Sun Chasers

Wow you're right! It's like the cache never even got published. It doesn't show up in p0ppitt's hides either, and if you search by the waypoint it doesn't even have a name. Strange! I have to run now but I'll check my old email logs and see if they sent some kind of notice. Thanks Bill.

He's listening to some of us. I'm glad virtuals are gone and I hope they don't come back. I guess if they did put it to a vote, mine would cancel yours out. But mine would cancel yours out . . . And mine makes it 2 in favor! Make that 3. 4. I've already explained one way to get around the obstacles, as have others.

Does your Etrex have a serial interface? If it does, how are you connecting it to the USB on your Mac? I'm having problems with the Garmin serial interface too, and I think it's my USB - Serial cable.

They tried this. It failed. The problem was that no one could come up with an adequate definition of 'some kind of significance' (the WOW factor). edit: wording Well, reviewers already have a wide latitude in judgement (sometimes too wide in my opinion, but I have a problem with authority anyway ), so this doesn't seem too difficult. If the hider can't demonstrate to the reviewer (or whoever they end up appealing to) that they have something of significance, then it doesn't get approved. Throwing out the entire category in terms of new additions is rather extreme. It seems to me like a case of being lazy and not being willing to deal with a part of the job the volunteers accepted by becoming reviewers. Not to put them down - they do a great job most of the time, and they do it on their own time. However, if they, as a group, decide it is too much work to approve puzzles, or multi's, will they ban them too? And what about webcams? Not like there are millions of them out there... why were these banned? In general, Groundspeak wanted to get back to what a geocache is: a container with a logbook. Webcams don't fit that description. Nor does virtuals and locationless. Yes, we still have events and earthcaches. But most events have a logbook, and earthcaches are managed by someone else, not Groundspeak volunteer reviewers. Well if you read the glossary a cache also must have a pen/pencil to _sign_ the log with, just as a letterbox hide includes its own stamp book and a stamp. But even this definition by Groundspeak isn't in keeping with the traditional concept of a cache, which always meant something of value was hidden. A container with a log is actually just a cache-less container. To wit: I sought out Little Park of Horrors (GC13937) which has over a dozen decoy cache containers hidden containing notes saying, "Keep looking!" Although I love the concept, by definition I can sign the note (a log) in any decoy (a hidden container found by GPS) and get a smiley. Not what the owner intended, but why not? As far as reviewers, the solution seems simple enough but requires collaboration between two parties. The "Best Kept Secrets" category of Waymarks nearly perfectly emulates the Virtual Cache. All GC.com needs to do is let Waymarking do the dirty review work, then approve a virtual based on the simple question, "Is it a geocache (a thing of value needing a GPSr to locate)?" Wow factor is already screened by Waymarking, so if the answer is yes, then approve a new Virtual. If the answer is no, decline it. Proposed guidelines for approving a new virtual cache: 1. Is the object at the listed coordinates an approved Waymark in "Best Kept Secrets" or another location-centric Category? 2. Is there confirmation knowledge required from the site (something to find) that is not "spoiled" by the listing or photos? 3. Is a GPSr required to find the knowledge? Objects meeting the above criteria meet the definition of a cache (the log is electronic and maintained at geocaching.com) and should be considered for listing s Virts.

While most Waymarking categories are basically trying to create inventory lists of places, some of which some people might want to visit, there is nothing about the structure of Waymarking that prevents having categories where you need to find something already at the location in order to confirm that you were at the waymark. I attempted to create such a category with Best Kept Secrets. I really hoped that other people who feel that the generic Waymarking categories miss the essence of virtual caches to create other categories like Best Kept Secrets so that virtual caches could find a place to live. But instead all I ever heard was people whining that they no longer can create virtuals on geocaching.com and that Waymarking wasn't the same thing. At the same time, many waymarkers have decided it is a game about inventorying places and have made it harder to get creative kinds of categories approved. With no support from people who want something that resemble virtuals, Waymarking has become what it has become. I'd like to thank everyone for their support You missed your opportunity to create an environment were both virtual and other "games" could be played. By George I think you've done it! These look amazingly like a VC, even with the confirmation and puzzles. Good work, I may be submitting some Waymarks soon.

That's exactly why I don't waymark. ... I'm lost here. Isn't a "Visit" The same thing as a "Find" ? No, the huge difference between virtual caches and waymarks is that virtuals require confirmation of the visit, which normally requires a hunt. The whole purpose of geocachiing is the hunt, after all, not the log, so the virtual fits in perfectly. Case in point: A local virtual has escaped me because I have never seemed to have the time to visit the memorial garden during their hours to get the required confirmation info; I need to actively hunt the cache (knowledge) while overcoming some of the challenges of acquiring it (business hours). As a waymark, I simply need to take a picture, maybe wear a Waymarking T-shirt, say "Been there" and I'm done. When you leave a (well done) virtual, you have new knowledge and have discovered something that was at least noteworthy enough to warrant it's own monument. The cache is a tangible but abstract thing, and still something of value, and usually something hidden by obscurity rather than commoflage. When you log a waymark, all you've really done is bodily visited something - or possibly only googled a picture of it. You aren't necesarily any smarter, more knowledgeable, or better for it. Personally I would have liked to see the microcache gone rather than virtuals. A "log only" cache is NOT a cache because a cache implies some-thing has been hidden, and a logbook with nothing but names and dates is hardly a thing worth hunting for. I recall the novelty of my first rural log-only cache, appropriately named "Log Cache," (GC5961) early in 2002 and thinking, "Gee, that was different." Now my area is innundated with magnets stuck to sewer-pipe markers in the middle of the weeds that are somehow being approved as "caches," and have no value whatsoever save for a smiley on GC.com. Microcaches were originally a solution to the problem of urban geocaching and I don't think they have a recreational value outside that niche today. But I digress. I remember what attracted me to this sport 5 years ago; it was the hunt first, and the cache second because that got people interested. I have always sought caches with swag - be it abstract or physical - and virtuals fit the textbook definition of a cache. So a Waymark is "visited", but cached "knowledge" is "found" in a virtual cache. Of course, I was one of those kids who literally read encyclopedias so all knowledge is treasure to me, it's part of what makes me a techno-geek. No offense to Waymarking but I lament the loss of virtuals and waymarks achieve a completely different goal, I am very glad they grandfathered the many that were concieved. I think it's also important to note that the whole purpose of the virtual can still be achieved through an offset cache, which is exactly what I did with my Blue Springs cache. Of course that cache would never get approved today because it has the option of being logged as a virtual - the best of both worlds! The optional finale is a 1-gallon tub outside the park - NOT some lame micro!

Geojournal uses GPSBabel for GPS communications. While it's not explictly called out on the list of the scores of Garmins supported, I'm reasonably sure it should work. Did you actually try it and fail or did you get psyched out by the absence of it in the lis ...Sorry for the time-warp post, life got in the way . Yes, I tried it. But it's possibly the PL2303 USB-Serial adapter which doesn't seem to like Garmin's non-standard RS232C interface. The only thing that can talk to my Garmin is Zterm at 4800 baud or slower, so I think the low voltage from Garmin is getting mucked up in the PL2303 at higher speeds.

Naaa, it's got to be the PL2303 adapter. I could buy a new adapter, or I could build a level shifter with a couple transistors and a breadboard. This goes on my project lists and I'll follow up when it's properly Frankenstiened.

Im not familiar with that GPS. Is it serial only device? Did you try to call garmin and ask them why the POI loader may not be working? IS that the keyspan adapter? More info please Yes, the GPS-76 uses a serial interface and I'm using a Prolific PL2303 chip based adapter with Prolific's driver. ** New batteries didn't help. Anyone out here have success with a Keyspan adapter? I did some digging in the Garmin SDK and found that their serial interface is not technically RS-232C compliant - the voltages run lower than the standard calls for and they don't use a ground reference. This could cause problems at higher speeds or with very strictly compliant interfaces. The common thread has been _no_ software has worked for my GPSr through this adapter except Zterm running at 4800 baud, and I noticed my battery was running low when I tried these uploads. I'll try again with a fresh recharge and that might make a difference.

Well I'm about out of options. Running Mac OS-X 10.4.10 to my GPS-76 through a USB-serial adapter just isn't working. The serial adapter is fine, I can Zterm into my GPS-76 and run NMEA strings back and forth all day. *MacCaching can't initialize the USB-serial interface, and doesn't import lat/Lon from GPX files. *Garmin POI Loader doesn't see the GPS through the adapter, even with "Find Device". *GeoJournal has no GPS-76 support - only GPSmap-76. *Mac SimpleGPS gets close - I can upload waypoints, the progress bar counts up, my GPSr beeps "Transfer Complete", but no waypoints actually make it to the GPS (?) For some reason Mac SimpleGPS doesn't recognize the <type/> tag in GPX files, maybe that's the problem? Is there anyything left? Oh, and I'm using the Garmin protocol for all applications.

No GPS-76 users out here? I updated to the 2.20 firmware, now Mac SimpleGPS sends waypoints, the GPS-76 beeps "Transfer Complete", but there's no new waypoint?!?! Anyone else get Mac SimpleGPS to work? What speed did you use?

I downloaded it last night and was sad to find it doesn't support the Garmin GPS-76, only GPSMap-76. I also noticed it doesn't like the .GPX files created by Mac SimpleGPS. I could be partly to blame because I'm still running Garmin V2.08 firmware (if it ain't broke, don't fix it?) Can you tell me if the V2.20 firmware (Feb 2005) update will work? If so, what GPS unit do I select from your drop-down menu?

Out of the box the C550 is strictly a street navigator and doesn't allow waypoints using latitude & longitude coordinates, only Points Of Interest (POIs) which are loaded on the unit through your computer. However the C550 can hold up to 500 custom POIs. To enter caches on your C550 you need to download the caches from Geocaching.com as a .LOC file, convert the .LOC file to a GPX or .CVS file with a seperate application, then use Garmin's POI loader ( http://www8.garmin.com/products/poiloader/ ) application to install this new file. Both Macintosh and Windows versions are available. *Note: I have no idea if this will work, going by the specifications it looks like it should. I don't know what your readout will look like once you go off road since it's designed for street travel, I guess your little car icon will be doing some 4-wheelin', but if it at least gives you distance (in feet or meters - not 0.1 miles) and bearing to your waypoints you should be OK geocaching with it. I have a bad feeling that it can only measure in miles and kilometers though, which will leave you about a 325-foot (100-meter) radius area to search at best. It sounds like alot but with practice I think you'll find it easier than plugging caches in by hand.

There is amazingly little info on the Web about my unit and I'm hoping there's experience out here I can tap. I have a GPS-76 (not GPSmap) running the old 2.08 firmware. In 5 years of Geocaching I've just never had a need to update it, everything works great - until I tried getting it to talk to my computer. Mac SimpleGPS doesn't see it, and GeoJournal only lists the GPSmap version. The USB-serial connection is fine, I can open a terminal to it and read the NMEA strings coming across. So here are my concerns: 1. Can I download my trackline & waypoint data before a firmware upgrade, and if so, how? 2. What protocol does the GPS-76 use to input .GPX files from apps like Mac SimpleGPS? None of this is in the Garmin FAQ or Mac SimpleGPS. Thanks

I think I like firetruckflyer's idea, except maybe you don't log the coin at all until it's been discovered. What if finding a trackable coin in a cache was a bonus and not the objective? I persoanlly get a greater satisfaction from finding a coin or TB in a cache where I wasn't expecting one than nabbing one I set out for from a listing. After all, if you're only going after a geocache for the coin then you're "geocoining", not geocaching, aren't you? I guess the big question is, can the Groundspeak tracker sort out mixed-up entries like that? If I log a coin into a cache *after* it's been logged discovered (using correct dates, of course), will the coin show up in the cache or in the new finder's hands? Obviously it would only be courteous to let the coin owner know what you were doing and where you've placed it so they don't think you've stolen it. Thoughts?

Taking the tracking number from another cheap, unactivated coin will work but you're stuck with whatever that coin's icon was.

Well, I would love to find and place coins in caches, but the problem in my area is that most caches are micros and are just too small to hold coins or TBs. So that really limits placing these movers. This new philosophy of Swag > Hunt is not growing on me. I think the geocaching community has evolved - or should I say, devolved - in the 5 years since I started. Original caches, belive it or not, used to be all about the swag. The first caches in fact often had $100 bills for FTF, just as an incentive to get people into the sport. As FTF bacame an elusive goal and maintaining this swag became expensive, the generation of "Thinkers" came along, who didn't see just good places for a cache, but a good reason to place a cache. Of course this led to things like virtuals and puzzle caches, and caching was a sport of the mind with a mission. Looking back through my logs from 2002, in three pages of caches all but 5 were normal sized caches. By comparison, in my newest three pages of caches here in California there are only 12 normal ones - and I make it a point to look for them first. It seems I spend lots of time beating through random scrub only to find a novelty nano-cache stuck to a sewer marker post. TNLNSL. Shrinking caches open the door for the new commercialized cacher to add meaning to the hide through ever-shrinking hitchhikers like coins and micro-coins as the purposeful, roomy cache is becoming an endangered species. What this means for TBs and Geocoins is simply that they have now become the purpose of the cache - geocoins more so with their custom icons and small size - and their value has increased for the neo-cacher. It seems that if you place a cache today only the numbers-cachers will hit it unless you stick a trackable in it. Is that bad? I don't think so. I think it's just defining a new breed of geocacher, and a well-thought-out geocache with ample trading space will draw logs almost as quickly as it did in the old days. There is some truth to the fact that cachers are getting a bit lazier though. My 3-star multicache drew 26 finds in 2002 and only 16 in the past 12 months. The numbers would probably go up if I put trackables in it regularly, but the find is the prize, not the swag. So to your original question, not all cachers will move a coin because it's not what they cache for. Likewise there's nothing wrong with the Happy Meal toys, that's what swag used to be before TBs, and it keeps many a geocaching family happy when their little microcachers get a keepsake at the end. If your specific taste for caching is geocoins then you simply need to narrow your search to caches that can hide them. Geocaching accommodates many different mindsets today, and I personally think they've done well by it.

I know the coin cases and foam are available at any military exchange - PX/BX etc., if you have access. I'll check my exchange on base - and maybe drop a case in one of your caches for you (assuming it's a standard 2-inch military challenge coin.) As for tracking your coing, it costs $1.50 for a tracking number. Please read Groundspeak's Current Coin Tracking Policy, Coin Tracking Requirements above.

quote:Originally posted by infosponge: Intellectual Property laws, like patents, are only as good as your willingness to defend your claim in court. If it isn't already, having to deal with laywers on a daily basis would definitely put running geocaching.com into the "just not fun anymore" category. Careful now, Karies a paralegal

quote:Originally posted by infosponge: Intellectual Property laws, like patents, are only as good as your willingness to defend your claim in court. If it isn't already, having to deal with laywers on a daily basis would definitely put running geocaching.com into the "just not fun anymore" category. Careful now, Karies a paralegal

To me it sounds like he was providing a service for *free* which GC.com provided to members, dirctly competing with a licensed service. Nonetheless, try as you may to protect your data with such contrivances and ultimately there is someone who can and will break in just because "it was there", and your final defense will rest in the court room, not at the firewall. Look at DVDs and DivX , CD copyrights [overridden with a magic marker], WindowsNT [backOrrifice], and the list of failed data protection schemes goes on indefinately. I'm not saying there is no way to secure your data, but the administrative cost of doing so for a database with (as of yet) so little commercial value is self defeating and the burden would be on us geocachers to fund it. If you protect your data with a well written copyright then you can protect yourself against any competition (except Microsoft, of course) stealing it with the least administrative overhead. I still support the old school ftp mirror site which has been a cost effective means of data distribution for years. As long as you own the data and it doesn't stand to cost you millions if compromised, let the intellectual property laws handle it. The system's in place and our tax dollars are paying for it weather we use it or not, so USE IT!

To me it sounds like he was providing a service for *free* which GC.com provided to members, dirctly competing with a licensed service. Nonetheless, try as you may to protect your data with such contrivances and ultimately there is someone who can and will break in just because "it was there", and your final defense will rest in the court room, not at the firewall. Look at DVDs and DivX , CD copyrights [overridden with a magic marker], WindowsNT [backOrrifice], and the list of failed data protection schemes goes on indefinately. I'm not saying there is no way to secure your data, but the administrative cost of doing so for a database with (as of yet) so little commercial value is self defeating and the burden would be on us geocachers to fund it. If you protect your data with a well written copyright then you can protect yourself against any competition (except Microsoft, of course) stealing it with the least administrative overhead. I still support the old school ftp mirror site which has been a cost effective means of data distribution for years. As long as you own the data and it doesn't stand to cost you millions if compromised, let the intellectual property laws handle it. The system's in place and our tax dollars are paying for it weather we use it or not, so USE IT!

Definately a needed feature. Also, I recently had a cache denied due to a recent (within hours) change in policy. What new geocachers are going to do is build their caches based on examples they see already out there. Well, unfortunately there are many legacy caches which would not get approved today for one reason or another as this activity is constantly evolving. What I'm driving at (in a long winded sort of way) is we need to indicate these legacy caches to people. One idea is to make them a diferent color and add "Legacy cache" at the top. They can click these words and connect to a disclaimer that this cache is not to be duplicated, and do an abbreviated explanation of the evolution of the game and it's rules which made this cache "illegal but grandfathered in." One example of such a cach is the very fun, but now illegal 'Timing' is everything cache. The cache sends you to arbitrary coordinates, not a definate location. I was unfortunate enough to apply concepts from this cache into mine which got it rejected. Any thoughts?

Partnerships sound great, but is that logistical overkill for the problem at hand? How about a mirror site with FTP access? Mine it all you want. Just my 2 cents.

Partnerships sound great, but is that logistical overkill for the problem at hand? How about a mirror site with FTP access? Mine it all you want. Just my 2 cents.