monsterbox
-
Posts
332 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by monsterbox
-
-
3 hours ago, Honey Bournes said:
When the file is downloaded to my PC I click on it and it drops it into my collection on BaceCamp then I have to drag it to Internal Storage on BaceCamp.
How do i go about telling the computer to save the file into Garmin/GPX file? Is the Garmin/GPX folder in the Garmin?
It depends on the browser you're using. They behave slightly different in terms of their defaults. Firefox for instance allows you to chose that in the options settings. Other browser have similar settings, but in different places.
And yes, that folder is on the Garmin and it doesn't make a difference if you put it onto the device itself or onto the SD card in the device as long as the folder name is correct. -
On 9.9.2018 at 2:37 AM, steben6 said:
This is directed to Ben H, and not anybody on the forums. Could we PLEASE have the "Send to GPS" option for, say, just another month. This would give us old timers with old GPS' time to figure out how to use the Send to GPX feature. We manually loaded our caches in so we could go caching today, but we won't do that every day. We are trying to learn the "Send to GPX," but we have other steps we have to take because we have two Garmin 60CSx gps', and they don't support the "Send to GPX" feature without other steps. Please? Just asking for a month or even a few weeks?
I'm not Ben, but I'm pretty sure his answer would be similar, but in different words possibly...
No, you can't get back that functionality at all, period!
It's more than "just" put in one line of code into the page and there is a good reason to have it removed. It anyways was in there WAY too long as it caused so many issues und discussions and requests from people who already did upgrade their systems to actual browsers. Take it as a man and simply forget your request. Go learn how to deal with it. You've got more than one answer already on how to deal with it.
Create a pocket query, load the GPX into MapSource and send the caches to your devices. Easy! That way also works for single caches, but it's not that much fun, I agree. You can also create a bookmarklist and create a PQ from that. You do have some options, so just go and give it a try!-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, mark913 said:
Sorry yeah, i've been tearing my hair out for hours. It a Garmin etrex. i've tried re installing garmin express. i've tried the gpx thing, but its jus over my head, it was so much easier when could just send to gps.
With an eTrex 20 you can easily use PQs. You also just need to store the GPX file onto your device as described by HHL.
-
On 2.9.2018 at 10:22 AM, Go Play Outside said:
Well I was hopeful that a suggestion by niraD to use the Lists feature might be the answer but sadly no. From a List you can "Send to Garmin" or "Save .LOC" file. There is no option to save to .gpx.
When I tried using the circle with 3 dots context menu next to a List entry in the List Management page one of the options is "Send To Garmin". This requires installation of the Garmin Express app for Windows but when I installed that, Garmin Express said it did not support the older Mapsource 60 series GPSs, I had to install Web Updater. Web updater does not manage waypoints or any aspect of the GPS other than firmware updates.
I also tried the "Download to .LOC" in the individual lists details page in hopes I could use EasyGPS to send them to the GPS but clicking on the button does not produce a file. It tries to do something but seems to fail. I think the feature is not working now.
We are heading out camping for a week with no internet access so Will try to catch up and see if there are any answers then.
Create a PQ from your list, download the PQ into MapSource and send the caches to your GPS. Easy!
-
On 2.9.2018 at 8:41 AM, steben6 said:
I don't see them on the cache pages. I only see them if I go to my "lists."
I can see them on the cache page... I'm using Firefox on Windows 10. You need to be fully precise with that to allow the lackeys check if there really is an issue!
-
4 hours ago, Redrich382 said:
"Going forward, GPSr users can put geocaches on their devices by clicking ‘Download GPX’ on the Geocaching map, or by clicking the ‘GPX file’ button on the cache page. Then, transfer the downloaded file to a GPS device."
I have tried this and the suggestions on this forum, but NONE are working for me! I never had any problems downloading caches before and cannot see why it had to be changed. It is a shame that the "Download to GPS" option could not be left alongside "Download to GPX" as it obviously doesn't work for everyone.
It might help if you'd get us some more details like the GPS model and the browser (version) you're using
-
On 28.8.2018 at 8:55 PM, Geocaching HQ said:
Release Notes (Website: Downloading caches to GPS devices) - August 28, 2018
There's a big issue with the upper option on the map! The file generated THERE doesn't have the corrected but the header coords. The option on the cache page works as expected!
-
19 minutes ago, HHL said:
That advice is useless as the old Garmins use a serial protocol for sending or receiving data. They definitely don't do this GPX thingy.
Hans
Ok, Basecamp solution instead. Or MapSource. Done it that way back then... Easy!
-
On 30.8.2018 at 5:44 PM, Redrich382 said:
"Going forward, GPSr users can put geocaches on their devices by clicking ‘Download GPX’ on the Geocaching map, or by clicking the ‘GPX file’ button on the cache page. Then, transfer the downloaded file to a GPS device."
I was planning to go out tomorrow to find over 60 caches. I tried to download them to my Garmin etrex GPS only to find "Download to GPS" has been changed to "Download to GPX". I am probably doing something wrong, but can't now get any caches to download to my device. I click on the Download GPX option and it asks if I want to open or save the file. I have tried both of these options, but none give me the option to transfer the downloaded file to my GPS device that is plugged into the computer. It used to be simple and quick to download caches with the "Download to GPS". Can anyone advise me how to resolve this please? (PS: I do not have a smart phone so cannot continue caching atm!)
One options should be using Basecamp. Simply load the GPX files into Basecamp and send the caches to your device from in there. Should work like a charm.
-
On 30.8.2018 at 11:00 AM, The Whittles said:
well it isn't working ive managed to send the caches to a file highlighted them click send to, click montana 680 says files sent to montana 680 no caches on the gps so how on earth is this simple?as opposed to one click downloaded?
You're simply doing it the wrong way... "Just" download the GPX files directly to the Montana, "Save as" ist easy, just depends on the browser you're using. So you can directly chose the correct directory on your device and that's it!
"Sending to" doesn't mean the files will be sent to the correct directory!
-
On 29.8.2018 at 9:41 PM, fraager said:
I am 82 years old and sometimes mii the obvious. I click on gpx but do not get an option to send to my plugged in gps. it send to downloads and can do nothing with. What am I missing?
Just click the little arrow beside "Save" and chose to the the "Save at" option. Then you can chose the directory where to save the file. Correct directory for a Garmin would be \Garmin\GPX on your device. And sorry, as I'm using a German Windows version it may not exactly be "Save at"
But I'm sure you'll find the correct option!
-
1
-
-
On 29.8.2018 at 4:53 AM, Chris Baker said:
The removal of the "Send to my GPS" feature from the cache pages is very disappointing. I had purposely not updated my explorer browser so I could keep using this feature after it stopped working on Firefox. It now just got much more difficult for me to load caches along unplanned routes, to update previously loaded caches and to quickly load caches for FTF runs. Not entirely sure why it needed to be removed, why not leave it on the page for the few of us who relied on it.
Easy to understand... The existance of that completely outdated feature for sure created by far more issues and questions as anyone at the HQ is willing or able to answer. At some point "you" simply need to move forward and forget the old stuff...
-
Morsix (ein Münchner Cacher) hat schon vor Jahren mal ein paar Regeln aufgeschrieben, deren Beachtung schon einmal automatisch zu ordentlichen Caches führt:
Zitat:- Ist die Lokation besonders interessant (landschaftlich, kulturell, architektonisch, sonst wie von Interesse?)
- Ist es eine besondere Herausforderung, an die Dose zu kommen (und damit meine ich nicht zum 1000sten Mal Muggelalarmdose)
- Hat die Dose irgendeinen besonderen Witz, eine geniale Tarnung oder etwas anderes?
- Ist die Dose besonders spannend, ein Nachtcache vielleicht oder irgendwelche elektronischen Spielereien?
Wenn keine dieser Fragen zutrifft, sollte auf das Auslegen verzichtet werden.
Zitat Ende
Niedrige Qualität:
Das sind für mich Caches, die z.B. nur unter Beobachtung zu bergen sind. Caches, bei denen bei der Suche die Umgebung fast schon zerstört werden muß, z.B. in Efeuwänden oder in Steinmauern. Mikros im Wald sind auch nicht unbedingt meine Favoriten.
Caches, die nicht gewartet werden. Und ja, ich logge sowohl NM als auch NA. Und zumindest in Deutschland sind die Reviewer auch sehr bemüht, entsprechende Caches ins Archiv zu schicken.
Im Gegensatz zu MadCatERZ habe ich aber nichts gegen Powertrails. Wer die machen möchte, der soll das gerne tun. Im Zweifel gibt es für sowas eh schon die Ignoreliste. Aber aus eigener (Owner)-Erfahrung weiß ich nur zu gut, wie sehr das die Cacher anzieht. Und wenn es einen Markt für etwas gibt, dann sollte man ihn auch bedienen können.
Gemeinschaft:
Die Gemeinschaft bekommt, wonach sie verlangt... Es gibt ja durchaus wirklich tolle Caches, gerade in Deutschland sind wir da mehr als verwöhnt, das ist in anderen Ländern deutlich weniger der Fall. Hier gibt es ja alles von einfach nur schönen Plätzen über tolle Multis hin zu Basteleien und elektronischen Spielereien aller Art. Und die Favoritenpunkte machen auch eine Suche nach den entsprechenden Caches relativ einfach.
Aber da nun einmal auch eine nicht geringe Anzahl an Cachern nach dem schnellen Punkt schreit, gibt es eben auch die einfachen Caches. Und am Ende ist es einfach so, daß es sich jeder nur aussuchen muß, was er suchen möchte.
HQ:
Ganz ehrlich? Ich denke mal, das HQ kann da nicht besonders viel machen. Ich würde vielleicht neben der Suche nach FPs noch die Suche nach der FP-Quote einführen. Die ist viel aussagekräftiger und so würde man die besseren Caches noch leichter finden.
Ansonsten gäbe es vielleicht noch die Möglichkeit, statt dem FP halt eine Benotung zu ermöglichen. Und Caches, die eine Mindestnote unterschreiten, nach einger Zeit eventuell zwangsweise zu archivieren. Aber ob das wirklich hilft!? Dann landen die eventuell einfach nur auf Opencaching und bleiben halt in Wirklichkeit doch im Spiel.
Cacher für das Cachelegen sperren? Ja, vielleicht eine Option, wenn der entsprechende Owner (zu viele) wartungsbedürftige Caches hat. Ich denke aber eher, daß eine nicht geringe Anzahl an diesen Caches nicht mehr aktiven Ownern gehört.-
.png)
2
-
1
-
I also would like to see the default order of the lists to be alphabetical as I have quite a few of them and know the name but not necessarily when I have been using it the last time. So now I either need to go throught the whole list of lists or redo the ordering twice.
Mapping feature: Nice, but why isn't it using the standard map? If I then clear the search filter it loads the normal one.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Optimist on the run said:
Rather than trying to achieve consistency between the app and the website, I'd prefer to see some indication of whether a cache is Premium Only or not. This is one feature I really miss.
Stupid question: Why!? You always see what your account allows you to see, so why should you be able to see an extra indicator? Planning for basic members? If they accompany you, they can easily log these, too?
-
On 28.12.2017 at 11:19 PM, The Jester said:
Or, as one of my puzzles, what about a multi-stage puzzle with the first waypoint within the 2 mile range but the final is outside that? It was part of a geo-art that's been more or less closed down. Hard coding a guideline (that's supposed to have some flex) in to the page wasn't such a good idea...
This exactly was my example that I already disussed with Frau Potter some time ago. Her final decision still was that the FINAL has to be within the 2 miles. I still think that the first stage should be the one to check, but hey, their website, their rules.
-
19 hours ago, arisoft said:
The standard procedure is to move it step by step as many times as needed.
I fear you were missing the point
The question was about moving a waypoint. You're telling how to move the header coords. WAY different!
-
5 hours ago, thomfre said:
I guess we have to go somewhere else now if we want to talk to ourselves...
Technically you're right
It simply was way easier for me to compare MY personal profile as I know how it should look like 
So I have been comparing the new and old version on my 2 screens and just wondered what has been changed.
My main complaint anyways is the huge waste of space for the least important part of the profile info. In the old view all my geocache info can be seen on my screen. In the new version that doesn't exactly work. Ok, it jumps down and doesn't show the background and profile picture any more if I chose anything other than the About tab. But it that case I again need to scroll up to be able to change to some other page later as this also hides the main menu.
I wouldn't mind if there would be NO background picture and just a small profile picture again (if at all
). That way the remaining block isn't too prominent any more. But again: Just MY personal opinion...
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, HiddenGnome said:
Thank you for your feedback.
Unlike the old version, the new profile page only shows the links that are relevant. For instance, if you are looking at your own page it does not make sense to display the email and message center links. If you look at the profile page for another player who is not premium you will see all of the links that you are missing.
Ok, makes sense! But I'm sorry, the "header" still is way too prominent in my eyes. If I'm looking into one's profil I usually don't care too much about that info but more about their statistics. And even on my pretty big (28" UHD) display only less than half the height is used for that part now. And as I wrote: I now will be shown on top of EVERY tab. Not an improvement but a backdraw.
Seen from a pure technical view I wonder why you changed that at all. Up to now I don't see any new feature, just a higher waste of space (again). Ok, the new backgrund picture might be nice for some people, but is THIS really worth the change?Sorry that for, just my personal view!
-
First thoughts:
1. Main part is way too big now. I roughly always need to scroll down now. And it is shown in every tab, not just the about tab as in the old version. For me that's waste of space plus the need to always scroll now.
2. Where are the links now? I'm missing the email and message center links and "you" might miss the "Give a gift membership" link. I guess your sales team doesn't like you that for
I'll stay with the old version, works better for my needs. -
1 hour ago, baer2006 said:
In my view, this is a complete abuse of the D/T system. If finding the way to GZ and the cache there is both trivial, it should be a D1. If actually following the path to GZ is a hard physical challenge, it's T5 - but still D1. A different issue would be a multi-cache, where finding the way to the final (e.g. through a maze of tunnels in an old bunker system) is difficult in itself, so I agree that your original example is not D1. But using the D-rating to further differentiate between "easy" and "extra hard" T5 caches doesn't make sense. A big orange box in a tree is always D1, even if it's very high up and you need a complicated setup to reach it.
But it anyways is handled that way for quite many T5 caches I did... Common use here, just do a query and check the caches
-
3 hours ago, arisoft said:
For what reason you shoud select waypoints? I think that every hidden waypoint is potential object for checking because it is hidden.
For the checker! One of my mysts has a first stage and the final. So if I would like to use the checker I would need to be able to set the waypoint the checker is meant for. The default (final) wouldn't work for me and I also wouldn't use the checker for the final in this specific case. As you're solving the last calculation in the field anyways you would know pretty quick if you're right or wrong.
-
14 minutes ago, arisoft said:
When the integrated checker can check and disclose all hidden waypoints, this clever solution works even better than any external checker can do.
That for I would need to have the option of chosing which waypoint I want to get checked. If it will be implemented that way: Great!
-
9 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:
Sure, that may be the intent, but how can a reviewer guarantee that a T4.5 cache with the wheelchair attribute is accurate to that intent? The reviewer could require that the T be dropped to 1 if it's accessible by wheelchair, but the allowable listing structure doesn't restrict that. We do know it technically can because other similar restrictions are in place; but you can add the attribute on high terrains.
Essentially, the reviewer would have to trust that the CO is truthful if they say for example "the cache is accessible by wheelchair but the T is rated for the very long hike/travel to get to gz from the trailhead". The reviewer would either publish that, or require the lower terrain rating. In either case, as a finder, I can't be sure that a search for wheelchair attribute means I'm guaranteed to be able to retrieve it, or that the such a search would give me all caches I could retrieve by wheelchair.
In short, because higher T caches can have the wheelchair attribute, it's an honour system flag that if the wheelchair attribute is enabled that it's traversible and retrievable by wheelchair. If I wanted caches I know I should be able to find and log alone, I'd really only be certain if I searched for both the attribute and the low T.
Concession: Yes, I'll admit and agree that it is reasonable for a reviewer to require in their review process that if a cache has the wheelchair attribute on it that the CO must demonstrate how it is indeed retrievable by wheelchair (unlike the stroller accessible attribute which doesn't imply the cache itself is retrievable with stroller in hand, or by a child in a stroller
). If this is a rule that every reviewer must enforce, then the point is moot - the very definition of the attribute would be that the cache is retrievable by wheelchair, regardless of T rating. The complement to that as we know is that a T rating of 1 must have the wheelchair attribute.
Don't blame Groundspeak or the reviewers for cache owners abusing/misusing the attributes
A reviewer in many cases simply need to believe the CO and this is true here, too. Our reviewers usually ask the CO some extra questions if that attribute is set. So as a wheelchair rider I would at least try believing the attribute has been set in a correct way. If not: NM log -
1
-
No, you can't get back that functionality at all, period!
.png)
So I have been comparing the new and old version on my 2 screens and just wondered what has been changed.
Release Notes (Website: Progressive release, new Search/Map) - September 14, 2018
in Geocaching HQ communications
Posted
I'm using lots of PQs, for FTF runs, for different areas as 1000 is WAY too less for my needs, so lists don't work either. I'm using GSAK to fill my GPS devices and it's completely easy to dl the PQs and create my data set then. And I LOVE the PQ view on the old map. So yes, there are some very good reasons to use PQs. In addition you can easily filter the caches on my GPS device based on PQ files!