Mallah

Thanks guys

Is it possible to create a gpx file of my own caches? and if so how. Thanks

I meant being able to write the logs out on one page rather than selecting one at a time then uploading before selecting the next one - a bit like working on a single spreadsheet and moving between cells in an open sheet. The attached prog also includes date and time in the log. I could complete the logs in the field but without a touch screen that's a bit of a no go area.

I too don't routinely read logs before setting off for a walk, given that is why I tend to be out rather than specifically going out to find caches. Consequently I don't tend to take a 'repair' kit of spare logs and plastic bags either. Perhaps Garmin's 'verification' system or something similar is the way forward. No more wet logs!

Given this example, which is not uncommon after the weather of 2012! Perhaps we need to 'rethink' the need for log books alltogether?. After all, I suspect it's a small percentage of owners who actually go through them and double check against those logged on GC, and in this example there will be 24 who will not have signed due to the wet log. Perhaps an alternative method of 'logging' is required - but what?

I've sometimes felt it would be useful to be able to upload my Field Notes and then write all the logs in batch style prior to uploading them to GC in one go. I've now found this http://www.geopt.org/ which does that and more. Are there any plans to incorporate this functionality into the 'in house' system? For more details about what it actually does see here

Why have you brought me here?

Currently IS an option for GC codes, so why would it be different to Names??

Click on the little at the bottom left, then click somewhere on the map. This brings up the sub menu which has the show/hide cache ID option. I found a slightly quicker way of installing it on the latest version of Chrome rather than saving it first. After downloading it on my PC it ends up at the bottom left of my screen in a downloads area. Leaving it there you can click on the 'Extensions' bit of Chrome and then simply drag the downloaded file into the extensions page. Oh, and yes, cache names would be more useful for me as well

I would suggest the Path from Ryd Ddu as well, especially with a baby. No surprises or overly dangerous sections. BUT I would also suggest that you find time to do Moel Hebog on the other side of Beddgelert. The views are just as spectacular if nnot better than from Snowdon as you get an unrestricted view out over the Llyn Peninsular (on a clear day of course) Plus it's a LOT quieter than Snowdon. I've given up on Snowdon these days as you spend hours fighting your way up only to find 'ladies' in high heels at the top !!! As for the right map - you need OL17 the 1:25k series.

However, for those who list that as 3,1,2, it would be the primary purpose. As you say it's 'just' your opinion - and it isn't necessarily right.

Did you write that in your sleep?

There's a case to add an attribute though.

Yes, it's convoluted. Find > Waypoints > (up/down) > Enter > Menu > Review Point It will also show the same info when you pan the map, point the cursor at a waypoint, and press the Enter key. However, once you already have a "goto" set for a waypoint, I do not know of a way to view it's details without going through one of the above steps from the start. Thanks, that seems to work. I seemed to be able to see the details after selecting goto aswell, but not sure if that is because I had already used Review Point? Thanks for the tip.

Although I can see waypoints downloaded along with general cache GPX files, I can't see any details about them, just the co ords. For example, some that I needed for a multi yesterday had some additional information attached to the waypoints which are easy to read on the PC however when out in the field using my GPSMAP 62s there doesn't appear to be a way of seeing the info? Unless I'm missing something. Can any one tell me if this is the norm or if I just haven't found the relevant buttons. Thanks

I like both ideas, unfortunately I suspect my post will be followed by the usual rubbishing that this area of the forum has become renowned for.

Would it not be easier to unrestrict the Fav Points system so that everyone can identify how impressed they are/were with a cache, independant of how many finds they have made. I've never understood the reason for limiting that to 1 per 10 found yet you can place without finding any etc etc... Why restrict the Fav Points? Although I 'like' the OP suggestion, unrestricting the Fav Points would be better than adding another appreciation system, and provide a better indication of the quality of a cache - how often have you done a series with plenty of caches worthy of a Fav point but you've run out!.

No, traditional isn't a compromise. Puzzle/mystery/unknown is the catch-all type. If a cache doesn't fit in any of the other cache types, it falls under this type. Is your cache at the posted coordinates and can be opened/retrieved/located without any additional information/tools? You've already said the answer to the first is yes, but if the answer to the last is "no" (which it sounds like it is), then it is most definitely not a traditional. If it also isn't a multi, it should be a puzzle. Unfortunately, now that people have logged finds on it, I don't think TPTB will change the type, which will mean the confusion will continue. Don't be surprised to get some nasty/disappointed/sad logs and messages from cachers who went to GZ expecting to find a traditional cache. There's an old cache near me in a similar situation (puzzle listed as a traditional), and there have been many such logs. I did consider the 'Puzzle Type' option, however GCs definition includes: "This form of geocache may involve complicated puzzles that you will first need to solve to determine the coordinates." As this one doesn't require you to determine the co ords then it didn't 'fit' into that category either, just like the 'Multi' option? I take your point about the risk of negative logs, however that would be the same with 'Puzzle'. Hopefully people will read the descriptions, as people appear to be doing already. So far nothing but happy cachers who have enjoyed the unique 'twist'.

I'm confused. I'm looking at the cache in question, and it says you need to acquire information at 4 different spots, but it doesn't say what this information is for. If the container is at the posted coordinates, is it some kind of puzzle container that needs a code or something to open it? If so, I'd call this a puzzle cache. If not, then I'd say it's correctly listed as a traditional, but I'd wonder what all that information was for. I suspect the confusion about how the cache works is why the reviewer changed the cache type. As for your question, to me, by definition, a "field puzzle" is a puzzle/mystery/unknown type. The answer to your puzzlement is in the previous cache, so you have to visit that first. It does indeed tick the boxes for puzzle/mystery/unknown so I guess Traditional is a compromise that it is not either? So the debate continues!

There is a bit of a debate on one of my caches which started out as a Multi but was changed to Traditional during its review. It is in many ways a Field Puzzle and has the attribute accordingly, however visitors are thinking it should be a Multi even though there is no need to discover the final co ordinates. Presumably cachers are not taking note of attributes - have to admit I don't myself especially as they do not appear whilst out in the field on my GPSr. So, is there scope for a new or additional cache type of 'Field Puzzle' ?

What do you mean by 'Need'?, as if this has some form of bearing on your everyday life. Stop and think about it first - YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW if anyone had 'liked' your post on a cache unless you specifically went back to look - and then what is the consequence? It sounds like you already have an issue with people reading your cache logs so perhaps it is better that you refrain from writng any more and use your own log book.

Can you remove it? NO - Keep it on, it's a great idea. Don't listen to all this negativity and anti social malarky. It's not something that is compulsory so the negative crowd wouldn't be forced to use it - but what are the bets that they would? With this we could also sort logs by those given a 'like' or 'thumbs up' so that we can see all the good ones first, or indeed the not do good ones. You can do it with reviews on Amazon, why not on GC? after all, logs are essentially a review of someones experience with that cache - IF they can be bothered, so I firmly believe it would help to improve logs.

+1 from me. Some seem to be confusing the suggestion with a system change - it isn't that. It is simply to change the name of the option from Needs Archive to Notify Reviewer so that more people might use 'the system' as intended. It's a good idea.

Thumbs up from me, I've stumbled across pictures that give too much away about the cache in the past which I would have been happier to have known about earlier so that I could have done something about it.

I think the corrected co ordinate icon should be the same as the original but with a GREEN background, and should be linked back to the original co ords and icon with a GREEN line. However I have no idea if adding such a line is possible but then again everything you've done with these maps seems impossible to me