Plasma Boy

The Garmin clip is the kind that you clip on your belt. The bottom plastic part broke off and the locking mechanism was removed. As I have said it is bullet proof. The spring is bolted to the mount and epoxied for good measure. I ride with this mount every day, year round, even in the winter. Because of the velcro, there is very little pressure on the Garmin clip

I made mine using some 3/4 inch PVC plate, an old garmin clip, a couple of S/S fasteners and some velcro. It is bullet proof. I put a piece of the fabric part of the velcro on the under side of my 60CSx. I glued the hook part to the mount. The GPSr slots into the clip and the velcro holds it tightly in place. Have been using it for years and never lost the GPSr. It even took a ride on the car bike rack when I forgot to take off the GPSr. I found the store bought one flimsy and was a pain to remove to put in car.

GSAK has it's own forum that can be accessed from the help tab in the software. I have never had a question that they could not answer. The creator (Clyde) moderates the GSAK forums.

First, let me say that I did not read this entire thread. I skimmed it. My caching buddy and I came up with an acronym that we sometimes sign on logs when we feel that there is no point to a cache location other than "Simply For The Numbers (SFTN)". In my opinion this pertains to both the owner and the finder. Some owners like to place lots of caches regardless of quality or location. Some finders are just in it for the numbers. When we sign a cache like this we find it to boost our numbers. While we do enjoy the hunt, we are usually let down witjh the quality of the hide and quality of the cache. Maybe these poor quality caches would disappear if we as cachers refused to sign the log, but noted that it is a lame cache, but honestly, I cache for the numbers as well as for the enjoyment. I have 6 caches. I cached for years before I set out my first. I like to believe that they are good quality and well thought out. JMHO. While I will gladly ride my bike along a trail and collect a cache every 160 metres, I would be happier to collect fewer caches along the same trail, if they were placed in good hides, regardless of the distance (greater than the minimum). Sometimes, owners use the distance as the main criteria for placing a cache. It should be the hide location.

Thanks

When I look at the "Canada" link in "Geocaching Groups By Topic", I notice that there are over 2500 topics, but when I click on the Canada link only one page of topics show up. Is this me or are other no seeing all the topics?

A friend recently bought a Legend Cx. We took it out of the box and entered some waypoints manually, so that I could show her how the GO TO featuire worked. We went to the find icon and located a waypoint and hit GO TO, the compass showed up but the red arrow and bearing and distance did not. It was as if we had not selected anything. If I toggled over to the map window the waypoint shows up with the dotted line from our location. As we move to the waypoint the dotted line gets smaller and the arrow leads us to the waypoint. It appears to be working on he map screen, but not on the nav window. Anyone else experience this? I checked all of the setup settings against my 60CSx and everything looks OK I told her to box it up and take it back to Walmart and get another one.

I respectively disagree with your constantly referring to the topic of this thread as the real issue. Yes, the topic mentions logs, but the log issue is part of a much bigger issue. The real issue is the "Inconsistency In Applying Forbidden Cache Type Guidelines". I mentioned twice about not being able to change the topic title. I can not do that, but as a moderator you can. Could you please change the topic title to reflect the real topic of this thread? Having said that, as you notice, I only reply to this thread when others make comments. I am willing to let this topic fall off the page. If there are no more posts that I feel need answering, I will not post to this topic again. I will not close the topic and I ask that you do not either. There are not any reasons to warrant closure of this topic. I would appreciate it if you would change the topic title, so that the logs issue can be truly put to bed and the greater issue can be discussed if anyone wants to. Failing that I could always start a new topic with the new title and put a link to the old. I will not report the cache mentioned in this thread to Groundspeak. I have absolutely no problem with this kind of cache. The only reason it was mentioned was to point out the inconsistencies in applying the guidelines. I apologize if this thread causes that cache owner or any other cache owner grief. My problem is the way the guidelines are applied. That is the issue of this thread.

The only reason that the topic contains the word "LOG", is that once I realized that the topic was incorrect and needed to be changed, I discovered that Groundspeak does NOT allow posters to change the name of the topic. This was mentioned in one of my previous posts. I said that after being told by a reviewer that cachers change the names of caches to sneak around the forbidden cache guidelines. I found it ironic that a cacher could change the name and focus of a cache, but could not alter the topic of a forum. As for the cache in question, it WAS challenged and still allowed and justified. Everyone misses things. I am not blaming the reviewers. They do a thankless job. The cache in question was challenged as a reviewer suggested that it was our responsibility and the approval was defended by Groundspeak. That is the inconsistency not that it slipped past the reviewer.

Again with the logs. That issue is settled and I accept it. OK? As I said previously, I submitted an idea for a cache to cache agent (you know her, right?), it was very similar to this idea. It was a cache based on a charitable organization (CBS). She told me it would not fly. I contacted Groundspeak and they said the same thing. What I am talking about now is why was the cache previously mentioned approved. Their web page "CLEARLY" states that they are a charitable organizations that accepts donations (solicitation). From the guidelines. Caches that Solicit Solicitations are off-limits. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda. Come on Cache-tech, you are the expert here. The cache owners web page CLEARLY states that it is a charitable organization that solicits for donation on it's web page. The guidelines CLEARLY states that solicitations are off limits and charitable organizations can not be the subject of caches. There are no exemptions for caches that solicit. PERIOD. Please explain why exactly this charitable cache was approved. Remember the log issue is settled.

Firstly, I do not consider the voicing of opinions here as mudslinging. If that is your interpretation of the flow of this thread then, fair enough. I believe that I said that the logs issue was settled and the intent of this thread was about the inconsistency of the guidelines where commercial/solicitous caches were concerned. As far as I am concerned there should not be a distinction between commercial and the rest. They all have agendas. Commercial caches have the worst agenda of them all. They are there to make money. That is a big agenda. To have exceptions for commercial caches and not the others is ridiculous. Either all of the special class caches should be exemptable or none of them should be. I can live with which ever way it goes. To single out one special class over the rest is inconsistent. Apply the guidelines evenly or do not apply them at all. The cache that DanoShimano spoke about is not a commercial venture. All you need do is to read their web page. Cache-tech should have when he allowed this cache. I am only assuming that he was the reviewer. It is in his neck of the woods. Their web page clearly states that they are a: "year-round, non-profit, charitable organization that does not receive ongoing government support, but is totally dependent upon income from memberships, donations and admissions. " This organization is not commercial. It does not fall under the commercial cache guideline. They give out tax receipts for membership fees. Commercial ventures do not. It clearly is a charitable organization, just like the CBS is a charitable organization. I am not mentioning this cache by name because, other than charging to find the cache, I do not have a problem with it and see no reason to shut it down. But, if the guidelines are to be applied evenly is must be shutdown. Solicitation is Off Limits. (from the guidelines) When this inconsistency was reported to Groundspeak as Mtn-man said cachers were responsible to do, the reporter was told that it was a commercial cache and that they had given an exemption to because it was non-profit and they asked for the exemption. The first reason should have told them it was not a commercial venture. If the Groundspeak reviewer had checked the web page of the owners, they would have seen two things. On their profile page they have not found any caches. To me that means that they are not cachers, because cachers find caches. The second is the statement quoted above that clearly states that they are a "Non profit, charitable organization". And you ask why I have a problem with the inconsistencies employed to how the guidelines are approved? Now, I am sorry, if you can not see that there is an inconsistency above, then you never will.

The peninsula of Halifax, like most cities is littered with caches within easy walking distance of your hotel. You could also take the ferry across to Dartmouth, where there are a lot in the immediate and walking distance of the terminal. You will not run out. Enjoy.

Excuse me? I said what? Would you mind quoting where I have gone to great lengths to say that "rules are rules"? Since you can't (because I haven't), would you mind giving me an apology? Mtn-man I do offer you an apology. I should not have attributed these statements to you. These are what I have interpreted from what I have heard from you and the other posters. I did not place these phrases in quotations, so they were not meant as quotes. I do stand behind how i interpret what I have read here. As an employee of Groundspeak whether you are paid or unpaid, you have the power to terminate this thread. I started this thread so that an open discussion could be conducted. I did this after trying to negotiate with Groundspeak (see first post) via email and got no where. They were not willing to see my point of view at all. I accepted that they were not going to bend, so I figured that I would start an open discussion about the guidelines. As to the "commercial" cache referred to by Danoshimano. Commercial by it's very nature is a for profit venture. I can not think of anyone or any company (Groundspeak included) that would enter into a commercial venture and not expect to recover a profit. It is not the American way. That is not an insult to Americans. So, this cache that has represented itself as a not for profit commercial venture is either mistaken or trying to get around the solicitation rule. It is a charitable group hiding behind a commercial front. On the other hand the Canadian Blood Services is as their web page advertises: Canadian Blood Services is a not-for-profit, charitable organization whose sole mission is to manage the blood and blood products supply for Canadians. To this end, Canadian Blood Services: * Collects approximately 850,000 units of blood annually and processes it into the components and products that are administered to thousands of patients each year. * Manages the Unrelated Bone Marrow Donor Registry (UBMDR) whose mission is to secure, in an expeditious way, donors for Canadian bone marrow transplant patients and for patients abroad. * Screens every donor and tests each unit of blood or blood product collected for a variety of transmissible diseases. * Ensures that Canadian transfusion medicine research and development remains at the cutting edge. Canadian Blood Services is committed to blood safety. In addition to the effective screening and testing processes, this pursuit of safety is reflected in every branch of its organizational structure and in each management and operational decision that is made. So how is this different from the 'commercial" cache that was allowed? The only way this is different is that I did not ask for permission before hand. I was a oversight on my part. After reading the guidelines, I saw nothing about what could or could not be said in logs. This was about one year (500 finds) after I started using my tag line. I looked into the guidelines because I wanted to start a CBS cache. When I saw the guidelines, I emailed Groundspeak and "ASKED FOR PERMISSION" to create a cache for CBS. I was turned down flat and referred to the guidelines. I grudgingly accepted their ruling. At that time they did not say, "oh. by the way, we do not like your tag line". It took another year (600 finds) for that to happen and only after someone ratted me out. Fair enough. I am removing my logs. The tag line issue is closed. I do not have a problem with the TB rules. Closed subject. This thread has progressed past that into commercial/solicitation caches and why they are or are not allowed. I do not see a difference between commercial and solicitous caches. They should be grouped as one. They all should have exceptions or none of them should. Allowing a commercial venture to establish a cache under not for profit reasons is ludicrous. Non profit commercial venture = OXYMORON. Like you I am a volunteer. I voluntarily donate plasma to the Canadian Blood Service. The extent of my volunteering is to let them stick a needle in my arm to maybe save someones life. I am not expecting Groundspeak to do a flip on my issue and let me have a CBS cache. I started this thread so that other cachers could voice their opinion in an open forum. If I had stopped with the email conversation rather than starting this thread, I would not know the opinion of others who agree with me and those who do not. That is the whole point of these forums.

Now stand by one, Cache-tech. The rule/guideline clearly states as I have shown above. Solicitation is off limits for caches. That means that Groundspeak should not be allowed to grant permission to anything against the rules. If the owner does not respect their own rules why should those who are spending money to belong. IMHO, the whole permission thing is just a back door way for Groundspeak to get around their own rules for their own reasons. Groundspeak and their volunteers can make up all the loop holes they want, but it is wrong. What is good for us gooses is apparently not good for the ganders (Groundspeak). If you make rules, stick to them or they become useless and questionable. BTW, show me in the guidelines where it states that cachers can request permission to bend the guidelines. It doesn't. In Canada and I am sure in the states our legal system is based on something called the "Rule Of Law" which means that even those who pose the laws and those who enforce the laws, MUST OBEY the laws.

Mtn-man, in your posts, you went on in great length about how commercial et al caches are not allowed, verboten, banned, not good, rules are rules. You clarified about TB's being exempt from these rules. Fair enough. Now, when danoshimano brings forward a blatant breech of the rules and says that when he brought it to the attention of the proper authorities (as you say is our duty as cachers to rat each other out), he is told that the "CACHE" is non profit and they asked for permission. Their first reason is not an exemption but is one of the not allowed categories. They also charge an admission so the cacher is out of pocket. The second reason is false also because these are hard fast rules and there are no exceptions for "CACHES". PERIOD! FULLSTOP! Caches that Solicit <B>Solicitations are off-limits</B>. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda. You say you like the flexibility they show with somethings. Why are you now calling them guidelines when all along you have been treating them as rules. Rules do not make exceptions as in my case, but now when a blatant infraction is brought to Groundspeaks attention, we are told that they do make exceptions. I am still removing my logs , I have accepted that Groundspeak guidelines change with the wind (or whim), but why is this allowed and mine is not. When I asked about a CBS cache, I was turned down flat, being referred to the guidelines as these kind of caches are "OFF LIMITS". CONSISTENCY MUCH ????

I have a Garmin MAP60CSx GPSr. It came with a 32 or 64 meg chip. What is the largest chip memory size that I can put in it? 1 gig, 2 gig? Is there a max size?

Hi Amanda, There are two local Geocaching site in eastern Canada. One is atlanticgeocaching.com and the other is maritimegeocaching.com. They both have many members in the Halifax area. They hold get togethers and are generally a good bunch.

Here are two screen shots. Garmin's Topo50 Canada series (Dryden, Ont) Ibycus TopoMaps (Dryden, Ont) The detail is about the same. Garmin has road names. If you can live without the road names and Ibycus is making these maps free to DL then you would be crazy not to use them. I haven't tried to upload any to my Garmin yet, so I do not know how they look on the small screen, but I for one am very impressed with Ibycus' skill in map generating. I will stick with my Topo50's. I already bought them, but his are as good and the price can not be beat. Good job. As an aside. I have a Garmin Map60CSx. It comes with a 64 meg microSD chip and larger ones can be put into it. How do I upload to the chip rather than the onboard memory. Also I was told that I could load more waypoint (1000 +) on the extended memory. How?

Before I DL and install this rather large package, what will I get at the end? Is there an exe that will launch like mapsource and load maps?

Question. I have Topo Canada. It is a few years old. Are the maps you produce more up to date? More detailed? Are they a better alternative to the TOPO Canada set or are they similar?

Yes, this is my personal opinion. I do not expect that Groundspeak will listen to it or act upon it. I do expect to be allowed to voice my opinions in an open forum. I only know of one religion that abhor blood transfusion. They should have the right to promote that view, just as I should be allowed to promote mine. I respect their their view, I am sure that they would respect mine. I did a google search of people who are against blood donations and found only one group.

Yet another thing you can not change in Groundspeak. To the best of my knowledge, you can no longer change your GC name.

I disagree. This thread is on topic. The topic is "Solicitous cache guidelines". The title is "Inappropriate Log Information". When I noticed that my title was inaccurate, I tried to change it, but guess what? Groundspeak in their wisdom do not allow topic title changes by the OP. I assume this is to stop the OP from changing the title to something else that may not be appropriate. Bait and switch. This is exactly what they should do to cache names. I have not seen the code for the cache placement form on-line, but if they just copy the code for emailed notification for coordinate changes, I figure it will take about two minutes. It is not rocket science. Basic html coding. My tag line is not the issue. It was an example of the issue. My situation is resolved. I have been told to remove the logs and I have started doing it. I disagree with the judgment, but will comply. While I am complying, I feel it is my right as a member to question Groundspeak's policies here in an open forum. It is also other member's right to agree or disagree in an open forum. I would also like to believe that cachers are honest and give them the benefit of the doubt, but I would also like to believe that everyone drives safely and obeys the laws of the road, but we have law enforcement officers to check that they do. As to taking over three years to check caches. This may be true in Bedrock with Fred Flintstone in charge of checking all of the stone tablets, but in the real world, all of the listings are in a big database. I very simple SQL query using a few keywords of the name field of that database would kick out a list of possible illegal cache names. Probably a couple hundred. These caches could either be flagged and forwarded to the reviewer for a re-review or to a paid employee to re-review it. Many of those could be dismissed with a cursory glance. The rest could be investigated. I would say a couple of hours should be enough. I do not have a problem with solicitation. There should be rules. If the rules are intelligent and applied equally then every one should be happy. The example was given about "dog fighting or pedophile" caches cropping up. The first rule you make is if the subject is "AGAINST" US law then you disallow it. I think the US legal system outlines pretty well what is illegal and moral. Use that as a bench mark. Just saying religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not allowed is too black and white. There are grey areas. I do not have a problem with them so long as they promote generic topics. "Believe in God", "Don't believe in God", "Donate your blood or organs or your time", "disease awareness", "Support our Troops", "Vote for who ever you like, just get out and vote, it is your right". Asking for specific things or for profit should be forbidden, but I do not see anything wrong with general supportive subjects.

True, but there must be a number of people who are actually paid, real money, to look after this site. One paid employee found time in his busy schedule to email me a number of times to make sure i was going to remove all of my tag lines. Maybe he could look through the cache site listings.

I appreciate what you and cacheagent are saying. I appreciate the service that you guys perform for us. As I have said in a few minutes, I discovered 30 inappropriate caches. I think it might be time to lock down cache names. Maybe there should be an overseer who's job it is to check caches by doing word searches. This will hopefully stop guys like me and others complaining about the inconsistencies of the guidelines. If the organ grinders have rules, it should not be up to the monkeys to enforce them. We monkeys only have to obey them.