Pasha

Awesome, already fixed, thank you. I like how this is integrated into the page, and the feature itself is a great addition. I'm a bit confused about the relationship between the Prefix Code, the Lookup Code, and the GCxxxx code, though. From reading the working discussion about this feature, I gathered that the idea was to allow people to relate these waypoints to the existing GC waypoints in a variety of ways. I see that in the GPX file, regardless of what I enter as the Lookup code, the last 4 digits of the GC code are appended to the Prefix to produce the Code. So where does the Lookup code come into the equation? It doesn't appear to make it to the GPX file at all.

I get this as well, either from the cache page waypoint edit link, or from the Add/Edit Waypoints page edit link.

WTG CENT5. I'm not shouting, really.

Awesome! I had fun last year and look forward to the next incarnation. I'm feeling flingy!

That sounds like great fun, count me in. I'll see if I can get one or more reticent family members to come along.

Big congratulations and some good-natured jealousy to -Hawk-, who hit his 500th cache today at my own Between Presents and Parents. He and I started caching on the same day last year (separately) and both set a goal of 500 finds by our 1 year anniversary; he made it with a few weeks to spare. Congrats also to Pandora and all the other BCM milestones. WTG y'all!

TS, please don't take this wrong - you and I butted heads a bit in the other thread but on a very civil, reasoned, thoughful level - but it really seems like your disappointment over disapproved hides is fueling a general disappointment with the hobby. There are so many things to like about this activity; among the best things for me are that I can do things the way I want to within some extremely reasonable guidelines. The only requirements are those meant to maximize safety and enjoyment for all. Saying that all the good cache ideas have already been used somewhere is like saying that all the good inventions are already taken, or that 640K should be enough for everyone. It's just not true. I can't say that I've hidden any caches that are unique (in fact, one of mine plays on the fact that so many caches are not unique), but there are people out there hiding in creative and unique ways every day. I'm continually amazed by what people come up with. Anyway... If it's not fun any more, then perhaps it is time to take a break, but I think it would be more fun and interesting to put some arbitrary restrictions on how you go about caching; only search for Terrain => 4, for instance, or only Waymarks, or... whatever. You can do what you want, how you want. Make it fun.

I meant to mention this same feeling after my trip to Colorado last week. I found 10 caches while I was there and, same as you, my estimation of the quality of hides in the Puget Sound area went way up. Congrats on #1 and welcome to Elde, as well.

I just read this TreoCentral review of the new Seidio BT GPS unit and they specifically mention that it can be accessed by more than one BT device at a time. Empirical, I know, but I literally just read it 5 minutes ago.

Definitely very cool.

Glad to be of help. No need to feel bad, much of this stuff is either not documented or not documented well. A site that you should bookmark and peruse is Sputnik57's GPS60 FAQ - tons of great info about your new GPSr on there.

I dunno if your iPaq is WinCE or Pocket PC, but GPXSonar is probably what you want.

How is it that you're unable to find out who owns subscriber-only caches? I don't agree that a cache that requires climbing a cliff or hanging over a bridge is of the same order of concern. Climbing a cliff is obviously dangerous. Touching a fake electrical box is of course not dangerous; the danger is more insidious in the way it changes seeking methodologies and tendencies. If hiders utilizing these methods were to increase difficulty ratings across the board to indicate that danger, that would at least be an improvement. I don't agree that concerns about reviewer inconsistency are valid to this discussion, either; that's just obfuscating the issue, which is the danger or lack therof of this type of hide. Anyway. I do agree that this thread has run its course. All the best to all concerned.

Why cancel the wizard? This was the process that would've installed the Garmin USB drivers needed for the PC to recognize the GPSr. I would restart the machine, then turn the GPSr on and reconnect it via the USB cable. When the Found New Hardware wizard comes up to install the drivers, it'll want you to insert the disk (probably Garmin Trip & Waypoint Manager) that came with the unit. Let it do its thing and you should be good to go.

I think you're guilty here of the same thing that we all do at one time or another, which is to assume that everyone thinks the same way you do. Just because YOU aren't going to ever check a live electrical box for a cache based on your experience in finding caches in fake electrical boxes, doesn't mean that everyone else is as observant and experienced. I know of at least two local caches hidden in fake mailboxes. I don't think anyone is quibbling with the letter of the law, but again, apparently not everyone thinks the way you do about this particular issue. My guess is that there was a simple disconnect between your description of the hide/container and the reviewer's understanding of it.

That's what I said. Seriously, I much appreciate the links and comments people have provided here. Interesting stuff.

That's a big parking lot.

I'm hoping the OP was not about some unexploded ordinance or something. OP, where are you?

WTG you Grays!

Thanks Robert. That's what I was asking, I guess... why isn't the straight-line method correct? I understand we're dealing with a sphere. Is the problem that the distance between longitudinal degrees is not a constant? I'll eagerly peruse your link and see if I can find the answer.

I'd be happy to adopt them. I enjoyed all 14. Email sent as well.

I expect one of you fine people to post when I hit 500. Trying to get there before my one year anniversary - February 13. The weather is not helping my cause.

I guess I don't understand the question. If I have two points: 47 31.289/122 36.968 and 47 31.396/122 36.907 (both waypoints of one of my caches), isn't the point between them going to be 47 31.3425/122 36.9375 At least close enough for our purposes? I can see error getting significant if one point is New York and one is Australia, but for a cache?

Actually at McChord AFB in Tacoma. Cool.

Congratulations also to Gordo1013, FTF for his 500th find today at my brand new Cliche Cache. Those jeeps are a powerful attractor.