Blue Blazes

I get the same results using Google Chrome and using Internet Explorer.

Not sure where to ask this question, so here goes. What changed recently to the PQ process or what am I doing wrong? I used to be able to make a dry run of a pocket query without using up any of my 5 runs/day, but now I see gibberish when I do the following. I build a new query , or even view an existing one. Then I click "Submit Information" after changing some fields. The system returns and says "Thanks! Your pocket query has been modified and currently results in 12 caches. You can preview the search on the nearest cache page. I click the underlined link above to "preview the search". At this point I see the list of caches in the query. All is well. Then I used to be able to click the "Check All" and "Download" buttons. Next the system would ask for a file name where it would save the downloaded .LOC file of the caches listed. Now when I click "Check All" and "Download", I get a screen that says ... "Total Records: 12 - Page: 1 of 1 - < Prev << <[1]> >> Next >" "Total Records: 12 - Page: 1 of 1 - < Prev << <[1]> >> Next >" and says very little else. It doesn't ask for a file name. It just shows the duplicate lines above. Doesn't appear to build a file anywhere that I can see. Any idea what's going on now?

This comment was in the wrong category. It belongs here in "GPS and Technology". I have owned a Garmin Nuvi 650 for a number of years. I use it as my automotive GPS and my geocaching GPS (POI). I have recently purchased a Garmin Nuvi 3790T. The touch screen on the Nuvi 650 continues to be crisp and responsive. It has always responded immediately to a single touch. The touch screen on the state-of-the-art Nuvi 3790T has been problematic and unresponsive to the touch. Often I have had to touch the screen multiple times before the unit accepts my request. I have tried various amounts of finger pressure and the problem continues. Some locations on the screen accept the first touch, while other screen locations require 3-4-5 touches. In my view this is a very disappointing top-of-the-line GPS unit. I made a telephone call to Garmin technical support about this problem. They readily acknowledge that the touch screen design on the 3790T is different than that on previous units like the 650. They go on to say that the 3790T touch screen is working correctly even if multiple touches are necessary to make contact. They reassured me that it was designed this way, and is not a flaw in my unit. Evidently, I have been spoiled by the excellent touch screen performance of the 650, where a single touch always results in an immediate response. They were not surprised that multiple touches are required before the 3790T responds. While on the phone, I was asked if they would be permitted to calibrate my touch screen remotely. I agreed. After being placed on hold, the answer came back that the 3790T screen could not be calibrated in any way, remotely or otherwise. Furthermore, they were adamantly unwilling to exchange my new unit for another new unit. They said the touch screen of another unit would behave exactly as I described mine. I will now contact the retailer where I purchased the unit. Knowing what I know now, I would not buy this unit or any model in the Garmin Nuvi 3700 line.

I have already checked the GPS software status. All of the Garmin Nuvi 3790T software is up to date within this new model. The problem is not that the POI's are slow to respond. They respond quickly. All other requests respond quickly too. The problem is with the touch screen. It doesn't always recognize the touch of the finger. It is not unusual to press multiple times before the unit acknowledges the touch. You never know if the first touch or the fourth touch will be the successful one. The Garmin tech support rep was not at all surprised that the unit behaved this way. But it is very annoying.

I have owned a Garmin Nuvi 650 for a number of years. I use it as my automotive GPS and my geocaching GPS (POI). I have recently purchased a Garmin Nuvi 3790T. The touch screen on the Nuvi 650 continues to be crisp and responsive. It has always responded immediately to a single touch. The touch screen on the state-of-the-art Nuvi 3790T has been problematic and unresponsive to the touch. Often I have had to touch the screen multiple times before the unit accepts my request. I have tried various amounts of finger pressure and the problem continues. Some locations on the screen accept the first touch, while other screen locations require 3-4-5 touches. In my view this is a very disappointing top-of-the-line GPS unit. I made a telephone call to Garmin technical support about this problem. They readily acknowledge that the touch screen design on the 3790T is different than that on previous units like the 650. They go on to say that the 3790T touch screen is working correctly even if multiple touches are necessary to make contact. They reassured me that it was designed this way, and is not a flaw in my unit. Evidently, I have been spoiled by the excellent touch screen performance of the 650, where one touch always results in an immediate response. They were not surprised that varying multiple touches are required on the 3790T. While on the phone, I was then asked if they could calibrate my touch screen remotely. I agreed. After being placed on hold, the answer came back that the 3790T screen could not be calibrated in any way, remotely or otherwise. Furthermore, they were adamantly unwilling to exchange my new unit for another new unit. They said the touch screen of another unit would behave exactly as I described mine. I will now contact the retailer where I purchased the unit. Knowing what I know now, I would not buy this unit or any model in the Garmin Nuvi 3700 line.

I make my Louisiana Walkin' Sticks from 1-1/4" bamboo. I fill a 1/2" node opening on each end with epoxy for end strength, then I paint them blue and coat them with polyurethane. This makes for a very light-weight and rigid hiking stick.

Dear Butrflybec and DavidMac, I am shocked, saddened and quite upset to hear of the sudden loss of your dad, TrkDoc. You have my prayers and deepest sympathy. He was, indeed, working on completing my Louisiana Parish Challenge. I had email contact with him on Saturday morning, and expected him to easily finish the challenge over the weekend. I was looking forward to meeting him for the first time in person at the final cache. I thought for sure this would happen on Sunday. I was puzzled that I hadn't heard from him again, or that he had not posted additional logs since Friday. Bill was the most focused and determined geocacher that I have known. He had truly earned the "King of the Road" title for his many successes with my Interstate Highway Challenges. And, to be honest, I had even begun working on my written congratulations to him in anticipation of a FTF completion on the Louisiana Parish Challenge. I thought "Mississippi Man" would have been a fitting new title for him for crossing the state line once again and beating the rest of us to this challenge. God bless you and your family.

I've had the same problem where any specific bookmark (or the absense of all bookmarks) replicates itself on each subsequent cache page I view. This occurs when I use "Hide and Seek a Cache", then enter a waypoint number. After I click on a bookmark on that cache page, then whenever I repeat this process for other waypoints, the original bookmark appears for all subsequent caches, as well. Any other legitimate bookmarks don't show. Hope this helps to pipnpoint the problem.

Not much else to the story. Thank you, Too Tall John and Neos2, for your thoughts. I appreciate your input. If the owner's specific request in the cache description describing action to be taken at GZ doesn't fall within the gc.com ALR guidelines for a puzzle cache, then I agree with you. I had never run into this situation previously and wanted to get some opinions.

I just looked at the latest puzzle cache requirements/guidelines which state "Caches with mandatory requirements in addition to signing the logbook should be listed as mystery caches. Examples include sending the cache owner a verification codeword found inside the logbook, performing some task at the cache location and taking a photograph, or writing the online log in a format or with content that satisfies the cache requirements. The mystery cache designation assists finders in identifying that something extra is required in order to log a find. Some folks may interpret "performing something extra at the cache location" to include distinguishing the OFFICIAL cache container from the FAKE cache container. Is it really a stretch to view this cache and its mandatory requirements as a mystery/puzzle cache?

It was stated in an earlier post that "the owner hasn't done anything wrong" in this situation. He was the victim of the person who chose to hide another container at ground zero. While I fully agree with this point, is the owner the only innocent bystander here? Geocachers, present and future, who search diligently within this duality, also haven't done anything wrong. Shouldn't their good faith efforts and logs be respected too?

I am curious what you think of the following situation. Let's say an owner hides a cache. At some point someone fails to find this cache and hides a replacement cache which we will call the "fake" cache. Let's assume the original cache is truly missing. I am not asking what you think of the practise of hiding a replacement cache without the owner's permission. I'll come to the point shortly. Some how (container description in a log, etc.) the owner learns of the fake container. The owner visits the cache site but can't find his original or the fake cache, so he hides another container nearby and changes the coords slightly (let's say 20 feet). The owner also changes the cache description to describe how his official replacement container DIFFERS from the fake replacement, and further WARNS that only logs finding his container will be legitimate. The hint actually applies to both hides. Geocachers continue to find one or the other container and log their smileys. The owner then asks geocachers via email to describe the container they found. This is his attempt to determine legitimate finds. Of course, geocachers who work strictly from cache titles and coords don't know about the owner's warning buried in the cache description. Also, keep in mind that the fake cache is not labelled as a decoy to any unsuspecting searcher. The fake appears to be the cache being hunted. Here is the question. 1. Does his revised cache description constitute an ALR (additional logging requirement)? If so, should his cache type be changed to a puzzle cache? 2. Is the owner on solid ground with his warning bured in the revised cache description describing a valid find? 3. Should the owner disable his cache until he finds the fake and removes it?

ODragon: IMO, when you can take the challange and plop it down in multiple parts of the same state, it's probably something I would consider watering down the concept and as such, lame or silly. (IE, this cache should just as easily spawn the I76, I81, I80, I95, etc). I am currently the owner of other Interstate Highway Challenge caches, and new ones are planned. There has been interest in different parts of the nation. The cache description clearly states that they are not for everyone. RVers, sales people, truckers, vacationers, retired folks and just adventurers may not agree with you. Afterall what would caching be like if we all had the same interests? Lighten up.

While this thought is off-topic, I've come to think it noteworthy that a Letterbox cache, for example, has its own icon, but Challenge caches don't, especially when considering the difference in effort required to be successful.

This has been my humble experience with the actual coordinates guideline: It applies to "challenge" type puzzle caches. There have been exceptions to the guideline (DeLorme, for example). The guideline is firmly held by Groundspeak at this time. It has been revealed privately. As this thread suggests, this guideline is not be well-understood.

the hermit crabs: I'm willing to bet just about anything that they didn't forbid using puzzle techniques to determine the final coordinates for your challenge cache. What they most likely did forbid was having an email from you being the only way to obtain the coordinates, since that is against the guidelines. Sorry, I am not familiar with major "challenge" caches that utilize puzzle techniques. I am familiar with challenge caches that instead require challengers to find qualifying caches before they may hunt the final cache. I certainly welcome your explanation of this direct quote from Groundspeak: "The guidelines state that the posted coordinates need to be the actual location of the cache. It will need to continue that way for your cache page." I fully understand the email restriction.

A few points of clarification regarding my challenge cache. I was told by Groundspeak that my published coords had to be the actual final cache coords. So various puzzle solving techniques (to determine final coords, etc.) are out. A challenge cache really isn't a puzzle cache, but it falls in that catch-all category. Geocachers are universally honest and fully understand that the final cache is off-limits within the rules until they complete the challenge. A simple misunderstanding is cleared up quickly. This situation has reached the second attempt at logging an illegitimate smiley. Groundpseak has promised to control violators who claim the final cache without completing the challenge. They have now taken action in my situation, and I thank them for that. For those who are not familiar with challenge caches, challengers have considerable flexibility to choose the actual qualifying caches they wish to hunt within the cache rules. They are not told what caches to hunt. They submit their list of qualifying caches to the cache owner for verification. If approved, they are then invited to find the final cache and claim their smiley face.

Sorry Cardinal Red. I'm not all that familiar navigating the forums. I misread a prior post and was ressponding to it when I realized my mistake.

Post removed.

As you know, the PA Delorme Challenge works via an emailed final cache location, so does one of the Psycho Urban caches that Vinny & Sue Team have hidden. Those are just two of probably many examples. I was told that DeLorme challenges had special Groundspeak permission regarding emails. That permission did not apply in my challenge.

If they completed the entire challenge, the owner can opt to send them the coords for the final instead of them decrypting the puzzle. Sorry, I pushed the wrong reply button previously . Regarding the quote above: Groundspeak forbids the emailing of coords even if the challenge is completed.

In my example, no such requirement exists. If they solve the puzzle, they have the coords and are free to log the cache. If they completed the entire challenge, the owner can opt to send them the coords for the final instead of them decrypting the puzzle.

I am the owner of a “challenge” cache. The cache rules are fairly typical and quite clear: challengers find preliminary caches, they submit their cache lists to the owner for verification, and finally, only if approved, do they receive permission to hunt the final cache. Like most challenge caches, this cache is designated a puzzle cache. However, Groundspeak directed me to publish the actual (not bogus) coords on the cache page. I was told I wasn't permitted to email the actual coords to the finalists. They had to see them on the cache page. I followed this rule, even though this does expose the final cache to potential misuse and mischief, and it leads me to my problem. By the way, I was also told it is my responsibility to delete finds that do not qualify. Now I have a unique situation where the same individual has twice logged finds without doing the preliminary challenge work. He has simply gone to the coords, found the final cache and logged the smiley face. I have twice deleted these false finds. He has also logged disruptive statements stating he has no plans to follow the rules of the challenge, but wants the benefit of a find anyway. I have deleted these comments, as well. I have twice written privately to this individual explaining the challenge rules and my position. I have even suggested that he place the challenge on his cache "ignore" list if the concern is to remove the cache from his local radar screen. The cache has successful achievers, as well as other ambitious cachers in the process of completion. These folks have worked hard and have made sacrifices to complete the challenge. I don't believe it fair to them or in the spirit of geocaching to tolerate blatantly false finds. Here's the question: No matter what you may think of a specific cache, does the owner have the responsibility and the right to remove illegitimate finds? And what else can be done in a chronic situation like this? Can a specific cacher be blocked from logging your cache? Can something be done with the cache coords and still stay Groundspeak legal?

joranda: Difficulty 2.5.

Neos2: The owner has logged into his account since the incident. There is still no log or note about the situation.