larryc43230

I presume you're willing to pay the higher price they would have to charge for a premium membership to make up for the lost ad revenue? They're not likely to simply take a revenue cut to satisfy users who don't want to see ads. --Larry

The GE plug-in was designed only for the purpose of providing a general idea of where caches might be hidden in an area you're planning on visiting. It's worthless for obtaining accurate coordinates for caches, and deliberately so. I've had the plug-in installed for years, but I almost never bother using it. I can't see how it's of any real value, at least for premium members who can get accurate information a bunch of other ways. --Larry

The Geocaching Google Earth Viewer plug-in should never be used to determine whether the coordinates for a specific cache are correct. The obfuscation Groundspeak uses isn't just a rounding-off, the coordinates sent from the server change slightly every time you pan and/or zoom the map. If you download the GPX file for the cache, then load that file into Google Earth (or simply create a placemark for the coordinates), the icon won't jump around and you could probably use its placement as a sort-of confirmation that the coordinates of the cache are correct. I say sort-of because you're still left with the problem that Google Earth is more accurate in some areas than others. --Larry

This situation has been posted a couple of times, but I can't grasp what is actually happening... why would the static waypoints be actively jumping around the map while looking at it? What are you actually doing and actually seeing as you do it? Something doesn't sound right here... #techsupportactivate When you use the "Geocaching Google Earth Viewer plug-in" with Google Earth to find out what caches are active in a given area, Groundspeak deliberately obfuscates the exact coordinates of the caches you see on the map. As you zoom and pan around, the icons for the caches will appear to jump around for this reason. (Their motivation for doing this obfuscation eludes me; it might have something to do with the fact that non-premium members could use the plug-in to locate tons of caches and avoid paying for a premium membership.) I thought this discussion was about determining the coordinates when hiding a cache. What I don't understand is what the Google Earth plug-in, and its randomization of existing caches, has to do with either hiding a new cache or looking for a cache in the field. I don't know of anybody who uses that Geocaching Google Earth Viewer plug-in in the field. Is there a version of the plug-in for mobile devices like smart phones? I was under the impression it was a strictly PC-based doodad. Mudfrog, could you explain how the behavior of the plug-in affects anything other than scouting for potential caches to look for, from home? --Larry

Allow me to be the first (but probably not the last) to point out that, depending on the location, Google Maps can be up to hundreds of feet off. They've improved over the years, but I would never depend on Google Maps to be the final arbiter of whether GPS coordinates are accurate. --Larry

I hate Windows 8 with a passion, so I don't use my Windows 8.1 laptop very often. I decided to find out whether I could install the Communicator plug-in in its browser and use the "Send to GPS" function. I fired up the laptop, attached my Oregon 650, and tried adding a cache to it using the "Send to GPS" function and Firefox 37.0.1. The browser correctly told me the plug-in wasn't installed, and opened the Web page for downloading and installing the plug-in. The plug-in installed correctly, and after restarting Firefox I was able to use "Send to GPS" to add several caches to my Oregon 650. At least with my copy of Firefox running in Windows 8.1, the Communicator plug-in works fine. --Larry

This apparently depends on your version of Firefox or some other configuration issue. Earlier today, I used Firefox 37.0.1 to download several caches to my Oregon 650 using the "send to GPS" function,and everything worked as advertised. This was on a Windows 7 PC, in case that makes any difference. --Larry

Given that somebody at Groundspeak has determined that they need X amount of revenue to keep the service running and to make a profit (which they have every right to do), which would you prefer: keeping the ads and maintaining the same annual membership fee, or removing all the ads and increasing the membership fee? Either way, it's a no-win situation for Groundspeak. People complain about the ads, but (in my opinion) would complain even more loudly if the annual membership fee was increased. Personally, since I already see ads on about 99% of all the Web sites I visit, I vote for keeping the ads and keeping the same membership fee. Why is it so difficult to simply ignore that ad in the corner of the Web page? --Larry

Ah, the fine and honorable traditions of college athletics. --larry

You sound like a Michigan fan. --Larry Well there's your solution. Next time you go geocaching in Michigan, bring along those buckeyes and drop one in every cache you find. If they turn out to be deathly toxic, they'd mostly likely be found by a Michigan fan. I'm tempted, but there's already enough faux animosity between us and "That school up north". Heaven knows what they'd throw back at us if I lobbed buckeyes at them. Besides, Ohio and Michigan have already fought a war (sort of ) over Toledo, of all places. Don't want to stir up those hard feelings again. --Larry

You sound like a Michigan fan. --Larry

That's one of many reasons it was pretty much useless. Some cachers I know tried it out as a sort of protest over some of Groundspeak's policies at the time, but once they checked out "the competition" and realized there was nothing really there, they came back to the fold. --Larry

What was new, at least to me, was the specific reference to "geocaches from geocaching.com" in the new ad. This brings up another interesting question: Did Garmin get all those 250,000 caches with Groundspeak's cooperation and permission? As far as I can figure, they must have. --Larry

I just read a Garmin ad in the latest FTF Geocacher magazine that surprised me a bit: "Geocaching gives families more reasons to come together. And with 250,000 preloaded geocaches from Geocaching.com and detailed color maps, the GPSMAP 64 series gives the most preloaded "reasons" to unplug, get outside and get caching." [emphasis added] Has Garmin officially given up its misguided attempt to create an alternative geocache listing service, and when did this happen? I must have missed that memo. --Larry

As an Ohio State University graduate (they call us Buckeyes around here), I can confirm that the nut of the buckeye tree is not "deathly toxic". I've collected thousands of them in my day. I have a couple of dozen sitting around here at home. They're perfectly safe to carry around and to have in your hands. I wouldn't want to try eating or even biting into one of them (you could break a tooth). I suppose if someone were determined enough, they could manage to bite into one, but the worst that would likely do is make them sick enough that they'll wish they hadn't. They're also reported to taste pretty awful. I would also agree that they're not appropriate as cache swag. It's not any toxic effect that would concern me, it's the fact that critters like them too much. There's no accounting for taste. --Larry

I've owned an Oregon 650 since they first came out. The 650 is identical to the 450 in terms of how it handles GPX files. My geocaching account is set to provide me with GPX 1.0.1 files, and has been set that way since 1.0.1 was introduced. Most of the time I wind up loading a GGZ file created by GSAK, but I often load individual GPX files straight off the cache page when new caches are published. I've loaded a thousand or more GPX 1.0.1 files into my 650 over the years, and I've never once had one of those files cause any problems with my 650. I really think your 450 has some other issue that isn't actually related to the version of GPX file. --Larry

I normally download pocket queries using GSAK, but after reading your post I decided to try using your method. Please confirm that this is what you're doing: You request a pocket query, which generates an e-mail message. That message includes a link that says "Download now". When you click on that link, it takes you to the geocaching site and shows a dialog box for opening or downloading the file. You download the file to your computer, and at this point you get a file that GSAK doesn't recognize. I just generated a pocket query and tried this. I wound up with a zip file that contains two files, one with the geocaches and the other with waypoints like parking coordinates. I then launched GSAK and loaded the file into a new database. Everything worked as expected here. GSAK recognized the zip file and loaded the caches correctly. Are you sure something hasn't changed with your security software? That's caused me problems in the past with downloaded files. --Larry

Every time I see gpsfun's signature, I can't hep but think of that other great quote in the same vein: "It's nice to be nice... to the nice." Frank Burns Sorry if i lightened things up. Carry on. ---Larry

True... but only to a point -- that's part of trapping yourself into a misconception. Just because a nano or other cache is noted as being "magnetic" does not mean that it is magnetically attached to something. It may well be a magnetic cache, but concealed by other means. Some have gone so far as to supply a hint of "magnetic", but in reality, it is nowhere around any metal. Beware of your preconceived misconceptions. Excellent advice here. I've found a good number of "magnetic" key holder caches that weren't attached to anything at all. An aside to Morf Orwyn: I see you're in the Cardiff area. I spent a wonderful three days exploring and geocaching in that beautiful city about five years ago. Croeso i geocaching! --Larry

Why did you even bring up the topic here if you knew ahead of time that we lowly forum denizens tend to always go negative and don't reflect "normal" geocachers (who, by your logic, never visit the forums)? Seems like a waste of time to me. If you want to suggest something to Groundspeak and ignore other opinions, I would suggest that you contact Groundspeak directly rather than insult our (lack of) intelligence. According to you, those who don't like hashtags in forum posts are apparently not representative of geocachers as a whole (though I'd love to know who did that research, and I'd love to read the report); and have a reading comprehension in the bottom 0.1% of English readers. You certainly know how to win the hearts and minds of others with your arguments.... Hashtags aren't punctuation, they're impediments. Punctuation makes written materials easier to read (at least that's the intention). Hashtags don't, they get in the way. They might serve some useful function in the sort of already-abbreviated pseudo-language of Twitter and similar, but they most certainly make reading a normal, properly written paragraph (remember those?) more difficult to read. --Larry

No, I meant your no-account brother. I have a no-account brother too, but he's not really interested in geocaching, so he doesn't need an account. My sister, on the other hand, does have an account. Actually, I don't have a brother of any sort, but don't tell that to the thief who stole my GPS. It's sort of like those fake "This house protected by BrandX Security System" signs. Except that thieves are on to those by now. --Larry

I just had an inspiration: I think I'll rename the "Home" waypoint on my GPS to "Dentist". I figure nobody will care where my dentist's office is. --Larry

Why don't you get him an account? A basic account is free, and then he could go geocaching on his own. Might be a good idea, except that I'd rather he stayed around to fend off that thief who stole my GPS and found my "Home" waypoint. Oh, wait, you mean the thief and not my no-account brother? I would, but I'd need his e-mail address to register him. I do NOT want to register anyone without including an e-mail address. But that's a whole 'nother subject. --Larry

If they steal my car and check the waypoint labelled "Home" on my GPS, how will they know whether my younger, bigger, no-account brother and his dog aren't keeping the fort while I'm away? As I mentioned earlier, finding out where I live is the easy part.... --Larry

^ ^ ^ This. Most people who know me know my full name, and they know what country, state and county I live in. I also own a home. With that information, in about two minutes anyone can look up my property on the County Auditor's Web site. You'll see a nice photo of the front of my house, and complete location information, including my address and how many bedrooms and bathrooms I have. If you're really bored, you can also find out how much I paid for the place and how much I pay in property taxes. If someone wants to know where I live, the information is out there and easy to find. There's a lot of personal information that I'm careful to protect, but my home address isn't one of them. It would be a pointless exercise. Whatever promises Groundspeak makes in terms of protecting users' privacy should be kept, but I can't get all that worked up about the home location aspect. --Larry