Mach2003

Ok Toz, I see your point and agree that we may just be giving armchair loggers the attention they were looking for, here. And that most cachers would not follow their ways. I have seen no issues first hand, with people who have a different way of recording finds than I or anyone I know. My comments were based on armchair loggers, as I understand the OP to mean. But I guess that the difference in armchair logging and, just seeing or touching the container, or extrating and physically signing the log is all a matter of degree. Up until now, I have always (except once, long ago) considered my mark on the log as the bar to record a find. On caches I own, I have deleted logs that are obviously bogus or describe the cache incorectly, but never because I did not find a physical log entry that matches. Does anyone recomend that obvious armchair logs shood be left on the page?

City Navigator North American has replaced it (sort of). I have the newest 2009 version and still switch back to metroguide as it has way more smaller roads on it. 2009, however has the latest main roads and the changes to them. Metroguide Canada has map data from 2004. Sorry you bought it without knowing. MGC also does NOT require an unlock code, CN/NA does.

No, it is not. Do you think it is? Yes I do, why else would I have posted it? So you think breaking a legal contract is the equivalent of posting a false find log to a geocache page? Ok you win KBI, you do not feel cheated by someone posting a false log to your cache page, and no one else should either. You started this. You asked a question. I answered. In an attempt to determine where you were going with your question I asked you a similar question. Don't you want to answer my question? Gee now, I thought it was clear... I do feel cheated by bogus logs, my example was designed to expose that, nothing more. Do you agree that the log is some form of the hider's payback for placing a cache? Do you see that a false log cheats the hider of this payback? If Bogus logs were accepted as the norm, folks would do them. Every one that is allowed to stand, inches closer to an eventual acceptance of the new standard. Like CR is trying to say (as I see it), the fact that some folks come here and complain about them, in itself, discourages others from posting them. Not that everyone needs this encouragement.

No, it is not. Do you think it is? Yes I do, why else would I have posted it? So you think breaking a legal contract is the equivalent of posting a false find log to a geocache page? Ok you win KBI, you do not feel cheated by someone posting a false log to your cache page, and no one else should either.

From the Earthcache guidelines Here EarthCache sites must provide Earth science lessons. They take people to sites that can help explain the formation of landscapes or to sites of interesting phenomena such as folds, faults, intrusions or reveal how scientists understand our Earth (such as fossil sites etc.)

No, it is not. Do you think it is? Yes I do, why else would I have posted it? No actually you said this: Pardon me if the "I disagree" statement was interpreted to mean that you do not think others will post bogus logs, if they are allowed to stay un-checked.

Bogus logs remove legitimate logs from your cache page? How does that work, exactly? How many bogus logs have you seen on one cache? How many bogus logs have you seen, period? You say "if" there are enough of them. That’s a big "if." I would prefer to discuss existing issues, not hypothetical ones. Why make up a pretend problem to worry about when there are other, very real, problems to tackle? "If" what you describe ever comes true, then I might change my viewpoint. Until then I see bogus logs as an entertaining and rare curiosity, not a terrifying and surging epidemic. I disagree. I have seen bogus logs. Seeing a bogus log has never encouraged me to post a lie of my own. If I offer to sell you a new GPSr at a bargin rate, enter into a discussion with you, then never send you the unit (nor take your money), how do you feel? Is this case simular to a Bogus log I would make to your cache listing? I have seen a few bogus logs, even a few on the same cache. Oh I see, cause you don't monkey see, monkey do, then no others will. You are the standard for humanity are you? I believe that issues should be corrected BEFORE they become "problems".

When one chooses to hide a cache, and list it for others to find, what "profit" do they expect to gain? When I hide a cache, and list it for others to find, the "profit" I get is the logs that others "give" me when they find my cache. Bogus logs steal this profit. Bogus logs, if there are enough of them, could cause a hider to stop hiding caches, thus effecting ALL potential seekers. Each bogus log left to stand, promotes more bogus logs (JBogusCacher did it, why can't I).

Click here Then scroll down to the Forum Title: and since you are a premium member, you can set it to what ever you like. Edit Oh I see your Group is still "members" too. Perhaps you should write "contact at geocaching dot com.

If the finder edits the log to found, after mistakenly selecting not found, you will not get an email for the edit, just the original "not found"

Does this box, being un-checked, "Yes, this cache is currently active (Reviewers will not see this listing unless box is checked)" hold the position from another cacher placing a cache? I ask because I often work up a page with totally made up coordinates, then when I place the container, I revise the position, and then check this box.

Yes I know of that macro and program, but I think it does violate the TOU, as it electronically downloads the cache page and "mines" the data from it. From one of the posted logs, on one cache, there were at least 5 or 6 today alone. A lot of the finders are on holiday here, so will not log online until they get home. These caches had three special edition coins in them, so there is a lot of interest. But that said, some of our other caches have more than 5 logs a week. Total finds of my caches: 874 finds in 758 total days, 1.15/day, 8.07/week, 35.10/month 8.07 a week for all time average, you can see that some weeks would be a lot more... And we don't have a single LPC in the mix either

Actually I have a Legend CX, that is now just a backup, or if it is raining, or somthing else goes wrong. Having all my needs on one device (almost) makes my life so much easier. I have yet to have GPSr troubles in finding a cache (even though I have had troubles in finding a cache or two...). In fact the 10X with the SIRFIII chip, I find way better than the etrex.

On my WM5 PPC the file downloaded is named "cache_details.aspx", but when I rename it to "somthing.gpx" using the file properties, it loads up just fine into CacheMate and MobileXT. It would be a lot better if teh filename was correct in the first placem but the work around allows the file to be used.

We have a bunch of new caches placed this week, and we expect many new logs on most of them. (BC Parks, and the BCGA has let us place nine, that are generating a lot of interest). I keep stats on who logs our caches with GSAK and the FindStatGen3 macro. One of the groups of items this maco lists, is the number of logs, and who found our caches. I like to review this list. Problem is that normal PQ only give 5 logs, and I get weekely PQ, so if our caches are found more than 5 times a week, then some of the logs are missing. I know that "Download GPX" from a cache listing, while "show all logs" is selected, will give us 20 logs. This may not always be enough, without clicking it often in a week. I also know that there are some other "not quite valid" ways of getting the info I want, but I do not want to violate the TOU (Terms of Use Agreement). What does everyone think of allowing Owned caches in pocket queries to include at least a week's worth of new logs?

If anyone is still watching, on my last outing I discovered that cachemate PPC export GPX files can be named "current.gpx" (in the \Garmin\GPX folder) and imported as proper icons on MobileXt maps. So cool to do as I was traveling, and three times I was out of the 990 cache display limit.

Without trying it right now, I think: Menu, re-calculate route, off road.

Log on to Geocaching.com then Click Here

Never happened here, using IE7, perhaps a Firefox only issue.

Their GPSr reported 9 ft accuracy when the coordinates were captured. The posted ones might be closer, but not further. Don't forget that the seeker may be another 9 or more feet off too. And unless a profecional machine is used to record the spot, none are "RIGHT".

I sure wish the tile would change back too, or at least {cache name} {cache type} by {owner}, then I don't care what else comes after.

This is the list of dates required to keep MOST of BC (excluding the 731 I have found) up to date with PQ: You can see the length of time that about 500 caches covers. Placed by date PQ Generation PQ From To Count 01 2/2/2001 5/4/2003 494 02 5/5/2003 5/17/2004 494 03 5/18/2004 3/26/2005 495 04 3/27/2005 9/10/2005 492 05 9/11/2005 2/24/2006 478 06 2/25/2006 5/31/2006 494 07 6/1/2006 9/6/2006 492 08 9/7/2006 2/6/2007 494 09 2/7/2007 4/8/2007 485 10 4/9/2007 6/10/2007 486 11 6/11/2007 8/24/2007 495 12 8/25/2007 11/22/2007 495 13 11/23/2007 3/6/2008 494 14 3/7/2008 4/26/2008 492 15 4/27/2008 6/21/2008 493 16 6/22/2008 Maximum date 154

Can't beat the price, including last years NT2008 road maps and POI. (NT2009 is out now). If you don't want the maps then this saves a buck or two Sensor Only If you use another brand of GPSr then you can not use the free version of MobileXT (Garmin has to make some cash). MobileXT needs a registration code to connect with other that Garmin sensors. I don't know the retail price of MobileXt, but assume that changing sensors would NOT save any money.

I use the Windows GPS Driver - it appears to allow sharing of the GPSr, since I can toggle between BeeLineGPS, CacheMate and Mobile XT without any problem. The one thing that's kept me from using BeeLineGPS seriously is I can't figure out how to bulk delete waypoints and it would take too long to delete the 900+ that are in there now. I do not see any way to get the 10X to attach to the WM5 internal driver, it might, but I don't see how. Garmin sure did not send out a WM5 hardware driver with the unit. I've been browsing Beeline. It requires a NMEA gps unit on a Comm port, bluetooth can be set up as a comm port, is the 10x NMEA compatible, I don't know. To delete a range of waypoints (according to the manual) select first waypoint, activate keypad, press shift, select last waypoint in range, select delete. Edit: I tested the 10X using a bluetooth com port, ( I had to pair the 10x to the phone using passcode 1234, XT does not require this step) it connects and provides NMEA data. Cachemate has a Microsoft Bluetooth driver and it reads the 10x into cachmate correctly, as long as MobileXt is NOT running. As soon as Xt starts, then cachmate fails to open the port to the 10x, as I thought no shared access to the same port. I tried to get the WM5 GPS to connect to the 10x, but my phone has a GPS chip in it, that is designed NOT to function (just a left over in the design), and the WM5 driver connects to it, and does not get any data from the disabled chip. I can not test the 10x with the WM5 driver in any other way, but I still suspect that the 10x will not attach to the WM5 driver. Results as I saw them: Beeline should be able to use the 10X with the single application to a port rule. I have seen somewhere that a program is available to share a single port among many apps using a virtual driver, but can not remember what or where. There is also the posibility that Mobile Xt re-programs the 10x for its use, then all other apps would fail to read the 10x if mobile Xt was running (or recently run).

Thanks. Since my phone doesn't have a built in GPS then that driver wouldn't likely work. Just curious....Why am I using the iQue plugin for my phone? I assume you said that because it's OK, but I want to make sure. I don't have an sd card for the phone yet. I have a 1GB card somewhere around here, but I can't find it at the moment... Garmin Mobile Xt is based on the older iQue program from Garmin, the SDK is the same. Use the IQue plugin to enable cachemate to communicate with Mobile XT. Mobile Xt will install to internal memory, and run there (it ALWAYS intalls to internal memory anyway), but I have no idea if it can be installed at all without a card. You probably do not have any room for maps in internal memory. I did say NO MAPS, the basemap is 32Mb by itself.