Team Shredded Bark

My 3-ring binder continues to grow. I now have an archive binder. It's always fun to flip through the pages and review my notes from days gone by. Some pages are even wrinkled and ink run from my water jug leaking in my backpack.... ah the memories. I must agree. Not to mention it folds down much smaller than a PDA and weights a whole lot less! That would be the sheet of paper of course. Not the binder -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Actually, for me it was the gigantic size of the three-ring binder that finally pushed me over the edge to (almost completely) paperless. All those dead trees. I do occasionally print out aerial photos of unfamiliar areas, especially when traveling. I use a Mac, and I have a "Folder Actions" script set up that unzips the Geocaching .zip files on arrival, converts them to CacheMate format via GPSBabel, and sends them to the Palm for upload the next hotsync. It also FTPs a copy so I can download updates to the Palm on the road if I want. I have a separate script that I run manually to format and upload the latest waypoints to my Magellan Platinum, via a FileMaker database and MacGPS Pro. I use the Filemaker database to track my historical cache finds, and it gets synced to jFile on the Palm. It was a solution I rolled myself before CacheMate came along. If any Mac users out there are interested, I would be happy to send you the info and scripts. John Team Shredded Bark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQkw3i0crpacku1SeEQLfzACdFTHXI2F3NGT/raOxfAl65QYYZ9IAn2kR lNqhyV4UEb5ivenYRoDWN/bv =VU9r -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Against my better judgment, I'll throw my 2 cents in here. I don't think it is useful to attempt to justify a virtual by demeaning "lame" traditional caches--that is an apples-to-oranges comparison. (This is not to say that I don't think there are lame traditional caches out there, just that it has no real relevance to the discussion of virtuals.) I also think that this issue is very emotionally charged because, as Tahoe and Sons pointed out, this specific memorial is particularly poignant and painful for a lot of us because of the ultimate sacrifices happening right now. That said, and not to in any way denigrate or trivialize the sacrifices being made, that fact does not really have a bearing regarding the guidelines for a virtual. This sort of historical memorial to troops killed in action is, sadly, all too common throughout the country and the world. I also think that the loss of our young men and women is so recent and painful that we cannot really have a balanced perspective on the historical significance of this sort of memorial. It may also be that this sort of emotionally-charged memorial cannot be made into any kind of cache without trivializing it. John Team Shredded Bark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Also, I find that it can be very useful to use the cache ratings in reverse--if I am scrambling up 3.5 terrain on a cache rated only 1.5, I know I must not be on the preferred approach. By the same token, if I find no obvious hiding spots near the coordinates of a difficulty 1 cache, I know that expanding my search area is more likely to help than looking for a more-sneaky camouflage job. John Team Shredded Bark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.2 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBQPWJHkcrpacku1SeEQJz5wCgq4q0tsmm/v4M6RAlwk86UYXzTpsAoLcn nGxADProjS9A6h6kgaLnui+a =nryT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I've been trying to avoid posting to this thread, but I can't resist making a few points: 1: I suspect that inappropriate log deletion is (sadly) more common than we think, but not that many people bother posting it to the GC fora. As one example, a geocaching friend of mine mentioned in his "found" log that a cache was area where hunting was occurring and was he uncomfortable about that fact. He didn't request or suggest archiving, just provided a heads-up to other cachers in his log. The cache owner deleted his log with no notification or comment, either for political reasons (my friend is also a vegitarian, which is implied by his geocaching handle), or because he felt it was a criticism of the cache itself (both inappropriate reasons, IMHO). B: I disagree with the rational for never logging online (although I understand it). I think it is unfair to the cache owner, who deserve a report on their cache's condition, and an idea of visitor numbers to ascertain environmental impact. III: Team Lightfoot, your photographic proof of RamJetta's visit was priceless. You ROCK! d: For someone whose cache sticker and username openly advocates smoking weed, Underscore_420 is remarkably un-mellow. John Team Shredded Bark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.2 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBQO68DUcrpacku1SeEQInlgCdFuJu6IaEOMhUoXaUS9j2C2KuABMAn2AA 0ir5weAlfGitjBAs3RBUQmEp =8TxQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I feel that the participants in this thread are actually discussing two completely separate issues, and that most if not all of the disagreement expressed is a result of confusing the two different issues as if they were one. Issue 1: Is GC.com responsible (legally, morally, or otherwise) for physically removing caches marked "archived" that have not been dealt with by the cache owner? ("dealt with" defined as the cache remains removed if appropriate, cache relocated, confirmed missing, or listed elsewhere, and the owner has posted a note as to the physical cache's unltimate disposition.) I think the answer is probably "no." As mentioned earlier in the thread, it is a listing service, and they are not likely to be legally liable for the physical caches, which they don't own. Issue B: Is it A Good Idea for GC.com to remove, or at least assist and encourage removal, of archived caches? I think the answer to Issue B is "yes" because it is good for geocaching as a whole in terms of public and land-manager perception. It doesn't matter that the relative geotrash percentage versus the total of all litter is negligible. People, and particularly land managers, who find what appears to be abandoned litter in their park with "geocaching.com" written on it are going to think poorly of both the Web site and geocaching as a whole. This perception problem is likely to ultimately result in fewer places being available for geocaching. Currently, there are informal programs on a regional basis to "rescue" archived caches in this manner. Ideally, the owner or a rescuer should post a note to the archived cache confirming its removal or final physical status. But as noted earlier, many cache seekers are not members of regional organizations, or even read the gc.com fora. Please note that I am referring only to abandoned caches whose owners have not retrieved them after some time and contact attempts. I think "listed on N-caching.com" is a perfectly appropriate final status. So, in closing, I think it could be useful if GC.com provided some sort of direct interface or status to reflect this, perhaps "archived and retrieved" or something to that effect, just to make it easier. Sure, give people props via stats for "rescued" caches (something that is done informally on MiGO's site now). This would make it easier for cache seekers to become aware of the geotrash issue, and encourage them to do something about it. John Team Shredded Bark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.2 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBQO2SSEcrpacku1SeEQJLCgCcCx1/E/XmUDNAJ/iCR+AsiZVDxSUAnio4 KwdxMCx7y91BhQ2b0AlA8YrN =JFIo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

This was near the final stage of Clinton River Trail Walk cache Oddities: A) We have no alligators in Michigan. It was at the edge of a relatively remote location along a river, unlikely to be seen by anyone, except perhaps fishermen and geocachers.

I regularly use 2 Macs running OS X (work and home). The home Mac would crash (Kernel Panic) once or twice per week. The Work mac would never (and I mean never) crash. Long story/short: I eventually traced it to a bad RAM DIMM. OS X really exercises the RAM with virtual memory management, and is very sensitive to faulty RAM. Consider testing (which didn't initially reveal the problem for me) or as a test replacing the RAM in your Mac with high-quality brand-name RAM, and see if the crashing goes away. It did for me. Both Macs I use never crash with heavy use.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I use exclusively Mac with my Meridian Plat. Yes, it is true that, like with Garmin, the native GPS software (MapSend and the firmware upload utilities in my case) will only run in a Windows environment, which means VirtualPC. It runs fine for me under VirtualPC 5. No reason to wait for 7. However, I only have to run VPC when I am creating and uploading maps, or updating the firmware. Neither of these happen very often, since I have all maps covering my usual travel areas already in the GPS on a 256 Megabyte SD card. For day-to-day waypoint and route management, I use MacGPS Pro, which I highly recommend, It is OSX native, recently added support for Magellan (as well as Garmin), and works great. The email support is also very good. You can use it with a wide variety of free and purchased digital maps, and essentually get all features except routing. Most cool (for me) is the fact that it's Waypoint, track, and route file formats are editable text files, which I have used to script a custom GPX database solution using FileMaker Pro database and FMsync to jFile on my Palm. But I digress. I have also used and like MagWayMan Magellan Waypoint Manager, a Mac OS X native GPS software geared toward geocaching. I also really like Mac SimpleGPS. It is essentially EasyGPS for Mac OSX, and works well. Finally, Unix tools such as GPSBabel (which is a very powerful GPS format conversion tool) work under OSX, albet it command-line mode. So, don't be afraid to go Mac. It can work with your GPS, and the other advantages (My two OS X systems never crash, and I mean NEVER) far outweigh the disadvantages, in my opinion. John Team Shredded Bark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.2 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBQKO3TUcrpacku1SeEQJ4VgCgqsSQFg5w15lRNmyVUhqXK5gvpEsAn15D eRzd8ZaU6LZdje+XDz4qUMNU =Mwwl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Re: DOS versus the Blue Screen of Death: My Mac (OS X) here at work has never crashed. I leave it running 24-7, use it hard all day, and I have only rebooted when required after installing system updates. Yes, the occasional application hangs or unexpectedly quits (usually MS Office for Mac, ahem) but it has never brought down the system--you just kill the app that hung go on as if nothing happened. My home Mac did have 1 to 2 crashes per week (well, they're called "Kernel Panics" but they are the functional equivalent of the Blue Screen of Death), until I figured out that it had a bad (generic) RAM DIMM. I replaced it with (more expensive) Kingston RAM and now it never crashes either. It's the stingy one who pays the most. Having used Windows and earlier versions of the Mac OS before, I probably would have accepted 1 crash per week as normal and perfectly acceptable if I hadn't seen the rock-steady performance of the work Mac. I believe this rock-solid system stability is a direct result of it being Unix under the hood. My point? We should demand better from our computers and software. We should all buy Macs, if only to spur Microsoft to do a better job. It is possible to design and build a stable system. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.2 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBQKJ2OEcrpacku1SeEQKnmACdFtNYQmNyOfKfGGLBliNMBQcKdY4An1ZF I6KV/p4PzxuYxwiQiKBzLrIY =VKTn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 You mention that you "went to the database menu" on the GPS, and it only showed one region. That would be normal--with Direct Route (unlike earlier mapsend products) only one region can be active at a time. This is apparently because DR can only generate routes within the same region. You would need to go to the "Card Utilities" Menu, and select "Change Maps" then select the "Detail Map" field to switch to the other state regions. If you want to route among all three states, you'd need to get them into a single region. Hope that helps, John Team Shredded Bark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.2 iQA/AwUBQKJgQkcrpacku1SeEQLlIwCgsmHJea+PmoFVdkM+1XtAiCfSsiYAoPLL jmC/20aBOSA95W2IFsMNJQJY =XbrR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I also find the auto-lighting alarm mildly irritating. If you hold the Meridian to your ear, you can hear a slight whine/buzz when the backlight is on. It gets slightly louder on the bright setting. I have used this technique many times on bright days to determine if the backlight is on and shut it off. I hope that people who see my manoeuvre think I am using a cell phone. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.2 iQA/AwUBQJqX3Ucrpacku1SeEQLq1gCdF61uNIcEs7+kkU6tZNGHZWkI7zwAnR+m g6zHJARaMG5kiCGjS4Kfnd/A =7Fge -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Just curious--what was the rating for that cache, Blaylockgang? It's difficult to get a feel for the situation and weigh the hider's comment without knowing the rating. For example, I know that the Clayjar guidelines indicate that a 3 difficulty "could take up a good portion of an afternoon" for an experienced finder, and a 4 "May require multiple days / trips to complete." My point here is that the difficulty rating seems to cover the entire gamut from "In plain sight" to "ground-penetrating radar required to find cache." The rating system is so you, the seeker, can decide which kind of caches you want to hunt according to the circumstances and your preferences. I have gone after some 4 difficulty hides, and even found a couple. Yes, they took a few trips. I have also enjoyed some 1s at lunch-break from work. So my opinion is that, assuming a cache is rated reasonably well (within a half-star or so), no one should be complaining that it is too well hidden. The fact that one could have fit a full-size cache doesn't mean it is wrong to hide a micro. Simply avoid the 4-stars if you don't want to take multiple trips to find the cache. John Team Shredded Bark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Just wanted to comment on a couple of earlier issues posted: A) Airline Rules: It seems that they are loosening up. For example, a couple of years ago I checked and Northwest did NOT have GPS on their approved list. However, I personally asked the individual captains of my flights and they okayed GPS use. This year, I sent an email to Northwest citing the rule book page for approved devices, and got a response that GPS use was OK with them at cruising altitude (when other electronics are allowed). I printed that email and took it with me on my trip. Of course, it is always up to the captain. I only explicitly ask the captain to use it if GPS use is prohibited by the airline in general. So far, the flight crew has always allowed it. If it isn't prohibited in general by airline policy, I feel free to use the GPS without asking (but of course, I would turn it off if ordered by the flight crew, in accordance with federal law) Barometer/altimeter readings: My understanding is that GPS altitude, while not as accurate as GPS 2D position coordinates, is still more accurate than barometric altimeters in general. My Meriplat has a barometer, and the "weather" screen shows the pressure adjusted for sea level (it requires a 3D fix to record pressure so it can know how far above sea level you are). It turns out being in a pressurized cabin at 39,000 feet really messes that up: it showed something like 70inHg--way higher than reality, of course. C) Course: There are apparently specified air corridors that might explain the curve of TEAM 360's track. I noticed on flights between Ft. Myers and Detroit that in both directions we appeared to fly almost directly over Atlanta and then adjust course at that point toward the final destination (instead of a direct straight path between the destinations, which would have tracked further east). I assume that this is due to Air Traffic Control issues. The curves could also have to do with the projection of the map, however. John -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.2 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBQG2zE0crpacku1SeEQKfUgCfQRR06dqZDRsZOCXp8364Cfkm3ScAnAkD x3ZAm6TQYrHYSl+pZBa9vDRV =HQtf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I have to respectfully take issue with your reasoning here. Logging a find isn't simply a matter of finding the cache and being able to physically get to it. You have to be able to retrieve the cache and sign the log book WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE CACHE. That's part of the challenge of geocaching. There have been a few occasions where I have given up on a cache because of the risk of compromising the cache location, sometime even after spotting the cache. Of those, there have been several that I rethought and came back either at a less busy time or with a better strategy for not being spotted. There have been plenty of examples of good tactics in this thread. Here is one I used.. Some caches are hard to get to for other reasons (mountaintops) and some because they are in a busy location. If you don't like that sort of cache, then don't hunt that kind; there are plenty of others out there. And if, in fact, there is a problem with retrieving the cache unobserved (or at least unnoticed) I feel you should leave it alone and log a not found or a note with an explanation. I don't think it's fair to blame the hider's choice of location as an excuse for being careless and possibly compromising their cache. John Team Shredded Bark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.2 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBQB6DLkcrpacku1SeEQKfigCePr6To1Im1saTWm0UMhB/u6rZmrwAoOxb /UiuTKgQj1j/fCpd7cY0a9PR =RLS5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"I looked for it and I found it Miles Standish proud: Congratulate me" --R.E.M., "Begin the Begin" "Stay off that highway: word is it's not so safe The grasses that hide the green-backs, the amber waves of gain again the amber waves of gain Green grow the rushes go Green grow the rushes go Green grow the rushes go The compass points the workers home" --R.E.M., "Green Grow the Rushes" "We're all doing fine beneath the satellites." --Rhythm Corps, "Life Beneath the Satellites" And of course: -- "I saw two shooting stars last night, I wished on them--but they were only satellites! Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care." --Billy Bragg, "A New England"

I signed the petition. I also wanted to note a couple of good, ongoing third-party efforts on software: MacSimpleGPS and Magellan Waypoint Manager. In addition, Mac OS X's Unix underbelly means you can (with some initial effort) run GPSbabel and other utilities. I agree that more OEM and third-party support is sorely needed. JCR -- "I saw two shooting stars last night, I wished on them--but they were only satellites! Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care." --Billy Bragg, "A New England" [This message was edited by Team Shredded Bark on August 11, 2003 at 12:32 PM.]

quote:Originally posted by Kanto:By Stunod's information, and by http://marian.creighton.edu/~joruth/CROP.html, they are 888878.842331894 meters away from each other. I didn't find a vector for it...like pointing to a city or country? The vector could only be South (180 degrees). -- "I saw two shooting stars last night, I wished on them--but they were only satellites! Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care." --Billy Bragg, "A New England"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Little Nasty is currently rated as a 5/1. I agree that if it is in poison ivy the terrain rating should be higher. Of course, that is assuming that you were looking in the correct place (your log mentions that you were having signal problems). It also looks from your logs you made a total of three trips to the cache on two seperate days. A 4 difficulty rating indicates that finding may require multiple trips, so I would think a 5 could easily require more than three trips. Your logs also indicate that you spent over an hour each on two of those trips. Let's assume that you put in over an hour on all three attempts, say five hours total. A difficulty rating of 2 indicates that an experienced finder would take up to 30 minutes to find the cache, and a 3 should require "a good portion of an afternoon," so I would suppose that a 5 should take significantly more time than it appears you have put in on this cache so far. I'm not trying to tell you how to hunt for caches. If you don't feel this cache is worth any more of your time, I personally don't think any less of you for your decision. What I don't understand is why you think the rating is inappropriate. They way I read the ratings, a 5 should be nearly impossible even for experienced cachers. I agree that this probably isn't a "family friendly" cache, most 5's probably require a longer attention span than most kids (and maybe most adults) have. John Team Shredded Bark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.1 Comment: Keys at http://www.jcrdesign.com/keys.html iQA/AwUBPu6Qp0crpacku1SeEQKprgCgwe+KloiUKX86v37vvtLgyoARBBAAoKlv e9Ho5WfIgf3CGR2kvBrYLDLN =0nIH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "I saw two shooting stars last night, I wished on them--but they were only satellites! Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care." --Billy Bragg, "A New England"

quote:Originally posted by Cadwalader & the Golden Horde:Part of the problem with the current rating system is that the definitions do not cover some extreme cases. Many caches are rated 4 or 5 and can still be found with a reasonable amount of effort. If everyone else enjoys looking for caches that are essentially impossible to find, then perhaps we need a different dfinition of the sport/game. I suppose that depends on your definition of "reasonable." In your original post, you seemed to indicate that requiring multiple trips was unreasonable, yet that is part of the standard description of a 4-star cache. I would argue that multiple trips are therefore reasonable for a 4-star and 5-star cache. I would assume that a 5-star cache requires an extreme amount of effort to find. Again, because that's in the description. Extreme should be reasonable, on a 5-star. -- "I saw two shooting stars last night, I wished on them--but they were only satellites! Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care." --Billy Bragg, "A New England"

I am a little puzzled by your post. Why would we need a separate rating to indicate difficult caches? I thought that was what the standard ratings for difficulty and terrain were for. I recommend avoiding caches rated 4 difficulty, if you aren't interested in making multiple trips. I believe that's part of the definition for a 4 difficulty rating. -- "I saw two shooting stars last night, I wished on them--but they were only satellites! Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care." --Billy Bragg, "A New England"

The thumbnail map at the top of the page for our Rouge Booth cache GCBC64 is showing New Zealand. Not really unusual, except the cache is in Michigan. The coordinates, state name, and larger map are all correct. Not a huge deal, It's kinda funny, actually. My theory is that a modification to the site programming reversed the sign of the coordinates. My cache is near 42N and 83W (or 42 -083), while 42S 83E (or -42 083) is off the coast of New Zealand. And here I always thought I was digging to CHINA! It was New Zealand all along. John -- "I saw two shooting stars last night, I wished on them--but they were only satellites! Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care." --Billy Bragg, "A New England" [This message was edited by Team Shredded Bark on June 12, 2003 at 10:36 AM.]

quote: Seriously though, here in Detroit Michigan, I have not heard much about West Nile Virus in the news, so hopefully they are eradicating the problem. Probably has been put on the back burner due to other news stories recently. I may get the Deep Woods OFF, for future warm weather caching. Not to add to the irrational panic, but a Team Shredded Bark co-worker lost her mother recently, and the autopsy results just came back last week as West Nile. I don't know other details (age, other health complications, whatever) but West Nile is clearly back in our area. It just isn't suffering from the media frenzy of last year. Let's keep it in perspective: the odds of getting West Nile are very small, it's much more likely that I will die in a car accident while driving to a geocache. (Maybe I should walk?) West Nile isn't going to affect my geocaching, but I am certainly a little more fastidious about coating the team in DEET. JCR -- "I saw two shooting stars last night, I wished on them--but they were only satellites! Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care." --Billy Bragg, "A New England"

I take an initial reading and make a waypoint at the potential cache location. I let it "average" for a couple minutes. Then, I take a little walk, maybe a couple hundred feet away, come back and make a second waypoint. Then, on another day (the next day or several days later, doesn't matter) I go take another reading, again letting it average for a few minutes. If the coordinates are off by much (more than 20 feet or so) I come back a third day. Then, I plot out the points graphically on paper (using the GPS distances from waypoint to waypoint and a protractor) and plot a point in the middle of the spread. You could also do this with Mapsend or whatever software your GPS can use. Also, I check to make sure that the GPS is telling me I have a pretty good fix (20ft EPE or less) when I record the waypoints. If reception was particularly poor, I would come back another time. I use a Magellan Meriplat. -- "I saw two shooting stars last night, I wished on them--but they were only satellites! Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care." --Billy Bragg, "A New England" [This message was edited by Team Shredded Bark on May 30, 2003 at 01:10 PM.]

I hate mowing. Seriously, I changed to a team name after discovering that my wife and 4-year-old like caching, too. They don't always accompany me, however, especially on those lunchtime caches. The team count really reflects caches that I have been present for. So it isn't really a good indicator of how many caches my wife has found. I gotta go with the previous poster who said "who cares?" It's all pretty much on the honor system anyway. I have a geocolleague who logs family finds as a team, and his own finds separately under his own ID. The problem is, he still has to (double?) log team finds under his own ID in order to get them off his "unfound caches" list. So that method is imperfect as well. -- "I saw two shooting stars last night, I wished on them--but they were only satellites! Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care." --Billy Bragg, "A New England"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This ROCKS. So far, it isn't parsing out the .GPX description field (although it does it correctly for .LOCs). I get the waypoint Names, coordinates, etc. but no description or comment fields. I'm using the OS9 version. Not a complaint, just a bug report--I understand that this is a first beta. Thanks immensely! John -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.1 Comment: Keys at http://www.jcrdesign.com/keys.html iQA/AwUBPq/kGUcrpacku1SeEQLD8wCcC4LnhagZAVkOpw1MhydQ50YwoTQAoNoF XQvPPAF7Eew7ERsZ/Nl7SXC2 =A61L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "I saw two shooting stars last night, I wished on them--but they were only satellites! Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care." --Billy Bragg, "A New England"