ratcrow

quote:Originally posted by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders):The page "my cache page" is all that we need. Scroll down & it shows caches found by you in sequence & one little click will let you know who has found it after you. Yes, but that means one click for every cache that I am interested in. The search results make it possible to check all of the caches I've hit, just by comparing the dates, from a single page.

I have two requests to make, one for a feature that used to be on GC.com, and one that does not seem hard to do. I spend a lot of time looking over my old cache finds, mostly to make sure that someone was able to find them after me (so I know that it was covered well enough, but not too well), and to find out if caches have been retired. Prior to the last dramatic change to GC.com, the "view profile as others see you" made it very easy to get a list of caches found (basically by doing a username search). I used this a lot, but in the new layout, under "User stats", each kind of cache is done separately. It would be very nice to have another link on the user page to either see all caches together, or to do a lookup on your own username. I realize that I can just go to "Hide/Seek a cache" and look up my username, but that takes a bit longer. The other request is to see who found a cache last on the search results page. It shows the date, but not the name. Again, for checking whether someone has logged the cache after me, this would be really handy. Anyway, neither of these is critical, but would certainly be appreciated. Thanks.

I've noticed that some of the recent caches being placed are getting to the end of what can be done in four digits (since all of them are a hexadecimal representation). That is, I just saw cache GCEC4F, which is the 60,495th geocache. The 4-digit hexadecimal representation that geocaching.com uses will run out at 65,535 (GCFFFF). What next? Is there any plan to migrate to seven digits for each waypoint name (starting with GC10000), start reusing some of the old cache numbers, or expand the numbering system to be base-26 instead of base-16 to get more out of those digits? I am not sure if any GPSrs are limited to 6-character waypoint names, but this whole issue has me rather interested. Otherwise, should there be a competition for whoever can place cache GC10000?

I have had a Vista for a couple of months now, and have found a number of caches with it. The barometric altimeter is pretty good (there is a page on the GPS that can show trends in elevation or barometric pressure, along with the current elevation, ambient pressure, and pressure adjusted for altitude). However, if you are going to rely on the barometric altimeter for elevation, then you will need to make sure you can get a good 3-D location fix for a fairly long time. The Vista will auto-calibrate the altimeter based on GPS elevation readings, but this takes a while...so don't be surprised if the first time you switch to the barometric altimeter that it seems to be way off. It will tend to get better the longer the GPS is turned on. You can manually calibrate the altimeter if needed, but I find that the automatic calibration is fine. A friend of mine has the Garmin V, and while it is very cool (especially since it can do routing) I really like my Vista. It is compact, doesn't hit the batteries too hard (12 hours on a set of AA's, and I just got a NiMH charger at Sam's Club with four 1850mAh AA's for $30), and I don't think twice about taking it out in the rain. The compass is wonderful for homing in on caches. Overall, it's pretty rugged, but I'd recommend getting a cover for it (they make ones that allow you to use the GPS with the cover on) to save the display from scratches. The 24MB of map data is pretty nice, as well. It is enough to store about five major cities and all of the smaller cities within 60 miles of them, in my experience (your mileage may vary, but I can get Sacramento, Denver, Houston, Tampa, and Orlando all at once, plus a lot of outlying areas). The only real downside of the Vista is that it does not have a big antenna (which I only notice because my friend with the Garmin V seems to get better position fixes under tree cover). I don't really notice this, though (it causes an increase in error, but not by more than 10-20 feet under heavy tree cover, and out in the open, it's right on). If you are particularly paranoid about being able to get a good signal in a car or something, there are repeating antennas you can buy that will put a stronger signal next to your GPS anyway. Overall, I'm quite happy with mine. I spent $350 on it at Best Buy, and have probably put 50 or 60 hours on it already.