RangerRick

I forgot to mention this on the above post, I always use Track Up while searching for caches. It makes it much easier to see which direction you are going in relationship to the target.

As stated above, North UP shows the north up to the top of your screen and Track Up shows the way you are going to the top of your gps screen. I have a Garmin V but the follow two statements may also be true on your unit. 1)If North UP shows on your menu screen, then you are in the Track Up mode. 2) When you are in the Track UP mode, an arrow pointing to the north will be displayed in the top left portion of your screen. If my info does not apply to your gps unit, I'm sure someone will correct me. Have fun

As stated above, North UP shows the north up to the top of your screen and Track Up shows the way you are going to the top of your gps screen. I have a Garmin V but the follow two statements may also be true on your unit. 1)If North UP shows on your menu screen, then you are in the Track Up mode. 2) When you are in the Track UP mode, an arrow pointing to the north will be displayed in the top left portion of your screen. If my info does not apply to your gps unit, I'm sure someone will correct me. Have fun

It appears Debb has done a fine job making that quilt and everyone had a good time at the party. Just one question to Moun10Bike, how did you bypass the 100kb limitation to post these pictures? The sizes of the posted pics are as follows: Geoquilt1 was 113KB, GQ3 was 106kb, GQ4 was 119kb and GQ5 was 111kb. I've been an advocate of raising the 100kb limtation to 120kb and have started a thread on it. I asked Jeremy about raising it to 120kb but still have had no response from him. Just curious, how did you get these files uploaded

I use an led flashlight called "Impact" made by Princeton Tec. It uses 4 AA batteries and the batteries will last for 150 hours. It is also designed to take a pretty good fall onto concrete without breaking. (I think the salesman told me 12' onto concrete) It is about 5.5" long and come s with a carrying strap. Best flashlight I've ever owned.

Ditto here, when I try to post, makes a loop and then on the second attempt I will get in.

Ditto here, when I try to post, makes a loop and then on the second attempt I will get in.

I just loaded Mapsoure City Select to my laptop to see it there would be a problem. It loaded and works fine. Two things I would check: First, when you load the software, a pop up screen asks you to select the areas you want to load. Make sure you have the right areas selected or put a check mark in all of the boxes to make sure you are covered. I loaded all of them on mine. Second, make sure you add your unlock code to unlock the map detail in the area you are trying to use.

quote:Originally posted by Rich in NEPA: quote:Originally posted by Ranger Rick: I don't know why, but when I rotate them and try resizing, the picture comes out a little grainy. RR, whenever you rotate JPEG images it's important to use a "lossless" transformation. Not all image editing software provides this feature. Check to be sure that the software you are using offers lossless rotation/mirroring operations. Cheers ... _~Rich in NEPA~_ http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/1132_1200.jpg __=== A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===__ Thanks for the info Rich, I'll look into that.

quote:Originally posted by Geoffrey: I have the GPS 315, GPS V, and the Vista. I gave my sister a GPS III, and a friend the GPS IIIplus. http://members.aol.com/geoffr524/5_Rubik.gif Geoffry, Just curious, which of the 3 do you prefer to use. For example, all 3 units on the counter, new batteries in all and you are going on a geocache hunt. Which one would be in your left hand while you are searching?

I would like to thank all those that gave me some suggestions about this subject. I did take some pointers from Geospotter and was able to get a scenic shot down to 95KB and when I printed it at about a 8"x6" it was an acceptable picture for my wall. That is all I really wanted. I do see some images posted on the cache sites that I would like to frame because I may never get to see some of these area in person. I did try shrinking some portrait oriented photos and had more trouble with them than the landscape oriented ones. I don't know why, but when I rotate them and try resizing, the picture comes out a little grainy. I still think the extra 20kb would make things a lot easier. Thanks again fellow geocachers

quote:Originally posted by geospotter: quote:Originally posted by Ranger Rick: I would challenge anyone to post a photo of a scenic picture to on this site (like a large waterfall, mountain range, or another view which is often seen from a cache site) that I would be able to print out a hang on my wall and have it look nice. No, not a picture of a MCtoy and not a wallet size either. I'll be waiting First, you are talking about two different things. Viewing an image on a monitor is one thing, printing it is another. The purpose of photos on THIS site is not to print them out to hang on your wall. If I liked one of your images that much I'd email you for the original. But, I'll take your challenge. The image below is less than 100K (about 90K). Nice scene (from a nearby cache). I printed it about 7 X 10. Looks good to me. Personally, I'd sharpen it more, boost the brightness, and lower the contrast, but it works for demonstration purposes. Some additional info -- I've been a portrait photographer for almost 30 years (scenics aren't my thing). If your prints don't look good I might suggest different paper, different inks, or perhaps a different printer. If you have any other questions regarding getting better prints, please feel free to email me. I'd be glad to try and help. geospotter http://www.crocker.com/~bclews/limtest.jpg Well done geospotter. I concede we don't need to raise the 100k limit. That is exactly what I am tring to do. I just need a little more education and I will email you for some advice. Thanks, Ranger Ric

quote:Originally posted by DARC: If someone has problems fitting their images under the 100KB file size limit, then increasing it to 120K isn't going to help as much as you might think. They may allow you to upload unedited pictures from your camera, but it won't help others with different cameras or techniques for taking pictures. The additional problem is that the server has to store the additional size of the image files. The real issue is a need for users to get a satisfactory image editing software to effectivly tweek the image to a smaller footprint. Two high-end products are Adobe Photoshop and Corel Photopaint that can be purchased at computer shows for under $200 each, the less recent versions can be gotten for under $80. There are free and low cost image manipulators available on the web if you are on a budget. No picture that I've uploaded is larger then 58KB and I've read that others are getting similar results. So why not cut down the image limit from 100KB to say 75KB ? If an oversize image is necessary, then it can be uploaded from a personal web site. This would cut down the storage space needed by GEOCACHING.COM and if we are really lucky, cut down on the number of squirrel pictures posted. I had to laugh when I read the suggestion to buy a $200.00 to enable me to upload a decent picture. Just doing some quick math, if the 8000 geocachers each bought this $200. program, it would total 1.6 million dollars. If we donated that money to Jeremy instead, he could buy more memory space, buy all new computers for his office, and still be a millionaire! Then again, maybe we better not do that because we would have to find a new site moderator.LOL. In brief, it would still be a lot cheaper and easier just to raise the 100k limit a bit. I would challenge anyone to post a photo of a scenic picture to on this site (like a large waterfall, mountain range, or another view which is often seen from a cache site) that I would be able to print out a hang on my wall and have it look nice. No, not a picture of a MCtoy and not a wallet size either. I'll be waiting

quote:Originally posted by DARC: If someone has problems fitting their images under the 100KB file size limit, then increasing it to 120K isn't going to help as much as you might think. They may allow you to upload unedited pictures from your camera, but it won't help others with different cameras or techniques for taking pictures. The additional problem is that the server has to store the additional size of the image files. The real issue is a need for users to get a satisfactory image editing software to effectivly tweek the image to a smaller footprint. Two high-end products are Adobe Photoshop and Corel Photopaint that can be purchased at computer shows for under $200 each, the less recent versions can be gotten for under $80. There are free and low cost image manipulators available on the web if you are on a budget. No picture that I've uploaded is larger then 58KB and I've read that others are getting similar results. So why not cut down the image limit from 100KB to say 75KB ? If an oversize image is necessary, then it can be uploaded from a personal web site. This would cut down the storage space needed by GEOCACHING.COM and if we are really lucky, cut down on the number of squirrel pictures posted. I had to laugh when I read the suggestion to buy a $200.00 to enable me to upload a decent picture. Just doing some quick math, if the 8000 geocachers each bought this $200. program, it would total 1.6 million dollars. If we donated that money to Jeremy instead, he could buy more memory space, buy all new computers for his office, and still be a millionaire! Then again, maybe we better not do that because we would have to find a new site moderator.LOL. In brief, it would still be a lot cheaper and easier just to raise the 100k limit a bit. I would challenge anyone to post a photo of a scenic picture to on this site (like a large waterfall, mountain range, or another view which is often seen from a cache site) that I would be able to print out a hang on my wall and have it look nice. No, not a picture of a MCtoy and not a wallet size either. I'll be waiting

Jeremy, any chance to get the 100kb limitation raised to about 120kb? I have taken some nice photos at some of the cache sites and when I reduce them enough to meet the 100kb limitation, I end up with a photo not worth posting. In that case, I just don't post them. They may be waterfalls, mountain ranges, planes and birds flying below us, scenes I think other people would enjoy looking at. The effect is lost with the 100kb file. I have tried different programs for reducing the file size, various compressions, and other methods to shrink the file but the bottom line is a 120-140kb limitation would help a lot! How about it

Hello Jeremy, not a big deal but I did notice a couple of wrong dates posted in the "GPS Units & Software" forum. One was posted August 18, 2002, and the other posted January 5, 2004.

You can buy a single unit for $385.00 plus shipping. I just talked to Julie at Black Wolf Ent. tonight and she said she had about 8 units left. She also had some concern about Garmin limiting their sales to one distributor in the near future and if that happens, the units will have to be sold for list price no matter where you go. You can mention my name to Julie if you want to.

In the above post. I meant to say a 7.75 raidius circle =188 square feet.

Hello Markwell, I clicked on your hyperlink and checked out the section on GPS accuracy. You stat ed that a GPS unit is accurate to within a 30' radius. A 30' radius circle has a area of 2,827. square feet not the 188.5' stated in the hyperlink. A 7.5' radius circle would equal 188.5 square feet. Am I missing something?

I noticed that all the "mouse over" icons lettering is off to the right. Can't read the entire line. I use Netscape 4.7 as my browser if that makes a difference.