Grynneman

Hi, A question for everyone. I use a compaq 3950 with compaq bluetooth jacket. Usually I have the pda in a cradle in the car when navigating with tomtom, but there have been occasions when I've been the passenger in another car where there's no cradle, so I hold the pda in my left hand. I've had the bluetooth enabled, and connected to tomtom via gprs. Now, both times that I've held the pda/jacket(usually for 1.5 hours each session, 3 hours in total for the day), the day after I've noticed my left hand, about 3/4 inch from the centre of my palm (toward the striking edge of the hand) has blistered up. I'm guessing that this is being caused by the bluetooth transmitter? Anybody else noticed this? Could it happen?

Just started using GSAK, and an excellent bit of software.... I tend to export 2 files to my PDA.... A .GPX file for use by GPXSonar on the PDA, and then repeat the export, but this time a .loc file for use by GPSTuner, again on the PDA. Haven't used it to export mapsource format yet, mainly because I get that from Geocacheuk download section. as a side note, it does seem the larger the .loc file, the slower GPSTuner runs...

Hi, I've just started using an Ipaq 3950, with bluetooth jacket and Memory-Map 2003 running. GPSr is the SysOnChip CF card which slots in the back of the sleeve, and I protect it with a Aquapac PDA holder (which is big enough to take the whole kit). I update the memory map files to a 256mb storage card via a USB2 reader. I've managed to get all the uk roadmap on 1 storage card (about 132mb), then send smaller 50:000 scale maps just for the local area around the cache (and also the aerial view if I have the area). I've tried the new version of Anquet maps software (with the virtual 3d landscapes). The only downsides really is the lack of features on the PDA software, and that they only seem to import .arf files, which is a file format dedicated just to that software. Before the SysOnChip Sirf CF I plugged an etrex vista into the PDA, but found having to hold a GPSr & PDA in anything but straightforward terrain caused no end of headaches (even considered duct taping all to a bit of plywood at one point!). Have to say the SysOnChip is incredibly light, and acquisition times pretty good. It also has a socket to plug in a receiver when in the car (which I haven't needed yet).

...Especially as the Bluebells may be trampled on..... ...let's not start that again.....

Thanks..... Later this year we are spending a fortnight on Skye around the Cuillin ridge....the temptation to place a cache by In-Pin is tempting....but of course wholly impractible,

Thanks everyone....got there eventually (shoehorning between hillwalking and climbing!)... Best caches so far have been..... Caldera (the 2nd attempt!) The Deck of Fate & Fortune parts 1 & 2. To Hell (Bank) and Back West Penwith Circle

In placing a couple of caches that either require specialist technical knowledge (Don't Look Down), or have a high degree of Exposure to falling off (Don't Look Down II), I've always tried to make it as plain as possible the inherent dangers that those areas have and should be taken into consideration. If cachers ignore those warnings there's not a lot more I can do. As a pair of climbers, we try to place caches that combine both our sports....

If only anybody had asked ......I've been using this method for months.....Emailed Memory Map at the time to confirm if there was any other way of doing this, reply was not for this version 2003.....any difference with 2004? As a sideline, must praise Garmin service dept for sending me a new Vista free of charge after our last one went wonky after 18 months(dodgy screen & thumbstick). Will reach the ton one day.....been sitting at 98 for ages.

Will diagonals be permitted south of the river, without leaving me in spoon? The Bluebells. Oh...The Bluebells.

quote:Yes, I remember pushing a pram up with our 11 day old son thinking "if this is a two, what the hell is a five?!". That would be Don't Look Down...at the Roaches.... The Bluebells. Oh...The Bluebells.

I have a bad feeling about this. I received an email (around the beginning of September)for the irresponsible placing of a cache, from a fellow geocacher. "I wonder if you realise that your cache sited in Roydon Wood is most definatley in private grounds. WIthout seeking the owners permission, should it still be there" I emailed him back, to confirm that he was talking about Addernough, and whether he had been approached by the owners.... "Yes I am referring to Addernough, There are a number of notices around the barbed wire fence, the site is designated as SSSI. I was not approached by the owners, as I would not attempt to seek the cache. I do know the area well & hence why I am pointing it out to your good self. The woods, as you, undoubtedly know, are full of Bluebells & Bluebells are, in fact a protected species, and do not tolerate being walked upon. It is, I would suggest, not in the best interests of Geocaching, to be found around the site. Although the Wood is bounded by The New Forest,it is not part of the land Managed by the Commission." Unless the area has dramatically changed since I last placed the cache, the woods are fenced off, but the cache is close to an unfettered footpath running through the middle of the woods, nowhere near the designated sanctuary areas on the map (this is on the owners website). I wasn't entirely sure about private propery aspect, so checked and found it was owned by the Hampshire & Isle of Wight wildlife trust. I emailed them, and asked for permission for the continuing existence of the cache, and if not I would remove the cache asap. I added links to the cache page, as well as HCC cache meeting. I received an email saying that it would be forwarded on to the warden responsible. Since then, nothing. I did not carry on the correspondence with the GC member, as I didn't see the point in trying to continue a dialogue with somebody who wouldn't actually check the location, and assumed that myself (and other cachers) were not aware of bluebells' protected status. So the question to be asked is, in requesting permission, have I let the cat out of the bag?

Shouldn't this GAGB issue be just kept to the GAGB forum?

if you have a map of the final location, then using Naismith's formula, 1 hour for every 3 miles, plus 1 hour for every 2000ft ascended (don't count descent).... ...That's just a rough outline, on the premise that you are a reasonably fit walker.

Bought MM Navigator about 6 months ago, and it's worked out quite well. Never used the aerial photos part, never had a need. It's an excellent bit of software, we took a laptop with us on holiday to Cornwall and used it to annotate finds (we also had the paper OS:25000 maps with us), also helped us out of a few traffic jams as well, with the gps plugged in. We've now upgraded to an IPAQ, and installed the Pocket Navigator software that comes with the full blown PC Navigator. We download the Ebooks that come with pocket queries, and use Mobipocket to read the cache pages. The only drawbacks are that at the moment, you can only get down to OS:50000 maps (Anquet has Harveys 25000 scale maps). (now if can just strap a bluetooth gps receiver to the top of my head, I can transmit the coords to the pda without any messy wires ).

I have to agree with this, although I usually try and set caches with an interesting or nice setting, I have put 1 or 2 caches down that throw down the gauntlet.... www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=14820 Not up to the standard of some volcano based caches obviously...

This all depends if the ref is watching the action! In other words, the approver only knows as much as they are told. Case in point, whilst on holiday last month I placed 2 caches. When I got back I put the details forward for approval. The first cache was approved straight away with no questions. Because I mentioned in the description of the 2nd cache to it was placed on holiday, I then had to guarantee that I could maintain this cache( I could, it is in this country). Yet the 2 were less than 15 miles apart!

This is the point that I was trying to make. If you do a cache that strikes you as mundane or just downright boring, then you don't rate it. Only the exceptional caches get rated. A newbie (a term I dislike, at what point do you stop being a newbie? 1 year, 2 years, 25/50/75/100+ caches found!) may initially think all caches are BRILLIANT, but then why not allow us to go back and rerate the cache at a later date, with the added benefit of hindsight (as you can with your log entries). Look at Amazon that use a rating system driven by their customers. I've found plenty of bog standard caches that are of the "oh here it is" standard, that I would not rate, and a couple that would warrant a 1 or 2. I've yet to find a 3, Something that would truly knock me for 6 ( or 7 ). As for creating users to artificially up the cache rating, the same could be said of falsely logging caches as found just to up their place on a leaderboard (lets not go there!). It would give people who like stats something more to play with!

Hi, There is nothing wrong with reading logs, I just wondered if another level of feedback would be interesting to include! Obviously the adjectival rating system is a little contentious...A star rating system perhaps. If a star rating system was added and was optional when logging a find, then over time perhaps exceptional caches would become apparent. I understand that we all have differing views of what we like in a cache but that doesn't mean that an inheritently good cache, whatever the setting or rating, doesn't shine out from the rest. One persons Citizen Kane is another persons Ernest Saves Christmas (Sorry Ernest), but the opinion is still valid. It would certainly add to the best cache ever debate!

I agree about the subjectivity, I think that is the whole point. Then again, what are people who like doing "drive and dumps" doing hiking into the countryside.....

Hi, does anybody think that when logging a cache find, you can also rate it in an adjectival way? (Yuk, Easy, Moderate, Difficult, Hard, Severe, Dangerous, Extreme!), and display this on the cache page by the ratings. I know the above is subjective, but it does give any prospective cache visitors the chance to see other cachers views, without reading the logs. Grynneman

quote:Originally posted by MarcB: quote:Originally posted by Grynneman (Liam & Sharon):Shame you're not a climber, I have one placed here on the upper tier, called Don't Look Down. A fantastic place to walk around anyway...See if anybody is doing the overhang test piece, Sloth. Nar! That evil cache is 10th on my nearest list and rising! Is it possible to do without a rope? MarcB Took Log Book, Left Nothing It has been soloed by climber whose grade is a lot higher than VDiff (possibly E1+), but I would strongly recommend that it should be done with a rope.

Shame you're not a climber, I have one placed here on the upper tier, called Don't Look Down. A fantastic place to walk around anyway...See if anybody is doing the overhang test piece, Sloth.

Hi, the filter I would like to have on a search, would be to define whether I want to ignore/pick caches in a certain direction.

Just posted a response to this on the general discussion page, but I'll repeat myself here.. Even though I have cookies set to remember me when I come back, if I get to a cache from the Geocacheuk interactive map, it will not let me log in! I have to go back to the geocache home page and login that way!

Same here with the login issue....when I get to the Geocaching home page, it says I'm logged in. But when I try to add a find, it says I'm logged out! Also, if I try and access a page from GEOCACHEUK interactive map, again, I'm told I'm logged out, and no matter how matter how many times I try to login via that cache page, it comes back with the same cache page. Running Xp with ie6.