LifeOnEdge!

I have seen several posts of this nature on this forum. I have an idea! Delete Post??? What's wrong with that? Demerits? After reviewing my own post here, I see no option for deleting a post. Unbelievable! (No. I'm not talking about the Colorado now.) I can't believe that these forums don't have a feature to delete a post if the author feels fit. I have another idea: It's how you get the fuzzy boxes to appear on video when you're being filmed. Let me try that! iilii you buddy! (Will this get my post deleted? )

I wonder if this is the only post worthy of a response here. I won't ever know. I'm not reading any lower. I can only imagine the people at Garmin who read these forums shaking their heads in disbelief as they read post after post about their (insert emotionally fired, exagerated adjective here) products that are rushed to market. I bought a Colorado 400t two nights after it arrived in Dallas and LOVE IT. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than the GPSmap 60 CSx sitting on the desk next to me? Apples and Oranges. They are both GPS units. They both cost over $300. They both say "GARMIN" on the front. And they'll both be used to find thousands of geocaches. One already has. Guys, if you don't like your new GPS, take it back! For the time and effort you're taking to talk it down, don't you have better activities in your lives? Instead, and in print, you come on here and god knows where else, B. & M. about the problems that "plague" (misspelling not quoted here) the workmanship of the latest GPS units, and ... (do I really need to go on?) Where did you buy your GPS? REI? Take it back for a FULL REFUND. The cacher a couple miles away will gladly snap it up and use it with a smile on their face. As far as "Are Firmware Updates "Pre-Planned" in Advance?: What did they tell you when you called Garmin? You did call Garmin and voice your disappointment, right? Do you know their phone number? It's in the back of the owner's manual and its even a toll-free number! I really can't see the remaining employees of Garmin sitting around planning ways to "disappoint" John Q. Geocacher. All they have to do to do that is to put out a new product after a very well designed GPS that has been their flagship unit for geocachers for years. Throw in the fact that Johnny Q. learned his cousin to geo-cashe and there ya go! (Honestly, and I mean no disrespect here, I am amazed that anyone responded to this thread.)

I also took your response as very condescending and wasn't impressed with it at all. I am fully aware where the watertight seals should be. I don't believe my Colorado 300 would fair any better than Didjerrydo's did, as the seals appear to defective on my unit. That said, are you suggesting that I dunk my GPS just to see if it dies like Didjerrydo's? That would be a really stupid move on my part. I think I have demostrated extreme patience and common sense in evaluating the Colorado 300, my point was that firmware isn't going to fix all the issues of poor workmanship that plaque the Colorado series. Geocaching-Geckos, I'm sorry. I really am. I must have misunderstood what you wrote. In the Geocaching-Gecko's post, they state "My Colorado unit doesn't form a watertight seal either, there is a noticeable gap between the battery cover and unit itself." From what you wrote, you imply that the watertight seal comes as a result of the battery cover meeting the main case of the GPS unit. My 400t must be built differently than your 300. On mine, the seals are underneath the case and are not sealed by the case itself. I too have a "noticeable gap" between the case and the battery cover, but this has nothing to do with the seals underneath. Had this gap been .125" around the battery cover, as long as the latch secures the cover, both seals should be engaged. After I washed my unit for the first time and I removed the battery cover, I saw soap bubbles approaching, but not passing both black rubber seals. I carefully wiped off the bubbles and replaced the case. The seals did what they were supposed to do and appear to work well. I don't feel the need to submerge my 400t and test it like others might. Why submit it to an unneeded risk? As for others feeling that I was consdescending: Hey. I'm sorry. I don't believe I said or even implied that someone was a dummy. I simply said that there were statements lacking that lead me to believe that people fully understood the design of this unit. Their statements appeared to be driven by emotion instead of statements of fact. If that is condescending, someone needs to come up with an emoticon that means "I'm pattin' your butt like you're my favorite center (and I'm your favorite quarterback)" and all will be forgiven? Here's the bottom line (pun intended): $600 is a LOT of money to shell out for a GPS, especially in today's messed up world. If the unit fails to consistantly meet a required standard and is repeatedly returned to Garmin, they have a problem that will need to be resolved. I bought my unit from REI. They have a wonderful refund policy. If my unit leaks 23 months from now, I'm covered bay-be! I am really sorry that some people's units are having problems. I own the same unit as they do (more or less) and have the same concerns about quality. I really don't want to see your unit fail or my unit fail. Either way, it's not good. I still think that a calm, informed attitude is best in evaluating these issues, but if you don't ... more power to ya! Oh, as far as the Garmin Colorado being plagued by poor workmanship ... I think your choice of words is interesting here. So far, I don't see a plague of any sort. Poor choice of words or exagerated, emotional response not withstanding. This is the same issue as the Colorado 400t eating NiMH batteries. This was never the case, but boy was the forum in an uproar for days because some off-brand battieries were only lasting a couple hours during (what I thought was) an unreasonable test of performance. Garmin graciously and quickly fixed this issue with 0 Colorado owners needing to send in their units for repair/replacement. Now, this is a non-issue. Now, what's going to be the next crisis? My Garmin carabiner failed. It no longer closes freely, but the spring is still in good condition. This could cause me to lose my GPS. Have other's had this problem??? Ironically, the same night I bought my Colorado, I also bought two locking Bison carabiners. :: found it/installed it :: Man does that look nice! Now, lets hope that my belt loop doesn't fail or Magellan will be in a big lawsuit! How ironic will that be, eh?

See Apersson's reply above for a clarification....I should have said that the Colorado "may" filter out..... No, I believe that averaging may be a different "problem". In previous models "averaging " has always been a separate step when a waypoint is saved. Unless the Colorado happens to be averaging internally without "advertising it", then IMHO that is a software problem that should definitely be corrected in a future update. Averaging is definitely needed. Go outside and get a good "lock" , clear the tracklog and then set the unit out in the open where it has good reception for a while....... 30 min or so. Then take it back inside and download that track, zoom way in and you'll see that all that "wandering" is really just within a few meters or feet. If you also previously also reset the odometer, you may also see some goofy max speed. Something like 100-200+ mph or higher. In some of that "position noise" movement, the distance between one trackpoint and the next might only be 1 or 2 or 3 meters but the time it took to "travel" that distance was only maybe 1 sec........really fast "movement". Does that help? I disagree that the lack of averaging is even an issue. First of all, with the averaged waypoint on the 60 CSx, has anyone really ever seen an averaged waypoint vary by more than 1 unit in either north or south? (by 1 unit I mean +/- .001 minutes.) The new SiRF II antenna is very fast and stable. Even with an estimated accuracy of (say) 20 feet, the waypoint coordinates rarely varied by more than +/- 10 feet total around 80% of the time. Maybe it was determined that "averaging" a waypoint wasn't really any more accurate than getting a good reading and taking a solid measurement. In one way I believe that averaging waypoints is good for geocachers. Most cachers (the ones I have wondered across) rarely take the time to wait for a good satellite lock before they attempt to measure coordinates. Averaging forces them to slow down and take a longer reading, which may or may not actually give a better reading. On the wondering issue: Remember what estimated accuracy of 20 feet really means. Pretend you are standing in the middle of a dart board 40 feet across. You can reasonably say that the coordinates you are measuring are *somewhere* on that dart board. You don't know exactly where. So, if you do as the previous poster says and leaves the unit with a good look at the sky, clear the track log, and let the unit record data for 30 minutes or so, you're going to see a fuzzy ball that sits nicely inside this representation of a 40' wide dart board. Its not that the GPS is wondering. Its taking data based on moving satellites and telling you where it thinks that it is. On the flip side, the averaged waypoint is a real-time moving center of this fuzzy ball. Say "stop" and you've got a pretty good idea of where you are, but still within a smaller fuzzy ball. This center really isn't much closer to any of the data points in the fuzzy ball. I think a lot of the reduced functions on this unit, including the reduced brightness of the display (which is bigger and will eat up more power than the smaller display of the 60 CS(x) units, is an attempt at keeping the battery life to a reasonable level.

I didn't quote everyone, but I may cover all prior comments. I have not seen any reduction in estimated accuracy in months and months. I don't believe SA is in affect. We're not even under a Condition Orange level, are we? Wherever we are, it hasn't changed in some time. I think most people wanted a redesigned GPSmap 60 unit in a flashy new package. AND they wanted it for $1 more than the cost of the 60 CSx! What they got is an opportunity. But that's not good enough! I too noticed that the map didn't zoom in past 80 feet. On my first geocache search on the 400t I was frustrated until I realized that I rarely depend on the map to tell me where I am. Using that map is pretty impossible on a smaller scale unless the compass is rock solid as well as the GPS position. When we see the compass page jump from 10 feet to 22 feet, we think little of it, but when the map swings wildly around and your position flails along with it, we forget what we're in the woods looking for. I remember what I was told as a new cacher: When you get close to ground zero, lay your GPS down and start looking for a likely place to hide a cache. Even with this new antenna and a stable electronic compass, it honestly takes 2 - 3 minutes on site to get a legitamate position reading. Until you do get a stable reading, you're really buying a lie. This is true on the map page as well. You're trying to locate this postion on the Earth that may be 20 feet from where you really want to be. Using the map to find this artificial location really doesn't do one much good. Does it? You didn't ask, but my honest reccomendation for you is this: The compass page is a beautiful thing. You can set the four different data fields to tell you almost all you need to find a cache except for the description itself. - Accuracy of GPS - Battery Level - Bearing - Distance to Destination - GPS signal strength - Sunset - Time of Day Plus, you can have the bearing pointer on the compass itself, giving you no real need for a digital bearing (unless you use a compass in addition to your GPS unit.) The map page gives you a relatively blank page, bread crumbs, and minimal information. I don't see how using this really gets you closer to GZ or gives you more information.

I have seen the same thing with my 400t, the barometer not recording when the alarm is set. Two other things I've notice at the same time: The unit seems to wake up at various times during the night. I've seen flashes of light coming from the unit. The unit also appears to be "on" even though it is turned off. My battery level was considerably lower this morning although I placed fresh batteries in the unit 4 - 6 hours before turning the unit off for the night.

I have read all the comments and replies to comments about this issue and have several comments: If you'll carefully read the OP's initial post, there is something missing: Didjerrydo does not demonstrate that they are aware of 1) how this unit was designed to remain watertight or 2) what areas of the unit are to remain void of water. There is no mention of the O-rings, their placement, or their condition upon immediate examination. It remains unclear exactly where the OP saw water and conjecture on where the failure occurred. This sentiment is almost immediately repeated by Geocaching-Geckos who states "My Colorado unit doesn't form a watertight seal either, there is a noticeable gap between the battery cover and unit itself." This shows that the public is not understanding what needs and what does not need to be watertight AND how this particular unit is designed to meet those needs. It has been demonstrated through various posts (first mentioned by victorymike) that there are two main areas that are to remain watertight. There is an O-ring around the battery compartment. There is an O-ring around the card slot. To keep these two areas completely dry the back needs to be properly aligned to the unit, the back needs to slide completely along both rails. The latch most close completely and without hesitation. The area around the latch is clearly open and has no O-ring to prevent water from entering beyond this latch. If the unit has been completely submerged, you will see water around both seals. When the back is removed, care needs to be taken to insure that water that may have entered through the latch does not fall into either the battery compartment of the card slot. Unfortunately, being designed to keep water out, the reverse is also true. Any water that immediately surrounds the card slot will be able to flow over and past the O-ring the moment the back is removed. Since the back in on tight and is slow to detach from the unit, water has ample time to flow into the card slot. Also, since the internal area of the card slot has no O-ring, water can easily be wicked past an inserted card or flow freely to the contact area. As mentioned in more than one post, since the back appears to have play and (no one has yet mentioned this) since the latch itself does not provide positive pressure to seat the back firmly on the unit, any failure of this O-ring to form a complete seal will result in water entering the card slot and potentially damaging the unit. Clearly, this appears to be a weakness of the design and engineering of this unit and needs to be re-evaluated by Garmin. I feel that they also need to supplement the owner's information supplied with each unit and educate the owners what the potential risks are and why they occur. Some patience and sense needs to be used while evaluating this unit. Flying off with emotion caused by initial misunderstanding isn't going to helps it's or our cause, IMHO.

Marky, what brand and model of NiMH batteries are you using?It is my thought that most of the battery issues following the 2.3 upgrade comes from either high expectations (why would you expect to need backlighting on 100% for 12+ hours at a time) OR poor batteries. Here "poor" would include old batteries or brand new batteries, but mostly a lower capacity model. I am using Duracell 2650 mAh rechargeables with great performance. I have a set of the 2000 mAh pre-charged batteries that I recently bought. These I have in my truck for emergency back-up batteries when I don't have a freshly charged pair of the 2650. I think we need a technical thread started with battery voltage levels measured from various cachers, software versions, and other data. When I test my unit, running it on full backlight, I have WAAS and the electronic compass, as well as sounds and the barameter actively taking periodic readings. When actually using the unit, I don't think it lasts the full 16 hours, but ... the real question is: Why would I care if it didn't? When I cache for long days, I always start out the day with freshly recharged batteries AND the previous pair charging in the truck. The batteries I have charging only take a couple hours to recharge; well before the ones in my GPS unit have a chance to discharge completely. Not that I don't want the batteries to last, but as long as I'm not replacing batteries too frequently, why does it really matter if they last 16 hours or 12 hours? I will most likely be replacing the batteries about 2/3 thru my day either way or as I need new batteries. In addition, I always have a backup pair of batteries with me in case they are needed. __________________________ I do have to agree. After the 2.3 update, the battery meter is considerably better, but it doesn't really indicate 100%, 75%, 50%, 25% usable battery remaining. I would be happier if the meter reflected the remaining charge in the batteries, but that may be difficult to do considering the flatness of the performance curve for NiMH AA batteries. Those levels are bound to vary by brand and model, so what looks good for me may look horrible to others, and visa versa. Pat

Wouldn't it be just as easy (since this really needs to be part of the solution) to have sounds immediately on upon alarm/unit wake up? Having sounds off is a power saving move. If the alarm is set, most of the time the sounds are off OR you're not touching the unit (and thus not creating the sounds), so having them off makes no sense while an alarm is set. Forcing the sounds on at unit wake up seems to be the best solution.

Marky, You told us your software versions, but you didn't say what device you are using. What GPS are you talking about here? If its the 400t, which I own, your Software version of 2.3 is newer than what I am running, but when I check, Garmin tells me there is no updated software for me. I have the Colorado 400t with the following: Software Version 2.20 GPS Software Version 2.60. This may be why I am still seeing a problem with my battery levels. LifeOnEdge!

yogazoo, I guess I should have read all of your posts, but that really changes none of my replies. The issue you just described is NOT an issue at all. It has to do with the performance of the different battery types and not your GPS unit. What is a battery? Its a power storage device that supplied POTENTIAL to a unit. Potential is a level of energy that the battery is ready to impart to its device, otherwise known as voltage. How does voltage change as a battery is used? In any battery, before batteries are applied to a device, they contain a maximum potential. As the device is used, this potential drops. (This is all basic stuff so far, and easy to understand.) Now, as the device runs, the supplied voltage of the battery drops, as stated before, but its how the voltage drops that determines what batteries a unit uses and how long those particular batteries allow the device to run. If the voltage drops slowly (like walking down a very level sidewalk) the device runs for a long time (it takes several steps to notice that your elevation has changed.) If the voltage drops faster, the time a device can run within a given voltage range (operating voltage) is considerably less. How does the battery indicator work? Depending on the type of batteries used, the battery indicator on a device shows different amounts of charge. One bar, two bars, three bars, four bars, etc. Unlike the fuel gage on your car, these bars mean different things. Again, depending on the type of batteries used, the performance curve of these batteries differ. Some supply a broader range of voltage (potential) and need a wider range to operate the device. Some, like NiMH batteries, supply a flatter range of voltage and will be closer to "dead" with less of a drop in voltage. To continue the car analogy, this *car* can run longer on a more empty tank of gas. Its like this gas (type of battery) gives this car twice the mileage on one gallon of gas. Here, the NiMH batteries run longer, longer, longer at nearly the same voltage, then as it is almost out of energy, the voltage drops very fast and outside of the devices opperating level. As I was reading these posts, I was thinking that we were completely backwards, thinking that we could set the battery type to Alkaline and trick the unit into opperating longer. This may or may not be the case, but initally, changing the setting to alkaline will make the unit think that there is less energy left in that battery. As it runs, however, it may take considerably longer to use up the second and third bars, AND IN EFFECT allowing the unit to work longer. Try this, as will I, and tell me how it works. It may be a solution.

yogazoo, is there any way we could get you to use the quote feature when you are replying to a direct question? <smile> I believe you answered a question that was not directed to you here. The previous post was questioning the person who had used his Colorado for 3 1/2 hours with full backlighting and was still showing 4 bars on the batteries. It would make sense, if HIS unit was set to Alkaline batteries, that they might still be showing 4 bars. This implies a resonable, but temporary solution here. I plan on changing my battery settings to Alkaline and seeing how the performance appears to change.

yogazoo, you are really jumping the gun on this issue. yes, there is a problem, but this isn't a "deal breaker." I haven't read all the responses, and will be going back to read everything, but I wan't to comment based on several comments that I have seen and recent observations of the Colorado 400t that I own. Here goes: Like you, after my 400t claims that the batteries are low enough to stop backlighting, I placed my Duracell NiMH 2500 mAh rechargeables into my GPSmap 60 CSx. I turned on that unit, set the light to maximum and turned on the compass. The battery indicator gives me 3 of 4 bars. Yes, the 400t is set for NiMH batteries. Some background: I bought my unit two nights ago. I installed NiMHs that I were relatively charged and in my 60 CSx into this new unit, got 4 bars as I remember (I was excited to have the unit in my hands and may not have known enough to know what the battery level was at the time.) I turned the unit off (I believe), returned it to the box, and continued shopping. I then paid for the unit, went to dinner nearby, and played with the GPS before and after I ate. The unit is still running. Returning to the store where I made my purchase and picking up something I had forgotten previously, then going outside, I noticed the unit had shut itself off. I tried several different sets of NiMHs that I had on hand (none of the new, pre-charged variety AND none freshly charged) I found that several sets would not power the unit up. One final set of batteries were tried and worked well enough to mark a waypoint for a cache I was wanting to place. Once home, I rechecked the battery setting. It was properly set on NiMH. I placed one set of 2650 mAh batteries in the charger and placed these in the unit. I do not use a fast charger and have never seen the need. These can't be good on the batteries and I never seem to need a fast charge, usually having a freshly charged pair at hand. Yesterday, while playing with the unit, I noticed with normal use, about a 6 - 8 hour cycle before the new unit shut off backlighting due to a low battery condition. I didn't notice until today that the battery level indicator on my 60 CSx was showing 3 of 4 bars with the newly discharged batteries. _____________________________________________ Obviously, the voltage setting for a low battery condition on the Colorado units have been set incorrectly for NiMH batteries. These batteries have a rather flat performance curve and maintain a fairly level potential until they are about run out. This is how the higher and higher capacities are achieved. Its similar to how ice melts, staying in solid form until it reaches 32 degrees and then quickly changing from a solid to a liquid. Many of you may not know that ice does this or understand what I am attempting to describe. There was a claim that the unit itself is using too much power from the batteries. This is clearly not the case since the batteries have not actually lost considerable potential (i.e. the 60 CSx units still showing 3 of 4 bars on their battery indicators.) yogazoo actually claims that his/her batteries are "still fresh." This is an exageration. Obviously the batteries aren't fresh, having run the Colorado unit with full backlight for nearly 2 hours. But these batteries have not lost enough energy to show much drain when we place these batteries into our GPSmap 60 units. This is a relatively easy fix. The levels need to be redifined and the software adjusted to reflect this. At that point, these units should perform quite well. The next comment may be taken as being brash. So be it! I suggest those having these "deal breaker" issues, simply return the units to where they purchased them and stay with you tried and true GPSmap 60s. Your blood pressures will be better and you'll love your new, old unit. Face it, the 60s are awesome units that have very few negative aspects to their performance. I honestly feel that those seeing these issues as "deal breakers" have too high of expectations and patience. Do I like the fact that I'll have to carry around extra batteries? Actually, this is a PERFECT reason to buy the new pre-charged NiMHs that I've considered buying as well as breaking out the old style 2650 mAh Duracells that just got on the cheap! Regardless of what you do, I hope that you contact Garmin on Monday and ask them 1) what they feel is going on, and 2) how long they might expect before this issue is resolved. LifeOnEdge! *Still loving my 400t and taking it out caching in the morning*

Dear LifeOnEdge, Your comments filed me with a warm and fuzzy feeling. As though I should give my Colorado a hug and tell him that there's no one quite like it him the world, or hold it in my hand and sing kumbya as I walk down the street whose name I cant see on the maps. Last time I checked it was newest addition to the "Handheld Mapping" gps page on the Garmin website and marketed as such. Look, please forgive me for the sarcasm. I'm really trying to love this GPS but they're not making it easy. I think that at the root of it all it comes down to this. This is Garmin we're talking about here. Not Lowrance, not Bushnell or any other sub-prime GPS maker, we're talking about Garmin. Garmin is supposed to be the WORLD leader and for good reason. As far as handhelds go you couldn't beat a Garmin and they got that way because of all the functionality, stability, and reliability of the older lines. That is why this new one is so baffling to us all. It deosn't make sense reguardless of all the excuses about new formats and awkward transitions. We're told that it will just take some getting used to. I may get used to the roller wheel and the startup time. What I won't get used to is not seeing street names or wierd NIMH performance, or how un-customizable this "customizable" unit is,or any of the many smaller issues that effect everyday usage. You don't like it? Take it back! I got a 100% satisfaction guarantee with my purchase. A question: If you didn't like the unit, WHY did you buy it? You have a GPSmap 60 unit and love it, right? Use it. Hug that one. Heck, I can think of one other thing you might do! Make sure you wash it carefully, following. LOL Shoot, if you're not happy, get your $600 back AND call Garmin and tell them about your dissatisfaction. PROBLEM SOLVED

I just got my Colorado 400t last night. I love it. Software Version 2.20 GPS Software Version 2.50 _______________________________________ As I read almost everyone's comments here, you'all remind me of myself when I fought to get geocaching.com to fix issues on cache pages. Unfortunately, most of my "issues" were not seen as issues. I'm not one to see standing on my head to accept bugs as a solution. I eventually just gave up! With the Garmin Colorados: I wish more would realize that these GPS units are NOT the Garmin 60 units. Why would they be? We already have those! The Colorado units appear to be designed from the ground up and NOT a redesigned GPS 60. To get the most out of this new unit, we need to embrace it for what it is, not for what it isn't. You're going to scare potential buyers who never owned the GPS 60 units and mess up a good thing. Also, why not focus on true issues? Not just the differences between these units vs GPS map60 units, but how these units perform. If we don't, we waste time and effort "missing" the GPS 60s. With that being said, I haven't played enough with this new device. It seems that there are more ways to set up functions than I have discovered. I am forgetting the mold of how I think about caching and where I plan my trips. This new unit is excellent at keeping the task in focus (finding nearest caches, say). It seems to be designed for the hunt (except for the lack of being able to "find" a cache) and keeps you on task both for the closest caches and viewing the map of the area you are in. Let's leave the planning part of the hunt to other packages like Google Earth, Trip and Waypoint Manager, and other programs, and enjoy these new units for what they are. - just my thoughts. LifeOnEdge!

You can find archived caches by cache owner. This is available on their profile OR on one of their active cache pages. There is a link that takes you directly to other caches placed by this hider. You can also find archived caches on the geocaching.com map by selecting the "show disabled/archived caches" option (this is still wrong -- how long will it take Groundspeak to fix this and sundry other mistakes) and then viewing the map in the area of interest. Any archived caches will show up in the list of nearest caches to the area clicked on the map.

Micheal, I have nothing but patience and I do appreaciate the hard work you guys do for the web site. I also appreciate your direct and polite reply. This is something I have grown unaccustomed to. Thanks so much. LifeOnEdge! Waco Texas

I have been very close to a "lighter explosion" and they are quite powerful. While in high school I worked evenings as a janitor at a newspaper and we had to roll the paper around, it came in giant rolls that looked like TP but they weighed a lot (tons). The rolls moved easily but given their mass they had tremendous inertia and things pinched between two rolls or between the roll and the floor could easily be hurt, crushed or broken. On one occcasion I pushed a paper roll over a dropped Bic lighter, the steel part was facing the roll and was the first part compressed, the valve was crushed and as the roll continued forward the plastic lighter body exploded, it was very impressive with bits of plastic flying quite some distance, a small dent was made in the paper roll but only a few layers were hurt. Even though I haven't seen any giant rolls of paper while out caching I still take lighters from caches. I started removing all the crayons from my caches after a local cache was ruined when a package of crayons melted on a hot day last year, before that happened I used to put crayons in my caches, go figure. It sounds to me like giant rolls of paper are much more dangerous than lighters are. Has anyone considered adding these to the "Do not place these items in a geocache" list? Folks, don't try this at home!

don't you watch mythbusters? I would have to agree. A butane or zippo-type lighter isn't going to explode. You guys know this. There has to be three things in order for a fire to start and burn. There is limited air inside an ammo can "especially" the hotter it gets, AND there is no source for ignition. Also, you're assuming on thing that is most likely false: that the lighter has fluid in it. If you're giving away a lighter, most likely it is new and in the box. No lighter fluid there! Also, automobiles have flamable liquid in them. They don't explode in Vegas, do they? Mythbusters wouldn't even waste their time on that one. ALL THIS ASIDE, since the guidelines state "no lighters," why push it. My suggestion for your lighter leaving friends: Go with the position of "If a lighter or knife or other prohibited item is left in my cache by you, you are creating the possibility that my cache is disabled or archived. Please don't leave these items as swag in my cache or they will be removed and an appropriate note referring to you left on the cache page. These fools are risking the demise of your cache. Put it to them straight and hard.

Not to be trite, but the solution is to fix the problem. This used to be correct. Then it was messed up. Then it was fixed. Now it is messed up again. I would *think* that the "simplest solution" would be to set it back to the way it was set after the first fix. But I'm not the person doing that. I don't know what they did. They do. They will know what to do. I'll say it again so it isn't lost in the garble: The map used to be right-justified.

I duplicate my coords in the log post, so downloaders get them, too. I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that you use the waypoint field and you type them as a part of your text? I believe that would also duplicate the numbers in whatever information your "downloaders" (whoever they are -- you didn't explain) are getting.

That is exactly what you do see due to this problem. The map is centered on the page instead of right-justified, causing all those links to fold onto themselves. The links for the maps below the affected links are too short to need to be folded. If the map were returned to the right-justified postion, all those links would open up, depending on your particular screen resolution. As it stands, with the complex link lines with different function, its harder to see which one you are selecting.

As I stated, there is one here hidden exactly that way, and it has been found by lots of people who really enjoy it. I hope the cacher you mention doesn't come here and find it . . . As to your other points, I agree with you. The cache I found in Colorado was a great one, hidden near some cool rock formations, and it certainly had no impact on the environment. Piling up some rocks to hide it would have done more aesthetic damage because that would have been unnatural. The simple hide the cache owner employed was perfect for the area. On the other hand, I have found some buried, five-gallon bucket caches I wouldn't mind seeing Archived . . . but I certainly wouldn't turn them in . . . As you might remember, the "Original" stash *was* a partially buried five gallon bucket. One might ask if this was the reason for the "no buried caches" rule. This certainly shouldn't stand as reasoning for anyone to bury a cache, but its an interesting point of information. Food for thought: There are many waterproof match containers hidden in our area. Some are hidden on the ground. It is quite common for a cacher, concealing this cache when rehiding it, to scrape part of the ground away with the container, leaving a partial mound on the leading edge, then lightly tossing loose material found on the nearby ground around the cache. A few winds blow, a gentle rain, and the area looks like a small bump at the base of a foundation, step, tree trunk, etc. The cache was not buried. It doesn't have to be dug for to be found. It does need to be seen and picked up and then covered in a similar manner in the (natural?) depression in which it was found. Does this then become an illegal cache?

I have recently had issues with this exact topic. Cachers in my area appear to be hyper-sensitive to being told *where* their cache was found. I have a friend who said I was the only one to ever "complain" about his coordinates. I told him that I wasn't complaining. I was simply telling him where I found his cache, and hoping it would help other cachers as well as the cache owner, posted the coordinates that I measured in my find post. I was then told by the same cache owner "Oh, I ignore posted coordinates on my caches. You have to e-mail me." I've had area cachers "come out" and tell me that I had made them mad when I mentioned that I found their cache at different coordinates. Another cacher asked me what right I had to believe my numbers were better than theirs, much less post coordinates at all. I reminded these guys that the location of a cache is THE ONE THING that we depend on knowing, in order to find the cache. Of course the reply to that was "A good cacher can find any cache." I could go on and on with examples, but the long and the short of it is that I have evidently shamed local cachers by implying that anyone can make any number of mistakes. These cachers just don't make mistakes or have sloppy numbers regardless of why. Looking further into this (with the one cacher) I found time after time where coordinates just haven't been updated on the cache page. They will move the cache, post coordinates in written note to the cache page (inappropriately, I might add ... not using the add a waypoint feature), or simply ignore suggested coordinate corrections with accompanying comments by subsequent cache finders, DNFs even though the cache is quite easy, and reports of cachers injured being in an area they don't need to be in, all because this cache owner wasn't told in an e-mail that the cache was found 40 feet from the stated coordinates. I have even had forum threads locked for "potential abuse" because I bring up the subject. Its almost like being in a dysfunctional family, and learning that one of the family has a problem that no one can talk about. The bottom line: these cachers don't appreciate posted coordinates that differ from their coordinates or the cachers who post them.

The one Unactivated TB was swag and should have been traded for. One solution to greedy types, especially if they are FTF hogs is to provide a certificate that can be send in for the FTF prize. Make it only good to new FTF's. Sure the hog may come along and be the FTF but the second to find is the first qualifying FTF and the one that gets the prize. More work on your part, but a more equitable outcome and it keeps the pigs out of the shared trough if they can't share. RK, what do you mean by "new FTF's?" A First to Find is a First to Find. Its a one shot thing. The first person to find a (published) cache is the First to Find. This isn't something that renews. Did you mean a first time First to Finder? If so, the STF is definitely not the FTF, new or otherwise. What if they also had a FTF? Being second doesn't necessarily solve the problem. As I said, a First to Find is a First to Find. If its their first, "Congratulations!" It sounds like you don't care for persons who have more than one FTF. One has to wonder ... buy I'll be nice.