FireRef

Wow - and I thought I was a techie! Sheesh! Mobile computer lab there!

That's what I was thinking of - Thank you very much!

When you do that, do you use the export as a MS&T text file to get the POI's into it.

I am trying to build a list of caches to go to, in the shortest order possible. I know the cache raid macro for GSAK will do a similar thing, but the caches are listed as closest to each other by straight line distance. I got burned by this trying to do some around a body of water a week ago, and a few days ago by railroad tracks with limited crossings. Is there a map program that you can put the POI's into for closest caches, and it will calculate the most efficient route among them by driving? Thanks in advance!

Is there a bookmark listing of caches that are of the type described above, or a list somewhere that lists these? We had a couple in my area that were archived over the years, and I'd like to go see a few more. Thanks for any help on this! I'm looking for the Erie, PA area, but anywhere within a couple of hundred miles would be fine. Thanks again!

Is there a bookmark listing of caches that are of the type described above, or a list somewhere that lists these? We had a couple in my area that were archived over the years, and I'd like to go see a few more. Thanks for any help on this!

I use the SMS TextMarks version of the Field Notes, because I can text a few quick words, unlike with my colorado, which is very difficult to type even a few letters on. This has made my logs much more meaningful, because the number of caches I can remember details about between the name and a few words I send helps me remember almost every cache I have done, even on a long run. I own 30 or so caches... I would hate having bulk logs like that!

I would like to see the links on the WAP interface respond to the number keys again, or be full sized clickable links, such as they were before the update a few months ago. Is there any way to do this? I have to click on a touchscreen in a very very tiny area to hit one number, instead of just hitting the number key, or clicking on the entire name for the link (a much bigger target) - this is on a Treo 755p.

Yup I heard that one in a few other discussions... Makes perfect sense that they can control what you can do on the plane with a radio receiver which cannot, by law, generate any harmful interference. I'll step off my soapbox. Just love flying, and hate the crap that goes along with it...

The problem with this is that the reviewer doesn't see a string of DNF's unless the cache is on a watchlist. They do see the disabled cache. They don't see the owner maintenance requests. So it punishes the people who do what they are supposed to, by disabling the caches - it seems like it would be easier, as someone else said, to not disable it, and get to and fix it when you can, rather than disabling it, and having to answer questions which inevitably come. What would be wrong with sending reviewers OM logs for caches in their area, similar to what SBA logs and Disable logs do? Is this such a big problem? Again, I'm not in favor of doing it the wrong way... I'm in favor of the reviewers watching things which need to be watched. Most disabled caches, as was stated earlier, are fixed and returned to service. Most series of DNF caches which have been abandoned don't get noticed until well after they should have been.

Ok - controlled by one person - or maybe 2-3 ... but still, not controlled by the 10s of thousands of people who actually provide the information for the site. This "memo" completely sidesteps the issue. Laugh all you want (yes, it was funny), but the problem still remains.

... and many others. Like I've said many times, I think they often forget that they wouldn't have a database full of caches to make money on if they didn't have users who came here. Seems like it would be a much better business model to take into consideration the wishes and wants of the people who support you, rather than just doing whatever you want or think is best. It is a business owned by one person - but it wouldn't function without the rest of us.

So then what would be a good reasonable time or number of DNF's or combination to go from a needs maintenance log to a SBA log? I mean, if you think about it, it would make more sense for a user to post notes rather than disable his cache, because it keeps it below the reviewer's radar if they don't want it archived without their knowledge. I'm not looking for a way around it - it just seems like the people who disable a cache because they know they have to fix it or it is unavailable for a time are dealing with a ticking time bomb, while those users who choose not to do anything, and just ignore needs maintenance logs (intentionally or through not checking online), stay below the radar and should be watched...while the person disabling their cache is doing their job.

Interesting discussion... I have several points on this one: 1) I know reviewers are volunteers, and have a limited amount of time to dedicate to this hobby. But I feel as the OP does, and several others early in the thread, that the wording of some of these canned responses is a little harsh. If the reviewer is taking the time to say "Hey - your cache was disabled for a long time...what's going on?", then why use a 3-4 paragraph canned response instead of just simply asking? I personally hate canned responses, canned emails, canned snail-mail, canned responses on phone lines, etc. If you want to communicate with me, please do so as a person, not as a machine. 2) Time frame from Keystone - sounds good - 3-4 months seems like a good time to consider a cache while disabled. However, the problem I have here is that often, caches have a series of DNF's for a much longer time than that, and have no owner response to queries, and have likely disappeared. In many of these cases, the owner isn't contacted by a reviewer noticing a series of DNF's over an extended period of time on a low diff/terr cache, and therefore, it slides for a long time (since many people are hesitant to post an OM or SBA log). I'm assuming reviewers are alerted to OM logs, and definitely to SBA logs. Shouldn't they be alerted to a large number (open to discussion) of DNF's, based on the diff/terr of the cache? Or should we be more free with the OM logs - I go to post my DNF, see 5-6 or more DNF's before me on an easy cache, and post an OM with my DNF? 3) I agree with the 20 acre radius - and I teach Chemistry (some math involved) - But keep in mind, as they always say, it's a guideline, not a rule - caches have been approved closer for various reasons, and often aren't approved further because reviewers generally don't like power trails (even though some people do).

I did some caching last winter for the first time, and although I came home wet and cold, had a great time - I agree, there are some kinds of caches that are just darn near impossible to find in the snow (especially if there is a decent amount of it), but ammo boxes in the woods aren't that bad.

Really? I wasn't finished, so we weren't finished yet, were we? The logger has several options: Try to reach an agreement with the cache owner Complain about it in the forums Complain about it to Groundspeak (we know they won't intervene) Complain about it to a reviewer Take care of the problem by eliminating the problem All are equally 'grownup' or childish. Why? Because it's just a game! I have to say - I was very impressed by this - I have been suspended for much less, yet this poster basically told off a moderator and nothing was done, as evidenced by the fact that he was able to continue to post right after this. I do believe that owners have the right to remove posts which are offensive... guess that's just the nature of the beast that you may get burned if you tell something bad about the cache.

Disregard my problem - Figured it out - wow, I feel stupid... Cool Program!

I am trying to use this macro for a colorado. It works great - sorts the caches into groups, and then uploads them to the colorado. I have several problems, though... 1) I get duplicate caches for any I haven't found. The regular ones come up with the correctly formatted name with all of the extra information in it, but the duplicate just has the GC Code as the name, and then just 1-2 little pieces of info, like the name of the cache, in the slightly longer description. No extra information in the "Description" screen. There was some discussion that this might have to do with child waypoints somewhere - dunno if it was this one or the more basic nuvi macro, but that isnt it. Child waypoints come up as separate waypoints, and I get duplicates of them as well. This does not occur when I include caches I have found with those specific ones - only ones I haven't found. 2) I am unable to get different categories to come up - does this work with the colorado? I just get the choice "Custom POI's". 3) I do not see the files with all of the little pictures of the different cache types - they did not show up in my GSAK folder or subfolders (POI_Loader). Where are they supposed to be so they will show up on the map? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide!

I recently used this software to move POI's into a colorado - love the idea of being able to put all of my database into it. Problem I ran into was that all of the ones I haven't found show up as duplicates - one copy with the name and all the information, and then one with the GC code as the name, and no extra information. It is only for ones which I have not found - it doesn't do it for found ones. It also has nothing to do with child waypoints or additional waypoints, because the first couple I found have neither. When I was looking for more information a few days back, before I set this up, I am sure I found someone who had pretty that much same problem, but can't find that post after an hour of looking, so I'm just going to ask. The only info I could find was something about ones having child waypoints and they weren't entered into the GSAK database correctly, but that doesn't appear to apply since those waypoints don't have children. Help! Thanks for making this great software!

Either turn off the compass or calibrate it. Many cachers turn it off. If you choose to leave it on, be sure to hold the unit absolutely level during calibration and use. With the compass in auto mode, your direction of travel at low speeds is determined by the compass, not satellite information. This indirectly determines the behavior of the "pointer", since it reflects the difference between your direction of travel and the direction you should be going to reach the current navigation target. At higher speeds, the unit uses the satellite information to determine direction of travel. I believe the cutoff speed is 10 miles an hour. Seems rather high, but so says the wiki -- which is usually right. With the compass off, direction of travel is always determined by the satellite track. Thank you very much! I figured it had to be something simple and stupid, but I couldn't figure it out... haha - thanks again!

Hi - I went and did a bunch of caches yesterday, but had a wierd problem - for most of the caches, the arrow pointed 90 degrees to the right of where I was going. My track on the map showed me (the arrow on the map) as pointing 90 degrees off, and this meant the arrow pointing to the cache was 90 degrees off. This was consistent over several miles of walking, heading toward several caches. Any ideas? Rather irritating....

I've done most of that with my 755p - how do you do the export from cachemate to contacts? With an external bluetooth gpsr, this is a really nice way to cache, except for having to carry 2 things.

THAT is why I don't schedule any for Fridays (and maintain an offline database). That shouldn't be an issue - if we pay for the PQ's, which the only way to get them is to have a paid membership, they should be available as stated. If they always want us to use the freshest data, then they should make sure to provide that fresh data.

The actions taken by companies cannot always be based completely on the desires of it's customers. Sometimes, changes requested by customers would be bad for the company in ways that are completely unrelated to the short term goals of the individuals clamoring for them. The problem with this is that the majority of companies have to deal with some form of competition. If they don't do things to keep their customers happy, the customers go to another company that does what they are asking for. This is bad for the company in ways that are completely understandable to the majority of people - less finances. In this case, this company has a virtual monopoly - no one else has a large enough database, or makes it easy enough to access that database, to make it worthwhile to switch to another company. Since I don't see any application of federal anti-trust laws in this case, they will likely maintain their monopoly, since it is only a small group of people who appear to disagree (at least vocally in these forums) with the way the person in charge chooses to limit access to data we provide to him, it is unlikely that unless he decides to change on his own, we will get what we are asking for. Workarounds are always nice, but they don't solve the problem. How would auto manufacturers survive if they kept producing products that did ok, but if you wanted them to work better, they always ignored you, and you had to go out and modify the vehicles in substantial ways? Yes, we already do that, but I'm saying, at least they listen, and put some of those features in as they develop new and better models. They don't put everything in that everyone asks for - but if they don't do enough to keep up with the requests, people buy other models of cars. I just think that for a company which would not survive without the support of its users, both through purchased memberships and the continual addition of data to their lists, they would be more amenable to listen to the requests of the users, rather than more concerned with protecting data which really isn't even theirs - they just collect and list other people's data in a database, and limit those same people's access to that information, through TOS rules and limited bandwith and PQ's. Sounds like a bad idea to me. But then, I've always supported the idea of freedom of information.

Yeah, that would be pretty stinky - but they do have the ability to do it if you have a colorado or oregon - same thing, except instead of texting, you upload a file when ur done.