Tahoe1849er

That did the trick, I really appreciate it. I asked Garmin this question yesterday and you were quicker then they! THANKS

Huge help! THANKS!!!!!!!!!

Since Garmin publishes very little information on how to use all of the features packed into the Oregon 400T or the 450T does anyone know of a good 3rd party users manual or video? My fingers are getting worn out emailing Garmin Tech Support with the little questions. Their FAQ section is horrible! THANX

When I purchased my Oregon 400T I used it on the highway to navigate from point A to point B. I could get it to display a map that is very similar to a Nuvi which project a view across a plain where you could see ahead. It was ver nice. I liked it so much I got City Navigator on DVD and installed it. Now I do not have the really great map view anymore. Does anyone know how to restore it?

Hi, I really appreciate your reply and have tried changing the background color schemes on the Oregon. Yes it does help a little. Is it enough to keep the Oregon, I am not sure at this point. I have owned a couple of different GPSr and find that the screen reading in sunlight seems to be an issue globally. It is unfortunate the the entire industry can't figure this out. Hnadheld GPS users are typically outdoors and the industry does not factor that in when creating their new devices. Thanks again for you reply, I hope other users out there will notify the manufacture of the GPSr of their choice of their displessure with screen brightness while outdoors.

THANKS to all, I'll try the white background idea and for everyone Garmin support got back to me on this question and said there is no fix but reccommended the 550T. I think they know they blew it. Thanks again.

I am sure all of you who own a 400t have concerns over the screen brightness outdoors. Works great indoors. Has anyone heard of a fix or is Garmin reccomending anything for a fix? Is there anything possible in the fuiture? I am considering returning mine for something that one can see outdoors, any suggestions?

Pete this is actually what I am talking about but hesitated to say. Thanks! I think by these posts folks will understand that quality verses quanity is important to cachers. Also I thought it would be a great topic to talk about and I see we have generated some great comments.

No need here to get testy, just looking for opinions. I think you're right that the CO should be responsible, unfortunately at times they are not, largly they are though, so this is a good thing. Let us all hope that we as Geocachers will take pride in our caches and take care of them or not place them. Your posts are great!

Vanducks is right on target here. I hope more cachers will read your thoughts. I get a little weary of those types of caches that are not well thought out and applied.

I agree, but the bigger question is, will the owner come back to maintain it or clean up his or her mess?

There are two in Monterey Bay California, GC1F2RM and GCT98H

Hey out there just looking for some feedback. I am seeing a lot of caches that obviously will not survive a wet winter. When in your opinion does a cache become just litter out in the woods or on the streets? I am seeing many seasoned veteran cachers using very inferior containers or their chioce of sites are very poor. Obviously their cache will turn into rubbish littering our world. What do you think? Is this something to consider?

Could you provide a link to where you are seeing that? I must be missing it. Magellan will not support the Meridian. Even if you purchased it 3 short years ago. I would be wary of buying any products from Magellan

When using Google Earth or Weekly Cache Notifications it would be helpful to be abe to port the coordinates of a cache of interst to the search engine to see addtional caches in a list format. Would this be helpful to anyone else?

I am going to call your bluff on this one. Looking at your profile I would say you generally like multi's more than most people. Also, you tend you go after slightly harder caches than average and prefer them to regular sized caches, but you will tolerate smalls. So all that being said, if we were to go find all the regular sized, 2.5 / 2.5 multi-caches, even with those distinctions, some of those are always going to be better than the others. In fact they will run the gamat between awsome and awful. All you have addressed is specific types of caches. Within those types there will always be some that stand out. I am advocating for an easy way to find those that stand out. I agree with Quazar, there is a rating system to guide one to a cache of their liking. Yet I also agree there should be a rating system. I believe if the cache is found it is rated by the finder in their "Found Cache" post on a scale of 1 to 10. The data base can then average that rating with the others posted. Hence, an averaged rating above 7 would say that this cache is higher then average with average being a 5. My guess would be that the majority of caches found would be around 5 or 6.