Deneye

Put on larger tires. They won't turn as much as a smaller one which will keep your odometer reading lower. (just remember to put the recommended size back on when appropriate )

You should see what it does when you put it on your dash and drive with your window open...maybe add the odd cross-breeze in there too... Seriously though, I use the Garmin Summit and find it to be fairly accurate over long periods of use. I live at sea level and on occasion drive off into the mountains and over an 8 hour period with elevation changes of over 1500 metres and add a couple weather systems, it has no problem telling me how high I am. Hasn't been off by more than 5 metres....which also happens to be the best EPE it can get from the sats anyways. It's usually within 1 metre accurate. There were discussions here last summer about the barometric altimeters...their likes & dislikes and such...and also explanations of how they work et al. Run a search in the forums for it...

I hear those laser distance measuring devices work great in any windstorm....

You can get GPX files for individual caches on the cache page, but on the search page you can get LOC files only. On the cache page you'll find the link to download a GPX just below the coordinates for the cache. If you want more than that, or want it quicker, you'll need to run a pocket query. When creating a pocket query, I find I typically get the file within minutes. To the rest of you, try to be helpful without being snippy or rude, okay? Thanks. Or at least try to be helpful. You missed the point. When was the last time you visited a dozen or more caches and downloaded their .GPX files individually? Probably around the last time I did too... The option to download multiple .LOC files is provided on the search results page....why isn't .GPX offered? (At least to premium members if there's concern over the amount of data being delivered through thousands of requests) There is also a daily limit on the number of PQs that you can run....Planning a long distance road trip with a little side-caching along the way requires numerous PQs te be generated for a decent selection to choose from. If doing this all by PQ, then one must start their planning a week prior to leaving. In the case of last minute plans or changes, PQs can fail you and you end up having to run "manual" searches online...but then you can only get individual .GPX files. Time gets tight. -=-=-=- Regarding the use of GSAK for my thoughts on a directional PQ feature...I already use a third-party program to give me what I want. I just figured that it would be a natural enhancement of PQs over their evolution and am surprised that it's not yet. Currently I use several PQs which happen to overlap in order to get the selection of caches I want to hunt, but the extra work they provide in weeding out the duplicate info is tedious at best. A single PQ that has directional parameters would solve this while at the same time cutting down the number of searches I perform to get what I'm looking for.

PQs, in my book, are best for automated and/or repeating searches...stuff you want done on a weekly or daily basis. Sometimes it's easier and faster to just do a simple query rather than build a PQ and then wait for your results. (Although if I recall, there's a "preview" link upon completion??). Either way, it'd still be nice to be able to download the .GPX files of the selected caches, like you can with the .LOC files. Also, if PQs are so powerful then why can't I perform a directional search? Such as, pull up all caches I haven't found that are within 10 Km of this coordinate but are to the south and east of it... Which helps greatly when locating caches that are on your side of a river for example...

I use MacGPSPro for transfering waypoints and track logs to/from my Garmin Summit in OS X. I like it's ability to use any map you can get for viewing them too. It's a little bit of work to calibrate a map for overlay, but the actual transfer of data is as easy as it should be. Point, click, transfer. And you can add waypoints to your "map" just by clicking on it...and then transfer them to your GPSr...kinda like fine-tuning your points if needed... I also use MacGPSBabel to translate .gpx cache files into addressbook entries and then upload them to my iPod for paperless caching. MacGPSPro isn't free, but so far it's been worth the cost.

maybe in time pocket queries will cover all the sites together..as a bonus member feature...?

maybe it's only counting real members and not sock puppets...

I don't know. I don't like putting cash into mailboxes. You never know who might be snooping around....

i wonder if it could qualify as a travel bug...

There it is again. Credit. What is the excitement about having a number over in the hides column? Proof of acceptance. Everyone who joins a group wants to be accepted by the others in the group. Hiding a cache and having it approved and then "published" acts as a badge of acceptance that some people feel (maybe subconsciously) is necessary for them to continue with their endeavors... The sense of contribution. "Giving something back to the community" is another, shall we say, geneticly ingrained social behaviour of ours...(i wonder whose toes I just stepped on ) After accopmlishing something, some task, or being inolved in something from behind the scenes...once we feel confident with our understanding of it, we sometimes feel the need to give something back...a social payment of sorts. My own trials tended towards the latter, but my efforts were in vain and my time wasted and i became disgruntled with my slower-than-molasses-in-january approver (or maybe just the System) but that's another story. One of these days i'll get around to making some great hides that'll be worth the trip becuase i still feel the desire to give something back to you all... Oh yeah, and then there's the ugly third door...It's all about the numbers, man!

speaking of which... do we have any clue yet as to what it may look like other than hard, round & shiney?

This link still works: Handheld GPS Comparison Chart

Can you or should you? Technically you can log a find for every cache on geocaching.com but it does make you look like a real jerk. Ahh..now I see what sock puppets are for (oops...off topic there. Sorry)

Ok, after having read further into the thread, I'm starting to see the other side of the coin here... the categories of WM.com are what has replaced the LCs of GC.com. And the waymarks within said categories are the logs of what has been found.... so in essence, the creation of a waymark is actually the logging of an LC place...hence the optional requirement of proof. OK... So hey, can i doctor a pic in photoshop and submit it as my proof? Will the cat owner be able to tell if it's real or not since they probably can't visit the site for real?

This sure turned into a can of worms Lets try and stay on topic people, just as DogBreath is pointing out. I couldn't agree with you more, DBC. No. This is not true. This is exactly where I ran into a problem. I tried to list (as in create...not log) a waymark and couldn't because I needed a photo to prove that I really was there. I really don't care if anyone else goes to this same place (although I do know that it is frequented by many, some of whom geocache). All I wanted to do was share the location with anyone wanting to find like-places through the use of the database. The fact remains that such proof of existence need not apply to the creation of a waymark. People here want to compare WM.com to GC.com? Fine, where are all your verification photos for the caches you have planted... What? No photo? Well gee whiz....does the cache really exist then? What gives? Why should WM.com be treated differently??? Wasn't there a category proposal for McDonald's a couple weeks back? Would you really want to be taking pictures of every outlet just to list a new location in the database??? I think Jeremy would be hard-pressed to keep up with the demand for server disk-space should such a requirement be enforced.

So what, let them log all they want. It's not about the numbers But more to the point, this wosn't about logging a waymark. it was about adding one to a category. and here i thought that's what the posted coords were for.

I submitted a waymark yesterday that I had visited over the weekend only to have it declined because I don't have a photo of my GPS at the place. This particular rule is a carry-over from when the category was a GC locationless. I can see how such a rule would/should apply to a geocache, but Waymarking isn't geocaching...right? The rule should not have been carried over. It's ridiculous that I can't share something with the world because of the adherance to an outdated rule. Ok. So I have trouble reading the fine print at times But I feel that I shouldn't need to have a photo of my GPS at the spot. This is Waymarking. We are recording places of interest and sharing them with the world, not playing the game of geocaching.

I spend a lot of time out in the bush with friends and family. Mostly 4x4/offroading as I don't like to walk more than I have to I too have several places waymarked that are off the beaten path. I've thought about sharing them through caching but then at the same time think about other places I know of that have become too "public" or popular...You have to go the extra mile to get to some of my camps, and compared to these more popular stops, they are pristine & virgin. With that in mind, do I really want to publicly post the coords for such a place? Because maybe in a few years it will become an unusable popular spot like the others that are around. (burned out vehicle wrecks, garbage & trash all over the place, and upwards of a dozen tents all within spitting distance on a long weekend). I don't want my places to be trashed by the general public. So no matter how much I would love to share them with everyone, I can't. I can only share them with those that I trust will not overrun them with rif-raf. I may not be a tree hugger, but I do respect the wilderness, and my surroundings enough to want to protect what I experience, so that it can be enjoyed again at a future time. By not sharing with everyone though, does that make me selfish? Granted, only a select few will at first be able to get to these places because of the effort needed, but in this community (4x4) word travels fast and before you know it, every Tom Dick & Harry will be camped out there on any given weekend....you can no longer go there to "get away". This is really neither for nor against a wilderness waymark, but I hope it enlightens some to one possible effect of such a waymark.

Awesome. (hope they cleaned off the mould before dividing it up...

I beg to differ seeing as how earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics & continental drift. Thanks BFM...that was the info I was talking about. Ok..so I was off by 99 meters (somedays that is a regular occurrance)

One thing not yet mentioned has been one of the islands that was affected by the earthquake which caused the december tsunami west of Thailand...Sumatra I believe. The whole island is apparently 100 feet south of where it once was. To me that's a signifcant shift which would put any cache in jeopardy... mind you..I only ever heard this reported once throughout the whole month or so afterwards and never again by any other news agency so maybe it just wasn't true.. The point being, who cares about continental drift, it's the earthquake that'll get us in the end.

Initially I was going to reply back with "and how do you think true north is calculated?..." thinking it's based soley on the magnetic compass within...but then I had a thought about using gps-based travel direction which would indicate where TN could be....hmmm not all GPSrs have a built in mag compass, oh well.

maybe someone should let them know so that they don't miss out on their order? as for lost in the woods...sorry. can't help you there.

I'm seeing a small trend here where people are equating "buried" with "covered with dirt".... Using this sense, if I was caught in an avalanche of snow and was stuck 5 feet under, I'm not really buried under the snow then? Come on people! Buried means covered or concealed by something...period. You can be buried under rocks, gravel, snow, pre-cut firewood and silk pillows. Dirt has nothing to do with it! Using pointy objects to get there though is what it's all about. which brings us back to the OP's question...and as long as he didn't have to dig the hole to plant his pipe, then there shouldn't be a problem. At least it "is in plain sight" (IOW, no other "digging" would be required right? So no extra damage to anyone's land above & beyond the usual flatfoot trodding of greenery)