andylphoto

No. With MacGPS Pro, you can use maps with your routes, tracks and waypoints on your computer. VERY handy for creating and editing waypoints, but it doesn't transfer. For now, to my knowledge, you are stuck with the Garmin "workaround," (MapInstaller?) or the beta Bobcat to load maps. Another thread noted that Mac-native maps are on the way shortly from Garmin. I'm looking forward to it. As far as Bobcat, I'll echo comments I saw in another thread. It's got great potential, and IMHO, looks much better than the PC Mapsource. But it's still beta, and there's a reason for that.

I must have seen an earlier version of that site, because I don't recall it being complete. Am I correct that it now has DRGs of every 7.5' USGS quad for all 50 states? Patty I was thinking so, but in looking further, there are some holes in their listings--some bigger than others. I was looking at Wisconsin, and it looked pretty complete. I found every quad I searched for, but in looking closer and at other states, there are gaps. I guess if they have what you need, it's a very easy site to use. I downloaded the TIFF files, and opened them with MacGPS Pro. It converted to PICT and saved the file where I told it to. As long as it's in the auto-open maps folder, they'll stitch together with the Michigan maps I already had there. As long as the projection is the same, of course.

If you bought the yellow Garmin, you may need to buy the cable. Seems like I've read that doesn't come with one. Otherwise, for software suggestions, see this current thread.

I've been using MacGPS Pro for years and really like it, but I do want to mention that you don't need to buy their topo maps. At least, not always. In many cases, you can find digital raster graphics (DRG) versions of USGS topo maps online for free, and import those into MacGPS Pro. I, for instance, get mine from the California Spatial Information Library (CASIL). There's a list of free DRGs on the Caching Now Resources page. There are also fee-based online sites that offer them, but at that point, you might as well buy the ones offered by James Associates. Patty Thanks Patty...good point. I actually just discovered this last week. I know I had read about it when I first purchased the program, but had obviously forgotten. I had already purchased the Michigan topos, which I don't regret. However, I just downloaded a bunch of Wisconsin quads from http://libremap.org/data/ My forays into Wisconsin are limited, so I don't need the entire state. For limited use, this site is great. The downloads are free, but are one quad at a time. If I needed an entire state, I think springing the $20 (when the topos go on sale) would be well worth it.

While we're on the subject of wrong counties, I came across RL1157while perusing benchmarks recently. The datasheet lists it in Vilas County, WI, but the description (1 mile northeast of the state line lookout tower) place it clearly (by about a mile) into Gogebic County, MI. The state line lookout tower is referenced in the datasheet for STATE LINE TOWER D which describes the tower as at the state line. The GOGEBIC USGS quad also shows the station well inside Michigan--the coordinates are fairly close, according to the USGS Topo map. I am planning to search for this station on a benchmarking trip I'm planning to this area. I was going to wait until then, but figured as long as a "wrong county" discussion came up, I may as well throw this one out as well.

Congratulations! How did you find the unpublished mark exactly?

Thanks...that's good news! I'm glad now that I waited. Native OS X. Love it.

My understanding of monumentation has been more along the lines of what Papa Bear describes. I guess a part of that assumption was based on cases, as pointed out, where the monumentation is marked as "unknown," but a description follows at a later date. As far as VULCAN having three monumentation dates, I can't necessarily explain that. I can't say with any certainty what was done in 1908, but the 1935 date makes sense in one respect, as the three reference marks were set at that time. I was assuming that the triangular piece was the copper bolt referred to in the description, and had been a part of the original setting. Given the write-up that was added regarding the reference marks that were added in 1935, it seems that they would have described this addition in more detail, had it been added then. It also seems that it would have been noted had the addition been made in 1908. But you're right--any argument is backed by silence on this point. I think the most compelling case that could be made would be based on the type of monument that was typically set by the USLS in the 1860s. That is information I don't have. While we're discussing this and other stations, and waiting for DaveD to possibly chime in, I'll add another question. I'd also be interested in more information on the two latitude posts that were set: TT7764 and TT7763. The datasheets describe them as wooden posts, and provide what appear to be adjusted coordinates, (the NGS datasheet says "NO CHECK") and precisely accurate references to station VULCAN. What would these posts have looked like (i.e. how big?) and how exactly would they have been used? As I noted previously, I made a cursory search for the posts, but found nothing. Not that I expected to find 100 year-old wooden posts stuck in the ground in the Keweenaw Peninsula.

Yes and no. If you click on the details section of your profile, they tally there when you log them on geocaching. They show up on their own line and add up as you log them. However, they don't add to your caching total, either on the page in your profile, or in the handy little find count banners that people put on their web pages or in sig lines. Your "found" total only counts caches. For example, click on my user name to the left, then on the geocaches tab. You'll see my find count is at 64, but there is a line noting the benchmarks I've logged.

Hey John, Thanks for the information. I had always assumed that the "monumented" date was the date the station was set. "Monumented" in my mind equates to "built." I didn't realize that was the date that it made it into the database. No, we didn't bother to look closely for the trees. I think we may have looked briefly, but the entire hill had been logged fairly recently. Parts were clearcut; the area of the monument was selectively cut. The trees left standing were all smaller. Some were a decent size, but nothing that would have been a 14 inch tree 30 years ago. The area you note in your picture would be approximately NE of the station, somewhere in the vicinity of the 14 inch maple in the datasheet, but I think too far east. We just concentrated on finding the station and reference marks, then trying to find an easier path down the hill. If I decide to make another trip to this station next summer, I'll allot more time, and maybe consider bringing my metal detector along to search for the AZ mark. I'll look closer for the blazed trees then too. This trip I didn't even bring a tape, so we were pacing off distances and kicking around in the leaves and dirt to find the RMs. EDIT: I'll take a look when I get home--I have area shots of the RMs as well. I'll see if have a clearer shot that includes that (or other) trees.

While vacationing last summer, I took the time to visit my oldest mark to date, TY7765, VULCAN. It was set by the U.S.L.S. in 1869 near Copper Harbor, MI. This was especially interesting, because while vacationing at Fort Wilkins, my daughter was participating in a historic role-playing program, where they do historical interpretation at the Fort, which is set in 1870. Later in the afternoon, I mentioned our find to the gentleman in charge of the Future Historians role-playing program, and found out that he has a folder of information from the USLS from that time period, when they were working in the Copper Harbor area. I put off logging this one on geocaching until I had the chance to look through at least some of the information. Much of the information is contained in daily journals of the steamers from the USLS that were working in the area, taking soundings in Lake Superior. I still have more to go through, but I have determined that the Monumented date on this station appears to be misleading. After poring through the 1869 journal of the steamer "Search" I found references to building a station or two, but only to the *use* of station VULCAN. On my last visit, I started looking through the journal from the steamer "Surveyor" from 1866-1867, and was surprised to find that while they documented building a number of stations in the area and on Isle Royale, the station VULCAN was referred to in these journals as well. I posted a photo of an entry from August, 1867 in my log. I don't know if I will find a log entry in the information I have locally to the building of this station, but either way it's been very educational and some very interesting reading. How times were different then... Journal of the steamer "Search" Saturday July 10, 1869 "A heavy rain storm prevailed all day long, accompanied by some thunder. Remained on board all day. Our attention was called to an eagle on a tree on shore, but he escaped before he could be fired upon. Received a letter..."

No. According to the datasheet, the mark is a disk. First, make sure you're in the right place--If this is the Lee street overpass, and you're on the east side of the street, then this is the area where you should be looking. It should look something more like this: Sorry I don't have a better example at hand. I'm sure someone else can post a picture, but there should be a disk cemented into the abutment. If the disk has been vandalized, you should be able to see some evidence that a disk *used* to be there. I don't see that either.

Welcome to the forum. I started out much the same way...doing a lot of reading, and then asking some questions. I also started out my search focusing on ones where I would be the first to log on Geocaching. I have since gone back and logged many that I had previously skipped. And yeah...once you get started, it's easy to become hooked.

Here is an old thread on the same question. Somewhere in the archives is a thread about the end of their benchmark reporting.

Thanks triturtle for the information on Bobcat. I'll be downloading and installing that. I've been putting off buying maps until the Mac version is available. Anyone know if down the line there will be a "Mac" version of the mapping products, TOPO and City Nav., that could be loaded natively without requiring conversion on a PC? I guess it probably doesn't matter a whole lot as I could just burn a DVD with the converted maps, but the more I can do without the help of a PC, the more I like it.

Yes and no. Do a search for Mac in the forum, and you'll find lots of stuff. First, Garmin has promised complete Mac support, but it ain't here yet. Don't know if you have Garmin, but since you're asking about Mapsource, I'm assuming. There is a way to use a Mac to load Garmin maps, but it involves a PC along the way to convert the maps. Or, you could always buy an Intel Mac and install Winbloze to use for Mapsource. Or, if you can hold off for a bit, no telling how soon (or not) they'll release the Mac version. Alternately, there are a number of freeware and commercial programs that can be had, depending on your needs, to transfer waypoints, save tracks, etc. I use MacGPS Pro, which is a commercial program, around $50. They also have available very nice topo maps that you can use on your Mac--overlay tracks & waypoints. The maps of course don't transfer to the GPS though. GPSy is also a commercial program. For freeware/shareware, there are a number of programs I've never used, and I'm sure I'll forget something along the way. Search for these in the forums, as some/all are written and supported by members here. Loadmytracks MacSimpleGPS Gpsbabel Geojournal MacCaching I'm sure someone will correct me if I've misspelled something, or missed something.

I always do check for the appropriate disk, as you noted. But in cases where I'm following this particular geocacher, I am not worried about accuracy. I've never met him, but maybe someday we'll cross paths in the field. He is a wealth of information here in the forums, having retired as a survey tech from M-DOT. I have always found his reports to be extremely reliable, both as a geocacher, and in reading his work in datasheets from his time with the state. In fact, I have been saved from looking in a couple of cases because his reports included information about roadways that had been realigned that I wouldn't have known about. I do look for other not found marks, and have recovered a bunch that were not found by other agencies. But most of the time, if Mike has submitted a not found report, I don't bother to look for that station. Maybe someday when I've hit every mark within a hundred mile radius I'll go after some of those. But I've seen enough of his work to know that if he didn't find it, I probably won't either.

Same here. I was browsing stations in a county I get to on occasion and found quite a few that had 3 or 4 NOT FOUND reports by the Unnamed Group, many (including multiple not founds on a single station) by the same individual. I plan to look for a number of these, but I will report a not found only if I can perform a thorough search and provide additional information. I believe many are in fact findable. I have found at least two of this individual's not founds, one being a hundred foot tall intersection station. Even more amusing to me, I noted at least two stations that were reported FOUND in July of last year (with details) by another geocacher (Z15) then not found in August by the Unnamed Individual from the Unnamed Group.

You might reread my post as I also never mentioned a Powerbook of any type. I do not, and have never owned one. It would appear the comment about the Powerbook was directed to the original poster, who did mention a Powerbook. A brand new one, in fact.

Interesting thread. I haven't really kept track of discrepancies in scaled coordinates, but None that I've seen have been off by quite that far. The worst one that I can recall was a set of two markers with adjacent PIDs and designations, one in the first pier north of the south abutment and one in the first pier south of the north abutment of the same bridge. The were also sequentially numbered "backwards." i.e. the first PID numerically was the second designation. As if that weren't confusing enough, coordinates place BOTH markers at the north end of the bridge. At least two GC logs prior to mine confused which was on the north and which was the south end, either specifically stating such, or by referencing nearby development in the wrong log. See AB7635 (X 346) and AB7636 (W 346) The stations are correctly placed in reference to their position on the east/west side of the bridge, but the coordinates for AB7636 are off by about .25 miles as it's position is actually on the SOUTH end of the bridge. Given coordinates: 47 07 29 (N) 88 34 25 (W) Actual coordinates: 47 07 20.3 (N) 88 34 25.3 (W)

Thanks again for your work on all this data. I see Baraga County, MI is ripe for turning dark red, with 99 recoveries. I made it a point to search out several over the weekend while on a trip up that way, so hopefully it will change colors next month. I do have to credit Z-15 for most of those recoveries though, even if it's mine that push it over the top.

Looks like one of those 150 recoveries colored in Monroe County, MI, and closed the final gap in the line of coast to coast benchmarked counties. Or maybe that happened last month and I was asleep? Speaking of coast to coast, anybody else remember Coast to Coast hardware stores? There's a blast from the past. Wow. Way to go off topic.

Good catch, and good information. I guess the question is then...are the new coordinates better, or are the old coordinates better, or does it vary on a case by case basis, or does it really matter because as Patty said no one here pays attention to them anyway, and finally, could I make this sentence any longer or use any more commas? I guess for me it probably doesn't matter a whole lot. Whether I get the coordinates from GC or Monkeykat's viewer, I'll load them into MacGPS Pro, compare them with a TOPO map and adjust them myself if there is a benchmark in the vicinity. Good information to have in any case though!

I've found four that I can recall. One was painted over on a highway bridge support (first one pictured) and the other three were on railroad bridge abutments where the bridges passed over city streets. They had been painted into murals. All were more difficult to spot than had they not been painted, but once I located the disks, I had no problem reading the stamping. PN0706 RK0466 RK0469 RK0470

That's interesting. I have used Web Updater on both a 60C and a 60Cx with no problems. I'm using a 20" flatscreen iMac with OS 10.4.10. Are you using the latest version? I just ran it and it found a new version (of the web updater.) Downloaded and installed that, and it again immediately found my 60Cx. Do you have your GPS connected directly to the computer, or is it through a hub or something? I've found that sometimes an extension cable or a hub (even a powered one) can do funny things to USB devices. I had been using my 60C through both a hub and an extension cable. When I got my 60Cx, it likes to be connected directly to the computer. I think it's because the Cx (and Csx as well) draw power through the USB cable. All that to say, I'm not entirely convinced the problem is with Garmin's software. As much as I love Macs, they're not perfect either. I give Garmin a lot of credit for making the effort to come out with Mac support for all their products. It's taken a lot longer than they originallly announced, but I don't see any other company even trying. EDIT: I also had problems before my iBook died with some USB devices, even connected directly to the computer. I couldn't even use a USB compact flash reader--had to get a firewire device.