egami

Yeah, one I found was similar at an event...they had put a stick in the bottom and the PVC tube went inside and rested on the stick.

The most legitimate issue for these is "adequate permission".

Not sure where you're putting this, but if the outside temperature drops down below the advertised temperature range for the product you might want to reconsider...I know there are epoxies out there with better temperature ranges. Over time the contraction and expansion could stress it enough to cause bonding issues...I have tested it on suspending an object, but I've noticed some issues this winter on some caches with camouflaging adhered to some caches with it.

I was just responding to the Moderator who apparently should be demoted for violating a critical message board violation as we know all these topics stay extremely, tightly on topic...

The defacing thing seems like it gets overlooked a lot... Technically, I'd think many LPC's could be considered for this by virtue of the wear from lifting the skirt.

UTM is grid based. That's it. Plotting a course on the map, then transfer the bearing to the gps. True, mag or grid? Ok, but does that actually factor in on the GPS side internally? I guess what I am saying is you can determine bearing with a compass and a map...I can see where GN is a factor on map, but I don't see where it's really a factor on the GPS, per se. I am talking functionally as a factor on the GPS electronically or computationally. Not just from using it in place of a compass to determine bearing. Maybe that is where the confusion lies.

Thanks for not answering the question twice in a row.

Does anyone else find spending upwards of 500.00 on a GPS a little frustrating that it takes another 100.00+ to add maps? OOPs forgot the extra expense of upgrading a worthless 64MB chip to a 2meg?. What are you talking about? I've had mine almost two years now and paid $300 for it. And a 2MB micro is like what...$20 now or less? But, yeah, if I had to do it over again...I wouldn't mind dropping $500 on it if I had to. Great device.

UTM is grid based. I know that...

Does GN even become a factor on a GPSr?

I don't know the intricacies of how they are programmed, but I would think that your map is based off TN and that regardless of your compass setting that when you were being shown N on a map that it'd be TN and not MN. In which case, no it wouldn't matter for that. I am sure someone knows the answer. *edit* Actually, I guess the "map" isn't what you were inquiring about...I thought that because a lot of time we'll overhead view the map to get to the cache until we're close then we'll switch to the screen that shows feet / direction. So, in short, no...for finding the cache I don't think it matters. You are going to the same location regardless. It might slightly alter what direction it tells you that you need to go based on the setting. What I was getting it, that I am not sure of, is if the map alters based on your setting or if it's statically set to show you TN.

It's not a Waymarking animal, imo. It could very well be "another" game site, but the piggy-back nature of geocaching is still inherent. From a database, programming perspective...very little development really. You'd just need a column to designate what "level" a cache was and a way to only allow visibility of subsequent level caches after a level was completed. Not too much to it, really.

Come on...like citations for litter ever get handed out anymore...

Safety is a straw man...we all know the real issue is permission! Sorry, couldn't resist...

Yeah, I've had that happen twice on one of mine...I had to e-mail them back and get clarification.

I hate those little logs...when possible I avoid signing and just sign the online log with photo evidence that we did indeed find it if needed.

Yeah, we're on it: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...amp;hl=Mt.+Hood

If ammo cans with live ammunition were readily available on the street corners that would certainly be a concern.

Rotten, stinken, Iowegians....er, wait...never mind...

But those issues aren't limited to these types of caches. At least not when considering the geocaching community preferences as a whole. I like the example above...I am not overly found of an ammo box buried in a pile of sticks either. It's just part of caching and what you are describing isn't limited to these types of caches specifically.

No, I fully understand that entire reply...think you are maybe misunderstanding. The bottom line is it's still a personal preference issue and you can't make that case for every single instance of these types of micros. Again, I agree with the general sentiment that they aren't generally the best choice, but it doesn't change the facts around the situation.

The more I think about the idea the more I kind of like it assuming that the standard .10 cache separation were to stay in place.

I don't know that it was a rule so much as it was a distinction knowing the obvious tendency people have to voice their distaste with these types of ideas. That's purely my speculation.

Two points on this... 1. I can understand not liking that response, but from an Internet open forum perspective both sides are legit being it's a matter of personal preference. I personally tried to avoid the head on approach of this statement, but I think it's fair to say that it's a valid point even if a bit brash. 2. You can expect it to change or improve without complaining. You can voice your opinion, and rightfully so, without "complaining" (this works both ways). But, more importantly, you can assist with events and converse with local cachers to lobby for your opinion. Also, you can hide caches that are quality hides that encourage others to hide similar type hides. Even in my very limited caching experience I've noticed "lemming trends" to a small degree.