tr1976
-
Posts
119 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by tr1976
-
-
Two thoughts:
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.I think you may misunderstand the intended purpose of Pocket Queries. They were created with the intent of you loading up your GPS and going out to find caches. You can currently pull up to 2500 per day and over 17,000 caches in a week. The database is kept totally up-to-date for you on the web servers. There are a few recent discussions along these lines on this very page if you scroll down a bit.If you really need it - $30 a year is dirt cheap to double the above limits.
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).
-
Also, on a separate note, we've recently discussed making a cross country drive and, of course, we'll need/want to be caching most of it (though gas prices might make that a tad... crazy). I'm currently pondering "how" to get a reasonable cache list along our anticipated, but still subject-to-change, route.
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
-
i guess i just don't understand, there's no way i'm going to do 500 caches in a day or a week so why do i need a PQ for 1000 a day ???????? i update my gps and pda once a week to get the new caches and the new log info. yes, i'm new to this with just 135 finds but, am i missing something ???
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.
-
Having a bigger pocket query isn't going to help me find more caches.
Not me either. But it will help me save time by letting me create a smaller number of PQs.
I will agree that 500 is a magic number. In a previous thread someone had mentioned that Groundspeak came up with 500 not only because this was the typical maximum number of waypoints you could store in a GPS at the time but also because their tests showed that bigger queries tended to bog down the servers. (Bigger queries require more resources in terms of memory and disk space, so even though 5 x 500 cache PQs may take more CPU time than 1 x 2500 cache PQ, the 2500 cache PQ causes other processes to block waiting for resources. The database server might even be splitting the work into chunks so that the two would be equivalent anyhow). My suspicion is that with new hardware, including more memory, the Groundspeak servers may be able to handle larger queries. They do return the All My Finds query which for some cachers contain 20000 or more caches. Allowing users some flexibility in getting their 2500 caches per day would make things easier than having to break up their PQs so each returns a maximum of 500 caches.
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.
-
Here's my reply in a previous thread where there was a request for canned PQs that returned all the caches in a single US state. It's my attempt to explain Groundspeak's philosophy regarding PQs. I can't speak for Groundspeak, but I did get a PM from Michael asking if he could used this elsewhere on the website.
Geocaching.com has decided for a small fee you can download a small portion of the geocaching database to use to plan your geocache outings. Some people feel that that means they should get a larger portion of the database, perhaps for an additional fee, and geocaching.com should make it easier for people to get this larger part of the database. Geocaching.com has decided that limiting pocket queries to 500 caches and limiting users to 5 PQ per day gives anyone more than enough caches to find and makes it hard enough to discourage abuse of the system that would involve downloading a significant part of the database that goes beyond what you need for your personal use.
But what about people like the OP who want to be able to go anywhere in their state without being tied to their computer and Geocaching.com? Geocaching.com offers a solution where you can access the site using your WAP enabled cell phone and query for nearby caches. Granted that at this point you must load the cache information into your GPSr manually. If you have a GPS enabled cell phone, they offer another alternative. For $6.99 a month you can subscribe to Trimble Geocache Navigator any be able to cache anywhere. You only need to have cell coverage when you are downloading the caches.
The pocket query is sometimes difficult to use but it is a flexible solution that allows for cachers to setup queries that cover their most likely caching area whether it is entirely in one state or covers parts of several states. They generally set these queries up to run periodically - once or twice a week is generally sufficient to avoid most caches that are archived. They make sure to always leave a few open slots each day so if they decide to cache outside their normal area they can grab a pocket query for that area or use caches along a route to find the caches along the route they plan to take. While people are always asking for a canned statewide query, I suspect that there are few people who actually cache this way.
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? -
I think you may misunderstand the intended purpose of Pocket Queries. They were created with the intent of you loading up your GPS and going out to find caches. You can currently pull up to 2500 per day and over 17,000 caches in a week. The database is kept totally up-to-date for you on the web servers. There are a few recent discussions along these lines on this very page if you scroll down a bit.
If you really need it - $30 a year is dirt cheap to double the above limits.
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.
-
Backhanding people by calling them "loyalists" and "naysayers" to suppoprt your opinioin is insulting and adds nothing to the debate or the reasoning. If you can't refrain from negative terms against other users in these forums, expect to get reported. I'm getting tired of it.
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...
-
Backhanding people by calling them "loyalists" and "naysayers" to suppoprt your opinioin is insulting and adds nothing to the debate or the reasoning. If you can't refrain from negative terms against other users in these forums, expect to get reported. I'm getting tired of it.
If you refer to me, then I apologize. Don't get too serious!
-
Backhanding people by calling them "loyalists" and "naysayers" to suppoprt your opinioin is insulting and adds nothing to the debate or the reasoning. If you can't refrain from negative terms against other users in these forums, expect to get reported. I'm getting tired of it.
If you refer to me, then I apologize. Don't get too serious!
-
Just a bunch of gc.com loyalists on here who have nothing better to do than to tell others that what they are requesting is useless.
: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...
-
Just to be clear, I fed off of a single statement you put in your remarks. So let's not get too pithy ok? Secondly, 5 PQs= 2500 caches which is pretty inefficient for a "planned" travel. The routing PQ handles that much better. Third, If you have your laptop with you, you obviously planned on being near some WLAN. Otherwise you wouldn't have used this argument. I've passed through small town USA where coffee shops had WLAN, eaten at motel and off the wall restaurants where WLAN was available and encouraged for use. There are plenty of places to stop besides rest stops. I've even seen fast food places have WLAN available. I stopped at tourist traps in Yellowstone that had WLAN. We're not so backwater it isn't available someplace near where you plan to be. I don't preach what I don't practice. I gave you a viable option in my previous post, AND I'm giving you more here.
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
-
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
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.
I'll add that you will have established a new account to use as a sock puppet for any evil caches you want to hide in your locale.
Also, just to avoid any other frustrations.... remember the no vacation cache policy.
What are you talking about? No caches during vacations? Evil caches? Stop drinking it..
-
There really is no point in making any suggestions on here about how gc.com could improve it's services. All you will get is the suggestions back on how the current system works fine, and what you are suggesting is ridiculous. Oh and the always helpful, live with what you get, cuz it works just fine for me.
Just a bunch of gc.com loyalists on here who have nothing better to do than to tell others that what they are requesting is useless.
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
-
Just to be clear, I fed off of a single statement you put in your remarks. So let's not get too pithy ok? Secondly, 5 PQs= 2500 caches which is pretty inefficient for a "planned" travel. The routing PQ handles that much better. Third, If you have your laptop with you, you obviously planned on being near some WLAN. Otherwise you wouldn't have used this argument. I've passed through small town USA where coffee shops had WLAN, eaten at motel and off the wall restaurants where WLAN was available and encouraged for use. There are plenty of places to stop besides rest stops. I've even seen fast food places have WLAN available. I stopped at tourist traps in Yellowstone that had WLAN. We're not so backwater it isn't available someplace near where you plan to be. I don't preach what I don't practice. I gave you a viable option in my previous post, AND I'm giving you more here.
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?
-
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
-
If gc.com would get their act together they would stop this nonsense of forcing people to use pocket queries to get data, and start generating a nightly/weekly file for each state or country. Pocket queries are a joke. I have to run 40 pocket queries over the course of 10 days just to get the caches updated in GSAK. Im always running into caches that are archived because my GSAK database it out of date. Not to mention if they did this approach, they would free up bandwidth and server space to produce these single files. I personally would only need to run a pocket query on a rare occasion if I had a way to download a file of my state regularly.
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?
-
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?
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...
-
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.If gc.com would get their act together they would stop this nonsense of forcing people to use pocket queries to get data, and start generating a nightly/weekly file for each state or country. Pocket queries are a joke. I have to run 40 pocket queries over the course of 10 days just to get the caches updated in GSAK. Im always running into caches that are archived because my GSAK database it out of date. Not to mention if they did this approach, they would free up bandwidth and server space to produce these single files. I personally would only need to run a pocket query on a rare occasion if I had a way to download a file of my state regularly.
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).
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.
-
If gc.com would get their act together they would stop this nonsense of forcing people to use pocket queries to get data, and start generating a nightly/weekly file for each state or country. Pocket queries are a joke. I have to run 40 pocket queries over the course of 10 days just to get the caches updated in GSAK. Im always running into caches that are archived because my GSAK database it out of date. Not to mention if they did this approach, they would free up bandwidth and server space to produce these single files. I personally would only need to run a pocket query on a rare occasion if I had a way to download a file of my state regularly.
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).
-
7. Geochace. I would like to see geocache icon in the geochace list page.
Other -> Geochace. Then display a small icon at bottom right for all cache listed. This way it’s easy to see if it’s a multi cache, standard cache etc
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"
-
BTW, do you know if someone from Garmin is reading these forums?
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? -
I haven't seen this one posted yet. Previously, I needed to have caches and waypoints loaded in order to see the treasure chest symbols on the map page. After installing the update, I deleted the waypoints. The caches remain, and show up on the map page, but not as treasure chests. Instead, they use Groundspeaks symbols--regular caches with the green/white cache icon, puzzles as a blue question mark, etc. I really like this and it saves me the extra step of having to send both caches and waypoints.
It just keeps getting better and better.
This is how it has worked with eXplorist for a few years.. Yes, it has other problems.
-
Sounds like Garmin certainly is with the program on updating the software for their new units. It would appear they are monitoring these threads and finding the weaknesses.
So, I'm ready to buy. Where is that information about the rebate?
(hint-hint)Deane
AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI
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?
-
2000 cache is way to low.
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?
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? 
Garmin Montana 650 car navigation problem
in GPS technology and devices
Posted
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.