Search the Community

I once polished the screen of my Garmin Legend. It came out much better, but the deeper scratches remained. Luckily three weeks later I got a new Legend because my old one didn't get any juice from my cig. lighter adapater. (And it wasn't the adapter) Now I have got the carrying case for the venture/legend/vista series. ------------------ Gerard N53 12.609 E5 46.797 #922 #16FF #305C [This message has been edited by broek (edited 04 February 2002).]

It's not you. We had a cache here (The Netherlands) that was placed on an enbankment between a highway and a railway. The cache was easily and without danger reached when approached via a walkway over the highway and railway. But some journalist went crying berserk when she tried to find it for her artical. quote:Way too dangerous!!! GPS accuracy could get people astray on the highway!!! DANGER!!! Like HOMO-SAPIENS means anything else than 'thinking human' .Result: the cache was removed from the site, and we got a bad rapsheet with some walking-organisation. Then there was an idea not to place caches whithin 250 meter of railroads and highways. That blew away almost half the caches placed over here. Later on this was reduced to 25m and a note in the cachepage of the possible danger. ------------------ Gerard N53 12.609 E5 46.797 #922 #16FF #305C [This message has been edited by broek (edited 30 January 2002).]

I live in the Netherlands, and have placed a cache in France. Maintainance is difficult. When I placed the cache I vowed to check up every two year. Since it is in a very hard to reach place, it will probably not be plundered. It hasn't been loged either. I know of more people over here who have placed caches in other countries (Turkey, Gran Canaria twice, etc.) ------------------ Gerard N53 12.609 E5 46.797 #922 #16FF #305C

Oh, and this one is al about taking pictures. You can't log whithout a snapshot. ------------------ Gerard N53 12.609 E5 46.797 #922 #16FF #305C

This guy in Holland did the photo thing: http://home-1.tiscali.nl/~madejong/geocaching.htm ------------------ Gerard N53 12.609 E5 46.797 #922 #16FF #305C

In the Netherlands there is the occasional mad-cow which you have to look out for when you're ploughing through a field. And there is the royal family that are also on public roades. ;-) There is one cache that goes through a field in which there are vipers, but those are so rare... Nah, over here there's no life threatening stuff. Well, perhaps those caches in Amsterdam.... ------------------ Gerard N53 12.609 E5 46.797 #922 #16FF #305C

Nope, a Garmin user: Magellan Homepage ------------------ Gerard N53 12.609 E5 46.797 #922 #16FF #305C

Hmm, I tried the link but it failed. Tried something else and finally found the programme but... The link to the movie failed when I tried. Anyway here are the links (for as long as they work.) Infosheet on BBCWorld The aired program ------------------ Gerard N53 12.609 E5 46.797 #922 #16FF #305C

quote:Originally posted by Chesapeake:Can anyone find a shorter route than 613.578 miles? This may be wrong, double-check my work. Numbering your waypoints from 0 to 39, the format of the following table is: waypoint, distance from last waypoint, total distance. 18: 0.000 0.000 17: 6.283, 6.283 8: 17.731, 24.014 0: 7.192, 31.206 15: 8.252, 39.458 19: 9.904, 49.362 3: 6.745, 56.107 4: 5.482, 61.589 5: 4.469, 66.058 2: 13.950, 80.008 20: 7.903, 87.911 26: 3.699, 91.609 10: 8.379, 99.988 29: 8.555, 108.543 1: 10.903, 119.446 36: 11.451, 130.897 37: 4.295, 135.192 33: 24.875, 160.067 14: 15.811, 175.878 6: 18.404, 194.282 34: 24.337, 218.619 35: 7.350, 225.969 31: 21.028, 246.998 11: 43.303, 290.301 32: 36.792, 327.093 28: 7.727, 334.820 25: 34.457, 369.278 22: 11.946, 381.223 9: 1.334, 382.557 7: 5.525, 388.082 23: 29.436, 417.518 27: 5.340, 422.858 16: 16.331, 439.190 38: 6.303, 445.492 39: 9.772, 455.265 21: 23.560, 478.825 24: 27.563, 506.388 13: 55.244, 561.632 12: 0.717, 562.349 30: 30.844, 593.193 Distances are in miles over great-circle routes. Were you using nautical miles? 593.193 is the best solution I could come up with using a semi-brain-dead heuristic. [This message has been edited by blscearce (edited 12 January 2002).]

Probably you've found the comparison on Garmin's website. But that only compares Garmin products. If you want some more ask for it here. That way others can learn along with you. ------------------ Gerard N53 12.609 E5 46.797 #922 #16FF #305C

I don't know if you can change the base-map. I do know that, on my Legend, the base map for anything but Europe is lowsy. Overzoom dissapears only on a scale over 300km. I think the otherway around it works equally. Perhaps Garmin knows, only don't expect a direct answer. You can overcome the problem of the basemap with some extra Garmin software ie. Mapsource. Which you can buy but isn't cheap. However on the internet there are ways around that problem... ------------------ Gerard N53 12.609 E5 46.797 #922 #16FF #305C [This message has been edited by broek (edited 06 January 2002).]

What if you would try 000, would it give 001 as the next? ------------------ Gerard N53 12.609 E5 46.797 #922 #16FF #305C

They all are, but in the 'map' you can enter 'mapsetup', go to the big 'T' and put 'waypoints' at 'large'. That should make them popup quite big onscreen. But why would you have them all on screen? As your waypoints list grows in your GPS they won't all fit onscreen as there can be 500 waypoints in your GPS. I have over 250 and these are scattered acros Europe. When I see all, I have to zoom to the largest zoom level there is, killing any detail. It's easier to use the 'Find' menu and look for 'nearest Waypoints'. That should give you everything in a 25/30km radius. ------------------ Gerard N53 12.609 E5 46.797 #922 #16FF #305C

Hi Jeremy. Just a little feature request(s), if you feel there is a need for it, and it is relatively easy to make. This is in relation to the lat/long search on the seek page. I assume that the radius is 150mi on the results. 1. In a small country such as NZ, having a 150mi radius is a bit heavy handed, and does produce caches that are a long way away, given often mountainous travel we have to undertake Would it be possible to have a URL variable such as radius to set a user defined radius - within a reasonable upper bound of course, to further narrow down the search? A combo box on the seek page would be handy as well. 2. Coming from a metric country, it is a bit confusing to see miles on the search results page. Would it once again be possible to have as a minimum a URL variable (and perhaps GUI), so as to have the results presented in km? That wouldn't bog the server down too much by doing *1.609 for each cache display? If you want to know why I ask about the URL variables, in the NZ geocaching forum, we have been plotting and scheming to find an easy way to display caches close to a given placename, especially using major centres in NZ as a starting point, without taking too much of your time As such, I have come up with a page that has coords and placenames, and uses those to build a coordinate search from the seek page on geocaching.com. You can see what I mean at this page. Both these suggestion I believe would be useful additions for small, metric countries with an active geocaching community Hope its not too much to ask? Cheers Gav

Hi Jeremy. Just a little feature request(s), if you feel there is a need for it, and it is relatively easy to make. This is in relation to the lat/long search on the seek page. I assume that the radius is 150mi on the results. 1. In a small country such as NZ, having a 150mi radius is a bit heavy handed, and does produce caches that are a long way away, given often mountainous travel we have to undertake Would it be possible to have a URL variable such as radius to set a user defined radius - within a reasonable upper bound of course, to further narrow down the search? A combo box on the seek page would be handy as well. 2. Coming from a metric country, it is a bit confusing to see miles on the search results page. Would it once again be possible to have as a minimum a URL variable (and perhaps GUI), so as to have the results presented in km? That wouldn't bog the server down too much by doing *1.609 for each cache display? If you want to know why I ask about the URL variables, in the NZ geocaching forum, we have been plotting and scheming to find an easy way to display caches close to a given placename, especially using major centres in NZ as a starting point, without taking too much of your time As such, I have come up with a page that has coords and placenames, and uses those to build a coordinate search from the seek page on geocaching.com. You can see what I mean at this page. Both these suggestion I believe would be useful additions for small, metric countries with an active geocaching community Hope its not too much to ask? Cheers Gav

Jeremy - you're making me do math again on my day off! Okay, starting at your coordinates of: Lat: N 47.3952 = 47 23 43 Lon: W 121.4445 = 121 26 40 First convert to UTM Zone 10 N 5,250,255 E 617,382 Now add one mile in meters to each number: 1 mile = 1,609 meters New UTM coordinates: Zone 10 N 5,251,864 E 618,991 Now convert back to Lat/Lon: Lat: N 47 24 33.75 Lon: W 121 25 21.91 Take the difference between the Lat/Lon pairs: Change Lat: 50.75 seconds = 0.00140972 deg Change Lon: 78.09 seconds = 0.0216916 deg So, there you have how much moving one mile of latitude or longitude affects your position at your Lat/Lon. These conversions made possible through FREE software that the US Army Corps of Engineers developed. Download your free copy at: http://crunch.tec.army.mil/software/corpscon/corpscon.html HTH, Bob Hogan New England Geocaching