M3J

Sorry, its bad enough I will soon have to choose between Stephane or Stephen (forget about Jack or what's her name)...no way I'm going to vote on something else this fall, especially when it serves no purpose but to give someone the opportunity to exclaim that "the masses have spoken and I am right" based on a dozen or two replies. Peace out brothers

As I read through the last number of posts, my first question is: 1) How much time do you guys have on your hands? and then: 2) Where was there a confusion about how a puzzle could affect Terrain? Maybe I missed something but I don't think there was ever a question of if a puzzle should affect Terrain. Without a doubt, Terrain only speaks to how tough it is to get to the cache. The definition of the word itself speaks to that. I think part of the problem has been in the choice of the word Difficulty. Difficulty, could just as easily be read to mean the hike to the cache or the brain power needed to get the cache in hand. Since we don't need two descriptors for how tough it is to get there (why would we??) then to me there is no reason to have terrain included in difficulty. If we think back to when this system was designed and think real hard, I am sure you can imagine them asking "how do we have caches rated and what info do cachers need to know". I am equally certain that they would not have said "lets have two ratings...one to measure the terrain to the cache and another to measure how hard it is to find including the same terrain rating". Doesn't make much sense to me. Of course, difficulty isn't just using your brain to find the cache, it could also be the difficulty in avoiding muggles, times of day, park hours, equipment, etc. The only time there would be an "adendum" to the description of the word difficulty would be in the case of puzzle caches IMO. Maybe the solution is to think of difficulty as simply everything needed to get the cache in hand EXCLUSIVE of terrain. Anyway, just my opinion. I do think that you guys have both taken stances here that are quite assertive considering that this is still a free "hobby" and no one is getting paid for their opinions! I'd say it fair to state that neither side is going to change the other's opinion...just kiss and make up already You both are decent guys just with different view points...can't we all just get along

Since someone else bumped it...the CREW is down to our last 30 coins if anyone wants to get one or two before they're gone. Emil me through my profile if you want one.

when i do that one I expect it won't be a favorite - NEAT yes, favorite? unlikely Rather blah actually. Just remember the bug spray in there. The only pic I have of us grabbing it has my then 13 year old with a giant grimace as he is being bitten by a swarm of skitters. Still cool to have it in my list of oldest caches though.

Huh....thought I could edit my post and addd pics. Oh well, here are the pics from Mirrorview on Fairview: The boys at the halfway mark Mirror Lake Lake Agnes Falls Overlooking Chateau Lake Louise from 1000 feet up Lake Agnes Janice on the tearoom deck Closing in on the cache

Gotta say, kinda funny...when I read the forum post, two of the ones I thought of were Screaming Skulls and Extreme East. Did them both last year and both are great choices. Having cached in all ten provinces, I have seen some real nice ones and it would be really hard to narrow it down much. The GWN Geotour stop in both Victoria and St John's are great caches as are a bunch we did in the Rockies this summer and a bunch around the Muskokas like Ted's Hole in the Wall by boat. I guess, if I had to choose just one of my highlights, it would be GCJE0C Mirrorview on Fairview. This cache is along the Lake Agnes trail whcih takes you 340M up from Lake Louise up to lake Agnes and the tearoom up there. It was a bit of a challenging 3.8km hike up to the teahouse but the view was incredible, even with the very overcast day. The occasional lookouts over Lake Louise and to the west were spectacular. The teahouse at the top is a wooden cabin at the edge of a cliff with a waterfall right beside it and Lake Agnes right behind it. Lake Agnes is a small glacial fed lake and when we were there at the beginning of July, there was still snow on the hillside beside the lake. The food and tea was very good (it should be for those prices!). It was certainly cool up there though so the family was happy to start back down after a 30 minute break. On the way back down, we passed by Mirror Lake again and I started to look for a trail to the cache site. Not finding one right away, I started back up the main trail again about 100M to where I had seen a side trail. This took my oldest and I to the rocks where we clambered across to the general cache area. Knowing the cache was above the posted coords (its a traditional but the posted coordinates take you to a point where you are supposed to look uphill for the cache site...been some controversy there), we stayed high to avoid going down and back up. We found the cache pretty easily actually and after signing the log, joined up with the rest of the family and had a much easier walk back down while looking at the faces of those heading up....yeah, our faces looked like that 90 minutes ago!! I'll post some pics when I get home tonight.

But don't a lot of people add to the rating if the muggle factor makes signing the log very hard? And shouldn't they? It would be harder to "find" the cache wouldn't it, could even take several trips to log it? Yeah, I would lean towards the difficulty being upped in a high muggle territory. Even an LPC outside a Tim Hortons would be a higher Difficulty than one at the back of a shopping mall IMO. The fact that LPCs, especially ones in lamposts at a Tims, are the bane of geocaching, is another point. Then there is the lampost nano I did in Regina this summer that was behind a mini plaza but attached to a sign that was about 10 feet high. You have to climb on the concrete lapost base and reach up to the sign to get it. That would be a a higher terrain and a higher stupid cache factor to me. In all seriousness, I'd like to see a new rating added. You'd have the usual D/T ratings but also have a feedback rating. Finders, when they log their find, could add a rating from 1 to 5 that would simply be an overall experience rating. I'd likely do more caches that were rated higher here because it would also relate to the enjoyment of the cache as seen by cachers other than the hider. It would incorporate the view, comic nature of the hide, cleanliness of the container, ingenuity of the hide, etc. This might also give new cachers an idea of what other cachers like so that when they start hiding caches, they have an idea of what a "good" cache is. Just my 2 cents.

I have to admit, I too believe they are seperate issues, MOST of the time. I can imagine there are exceptions to this though. An example that I can think of as to why they should be seperate... I just finished the Great White North Geotour Final in Ottawa. I spent the last year hitting all ten provincial capitals and doing their multis to get the code to calculate the final. The final was rated a 5/5 though the walk was about as easy as it gets. Now, I would say that it should bea 5 Difficulty if you want to consider that you have to travel the entire country to get the final, but the terrain should have only been a 1 based on the final hide. I can understand that some would consider the Terrain of all 10 caches as part of the final but I think that Terrain stands alone. No one is right or wrong, just a different way of looking at it. Since I don't get paid to geocache, I won't worry too much about whether my way of thinking is right or wrong.

Yup, Don't Eat the Rhubarb is a must do. All of the Earthcaches in Banff and north are cool too.

You know what stat I would like to see...activity of cachers in each country. I realize number of finds probably isn't the measure since large cities in the US and elsewhere have a disproportionate amount of lame lamp post micros allowing cachers to rack up the numbers faster...maybe the rankings could be based on number of days cached in a year or some other number. Be kinda cool to know how active Canadian cachers are compared to the rest of the world.

M3J here, reporting in from the west....yes, ticks are alive this way as well! We haven't seen any in Alberta but on the way out here, I picked one up in Wisconsin (felt it crawling up my leg before it latched on) that I think was just another dog tick. In Manitoba, we went out caching and then after getting back in the truck, Joseph says from the backseat "what do ticks look like?" I turn around...."just like that". He found it crawling as well and luckily it hadn't latched on either as it appeared to be smaller, possibly a western black legged tick...the kind that carries lyme disease more often from what I read. Then is Saskatchewan, I went through some tall grasses but looked down every 10 seconds or so and sure enough, saw one more on my sock. Gotta love the rockies...worst thing is giant skitters!

We just left Banff yesterday and are in Calgary now. Definately do: Don't Eat the Rhubarb - tour of an old coal mining ghost town ...may as well do Cascade Ghosts virtual while you are there Banff Upper Hot Springs Earthcache Limestone Hoodoos in Banff Earthcache Moneyed Waters Earthcache and if you want to drive a little further: Mirrorview on Fariview - hike 3.8km uphill (340M elevation rise) to Lake Agnes Teahouse and the cache is just below it...probably one of my top 3 caches of all time now two others by Lake Louise on the way to the previous cache A Rainbow in the Mist - highest waterfall I have ever seen Valley of Ten Peaks Earthcache There are many others around but these are the best we did. We did not get up to the Sulphur Mountain Virtual as we went up the Jasper Tramway a few days before but I am sure this would be a good one to do as well. Mike

You can get a computer running Vista in Timmins Don??? I thought they were still clearing out the 3.1 systems up there!!

No, I've never had an issue...very quick. If I recall, the number was somewhat buried in the email I got from them after my Paypal payment (unless I'm mixing it up with some other software. Take a close read of that first email from them closely in case I'm not off base.

I thought I had seen info somewhere but can't seem to find it in a search. Sorry if this is a repeat question... On a Colorado 300, has anyone compared the speed of loading a map (or zooming in and out) on the NT vs non-NT version of City Navigator 2008?

A few thoughts here for you... 1) I know you are talking about your electronic compass. Do you for sure have the electronic compass turned on? I have seen people think they are on the electronic compass before but in reality they are just using the course pointer via GPS signal only. The "compass" pointer and electronic compass are the exact same pointer so unless you know you have turned it on or off (holding down the page button), you won't know whether you are working with the electronic compass or just the pointer aimed at the waypoint and using GPS signals only. If you are in fact on the electronic compass, make sure to hold it level to be most accurate (as opposed to staright up and down when using GPS signal only). 2) Make sure you re calibrate the electronic compass when you travel any longer distance and after each battery change. I know you said you have. 3) Another consideration for out east only...in 2006 the WAAS signal was down for north eastern USA and the Maritimes as the moved WAAS stations. If the cache was placed that year out east, the hider's signal may not have been as accurate. 4) Lastly, I have cached quite a bit out east and have found the caches not really any less accurate than at home. That being said, 8-12M out is entirely probable anywhere thanks to tree cover, time of day, weather, etc.

I have the same one from Garmin...never a problem. It seems to be in stock at GPS Central... http://www.gpscentral.ca/accessories/hbar60.htm

Got mine through REI in the US... www.rei.com/product/768970 I had it on with the BT Bunch yesterday as well but was not around for the hike through the grasses. I'll try the experiment on our next outing and report back, but I'm sure the results will be as Ron mentioned for him.

Sure they do: I stand corrected Greg...forgot about THE Tick!

Gosh, its a good thing I never said "hitched a ride" or people would be commenting that ticks don't have thumbs!!

Ticks jump now? What, didn't notice the quotes?? Its an expression.

Ticks wait until someone passes by the plants/grasses and "jump" on. They don't fly. Its mostly from plants and grasses. I have not heard of them falling from a tree, though I guess anything is possible.

Thanks Red90. I placed my order from GPSCity in Calgary last night since we will be out there in two weeks and I may as well save the shipping as well as the PST! Maybe I'll see you on the trails when we're out there!

Then you don't want to see this pic from a cache raid in NS a few weeks ago. No ticks in NB......yet. Yikes!! Quite the pic! Sorry Greg, they are quite common in Maine and the northeast in general. I think they tend to be more common in areas with lots of shorelines as I believe they hitchhike on shorebirds. Rovers3, you might know best...is that not the case? We're headed out west so I hope its not as big an issue out there.

Then you don't want to see this pic from a cache raid in NS a few weeks ago. No ticks in NB......yet. Yikes!! Quite the pic! Sorry Greg, they are quite common in Maine and the northeast in general. I think they tend to be more common in areas with lots of shorelines as I believe they hitchhike on shorebirds. Rovers3, you might know best...is that not the case?