mantis7

ROFL

You're right..What I meant to say was "when you do a search on my zip code , you get over 5000 results" (The default is 100 mile radius...) I did not mean to say there were 5000 caches within the exact zipcode of 95409, so I apologize if that caused any confusion. Let me rephrase: Within 100 miles of EACH the following cities there are well over 5000 caches: Santa Rosa, Sonoma, San Francisco, Vacaville, Sacramento, Oakland...etc.... *some of these caches of course will be duplicates but the point I was trying to make is that it is a VERY dense area for caches. Edit: I think I had sonoma in the list like 3 times LOL

No problem!!! I'm glad I could pass along the tip. I bought mine from them, and paid the extra 14$ for 2-day shipping (because I couldn't wait!). They processed my order and had it to my door within 3 business days. I really have had great luck with amazon..I also ordered city select from them which was on sale for around 100$.... I don't have TOPO yet....but I am going to get it soon. Again, best of luck with everything bro!

My data was from the newest city select with all of the POI in, and of course it was ALL of the state, which as Hemlock pointed out you wouldn't need. You would only NEED the actual routes youre driving. And it is true they have a different feel (the 60 CS / 76 CS) so thats solid advice to go look / feel them in person. Compare the screens / buttons and so forth. I think the 76 CS is a little more bulky and awkward (my opinion) BUT for twice the memory at very little additional cost, I didn't think this was a big deal. The 76 CS fits in my pockets (I don't wear tight pants) so thats all I really care about. Theres some other minor differences too, like the little antenna nub that sticks out of the 60 that I dont like. Also, the 76 floats better than the 60..... Good luck with your decision!!

All of colorado + all of New mexico = 43 MB All of Utah + All of Arizona = 34 MB (this data is from city select with all of the POI) As you can see you wouldn't need more than 56 Mb...But let me give you my 2 cents: You can get the 76 CS from amazon.com right now for $350. (This includes a 50$ rebate that is availavle on all garmin models) so unless you can get the 60CS / C for alot less than this I would strongly consider the 76 CS. Amazon also has free shipping on the 76CS (probably on other models too, but I don't know for 100%) (To make it more complicated you can also get an ADDITIONAL 30$ off if you sign up for their credit card, making it $319.00) Good luck! Either way you'll be STOKED, I love my garmin.

Oh yah one more thing.... I don't know if your model can accept an external antenna, but I just got one for mine and it improves the accuracy to some degree. For example: With the antenna, my gps has better connections to the satellites by ALOT. Looking at the little bars many of them double in size, and I pick up some satellites that it wasn't seeing before. Because of this (I am assuming) my accuracy is usually more stable, and better. With the antenna on, I usually hover from 15-20 foot accuracy and I don't usually get big jumps. It is also pretty nice for the car because you can pop it on the roof (via magnet) and get awesome reception from any location in the car... My antenna was like $19.99 from gpsgeek.com... they are really awesome. I ordered my stuff and had it at my door in like two days.

I am new to GPS'ing too.....but I have a couple of comments... I don't know if your GPSr has this feature, but on mine it displays an accuracy (error factor)...this fluctuates alot from 10-80 feet, but usually averages around 15-25 feet. When I combine the "distance from" with the "accuracy" it is usually pretty darn accurate.. For example: if it says I am 50 feet from the cache, and has an accuracy of +/- 25 feet, I can be pretty sure it is 25-75 feet away. Of course if the accuracy is better, the range becomes smaller. Another thing I have noticed (and this might be the wrong way to do it, maybe one of the old timers can tell you a better way) is that if I stop when I am roughly 30-40 feet away and try to make a circle around my target, (in order to estimate the center of the circle) it is sometimes easier to find a cache than if I try to walk right to the spot. One more thing I have noticed is that regardless of what "direction" my gps is telling me to go, trying to focus on the actual coordinates and "distance" seems like the most precise way of getting to the waypoint (cache). (after I am done walking the above mentioned circle...when I am trying to get right to the exact spot) Again, I'm a noob so others might have better / more accurate methods.... Good luck!!

I can't pretend to know what other people do BUT I can tell you what other people have told ME to do. I have been told to set up PQ's that specify date ranges, and do several of them to make sure to get no duplicates. Multiple people have told me this is how they do it, and that this is how I should do it. Now, once I get all of this data, it is useless unless it is updated, so basicaly the only way I know of to keep them updated is to keep running all of these PQ's over and over again.... Not sure where you live but take a look at this: in my zip code (95409) there are over 5000 caches. In quite a few zip codes nearby me there are well over 5000 caches (San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, Sonoma, Vacaville, etc..) But i think here is the most telling statement of yours: Of course you would, especially if you had more than 500 caches nearby. That is why I think this idea is a pretty good one, because it seems like something that people would use. I have never said anyone "needs" this feature. In fact we don't "need" PQ's at all, we could enter them in manually. I don't see how it would cause more work...because it would lead to less GPX files to download / import.... As far as the bandwidth, I do agree with you on that. It would increase traffic for sure. BUT, I don't have enough information as to whether it would be significant or cause a problem at present. One thing I can be sure of though, is that bandwidth is increasing in availability. The DSL speeds and server capabilities are only going up, so at some point I think the increased bandwidth will be a drop in the proverbial bucket. Cheers!

Thx AZ cardinal! PS: Good luck in El D.F. on opening day. I hope you guys stomp the Niners.

Northern California Has a ton of caches also - Here are some zipcodes, cities and corresponding caches: (all by 100 mile radius) 95409 - Santa Rosa - 5490 Caches 95688 - Vacaville - 6316 Caches 95899 - Sacramento - 6418 Caches 95476 Sonoma - 5874 Caches 94104 - San Francisco 5763 Caches ----------------------------------------- San Francisco is on the coast, so that is a huge amount of area taken by ocean. Oakland had 6000 caches within 100 miles and also has a huge amount of ocean within 100 miles.

I read one other similar thread where the solution was to re-activate your account with the S-number.... like you did when you 1st got your premium account. Good luck!

5229 caches within 100 miles of 95401 and a good deal of that 100 miles is ocean.

Actually, a newer GPS with a mag compass is the best of both worlds. Check this image out: * You can change the 4 data fields at the top with other items. I like to have the accuracy (+/- feet), and distance to cache as two of mine. (This is from the 60 CS / 76 CS by Garmin, but I'm sure other ones are similar)

If you mean "this will never hapen" that is fine. 1) That doesn't mean it isnt a great idea. 2) That doesn't mean it won't happen. In fact, I can almost guarantee you that one day it WILL happen. Think about it. One day long ago (before PQ's were even a glimmer in their parents eyes) you old timers at one point probably had to enter in each waypoint manually. Then things progressed.... Progress is unavoidable. Whether it be now in 6 months or 6 years, there will be a way to download more than 500 caches in one query, I guarantee you.

A) Techno-Scavengers: The Story Of Geocaching High Tech Scavengers: This is Geocaching C) GeoCaching: High Tech Scavengers D) GeoCaching: The adventures of the techno-scavengers. E) GeoCaching: A High Tech Scavenger Hunt F) Geocachers: High Tech Scavengers G) Geocachers: the adventures of the techno-scavengers. H) Go Find It I) Geocaching: The Human Powered Search Engine

Yah thats a great idea markwell! It is slightly more complicated and very similar to the original poster's idea, BUT it would be more powerful, flexible and give persons more freedom. Taking this idea even one step further, why not have 4 or more points, with a GUI interface where you could just point and click your points! LOL. Seriosuly though I think both the OP's suggestion and Markwell's are good ones.

I really like this idea! I'm pretty new to geocaching but it seems like a simple idea that would improve PQ's to me.

An even easier suggestion is to allow us (the users) to combine our daily PQ's together if we chose to. This would allow us to increase our PQ size to 1000, 1500, 2000 or 2500. This would make things much more efficient and still keep to the limits of (5) Pq's per day and (2500) total results per day.

You don't have to log a find to move a travel bug FYI. You just use the "note" feature. The travel bug gets moved, logs the miles but you don't log a find on the cache. Not saying alot of people do it, but it CAN be done.

I think this is a great idea! You might not even need 8 boxes, just one little circle in which you could fill in "pie slices." Would be very handy if you wanted the X number of caches and knew you would only be driving in Y direction. Mantis7

I know I feel really lucky. I mean, it is almost May and I just lucked out and found out about geocaching JUST in time for my trip....I think it will add so much depth and fun to my trip...I can't wait. True of every sport indeed, and true of life itself. Why bother if it isn't fun? OH BTW - If you want to send a TB off to Europe you could try and send one up toward reno / lake tahoe / northern california.....I could try and grab it and take it with me... Mantis7

Thanks for the reply , MooseMob! I also want to get something clear. I _LOVE_ PQ's. What I mean was, I never intended to badmouth or say they weren't useful or that I "needed" a PQ of more than 500 results or anything like that. Which is sort of why I was surprised by the first reply, but anyway...I digress... I read your response and I will definitely start planning better. Dang! Thats crazy LMAO. I'm not in this to set any records....the only reason I posted this suggestion is because I saw the Web page/ suggestion forums and I had just found out about PQ's and started playing with them. Okay! This is what I will do for now (until they implement MY idea muahahahahaha). But seriously, thanks for your very helpful replies. I definietly want to get a laptop. I am going to Europe for a month (in May) and plan on finding at least one cache in every country I visit, so having a laptop will make things much easier. I am a computer junkie, but haven't had the need for a laptop...UNTIL NOW! Well, I disagree with you on this one. In fact you seem to contradict yourself on this because just one quote ago you will see you told me to do five 500 result searches a day... But here is why I disagree with you: Anyone who wants the 2500 results will get them, one way or the other, And what good are they unless theyre updated? So you will have to update them which means doing LOTS of searches and LOTS up importing with GSAK. I would think it would be much easier to do ONE block of 2500 at a go. Anyway thanks for actually reading / responding to my idea. And thanks for the hearty welcome. Mantis7

There is a very simple solution to this. In fact its not really a solution, but rather a system which is already (for the most part) in place. Lets assume your math is correct, and that a 2500 result PQ NOT ZIPPED is indeed 25 megabytes. I have never downloaded one that isn't zipped, so I do not know how big they are...but I am assuming that your number is valid. A 500 result PQ would then be about 5 megabytes, right? (Not zipped). Well, a 2500 result PQ *ZIPPED* would be less than 4 MB according to my math. (751 k per 500 result PQ zipped, times 5) So as you can see, a 2500 result PQ would actually take up LESS space (zipped) than a 500 result non zipped one. This makes the solution obvious: If this idea were to be implemented, a .gpx file with more than 500 results would have to be sent zipped. I don't think this would be much of a problem though...as the default as it is now is to send the files zipped...and I would imagine most users prefer their files sent in zip format. BUT if anyone should want PQ's sent NON_ZIP format, fine. Just as long as the GPX file doesnt have more than 500 results (in other words the same as it is now). Would that work for you?

I did not set this as my title, I swear! I don't know who did but it was obviously someone "higher" up.... LOL (I'm serious) Never said is was something to sneeze at. Read my post. I said I would "never" do that many. It is over one per hour with no sleep, so I agree with this point. Well, not counting duplicates it takes 10 if my math is correct. But Counting Duplicates, I dont know the answer. I never mentioned either in my previous post, and it isn't all that relevant to my original post....See further down for my explanation. You don't sound terse to me! I am glad you responded...because the more I think about it the better my idea seems to me and there havent been any reasons in this thread (except maybe AZ Cardinal) to make me think otherwise. See further down for my brief explanation. This is the reason I made this thread, to avoid having multiple PQ's and .gpx files...See further down.... This is the type of work around that my suggestion would solve. Please read further down , we're almost there. Your above example would give you 5 different PQ's and 5 different GPX files (if you did this 5 times). My idea would save time, and be much easier. Please read further down. I plan on getting a laptop. But again, this doesn't address the issue at hand which is PQ's. Besides, it is an expensive option that not everyone would be able to afford. My idea would work for everyone, even those who can't afford a laptop. Okay, I tried to respond to all of your thoughts. Please read the follwoing idea and answer the question at the end. I will try and be more clear so here goes: ***** As it is now, we get five 500 result PQ's per day, totalling 2500 results per day. My idea is very simple. I am not even suggesting raising the amount of PQ's (5)or total daily results (2500). What I am suggesting is simply allowing users to determine how they would like their 2500 results to be divided up. Here are several examples: a) User A would like to keep using the current system (5 PQ's totalling 2500 results) User b would like 3 PQ's (two of 1000 and one of 500) (2500 total) c) User C would like 1 PQ of 2500 (2500 total) d) User D would like 2 PQ's of 1250 (2500 total) and so on... As long as you do not exceed a) 5 PQ's in one day or 2500 results in one day. Real world example: So, with this example....the user who wanted to get the 2500 closet, traditional caches that they haven't found yet that are still active and not archived or temporarily disabled could do so in ONE STEP. But they would use their entire PQ allotment for that day. But, they would have one GPX file to download and deal with and be assured of getting no duplicates. This would be one, easy step. Now if you have followed the thread thus far, please answer this simple question: Can you please describe to me the current process (having to do 5 seperate PQ's of 500 max results each and be assured of no duplicates) whereby the same user would get the 2500 closet caches from oakland with the same criteria as the "real world example"? It seems to me it would be 5 complicated steps that produce 5 GPX files, which would then need to be imported 5 seperate times into GSAK....and it seems that my suggestion would eliminate several steps for many users both at the PQ stage and at the GSAK stage. If not please tell me what I am doing wrong. Thanks for the help!

That is kind of why I posted this in the first place. I think, rather than a "work-around" it should be a feature of the premium membership. But I will do my best to explain. Keep in mind (as Hemlock bluntly pointed out) I am a new member. (Ive only owned my GPS for a few days) But here goes: In my area that I generally drive, there are over 5000 caches...My GPS unit Holds maps from Seattle, Washington all the way down to Southern California. It can hold 1000 waypoints ( and some are coming out that can hold many more via SD cards) Most of my caches are going to be "caches of opportunity." That is to say, I will be driving around, have an extra hour or so and then think "HMMM let me check my GPS to see what caches are around." I realize that that I can do five sperate 500 cache PQ's. But this seems awkward to me when I just want 2500 of the nearest caches. I only want to update once a week or so, and I don't really want to have to import/download/deal with five spereate files when I could just use one. As Hemlock suggested, of course I cant do 500 in a day. He even lays claim to doing 70 in one weekend (48 hours). That is amazing. That is more than one cache an hour with no sleep. Bravo. I will never do that many. So according to his logic, why don't we limit PQ's to 70 per weekend? All's I am saying is rather than five seperate pocket queries (per day) of 500 each, I'd rather HAVE THE OPTION do one big one. If there is a "workaround" that would be fantastic. In asking this question originally I did not intend to be rude or critical. I was (as a brand new member) merely commenting on my thoughts in what I assumed was the appropriate forum. Maybe I took it wrong, but I thought Hemlock's response was rude (especially for a "Volunteer Reviewer" who lives in my area). In making my suggestion I was only trying to be 100% helpful and providing my feedback. I apologize to you both if this was an inappropriate topic.