Nakedbamboo

Is there any way to not allow the internal POIs like restaurants and banks to show up and only have your custom POIs show? From what I can tell they are all controlled by the same option on the map setup with the MAP POINTS zoom level.

The main thing I would like to be able to do is upload waypoints to my GPS from my PDA. Having the GPS function as a receiver for the PDA would be great as well, but I obviously don't need that if I have the GPS with me. I have come across old 2005 discussions about a program call G7toWinCE which did what I want, but it looks like it hasn't been updated recently. So I was wondering if there was any modern PocketPC applications that transferred GPX file info to the GPS?

Ok, I did a search and actually found this topic on google. I am wondering if after a year and a half now, there is a way to connect a GPS and PocketPC PDA. I have the 60csx GPS and a new iPaq 111. Is there anyway to do this with a USB cable? (my first choice) Or, are there any gadgets out there that can connect to a GPS and transmit its info by bluetooth? (I figure that's a stretch, but I should ask) I know there are cheap bluetooth GPSrs which I could use for the PDA to get a signal, but I would also like to be able to download caches into the GPS from the PDA. thanks for any help.

I think what he is saying is that he doesn't approve of active content on cache pages. That's how I read it anyway.

My problem is that you seem to take offense at the process of offering requests for site changes out of hand. I am curious, do you go to every thread about a feature request and rant on them for wanting something new? "Bend to my method of caching..." Well maybe that is one way of looking at it. Whenever someone asks for a new feature, I would assume it is something they feel would make their method of caching more enjoyable. I mean, it would be pretty dumb for me to ask for something that would make my method of caching less enjoyable. But then again maybe you're right. We should never change anything from the way it is ever done because obviously, the first method chosen is the always best. To heck with progress.

The highlighted words are the reasoning behind my desire for this enhancement. As I stated above as well as did CoyoteRed, the reason I would like the data is just to travel along with me in case I decide to go geocaching at the drop of a hat. If I am not at home, well then, unfortunately the website is not available. Some of us do that, we geocache randomly, not always in massively detailed, planned-out-in-every-detail excursions. Although I do that as well, in which case the current system works fine for me. I don't undestand bblhed's constant demand of a reason why we want this. Various reason's have been stated clearly, but he seems to be stuck on the idea of having to go find each and every cache in a PQ that day. Clearly, more people are not in favor of this idea that those that are, which is fine. I just wonder why there is always such a vehement and sometimes mean response to ideas posted in these forums. I thought the forums were here to throw around new ideas. I especially don't understand these responses when it is about something that doesn't even affect people directly. It is an idea that, if implemented, would be a voluntary use thing. It wouldn't be implemented if it affected the load on the servers, thus negating that argument. Currently, it is only an idea, and yet we are being told that we are basically stupid because of the way in which we like to go about enjoying this sport. It baffles the imagination...

Maybe they should close this thread or something so people don't keep seeing it. The issue it addresses is now gone, so it doesn't really serve a purpose does it?

I just got confused. You agree entirely with FireRef, but don't agree with his desire for a larger set of offline data. Which is it, you agree or don't agree? Was just curious if there was a typo in one of your two guy's posts that is confusing me.

I always wondered why people are so upset about other people who might be in it for the numbers? It's a hobby. Maybe they are in a competition with a friend to find more. Maybe they are someone who likes statistics. Maybe ...... any number of things that have to do with numbers. So what. That's their business. Obviously, enough people like the numbers aspect that whole 3rd party websites are dedicated to tracking statistics. I started slow, got hooked, got all interested in the number aspect, then slowed down and now geocache leisurely. What's the big deal if someone wants to have a 1000 little icons on their profile or a big number after their name? GC.com wasn't passing out any prizes last time I checked. I have never really been an active poster in any kind of forums until I came to GC.com. It just amazes me how many people in these forums want to argue, complain, belittle, etc. etc. about the way someone else on the other side of the world goes about their business. And yes, I understand the irony of me complaining about other people's "business" of complaining. I just feel that it detracts so much from the otherwise interesting conversations and environment, especially when it is by people who supposedly all share something in common. Just something I thought needed saying. For those of you who always offer helpful advice and such, thanks.

Do Bookmark lists email you when there is an action on the item? That is the whole reason I use watchlists. ***Just found the little box that allows that. Might just have to do away with the watchlist.

One thing you can do, is create a pocket query and try to get as much of the country as possible (obviously not feasible with the US, but might be with Chilie). When you view the PQ results there is an option to see the gallery of all the photos in those caches. Best I can come up with.

This makes perfect sense. I believe the one thing that would please everyone, would be the option to use this feature or not depending on your connection. Maybe something you can set in your profile about how your Map It screen will work. Is something like this possible? I don't know how you are implementing this, so I am just curious if it even allows such an option.

They are listening. They just watch in silence and get a feel for what the public is saying. They should know by now that most people don't like it, and are hopefully working on a solution. They are busy though, and I know they get all upset with posts like this. Just FYI. They are out there.

You illustrate a point here. Nobody is demanding that GC.com make these changes. People are suggesting changes they would like to see which I figured was the purpose of this forum. However, there are a lot of people that are demanding that what is being suggested is stupid, useless to anybody, and wouldn't work. I don't think anyone here really has any idea how anything is going to affect the GC servers except for maybe some of the moderators and higher ups. And since they aren't talking, as far as I am concerned all speculation on that subject is just that, speculation. I realize, Leboyof introduced the topic as a way to reduce the load on the servers, but again, that is just speculation. I view this thread as another request for larger PQ's. Nothing more, nothing less. Maybe it will reduce the load if done in a certain way, and maybe it won't. For all I know, someone found a hidden cave somewhere one day while geocaching, and they decided to start GC.com. They then stocked the cave full of servers (because they were friends with a multi-billionaire who just took to the sport) that are being used at roughly 1% capacity currently. I personally have never gotten one of these infamous "server busy" screens, so from my point of view, there is no server issue. But again, that's speculation and not fact. I just think it is funny how people get all riled up over what someone else might find useful. What?? You want data??? You don't need data. You big ol' data hog, you. How dare you even consider doing this ancient sport any way differently than I do!! Actually, that might be kind of neat. Then I could create that neat looking map like the one GC.com had posted for a wallpaper with all the caches in North America. Now that's thinking big. See, you can do it.... By the way, I would rather suggest someone start working on teleportation instead of the hover car. Works even faster, and would eliminate all those cars from the environment.

You make absolutely no argument here. This forum is specifically for the suggestions of possible changes people would like to see. Leboyf submitted a change he would like to see. Then people like you come along and begin the "complaining." My time spent caching has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, my stats have nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and someone doing 2500 caches in a day have nothing to do with the discussion at hand as stated above multiple times by mulitple people. When you constantly repeat a ridiculous comment like that, you make no sense. And, oh my, you're right, it has worked for many years in its current implementation, so dear God, don't change it!!! What the heck was Ford thinking???? The horse and buggy worked just fine for centuries... A suggestion was made that many people would like to see as an option, specifically, the ability to have more than 500 caches in a search. It is made over and over by many different people, so obviously, it is a much desired feature. It's a feature request in the forum designed for feature requests; imagine that. People ask why it is wanted and the requestors explain their reasons. Alternatives are offered and either accepted or do not fit the requestor's needs. Maybe it will get implemented and maybe it won't. But all the people, like you, who just sit there and automatically throw out remarks and complaints about how there can possibly be no need for anything new to the system just clog up the forums and do not add anything useful to the discussion. If you don't want the feature then say, "I vote no," and leave.

I definately agree with this list.

I like this idea. Sometimes you just want to move the map around a little to maybe follow a road somewhere and every twitch causes it to refresh the data. I think the option to refresh when you really want to see the caches in the area is a great time saving and server load saving idea.

...so couldn't you (for example) download all of the 2/2 regular sized caches that you haven't found placed before 2003 in your area and have (for example) a few hundred caches covering the entire metro area - more than enough for a day of errands??? Next week load up all the 3/2 micros placed since July 2006. The following week load up the 1/2 smalls. If thier are really so many caches - couldn't you just target some subset before heading out and still have a huge number of potential targets?? Isn't that what bthe PQ options are for?? I am in full agreement that we should have even more filtering options to narrow down these subsets before heading out. Keyword searches, owner searches, etc..... Wouldn't that work for your random days of errands?? At least couldn't you "live" (get by) with caching that way? It fits nicely into the current limitations - doesn't it?? I've learned to live with them...... I obviously do live with it. I have lived with it for a while now. I am just saying that I see the need for larger queries for SOME people. Everybody keeps offering the same alternatives that have been there for a long time now. Yes I know how to search by date; that is how I created my database in the first place. It still took about 15 PQs to get everything in a 50 mile radius that covered DFW. Do I look at 90% of it? No, but you never know if you are going to be in some area on a random day, and think, "hey, I haven't cached here yet, let's go grab a few." Then it pays off to have that info available. It is a totally different scenario than if I was taking a trip somewhere and would then do a query on a route and on the final destination. This is about day to day activities that could take you anywhere in a place populated by 1000's and 1000's of caches. I always get the argument that this was not the intent of the PQs. Well, I am pretty sure geocaching wasn't the intent of the designers of the original GPSr's, either, but looked what happened. People will always find different uses for things than what they were intended for, and then they will try to recommend improvements to said "thing". Heaven forbid if the GPS companies didn't try to make their GPSr's more geocaching friendly these days.

Thanks for the link, but I hardly call one post, buried deep in an unrelated thread, as "telling us about it". I don't see why they can't post these changes as announcements or in stand-alone threads so that more people might know about them. I tend to agree. If there are any "announcements," they are usually just done by thoughtful moderators in the middle of random threads that may be related. Then later a thread devoted entirely to that issue is created and no one ever sees the "announcement." They should just have a sticky thread that contains official announcements about website changes that only moderators posted on. And it would be nice if the announcements were before the actual change, even though, yes, I am aware that not everyone would see the announcement before they saw the change. At least they would have a place to go to see what it was and what it was created for.

Wow, that is kind of a neat mapmaking place. Thanks.

I was curious if the PQ from the link on the map only included what was visible on the map or if it includes caches off the map. The query is based on a radius from a point, so there would either be more that are outside the corners of the box inside the radius or less than is showing if the radius is inside the box. Does that make any sense? Basically I wanted to know if the query showed exaclty what was in the map or something different, more or less. Thanks.

The present version of the print-friendly page allows users to choose whether to show or hide many of the pages other features, individually, before printing. This makes the page very customizable, allowing for paper saving when certain info is not needed. Presumably the latest five logs, if they are ever brought back, will be switchable on/off as well. Including the logs does matter in my opinion, and should be reinstated as an option. One can gain a variety of interesting, helpful and sometime very important information by reading recent cache page logs. Has the cache been found recently? What is the date of the most recent posting? Were many of the last five logs DNFs? Has anyone posted new coords? If the encrypted hint doesn’t help, is there maybe a better hint in someone's log? Is there some recent and specific issue affecting the cache that the owner has not yet documented in his description? I'm sorry, you misunderstood me here. I meant that I didn't see a reason for them not to include the logs as the description could be long anyway. What I was trying to say was that since it would probably take more than one page anyway, there was no reason not to add any more information in order to safe space. I agree that past logs are VERY useful. edited for quote brackets...

Maybe you should go "paperless" like the rest of us? I am not sure I know how to go "paperless" nor am I sure I have the technology for it. We can research this idea but I still don't care for the new structure of the map if it inlcudes found caches. Thanks for a new concept we will consider. As for going paperless, you need a PDA or some such similiar device like a smartphone. Then there are 3rd party programs like Cachemate (search Google since I don't know how to embed links) that load the cache files, and you can view all the data there. I know this is off topic but thought I would help out.

I did not see that thread, so thanks for pointing it out. It appears they were going specifically for speed I guess and not the "more than 500" issue. I wasn't really having a problem with my speed the way it was before, and with the extra clicks and cache refreshes needed to zoom into a blocked area now, it doesn't really speed things up anyway. Many places no require me to refresh the search twice which used to only require once. I think one way to solve this would be to have the blocks appear from a further distance and include more than 25+. If you started them at say 50+, that might be a reasonable area to zoom in on, but having to zoom into see only 10+ is too small to require a new screen refresh in my opinion.

For me, like I stated above, I like to have options when I am out running errands. I might not know where I am going to end up in advance, so a location specific query is no good all the time. When I do take a day to cache I will do a normal query and get the ones in the area I am going to. But when I am running errands, I will look at my GPS and PDA for the caches in that area if I have time to go find some. This means I am in that area and not at a computer to do a query on that area. So yes I have built a database of Dallas over time, and yes, it gets out dated so that I might be searching for archived or lost caches. I deal with this issue, but it is the reason I can see for wanting and updated query of lots of caches. For me, a state would be way too big; I don't really need the caches in El Paso, but it is the same concept that gets tossed around, mainly, more caches in your query results.