't already know about or have their own opinions on. And WE are not saying that the hobby is destructive etc etc. That's what makes it a non-agenda. We are happy to remove that line if that is all that is worrying the reviewers. BUT THEY WON'T TALK TO US! That's the problem. Sheesh!

All of this could be settled if the reviewers just communicated with us, which goes back to the original point of the thread. It seems they are discussing us in their secret forum but won't actually communicate with us. What's the point in that? I see another poster seems to also have concerns over reviewer communication with cachers. Perhaps its something Groundspeak needs to look at. A simple note along the lines of "This could take a few days to sort out. Will keep in touch" could have allayed our fears. Instead we simply got a "Refuse to publish" note and then no further response to our requests for further information etc. We have no idea what has happened to our cache. Hence our concern.

Further, people keep talking about the account being "the account of the controversial figure". It was never THEIR account. The account was the group's. They were just the frontman who did the admin for us. Much of the controversial posts that may have appeared on forums etc under the old username was stuff that the rest of the group knew nothing about. Now we are being penalised in a "guilt by association" situation. It was OUR account as much as theirs. If there was a way of us starting a new account and having the premium membership transferred over, we would do it. But there isn't. We are getting so much grief because people won't look at the facts and won't believe us.

I agree Touchstone that it would have been better to start a new account but we would have lost our premium membership on the old one. There wouldn't have been a problem with keeping the old account under a new username if people just acquainted themselves with the facts and used a bit of tolerance.

If we said they are no longer caching because they fell over and broke their leg and can't get out and about any more would that be an agenda? It is simply a statement of fact in exactly the same way thay saying they left caching because of concerns over the activites safety is a staement of fact. What really seems to be going on is censorship by the reviewers.

OK, I've just read the posts that have been put up while I was writing our last post. NO. Sgt_Wilson is NOT U.N.C.L.E. We are angry that we are being accused of this. How can we prove ourselves. Can we present our drivers licences to someone?

No, U.N.C.L.E. is not OUR old username. U.N.C.L.E. was the username for an account that was a group of people who went caching together. Any problem with that? Is there a rule that says an account can only be held by an individual? As is the nature of groups the people within it have changed. There was one individual in the group, let's call them G, who did all the logging and other caching admin for our group. I guess because of that they became the "face" of our group in the eyes of other local cachers. But that was THEIR interpretation and the name never referred to an individual even though some other saw it that way. G has retired from caching. The rest of us are continuing with the group. Is there a problem with that? We decided to change the accounts username to mark the change. We also thought it would be nice to hide a cache to commemorate a long-term cacher who was moving on from the game. Because others knew G as U.N.C.L.E. that's why we referred to him by this name. Most local cachers wouldn't know who G was! We explained all this to the reviewers but they won't listen to us. When the overseas "lackey" emailled us he even greeted us with "Hi U.N.C.L.E" even though that has not been the account's username for about 10 days. So where did he get it from? The only logical explanation is that the local reviewers gave him that information as part of their attempt to whip up a controversy (see our earlier post that explains the relationship between G and the local reviewers). Have we done something wrong with the username change?

But how is it an agenda? It's just a staement of fact. That's why he has retired from caching. If that was all that was bothering the reviewer couldn't they have said so and we would have considered re-wording? We re-worded the text once (even though we didn't think there was anything wrong with it) but as they won't talk to us we can't do anything more. If there is an "agenda" at work here we think it is flowing in the opposite direction. The person who's departure from caching we would like to commemorate crossed swords many times with the local reviewers in this country (in their capacity as geocachers, not reviewers) and now we honestly think they (the local reviewers) are loathe to see a tribute cache to him so are using their privileged positions as reviewers to stop it. Besides, if we removed all reference to him from the cache page the cache would presumably be published. We could then write a nice log note about him and I doubt there is anything the reviewers could do. So the reviewers are just messing us around here because they can. Yes, we are feeling a little angsty about this because we feel the reviwers are the ones with the agenda here and the system is loaded in their favour with no independent authority to oversee things.

Here is the text of the cache I submitted: This cache is at the new Dunedin City Cemetery, a development that many may not yet be aware of. At time of placing the cemetery is now open but there have been no interments as yet. As with all caches in such places please use discretion and common-sense when seeking the cache. It is not hidden on or near any location that will be used for graves. The cache is also to mark the retirement of U.N.C.L.E. who started caching back in 2004. Since then he has introduced many new people, including us, to the activity. He started the first school caching group in Dunedin and has never failed to provide help to newcomers. In recent times U.N.C.L.E. found himself concerned about the safety of the activity and its impact on the environment and wildlife so he has decided to move on to new challenges. He will be missed. Cache is a clear one litre snaplock container hidden at ground level. Please ensure it is well covered up when you replace it. Bonus point for the first person to explain the significance of the cache title. Could someone please explain how this amounts to an "agenda"?

It is absolutely appalling that a person who has access to the reviewer's forum can come into this forum and sprinkle about little bits of information about this matter and the discussions that have been held there and because we don't have access to the same reviewer forum we don't know what has been said and can't defend ourselves. We absolutely dispute that our cache was "agenda ridden". We explained ourselves to the reviewer and asked for their feedback. we were happy to consider re-wording the cache page if they reviewer could explain what they felt the problem was. They have not come back to us. Groundspeak is a business with a huge international profile and which is happy to take money for premium memberships. Yet, when it suits, it plays the "We're only an amateur volunteer organization" card. It can't have it both ways.

Hemlock, it's the 21st where we are. That's three days ago. If I treated my customers like that I wouldn't have much of a business. And we ARE customers. Groundspeak has taken our money for a premium membership. That means it now has certain obligations under consumer laws. Groundspeak is a business. It takes money from us then turns around and says that we have to wait while "volunteers" deal with issues. Funny way to run a business. All we have asked for is a little timeliness in dealing with our concerns and, if it is going to take a little bit of time, then at least have the decency to communicate with us and keep us informed. It's not much to ask is it?

Just confirming that our message was sent to the reviewer via gc.com's message system. The reviewer didn't indicate whether they preferred communication via that system or via a note on the cache page. We are happy to alter wording etc but we really need the reviewer to communicate with us. very frustrating.