Jump to content

tr1976

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tr1976

  1. Has the problem been fixed? Any new information on the issue? I can't find too much else on the issue other than this forum thread. I bought a Montana 600 about half a year ago and I started to experience exactly the same problem as you describe during the last month or two. In the beginning it worked perfectly. I did not notice after which firmware update that started. Now I have v4.60 and it is having the problem almost all the time. I just tried factory reset on the device and need to go out and try if it helps.
  2. tr1976

    New business?

    No I have not misunderstood anything. What I proposed was that why can't I pay e.g. $30 extra to create 1000 cache PQs. That would halve the number of PQs in the system, halve my time needed to create the PQs, double the number of of caches going into my devices and keep the number of dollars the same (compared to doubling the number of accounts). The problem is that the number of caches is increasing exponentially no matter how you formulate your PQs.Two thoughts: First, you asked for a way to create more PQs and that was given to you. I'm sorry if that wasn't your 'A' solution. Second, wouldn't a business prefer you to take the option of buying an additional membership, rather than giving all PMs the ability to get more for the same amount of money? If you want to be able to download more caches, buy another membership. You get what you want, the company gets paid for it, and those of us who don't need more don't have to pay more. Winner, winner, chicken dinner. OK, that is the best solution. Thanks for pointing that out. I was just trying to propose, whether it would be possible to "upgrade" my account so that the effect would be the same as having multiple accounts but it would be a somewhat cleaner solution with only one username and password. I never proposed giving everybody more with the same money. I proposed for possibility to pay more to easily get more. But I'll go with this multiple account solution until something better turns up. Thankfully that is made possible (some web sites forbid multiple accounts by same person).
  3. tr1976

    New business?

    Your gas prices are still half of what we have here. I will save a lot of money by driving and caching there, not here
  4. tr1976

    New business?

    Of course you don't need more than 500 caches in the device if you have planned to find each of them. However, if you "just go somewhere", you might want to have the area covered, just in case you find an opportunity for caching. For example, I have the nearest 2000 from home updated to my GPS once a week. It covers roughly a 100 km (= 60 miles) radius. That way the number of times I go geocaching increases because I don't have to plan for each trip very carefully. I may do "opportunistic" or "ad hoc" caching after a meeting in the nearby city etc, etc, as I have the GPS with me, with the caches loaded. No time wasted for planning, no time wasted for creating PQs for each trip. Of course I also do planned trips where I create bookmark lists of what I will search. But then it's also good to have the caches you didn't plan to search just in case the plan changes.
  5. Not me either. But it will help me save time by letting me create a smaller number of PQs. How could I disagree. However, the fact is that I would pay more, if I could get more (proposed in another thread). If I'm the only one with that opinion then of course it's not worth implementing.
  6. I agree that sometimes this forum sounds like a bunch of people with frog poop covered noses. I try to understand that people who are making suggestion have a particular problem they are trying to solve. Suggesting ways to solve this problem using the current capability is not dismissing your suggestion. The current methods may be difficult or cumbersome and some new features would be beneficial to many geocachers. However, if you are planning a trip in the next few months, the site is unlikely to implement new features in time. They have a limited programming staff and prioritize new features by what they feel is best for Groundspeak's business. Far more people have issues with day to day caching in their local areas than are planning a trip to the US where they will visit several states yet want to have flexibility as to where they will visit. So long as there are workarounds, however cumbersome to use, you can have a great vacation and find lots of caches. Since you are bringing your laptop and will likely have WiFi access in many places you will visit, you should not have any trouble getting caches to search for. Have a nice trip Thanks. I do not dismiss your advise either. And I do not expect the changes to help my next trip. I know the workarounds and I know I will have a great trip, caching or not But looking further in the future, I feel something needs to be done, as the number of cachers and caches is increasing almost exponentially now... I'm sure I'm not the only one that have figured that out so perhaps this posting into forums is complete nonsense use of many people's time?
  7. tr1976

    New business?

    No I have not misunderstood anything. What I proposed was that why can't I pay e.g. $30 extra to create 1000 cache PQs. That would halve the number of PQs in the system, halve my time needed to create the PQs, double the number of of caches going into my devices and keep the number of dollars the same (compared to doubling the number of accounts). The problem is that the number of caches is increasing exponentially no matter how you formulate your PQs.
  8. If you refer to me, then I apologize. Don't get too serious! => sorry about the same reply several times, the connection was stalling so I hit the button too many times...
  9. If you refer to me, then I apologize. Don't get too serious!
  10. If you refer to me, then I apologize. Don't get too serious!
  11. :Raises Hand: Loyalist checking in here. I like geocaching, I like the people who run geocaching, I like that I can download PQ's at all as compared to the other sites. As a card carrying member of the Geocaching.com Loyalist Party I do get a fluffled when incredibly nice, very helpful people get attacked here for practically no reason by people who have never been to HQ and met the people behind the curtain. Make your request for web site updates, people that are posting are trying to help you are giving you options to workaround as the web site is working right now at this moment. It does not invalidate your request by others giving you workarounds. You also have a good point. I also like the site a lot. However, which ever year I bring up these ideas I always get the same workarounds. That's why the last part of my first message in this thread. I write here because I need no workarounds, I want to vote for changes. To make good better, you know...
  12. Yes, yes, yes I know you have a lot of WLANs. And I have a phone with GPRS and WCDMA data that most likely works at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and at the top of Mt. Baker. But I don't want to spend my precious time in the greatest country of the world, sitting in front of the laptop, looking at some stupid geocaches, figuring how I should optimally specify the PQ not to waste from my daily quota of 5. I would like to have them in the GPS, finding some if I have time. Do I need to draw a picture? No you don't need to draw a picture, but your expectations are set too high for current business practices to change overnight. I'm giving you options you can use during your downtime while eating or just resting your feet. Yes thank you for that but I kind of already know all the features and possibilities there are and am asking to extend them due to the exponentially increasing number of caches no matter how you filter them. The PQ limit of 5*500 has been the same at least since 2005 so I'm not talking about overnights here. Look at any stats about the number of caches and think a minute whether those numbers correlate to each other. -tr1976
  13. tr1976

    New business?

    You can create another account and pay for one month. A mere $3 USD. You'll be able to run another 5 queries that way. Yes but it would be much easier to write fewer PQs. That would also save gc.com resources. What are you talking about? No caches during vacations? Evil caches? Stop drinking it..
  14. No really? I haven't noticed that... Of course nothing can be changed! It dropped from heaven, programmed in stone with a piece of steel, and we just need to find the best ways to change our behavior and lives so that we can get the most out of it... "Stopping by to use your WLAN because of the magic number 500." -tr1976
  15. Yes, yes, yes I know you have a lot of WLANs. And I have a phone with GPRS and WCDMA data that most likely works at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and at the top of Mt. Baker. But I don't want to spend my precious time in the greatest country of the world, sitting in front of the laptop, looking at some stupid geocaches, figuring how I should optimally specify the PQ not to waste from my daily quota of 5. I would like to have them in the GPS, finding some if I have time. Do I need to draw a picture?
  16. tr1976

    New business?

    Dear geocaching.com, can I pay more $ to you to be able to get more than 500 caches in a PQ or create more PQs during 24h? If not, why not? BR, tr1976
  17. I agree 100%. For example this summer I'll go to USA and Canada and road trip over 8 or 9 states and I don't know the exact route before leaving home, and exact places where I'll stop, so "caches along a route" is a no option for me. My only option is to generate approx. 10 PQs per state (type=traditional, D<=2, T<=2), which gives approx. 40-50K caches. Of which I will search 40-50 if I'm lucky. The problem is that caching is so ad-hoc on a trip like this, because I don't know where the other family members want to stop and where I can opt for caching (while they're shopping etc.). I don't then want to waste 30 minutes to find a WLAN hotspot, create a PQ and wait until I get the e-mail, update the GPSr etc. I want the caches be in the devices all the time. With 1-2 weeks aged descriptions, I have probably 97% chance to find the cache still active. That's good enough for me. Now the point is that I will do those PQs. If there were e.g. daily snapshot .zip files available in gc.com, I would filter what I want from those. That would save gc.com computing resources, not needing to store and process my personal PQs, and it would save my time. I could even download them again some night in a hotel with WLAN. With 5 PQs per 24h, that would be impossible. I don't want any "we don't support your offline database" comments, they're as old as the opposing opinions. Caching content is one method to bring scalability in many systems, and I don't see why it's not good for geocaching. What is the difference in having a one week old set of PQs on my laptop compared to having a one week old GPX in my Garmin? Should I use WLAN every day in the bottom of the Grand Canyon just to check that I am not going out with an outdated cache description? Following the opposition's comments, why won't we force a transmitter to every cache container so that the database in gc.com is really up to date and not just information about ancient history (= latest log message). You didn't book motel rooms with WiFi? I find that pretty surprising. I did a drive to to Yellowstone National park and every motel I stopped at had WiFi available. That being said, I knew what my route was generally going to be the next day so downloading a couple of PQs to cover was a no brainer. =-=-edited after I read the remainder comments-=-= Aaargh.... I have not booked ANY motel or hotel rooms. Should I book a hotel room with WLAN every time I stop at a rest stop in a middle of nowhere in Wisconsin, to create a PQ to see if there are any caches around, while my family is losing their nerves, then drive another 293 miles, stop again, notice that the 500 cache PQ does not cover this place, create another PQ, etc. Is that what you propose?
  18. Let me see if I've got this straight. You are going to hike the Grand Canyon - a strong candidate for the most beautiful and spectacular place on Earth - with your loving family. You are going to have the kind of experience that you will talk about in forty years time (believe me, you will, and I only got to the rim of the canyon). And you are genuinely worried that if you get to a particularly special spot which was ground zero of a cache until it was archived three days ago - and which might have actually been missing for months, up-to-date PQ or not - and so you don't get a smiley, this will in some way have spoiled your trip? No you did not get me straight. Pardon my faults in English as it's not my native language. So I better stick to very simple language I just meant that *I* don't care if the cache description is a few days or weeks outdated. If the cache is not found after some searching, so be it, my trip is not ruined. With my previous comment I just tried the "attack is best defense" -method for those comments that will come, like last year, and year before that Those comments are usually something like: "what if you have outdated data", "you should not keep offline database of caches, instead you should check from gc.com for the fresh description", etc. Summary of my opinion: an outdated description gives a better chance to find a cache than no description at all. Hope I got it straight this time... P.S. Grand Canyon was just an example. Been there, it's a truly amazing place. I guess there are WLANs today at the bottom so even my example is not so very good...
  19. I agree 100%. For example this summer I'll go to USA and Canada and road trip over 8 or 9 states and I don't know the exact route before leaving home, and exact places where I'll stop, so "caches along a route" is a no option for me. My only option is to generate approx. 10 PQs per state (type=traditional, D<=2, T<=2), which gives approx. 40-50K caches. Of which I will search 40-50 if I'm lucky. The problem is that caching is so ad-hoc on a trip like this, because I don't know where the other family members want to stop and where I can opt for caching (while they're shopping etc.). I don't then want to waste 30 minutes to find a WLAN hotspot, create a PQ and wait until I get the e-mail, update the GPSr etc. I want the caches be in the devices all the time. With 1-2 weeks aged descriptions, I have probably 97% chance to find the cache still active. That's good enough for me. Now the point is that I will do those PQs. If there were e.g. daily snapshot .zip files available in gc.com, I would filter what I want from those. That would save gc.com computing resources, not needing to store and process my personal PQs, and it would save my time. I could even download them again some night in a hotel with WLAN. With 5 PQs per 24h, that would be impossible. I don't want any "we don't support your offline database" comments, they're as old as the opposing opinions. Caching content is one method to bring scalability in many systems, and I don't see why it's not good for geocaching. What is the difference in having a one week old set of PQs on my laptop compared to having a one week old GPX in my Garmin? Should I use WLAN every day in the bottom of the Grand Canyon just to check that I am not going out with an outdated cache description? Following the opposition's comments, why won't we force a transmitter to every cache container so that the database in gc.com is really up to date and not just information about ancient history (= latest log message). My advice to you is to better refine where you think that you might visit. Certainly, you don't want to simply wander aimlessly around America. Believe me, you will end up missing the best stuff if you do it this way. Determine which sites that you simply must see and build PQs for the nearby area. Then build routes between the 'must see' sights and run PQs for the routes. Target your PQs so you are not including those caches that you have no intention of looking for. For instance, when I'm traveling, I skip high terrain caches and difficult puzzles. I know that I won't take the time to do them, so I've stopped including them in my PQs. Excluding the caches that you don't want to find allows you to include more caches in each PQ. Finally, I typically bring my laptop with me. That way, if I diverge from my plans, I can run PQs from my hotel. Thanks for the tips. However, as I said, I will create PQs only for caches that are traditional and both difficulty and terrain are less than equal to 2.0. I might want to look for harder ones but I want to limit the queries as much as possible, just like you advised. But even the number of that kind of caches is increasing at the rate of 500 caches per two months (e.g. Michigan), so one day this just won't work any more. It is true that I won't go zigzag in every state I intend to visit. I have a few places that are fixed to the plan, but the plans may change while we're there, and the "caches along the route" don't cover that wide area off the route. Sure I will bring a laptop with me, along with the Garmin and TomTom, but however I prepare for it, it is made difficult, by commercial reasons I guess. Or is it just that "the rules of geocaching" seem to be almost as conservative as the game of golf. I have no complaints for the support when you're caching from home or similar fairly stabil location - 500 caches is surely enough, and gc.com has really all I need for that, but preparing for a long road trip is quite difficult.
  20. I agree 100%. For example this summer I'll go to USA and Canada and road trip over 8 or 9 states and I don't know the exact route before leaving home, and exact places where I'll stop, so "caches along a route" is a no option for me. My only option is to generate approx. 10 PQs per state (type=traditional, D<=2, T<=2), which gives approx. 40-50K caches. Of which I will search 40-50 if I'm lucky. The problem is that caching is so ad-hoc on a trip like this, because I don't know where the other family members want to stop and where I can opt for caching (while they're shopping etc.). I don't then want to waste 30 minutes to find a WLAN hotspot, create a PQ and wait until I get the e-mail, update the GPSr etc. I want the caches be in the devices all the time. With 1-2 weeks aged descriptions, I have probably 97% chance to find the cache still active. That's good enough for me. Now the point is that I will do those PQs. If there were e.g. daily snapshot .zip files available in gc.com, I would filter what I want from those. That would save gc.com computing resources, not needing to store and process my personal PQs, and it would save my time. I could even download them again some night in a hotel with WLAN. With 5 PQs per 24h, that would be impossible. I don't want any "we don't support your offline database" comments, they're as old as the opposing opinions. Caching content is one method to bring scalability in many systems, and I don't see why it's not good for geocaching. What is the difference in having a one week old set of PQs on my laptop compared to having a one week old GPX in my Garmin? Should I use WLAN every day in the bottom of the Grand Canyon just to check that I am not going out with an outdated cache description? Following the opposition's comments, why won't we force a transmitter to every cache container so that the database in gc.com is really up to date and not just information about ancient history (= latest log message).
  21. Like this (made with MsPaint ) ! And I want icons not only for Geocaches - will be nice to have for Waypoints and POIs as well. Okay, are you going to share this with everyone else? This would be cool to have. Just right-click and "save as"
  22. Yes, we know that. --Marky OK, great, then I don't have to fight with the official page (couldn't register my device, and after writing a support request, I get a message "your message is sent", but I don't see it in "unanswered e-mails" etc...). Should I post the device serial here?
  23. This is how it has worked with eXplorist for a few years.. Yes, it has other problems.
  24. Rebate? After THIS UPDATE they could raise the price $75 and no one would flinch! LMAO (Garmin, I expect my cut!) I could send $50 to Garmin if I get 1) No limit on the number of GPX files on the SD card (except SD card size of course ) 2) A menu where I can select which GPX file is currently active, if any BTW, do you know if someone from Garmin is reading these forums?
  25. I don't agree or disagree here. What I would eventually like to see is the ability to toggle which GPX files we want active. I have no real issue with a 2000 cache limit if I were able to have more than that in the GPX folder and then have some settings page where I could checkmark which ones I want to be active. I agree (edit: I agree with the selection thing being the most scalable option, not increasing the max size of an XML file). For example, we can do 5 PQ's per day, each has 500 caches. Separate files. There's a mismatch, even when Colorado is engaged with gc.com. Hey, why don't we make a list of people who want this feature and then send it to Garmin. Or is it better if each of us separately contacts them? Could some native writer set up this list and make a report?
×
×
  • Create New...