zgrav

Who said this was only about the game piece? (In this thread, the answer would be "a lot of people" ). To the extent we are discussing the substance of the allegations against this person, they are non-trivial even if the case against him is trivial. The "game piece" here (the stolen cache-in-hand) is just that -- a piece of a puzzle that is all about the relative consequences this person might have to face under the legal system for this incident. At the same time, a lot of the concerns about what should be done if the allegations are true is based on a broader sense of justice and fair play. Should anyone be able to take it upon themselves to decide to steal "pieces" from another game that thousands of people are generally playing mostly in compliance with the law? Strip away the notions of technical legal defenses and just ponder whether that is fair. And if it isn't fair, what is the appropriate response to someone that has been doing this repeatedly for an extended period of time? Saying a person should lose their security credentials and employment for taking a hide-a-key left in a park may sound absurd, but it is not a stretch to think that an employer might be concerned to find out a trusted employee has made a hobby out of stealing many items for years that were lawfully placed and actively tracked by the public that were playing a game. I'm not even sure it is exculpatory to claim that the items being stolen were trivial, since the cumulative value of them may be significant as some have noted, and the ongoing activity was intended to be disruptive to many.

Here's another more constructive suggestion to further geocaching interests and education about this activity. How about a "Cache Thief" series? It could feature caches placed in some of the spots that have been archived where this person stold them. Perhaps every cache in the series could contain excerpts from the news article about Mr. Repek's arrest, and any anecdotal information about that particular original cache that was stolen. The one at the Adirondack Museum, for example, could describe how it was stolen multiple times including when the thief had to sever a chain that was securing it into place. If some cache owners thought it was appropriate, they could also consider finding lawful cache placements in the series that could mark a point reasonably close to where the alleged cache thief lives, works, etc. And perhaps the most interesting part of doing such a series is that Mr. Repek himself would have a personal interest in making sure none of those caches were stolen, since he would in all likelihood be the first suspect if that happened. I have no doubt that some folks might not think this is a constructive suggestion, but I believe it could be done in a way that did send a positive, pro-geocaching message.

This quote attributed to Mr. Repek from his exchanges is very interesting -- Please let me apologize not just for myself but especially for the game of geocaching going where it is not intended to be. ..... -Paul" Think about it. Is this supposed to mean that Paul Repek's actions were an example of another way to play "the game of geocaching..." in a way that takes it "where it is not intended to be"? If that is the case, it carves away any notion that this was something he was doing to save the wilderness from "trashing" (and the descriptions of stolen caches is not consistent with that explanation anyway). Instead, it starts to sound like this person crossed the line and started playing his own "game" of seek and destroy. As noted above, the basic principle of that "game" is at odds with the notion that this is a shared activity where people willingly place and care for private property that is intended to allow others to play the lawful "game of geocaching".

I have icons for schools and churches, and putting the map cursor over them will display their names.

Update -- sure looks like this works. apparently the "auto" setting really does not display any POIs unless you have City Navigator installed. changing it from that default will have the POIs display at the selected zoom level. now here is the strange part -- I am also getting additional POI icons that will display for schools. I haven't explored the maps enough to see if anything else is showing up. but I know I don't have any POI data loaded for schools. is it possible that some POI data is coded into the IBCUSA map data we are using?

I received another email from Garmin saying that, after a bit more research, the Vista Hcx (and presumably the other models using memory cards) CAN be set to display all POIs as map data. I have not tried this yet, but here is the reply --- Thank you for contacting Garmin International. I will be happy to assist. I did some further research. It appears that the Vista Hcx is able to view all points of interest. You can adjust from what zoom level they are seen from. By default City Navigator is the only software that automatically shows POIs. However this can be adjusted with different POIs. This can be done by: MAIN MENU > SETUP > MAP > MAP SETUP POINTS > All POIs are recognized as Map Points. It may be set to AUTO. If you highlight and click on AUTO you can adjust what zoom level they are seen from. If you have any further questions please feel free to let us know. I'm looking forward to giving this a try. And I tip my hat to Garmin tech support for taking another look at my question.

"Now Garmin support can tell you that your GPS can view custom POIs, but they are going to ignore the existence of the 3rd party mapping solutions. " So what Garmin probably meant was that the hard-coded POIs will display in the maps, but not the custom POIs. I did see some forums for the Garmin Nuvis where a similar question was being discussed. I saw a post from Garmin saying the POIs will display on the Nuvi maps in 2D mode but not in 3D mode -- but now I am guessing that it only referred to the built-in POIs. For custom POIs, folks are reporting that they cannot get their geocache POIs to display on their maps, but they can load the custom POIs and set a flag for a proximity alarm. When the GPS is within a set distance from one of their cache POIs a pop-up appears on the screen that, when touched, will bring up the POI data for the closest caches. That seems like a very clever work-around for a car GPS, but I don't think there is anything comparable for the handheld models. Given that waypoints appear on the map, and that the GPS constantly pulls the map data off of the memory card, it seems technically possible that Garmin could add that functionality in a firmware update to pull off the relevant POI data every time the map file was accessed to get the unit to display POIs. Not that they will, but it doesn't seem like it would be a difficult change to make.

Thanks for the replies. I have no doubt that my ignorance is showing here, but nonetheless -- Since POIs can be changed frequently, and Garmin says that POIs will display in City Navigator, it must mean the only thing hard-coded into city navigator is the ability to display any given POI when the zoom level is 300 feet or closer. At least I read the reply from tech support as saying that custom POIs would display with City Navigator, not just the POIs that come with it -- perhaps that is not the case. But if the maps will display custom POIs, then it sounds a lot more like a setting for the maps that could be changed -- an option to display that category of data from the memory card, and a zoom level where it would appear. (and FWIW -- other tech support folks at Garmin were telling me that their GPSs would not display POI points on the map screens, so I guess this question does not come up often. ) Is that a setting that could, perhaps, be set in the commercial version of CGS mapper? I can understand why a company might save that feature for a paid version of the software, but it does not necessarily mean that feature could not be unlocked if someone else figured out how to reverse engineer the setting, right? I'm not asking about cracking the software or pirating a copy of anything -- I am asking if that is a setting that is not, in itself, protected from being changed if someone wrote the software to do it. Isn't that the deal with the auto-routing feature? It is offered in the commercial software, but could just as lawfully be built into another piece of software and released as open source. Or do I have that wrong?

I have these maps loaded on my Etrex Vista Hcx, and I think they are great. I also have my entire geocache database loaded as POIs using a GSAK macro. Unlike Waypoints that will display on the map, the POIs will only come up in a search and you have to select one and "go to" it as a waypoint to see it on the map. I asked Garmin tech support if there was a way to display POIs in the map screen, and I was surprised to get this response: ..... Yes, you are able to view POIs on your map page. However, you do need to have City Navigator loaded onto your unit. These POIs are seen at around a zoom level of 300ft. Whereas waypoints are seen at any zoom level. There is not a setting to adjust the POI zoom level. Does anyone have a clue what City Navigator might be doing to trigger this functionality? And is it something that we might be able to incorporate into the free maps?

The links from BadAndy's post directly above make it clear that the AT Conservancy is well practiced at rallying its supporters to send letters to different government organizations to complain about actions being taken off of the AT that would threaten to degrade the perception of anyone hiking the trail that they were far removed from the modern world. I think that it would be a good lesson in good government for the AT administration to deal with a bit of first-amendment correspondence to the NPS, Dept of the Interior, and the Hill that questions the position and tone being taken by the NPS on off-trail and off-NPS property cache placements. This is sometimes referred to as the "Goose Rule", as in "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

For starters. I thing Groundspeak could and should have declined to archive any cache that is located more than a quarter mile from the trail based upon the initial request. And in that response, advised the NPS that it could provide additional information showing it held the legal right to control the lands for those cache placements that were not being archived. Groundspeak could then also have said that it was going to take a closer look at all caches that appeared to be more than 500 feet (or 750 feet, or XXX feet) from the AT or appeared to not be on NPS land on the TOPO maps, and reserved the right to reinstate those caches if the NPS did not supply additional information about its right to control those placements within 30/45/or 60 days. The goal should have been to immediately respond and comply for caches that appear to be on NPS property to show that GC is responsive, and then to shift the burden of proof to the NPS if it wished to support its request with respect to the caches that do not appear to be on the AT or its corridor. So long as those other caches do not appear to be on NPS land on the maps that GC uses, they would appear to be outside of NPS's lawful reach. The most NPS could do would be to have acquired such rights through agreements with the other land owners, and it would have been reasonable for GC to have requested such proof from NPS. As far as I can tell, NPS's legal remedy would be to confiscate the caches that were on NPS property, and those are the caches where it seems appropriate for GC to have responded by agreeing to archive them anyway. The "record" would show that GC was acting in good faith, and give the NPS plenty of opportunities to show that it had some otherwise unclear basis to substantiate its requests for the other caches to be archived. And we should realize that the NPS may simply withhold its agreement that it lacks authority over caches on these contiguous state lands. GC may have the unpleasant task of reaching its own conclusion -- perhaps in consultation with the states that own the lands -- and then acting based upon that decision. I also think that the various geocaching organization, individuals, and GC itself should voice opinions to the Department of the Interior and congressional staff about any concerns with the AT and NPS positions on this issue. It is amazing how some expression of interest by other political agencies can improve the tone and tenor of the discussions with the AT folks and the NPS. Some folks are very cautious to use that approach under a belief that it might alienate and polarize the NPS, but I see no downside at doing so given the heavy hand that the AT has wielded so far.

at least two caches from Virginia should make the list. The two archived caches are GCGVQB (Primal Instinct) and GCZ3CW (Stonewall's Revenge). I have been told that a number of caches were archived from Maryland last week in response to the NPS directive. Perhaps Groundspeak could make the full communication and list available to its members to save folks the time and expense of getting this information released from the Dept. of the Interior under a Freedom of Information Act Request. Given that this was some kind of agency request from NPS to Groundspeak about cache listings that were (are still are) listed on a public web site, it seems likely to me that the entirety of the communication would be available under FOIA. I guess we could start here: NPS FOIA OFFICES and CONTACTS Headquarters Diane Cooke (ORG CODE 2550) Office of the Chief Information Officer 1849 C Street NW Mail Stop: 1201 Eye Street, NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20240 202-354-1925 Fax: 202-371-5584 * The Department of the Interior FOIA Office toll-free telephone number is 1-888-603-7119. This is from the FOIA FAQ: # Can I request records under the FOIA over the telephone? No. A request for documents under the FOIA must be in writing. You may submit a request through the postal mail, by email, or by fax. In accordance with the DOI regulations, you must provide a return address. Additionally, if you modify your request, you must verify the change in writing to the appropriate FOIA office processing the request. Otherwise, processing will not begin. # What information do I need to include in my FOIA request? 1. A description of the records 2. Where you believe the records are located (if possible) 3. A statement of your willingness to pay fees or a complete fee waiver justification 4. Your fee category, i.e., commercial use; scientific/educational; news media or other 5. Your postal address (this IS REQUIRED in order to mail documents to you)

Groundspeak archived two caches in a large section of state park in Virginia near where the ATC crosses I-66. The NPS apparently asked for the caches to be archived because the Appalachian Trail runs through the state park. As far as I know, the park is managed by the state. One cache is at least a quarter of a mile from the Appalachian Trail, and the other one is almost two miles from it. Access to these caches would not have been over the Appalachian Trail, so it seems a bit over-reaching to me for NPS to claim that no cache placements can be made in any state park that the AT runs through. I know the NPS prohibits cache placements on the AT, and I understand they wanted to prohibit placements on lands adjacent to the AT that might encourage hikers to use the AT to reach the caches. For these two caches, however, nothing suggests that these placements have ANY connection with the AT. That strikes me as the wrong outcome here, and I am disappointed that Groundspeak is automatically agreeing to all of these archive requests without even looking at the map. I understand that Groundspeak wants to be a good "neighbor" to the NPS and every public park, but I think a more appropriate response to these blanket requests would have been "Dear NPS: Thank you for your request. Please identify the caches that you believe are actually within the AT Corridor and we will archive those immediately. We will promptly review the other caches on your list to determine the appropriate steps to take with those placements." That strikes me as a very cooperative and polite response that still indicates some willingness to stand by the individuals that placed these caches on state land where they were presumably approved or at least not prohibited. Instead, Groundspeak has apparently archived all of the caches targeted by the NPS, and NOTHING in the forum posts explaining why the cache was archived suggests that the issue is open for further reconsideration and review. So we can opine in the forums that we hope Groundspeak is willing to revisit this issue, but I wish they had shown at least the same consideration and courtesy to the cache owners that they did to the NPS. In fact, I think the individuals that placed the caches and supported this site with memberships should have gotten the benefit of the doubt here. I favor working with the state and municipal parks that permit cache placements more than I support appeasing the NPS to remove caches on land it does not own or control. To the extent that Groundspeak wants to allay concerns about placements near the AT Corridor, it could adopt a policy prohibiting placements within a tenth of a mile, or a quarter-mile of the park boundary.

Thanks! Download is in progress.....

I also live in Fairfax VA, and there is a lot of inconsistency in the map details within the county and compared to the adjacent Arlington County and Washington DC. In Mapsource it looks like there are some gaps in the coverage for Fairfax County. What software are people using to change the "unknown" labels in the county data sets before recompiling the image files? I am interested in trying to tinker with the Fairfax data set while patiently waiting for Dale's update with the global fix in it for this issue. Also -- I thought that routing would not work on the Garmin units for this map set, but it seems to work at least in the areas where the data is accurate.

I have a Mio 310X that has been "liberated" enough to run other PPC porgrams, including some off-road geocaching software. I can get the 2.0 compact net framework installed, but then the 2.1 will not install on top of it. Or I can remove 2.0 and install the 2.1 framework, but then the player gives me a different error message. If I only install the 2.0 compact framework, it advises that I need a newer version. I figure this will be resolved sooner or later either by changes in the player (unlikely) or by tweaking from the rather active Mio 310x users.

Interesting -- I canceled my order from Onsale last night for the Vista HCX since they are still out of stock, and placed an order with Walmart for next day delivery. Prices were comparable at both places. Just checked Walmart.com, and they have now raised the price for the Vista HCX to $299 (about a $60 increase, although my order is still at the previous price). Maybe they were just slow to update their pricing for the new model.

Rich -- thanks! -- I emailed a request to customer support asking to try out the beta version for my a920. Zgrav (Steve) ---

the service is not yet available on Sprint for my A920. From the above messages, I gather it will be soon. Will keep checking.