JJnTJ

I'm on 4.40 and have also seen that bug. I haven't really played with the tracks much yet, but I had an archived track from when I was tinkering with the stopwatch. As you found, I wasn't able to remove it in the Track Manager, only by manually deleting when plugged into my PC.

I've run into Crash 15 too. It seems to happen repeatably. The geocaching dashboard isn't that useful to me, but it looks like I'm stuck with it. I reported it to Garmin Support. Here's hoping they get a nice flood of reports about this issue, leading to a fast fix.

I logged a cache as "found" after I adopted it. My "distinct" count is the same as my total find count. Edit: I just logged another one of my caches as found and re-generated the Groundspeak stats. My find count went up to 1552 total finds, 1552 distinct. Edit: Log deleted. Find and distinct counts are both back to 1551.

It's funny. My Colorado 300 also sticks at "loading maps..." forever, immediately after unplugging it from my computer after uploading caches with GSAK. Then I power it off and back on again, and it's fine. It has always done this, and I don't notice any missing caches (i.e. if a GPX file was only partially loaded). It also only gets about two hours out of NiMH rechargeables (with the correct setting); the same batteries run my 60CSx for at least six hours. Will it boot when plugged into a PC through the USB port? In one of my battery experiments I couldn't get it to boot, and I think that's how I was able to get it to boot and change the battery setting.

That's odd. A little while ago I sent an email to contact@geocaching.com and mentioned that I had an un-earned souvenir in my collection. They deleted it within a week. What reason did they give for not deleting yours? Way cool site!

Someday, if I'm bored, I'm going to compile a list of FPCs (Frequently Posted Complaints) and FAQs with links to past discussions. Maybe I'll add ratings, from "Horse Might Just be Pining" to "Horse has Disintegrated and its Remains are No Longer Recognizable as Equine".

Man, I need to get up to Alvin's Phone Line this fall. Before November.

I'm glad the guidelines aren't rigid. Language is full of ambiguities and ten people can read a sentence and interpret it ten different ways. Strict guidelines would end up much longer and have to adopt a specialized vernacular to reduce ambiguity. Rigid systems are actually no more fair than flexible ones. Administrators of both types will make mistakes, and sometimes they have agendas. Often they are accused of having an agenda merely because they made a controversial decision. Since this is a hobby and not a legal code for a complex society, I'm glad it's flexible and a little vague. Reviewers have the power to allow or deny caches depending on how the cache conforms to the spirit of the guidelines. I'd hate to have to learn a ton of jargon just to understand several hundred pages of legalistic rules just to place a cache.

I found four unused Chirps at a Goodwill store for $4 each. I sold them to friends because I didn't have a GPSr capable of Chirping at the time. Now I compulsively check Goodwill stores for more.

I think they're probably just not willing to modify something that works reliably and has been there (unchanged?) for years. If they changed it, a near-riot would ensue anyway, so why rock the boat? It's kind of Groundspeak's philosophy. You can see it with Benchmarks, Wherigo, Whymarks, and Challenges. They spend resources developing a product or feature to the point that it substantially works. Users are either happy with it or at least not complaining too loudly. Then something else draws their focus away and the product/feature sits untouched for years until something breaks it.

Well, I guess it's time to send out the emails to all those poor people selling tupperware on eBay and Craigslist. They're all stolen caches!

It's funny. I've only golfed twice, but if I did it more often, I think I'd have similar personal "rules" as I do with geocaching. They'd be stricter if I was doing it solo (i.e. no mulligans = must sign my name on a cache's log sheet if I'm going to claim a find, etc.) For group play, the rules would be a lot looser, but not like Calvinball. I'd have some limits on just how far I'd let things slide for myself, and I wouldn't attempt to enforce them with the group. After all, it's my "score". In 20 years, it's not going to matter what the number is. It will matter if I don't look back on the game as time well spent.

You could also combine useful information in your Note, so it's more interesting than just "dropping trackable": It's a good snapshot of the cache's condition, and will probably make most owners happy to see.

I don't think there's any limit on how many times you can log a "Found It" online for the same cache, and yes, your find count will increase each time. You can just write a Note log. It's not a "Found It" log, so it won't increase your find count. In the body of the log, just write something like "Dropping trackable" and drop the trackable as you usually would.

MinnBrewer, I have yet to run into a puzzle CO in the Twin Cities metro that wasn't friendly and willing to provide hints (after the FTF is gone, of course). Obviously, the ones that are no longer playing are not likely to lend help. In those cases, usually a previous finder will help you out.

The Chrome browser for Android also downloads GWC (and GPX!) files correctly.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you are after, but maybe this will help. I wanted to jam as much info as possible into my 60CSx's limited space, so I made a custom GSAK macro: http://mngca.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6315 Much of that may not apply to you, but it's an example of how to use GSAK to do some work for you.

That's generally the way it's done around here. It doesn't make sense to take up a lot of space in a park for a puzzle that will only be found a few times a year.

Please don't.

Waymarks were a pretty good idea, implemented poorly. There are categories so you can ignore what you don't care about. The owners can enforce finds. There are volunteers to enforce a "WOW" factor. They've got everything Virtuals had, without some of the shortcomings. Except they're on a completely different site. Finds don't appear alongside caches in your stats*. There are no Pocket Queries. No mobile app or API. You have to plod though the site, individually clicking on each and putting the interesting ones in a pile to go visit. You can't be spontaneous, grabbing a bunch of caches and Waymarks near a park you're going to, and deciding what to seek when you get there. There's no way to easily integrate them into a geocaching trip. What a shame. * not necessarily counted as finds as Virtuals were.

Use them how you see fit. Nobody else's expectations matter. I also have more than I've awarded, and wouldn't be upset if I only earned one point for every 20 or 50 instead of every 10.

Additional container at GZ containing Declaration of Independence.

Yawn. None of the above is true, as usual. In my experience Peoria Bill's assertions are spot on. I love smartphone caching, and I'll take a smartphone caching in an urban environment any day. I've fallen in love with posting field notes in the field. But in deep woods, or when I'm canoeing, my water-and-shock-resistant 60CSx and Colorado with their big, sensitive quad-helix antennas win every time. I turn them on in the car about a half hour before I get to my destination, and turn them off hours later. Horses for courses.

I haven't gotten lost yet*, but I've often thought of what would happen. When you called, did you give them your coordinates? Did they give you directions out, or did they send in a Search and Rescue team? I'd love to read more about your experiences. * I like to think it's because I have good topo maps on my GPSr, a reasonably good sense of direction, and a good habit of using the Tracks feature on my GPSr when I'm going somewhere unfamiliar. In reality, I just haven't had the guts to cache anywhere I could get lost.

Sheesh. What was the point of your post, then? It reads like a standard (albeit subtle) insinuation. Your follow-up post makes it pretty clear you look down on "questionable" logging. You did NOT use the word "dishonest", but it seems you used a lot of words to say it without saying it. You didn't include a qualifier like "a few" or "some" or "many" in your statement, "...a much clearer understanding of how the higher number cachers...". How many cachers with tens of thousands of finds have you talked with? I haven't looked at the stats lately, but there are quite a few of 10k+ cachers; I think there are about a dozen in my general area. Certainly hundreds worldwide. If you've talked with most of them, then maybe you could make generalizations about them with some sort of credibility. I can understand you wanting to have it both ways; it's nice to broadly insinuate and become indignant when someone uses plainer language to connect the dots you've laid out.