WhiteRockBob

The app is using about 1G of data storage on my iphone (an old one with 32G total so I don't have a lot to work with) Is there any way to clear out some of the cache, or whatever, in the app besides deleting the app and reloading it.

Oh no, what will we do. Tupperware might be going out of business https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/tupperware-could-go-out-of-business-company-warns-rcna79115 Wait, never mind, everyone just hides those stupid little nano things these days...

Apologies if this was mentioned above and I didn't spot it - the guidelines for these new caches include the text below, this would likely be cited during the review process if the cache was on NPS land and the cache owner couldn't demonstrate permission was granted by the land manager. Permission - Virtual Caches must be placed in locations where geocachers are allowed to enter. In some sensitive areas the reviewer can ask for permission to ensure the land manager is aware of the Virtual Cache

Glad it's not just me. I've been logged out on both my devices (computer and ipad), can't log back in. Can log in to the forum.

The N00030 at the start of the contract # is the part of the Navy that let the contract, in this case - http://www.ssp.navy.mil/

For those following this thread for the garmin 62s, GPS city has it on sale starting today. $299 and free shipping.

Mine fixed itself. I'm curious how, it's a mystery to me. For your diagnostic or comparative purposes - I upgrade my ipod from 4.2.1 to 4.3.3 last night. That didn't help. Got 6 scrambled emails through the day up to 3:52PM east coast time today. Got 3 that were good starting at 3:57PM. Thanks to whoever fixed it.

I just compared an email from Sunday and one from today and got the same result - I can't see any change in the header. I'm stumped. I'm not giving up yet, but I'm stumped. Didn't sync or update the ipod recently. Searching Apple's forums doesn't get any recent hits, just some old ones that vaguely imply they were finicky about base64. My iOS is a version or two behind, I've put off that upgrade for too long, time to try it.

Another me too. It started yesterday. An ipod touch in my case. I have not synced the ipod in several weeks, so the software on the ipod should not have changed. The notification emails show up fine in yahoo's browser based email reader. Perhaps Groundspeak made a subtle change to the outgoing emails and apple's yahoo email reader is pickier about a tag in the email header than everyone else.

Find tricky micros for me, that would be nice.

I'll let you know in about a week when my 200 arrives. My plan is the same, add a cheap memory card and some maps on DVD later. I don't think I'll miss the other features.

The barometer? I'll admit to being surprised by this comment, I wasn't even worried about missing that feature - do you use it much for caching - or more for hiking? Thanks for the comparison link, I read the wiki pretty thoroughly already. I'm mostly looking for someone with hands on experience with the 200 to see if they have any caching concerns with it. Of course, I'm replacing a 10 year old eMap, so just about anything will be a big step up

I am also interested in the Oregon 200, the only feature on the 300 that is not included that I am interested is the compass. Has anyone cached with the 200 and missed not having the compass? I carry a regular compass anyway. Thanks!

Me too. I agree, I hope it doesn't happen, but limiting access is possible and there are already NPS precedents, an example of this is Denali NP in Alaska. Back country camping permits are on quotas. http://www.nps.gov/dena/planyourvisit/unitsys.htm It's not just the ATC, I don't think caches fit into the NPS vision for most of the National Parks. The Acadia pilot program may be the best bet to gradually change this.

Some of this was covered 150 posts ago, but to recap - the NPS claims Authority over the AT corridor (the Appalachian National Scenic Trail - www.nps.gov) the same as they claim authority over all national parks, like Yellowstone. If you try and put a physical cache in Yellowstone you get the same result. The big difference between the AT and other National Parks is that the borders for the 'regular' parks are a lot easier to determine. The AT land is either owned by the NPS, or the NPS has a legal agreement with the landowner protecting the corridor. The corridor width varies one agreement at a time, and there are hundreds, probably thousands of these agreements. The width of the corridor varies considerably. The 1000' number being discussed may have come from Shauna's posting above (78), that was the specific corridor width for the AT corridor for the Massachusetts DCR. It's unlikely that a senior NPS or ATC person would describe the trail corridor as 1000' universally. Just in the local ATC office here in PA, they have a stack of maps thicker than a phone book to keep track of all the individual parcels. The legal agreements fill a very large cabinet. It probably kept quite a few real estate lawyers busy for a lifetime. They may have made a couple mistakes on the list of 100 archived caches, but so far there's been limited evidence presented here in this forum of more than a few. So in the end, for those of us that like to cache on lands just outside the AT corridor - I'd say this is more Groundspeak's problem. And it's not an easy one. The questions are: can the normal review process handle this? Do the reviewers have adequate information on the AT corridor width to make informed decisions?

This discussion provides a good demonstration of how difficult the reviewer's job is. In these complex situations, and with all respect and appreciation for the huge amount of time and effort they put into making our hobby work, it's just not clear how they can figure this out from 100 miles away. The cache that geobernd references provides an example of what is needed - it is best evaluated by a local person who has in depth knowledge of the area, can put boots on the ground, and has connections with the responsible land management officials. Local reviewer's assistants may be a way to deal with this. Reviewer's send them out to check things they can't verify online. Limit the geographic area/driving distance for each one (counties in PA perhaps) and have them report back to the reviewer on what they find. Reviewer still makes the final decision. The alternative seems to be that just to be safe, nothing on land adjoining the AT will be published. The NPS and ATC folks aren't staffed to review caches, it's not their job. Asking permission doesn't help - their policy says no caches on their land and they can't give permission for caches on someone else's land.