Jump to content

Waypoint Averaging vs. "Walk Away and Check" method


gsmX2
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Setting the assumption that you have a clear view of the sky and good satellite reception, which would be a better way to get an accurate coordinate?

 

You use Waypoint Averaging on your GPS to get one set of coordinates.

 

Would the next best step be:

 

1. Walk away 20 yards and walk back to check how many feet away your are?

 

2. Use Waypoint Averaging a second time and compare the coordinates?

Link to comment

Setting the assumption that you have a clear view of the sky and good satellite reception, which would be a better way to get an accurate coordinate?

 

You use Waypoint Averaging on your GPS to get one set of coordinates.

 

Would the next best step be:

 

1. Walk away 20 yards and walk back to check how many feet away your are?

 

2. Use Waypoint Averaging a second time and compare the coordinates?

3. Come back another day and time and check the coordinates. Most complete method anyway.

 

My personal choice with a good clear view of the sky and strong sat signals is just get a single reading or single average and head home to list the cache.

Link to comment

According to Garmin:

For many waypoints (campsites, houses, trailheads, etc.), averaging is unnecessary because even in the most challenging GPS conditions, the waypoint will likely be within 30ft of the ground truth. In some circumstances, such as saving a geocache location or marking a waypoint in dense tree cover, it is beneficial to gain additional confidence the marked location is as close to ground truth as possible.

 

We recently completed detailed research on various waypoint averaging techniques and their respective benefits. Our research culminated in an improved multi-sample averaging technique which outperforms the traditional short-term averaging. The first implementation offering the multi-sample technique is offered as a new application on our Oregon® platform.

 

Traditional Short-term averaging involves averaging a location over a few minutes. This technique removes large temporary errors in GPS position and is most beneficial when conditions are challenging (such as dense tree cover) but can not mitigate errors from the current satellite constellation.

 

Multi-sample averaging involves returning multiple times to collect short-term average samples, mitigating errors from the current satellite constellation and allowing a waypoint to converge to ground truth as additional samples are added. For multi-sample averaging, our research uncovered two important factors in achieving the greatest error reduction: the number of samples collected and the elapsed time between samples. For optimal results, at least 4-8 samples should be collected spaced at least 90 minutes apart (allowing the satellite constellation sufficient time to change).

This is from the manufacturer of one of the most popular handheld GPS's for cachers. The "new application" they mention was an add-on after the Oregon was released. They originally left "Averaging" out of the system because they claimed it wasn't needed. After feedback from cachers, they realized that in an application like caching, their statement that a single-sample "waypoint will likely be within 30ft of the ground truth" isn't necessarily good enough.

 

If Garmin realized that their units needed averaging for caching, maybe their users should take the same advice. :unsure:

Link to comment

Garmin's take on averaging aside, the "Walk Away and Check" method is flawed in a most basic way.

 

I'm sure many cachers have had a caching experience where, as they approached GZ, they saw a likely spot and followed their noses instead of the GPS, bringing them straight to the cache. Once there, they look back at the GPS and see that the unit is pointing 40 feet to the East.

 

Having just hidden the cache, knowing exactly where it is, it is extremely unlikely that you won't walk towards the cache even if the GPS is pointing behind you! <_<

Link to comment

Assuming a clear view of the sky and good satellite reception I take one reading and go with it. I've never had complaints about those coordinates.

 

Interestingly enough the few caches that I've received complaints were those where I averaged. I averaged because of poor reception.

 

So bottom line is if you have good reception, averaging is a waste of time. If you have bad reception, averaging is also a waste of time.

Link to comment

According to Garmin:

For many waypoints (campsites, houses, trailheads, etc.), averaging is unnecessary because even in the most challenging GPS conditions, the waypoint will likely be within 30ft of the ground truth. In some circumstances, such as saving a geocache location or marking a waypoint in dense tree cover, it is beneficial to gain additional confidence the marked location is as close to ground truth as possible.

 

We recently completed detailed research on various waypoint averaging techniques and their respective benefits. Our research culminated in an improved multi-sample averaging technique which outperforms the traditional short-term averaging. The first implementation offering the multi-sample technique is offered as a new application on our Oregon® platform.

 

Traditional Short-term averaging involves averaging a location over a few minutes. This technique removes large temporary errors in GPS position and is most beneficial when conditions are challenging (such as dense tree cover) but can not mitigate errors from the current satellite constellation.

 

Multi-sample averaging involves returning multiple times to collect short-term average samples, mitigating errors from the current satellite constellation and allowing a waypoint to converge to ground truth as additional samples are added. For multi-sample averaging, our research uncovered two important factors in achieving the greatest error reduction: the number of samples collected and the elapsed time between samples. For optimal results, at least 4-8 samples should be collected spaced at least 90 minutes apart (allowing the satellite constellation sufficient time to change).

This is from the manufacturer of one of the most popular handheld GPS's for cachers. The "new application" they mention was an add-on after the Oregon was released. They originally left "Averaging" out of the system because they claimed it wasn't needed. After feedback from cachers, they realized that in an application like caching, their statement that a single-sample "waypoint will likely be within 30ft of the ground truth" isn't necessarily good enough.

 

If Garmin realized that their units needed averaging for caching, maybe their users should take the same advice. :unsure:

Funny - I read the same article I do not reach that conclusion at all.

 

I read it as: "We really don't think a single short term averaging session reduces the error by much. The only way to really reduce the error is to return multiple times on multiple days and continue the averaging. But for those that just had to have it - here is our averaging tool."

Link to comment

I read the Garmin article too and came to the same conclusion as Starbrand....we don't think it's necessary, but our customers want it, so here it is.

 

I really want people to find my caches, so when necessary, I go to great lengths to get good coordinates, but I have never returned to a cache multiple times and multiple days to get accurate coordinates. The cacher who is looking for my cache is showing up on a different day, and will be lucky for the GPS to have 7 feet of accuracy. That's what geosense is for.

 

Additional NOTE: The best finder I ever cached with would stopping looking at his GPS when he was about 20 feet from the cache and would LOOK for the cache instead of looking at his GPS.

Edited by gsmx2
Link to comment

I used to use the average feature but after taking some single readings, I didn't see a big disparity. Now I just take a single reading and call it good. No complaints on the last two caches I've done that with. No complaints on the ones I used averaging for, either...so might as well choose the quickest route.

Link to comment

What we do is:

 

* Take average reading (around 30-60 automatic readings depending on situation)

* Walk away en walk back to cache

* Take average reading (around 30-60 automatic readings depending on situation)

* Walk away en walk back to cache

* Take average reading (around 30-60 automatic readings depending on situation)

* Then at home we take an average of those 3 readings. I find it usually being very accurate.

Link to comment

Assuming a clear view of the sky and good satellite reception I take one reading and go with it. I've never had complaints about those coordinates.

 

Interestingly enough the few caches that I've received complaints were those where I averaged. I averaged because of poor reception.

 

So bottom line is if you have good reception, averaging is a waste of time. If you have bad reception, averaging is also a waste of time.

 

I agree. I found a cache where the owner averaged 100+ samples, yet his coordinates were 500 feet off.

 

When getting coordinates, I do this:

- Check the positions of the satellites. If there are satellites that should be visible, wait until a connection is established with them. If a satellite is visible but should not be (signal bouncing), move a bit/rotate until the signal from it is lost.

* I acknowledge this is difficult to do properly by most geocachers. At least check and wait for more than 4 satellites to be visible.

- Put the GPS down and wait for it to settle. Don't start averaging right away.

- Take a reading. If you want, you can average more readings, but most likely the results will be almost the same.

- Walk about 20 meters (70 feet) in several directions. See how good is the reading/average I took. Repeat from the beginning if I notice large discrepancies.

- Return another day and recheck the coordinates. (I always place a "beta cache" first to see how it withstands the weather and muggle factor, and return with the final container ~1 month later; when placing the final cache I recheck the coordinates).

Link to comment
Additional NOTE: The best finder I ever cached with would stopping looking at his GPS when he was about 20 feet from the cache and would LOOK for the cache instead of looking at his GPS.

 

This gets mentioned a lot and also has a fundamental flaw. At the time when your GPS says that you're close and you put it away and start looking, your GPS might have been off as well and you end up searching in the wrong spot. That's why it's a good thing to keep checking your GPS once in a while, especially when you can't seem to find the cache. But I guess everybody does that anyway.

Link to comment

Garmin's take on averaging aside, the "Walk Away and Check" method is flawed in a most basic way.

 

I'm sure many cachers have had a caching experience where, as they approached GZ, they saw a likely spot and followed their noses instead of the GPS, bringing them straight to the cache. Once there, they look back at the GPS and see that the unit is pointing 40 feet to the East.

 

how exactly is the example you gave related to the averaging feature being flawed? :blink:

 

i call it bad coordinates to begin with

 

Having just hidden the cache, knowing exactly where it is, it is extremely unlikely that you won't walk towards the cache even if the GPS is pointing behind you! <_<

 

seriously? i have an extremely hard time believing that people are that, lets just say "un-gifted" to sabotage their own test :lol:

Link to comment

Can I ask a related question :lostsignal:

 

How much difference does a thousandth of a degree make? For example, if I waypoint average my coordinates 2 times over several days, and I get the following:

 

22.345

22.346

 

I could get more averages, but how much of a difference does that thousandth place make? a foot or two? Any help is appreciated.

Link to comment

Can I ask a related question :lostsignal:

 

How much difference does a thousandth of a degree make? For example, if I waypoint average my coordinates 2 times over several days, and I get the following:

 

22.345

22.346

 

I could get more averages, but how much of a difference does that thousandth place make? a foot or two? Any help is appreciated.

Roughly 5 feet.

Link to comment

Can I ask a related question :lostsignal:

 

How much difference does a thousandth of a degree make? For example, if I waypoint average my coordinates 2 times over several days, and I get the following:

 

22.345

22.346

 

I could get more averages, but how much of a difference does that thousandth place make? a foot or two? Any help is appreciated.

Roughly 5 feet.

 

Thanks. I try to do an average of averages, but most of the time, it still comes down to that thousandth degree. I suppose being 5 feet off is somewhat normal for a geocache, correct?

Link to comment

Can I ask a related question :lostsignal:

 

How much difference does a thousandth of a degree make? For example, if I waypoint average my coordinates 2 times over several days, and I get the following:

 

22.345

22.346

 

I could get more averages, but how much of a difference does that thousandth place make? a foot or two? Any help is appreciated.

Roughly 5 feet.

 

Thanks. I try to do an average of averages, but most of the time, it still comes down to that thousandth degree. I suppose being 5 feet off is somewhat normal for a geocache, correct?

 

I think most geocachers would consider 5 feet off to be practically spot on.

Link to comment

How much difference does a thousandth of a degree make?

It depends on whether you're talking about latitude or longitude. It also depends on where you're located.

 

N 40° 22.345 W 080° 22.345 vs.

N 40° 22.346 W 080° 22.345 = 6.072 feet.

 

N 40° 22.345 W 080° 22.345 vs.

N 40° 22.345 W 080° 22.346 = 4.644 feet.

 

N 50° 22.345 W 080° 22.345 vs.

N 50° 22.346 W 080° 22.345 = 6.082 feet.

 

N 50° 22.345 W 080° 22.345 vs.

N 50° 22.345 W 080° 22.346 = 3.890 feet.

Link to comment

What we do is:

 

* Take average reading (around 30-60 automatic readings depending on situation)

* Walk away en walk back to cache

* Take average reading (around 30-60 automatic readings depending on situation)

* Walk away en walk back to cache

* Take average reading (around 30-60 automatic readings depending on situation)

* Then at home we take an average of those 3 readings. I find it usually being very accurate.

I usualy do a simmilar thing, but usualy take 5 sets, then through out outliyers.

Link to comment

How much difference does a thousandth of a degree make?

It depends on whether you're talking about latitude or longitude. It also depends on where you're located.

 

N 40° 22.345 W 080° 22.345 vs.

N 40° 22.346 W 080° 22.345 = 6.072 feet.

 

N 40° 22.345 W 080° 22.345 vs.

N 40° 22.345 W 080° 22.346 = 4.644 feet.

 

N 50° 22.345 W 080° 22.345 vs.

N 50° 22.346 W 080° 22.345 = 6.082 feet.

 

N 50° 22.345 W 080° 22.345 vs.

N 50° 22.345 W 080° 22.346 = 3.890 feet.

Which is exactly why I said about 5 feet.

Link to comment

How much difference does a thousandth of a degree make?

It depends on whether you're talking about latitude or longitude. It also depends on where you're located.

 

N 40° 22.345 W 080° 22.345 vs.

N 40° 22.346 W 080° 22.345 = 6.072 feet.

 

N 40° 22.345 W 080° 22.345 vs.

N 40° 22.345 W 080° 22.346 = 4.644 feet.

 

N 50° 22.345 W 080° 22.345 vs.

N 50° 22.346 W 080° 22.345 = 6.082 feet.

 

N 50° 22.345 W 080° 22.345 vs.

N 50° 22.345 W 080° 22.346 = 3.890 feet.

Which is exactly why I said about 5 feet.

I was preparing my response while you were publishing yours, so I didn't see it.

 

That said, I agree the difference usually is about 5 feet. But that certainly isn't always the case. Up here in Canada, there's a cache (GC5803) located at N82° 30.720 W062° 43.820. There, a thousandth of a degree of longitude would be a difference of about 0.796 feet.

Link to comment

When I place a new cache I usually take readings,

then return the following day navigating to that waypoint for actual placement.

If its the same spot (within a couple of feet)then I go with the 1st readings.

Otherwise I may avg the spot again. depends on how obvious the hiding location

may be. Sometimes a single reading is sufficient, sometimes multiple (using avg

function) may be necessary for accuracy.

Link to comment

Garmin's take on averaging aside, the "Walk Away and Check" method is flawed in a most basic way.

 

I'm sure many cachers have had a caching experience where, as they approached GZ, they saw a likely spot and followed their noses instead of the GPS, bringing them straight to the cache. Once there, they look back at the GPS and see that the unit is pointing 40 feet to the East.

 

Having just hidden the cache, knowing exactly where it is, it is extremely unlikely that you won't walk towards the cache even if the GPS is pointing behind you! <_<

I've used the walk away and check on all of our caches and we haven't had ANY problems with bad coords. So I don't see how the method is flawed in the most basic way. I hold my GPS over the cache and hit mark. Then i walk away and select find waypoint and check. It's worked for us.

Edited by the4dirtydogs
Link to comment
Having just hidden the cache, knowing exactly where it is, it is extremely unlikely that you won't walk towards the cache even if the GPS is pointing behind you! <_<
Someone who doesn't notice that the GPSr is pointing the wrong direction isn't using the "walk away and check" method very well. That isn't a flaw in the method; that's a flaw in someone's ability to use the method.

 

The point of the "walk away and check" method isn't to walk towards the cache. As you pointed out, anyone who remembers where they hid the cache can do that. The point of the "walk away and check" method is to verify that the GPSr leads you back to the cache when you approach from different directions, and with different configurations of the GPS satellites. To do that, you have to pay attention to the GPSr.

Link to comment

I find that my best "fixes" are if I find my hiding place, place the Oregon on or very near to it and leave it there for about 10 minutes without marking the coordinates. After the approx. 10 mins I press "mark' give the WP a name and then do the averaging thing. This allows the GPSr time to get a good fix on the satelites, to settle down.

As for finding the hides when first arriving at the GPSr GZ if the hiding place is not obvious I try and do some sort of circumnavigation to establish the most likely area to search in. Then I don't let the device confuse me further. Turned off an in a pocket is good. You can't beat eyes, hands and, sometimes, hands and knees for this job. Also looking up or down. Pretty fundamental eh?. Sometimes they are down the bank you are standing on or up that tree you are standing under. It's all good fun and why we do it. The thrill of making a find when after getting totally frustrated you get an Ah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! moment.

Good hiding and seeking all.

Jim

Link to comment

This is from the manufacturer of one of the most popular handheld GPS's for cachers. The "new application" they mention was an add-on after the Oregon was released. They originally left "Averaging" out of the system because they claimed it wasn't needed. After feedback from cachers, they realized that in an application like caching, their statement that a single-sample "waypoint will likely be within 30ft of the ground truth" isn't necessarily good enough.

 

If Garmin realized that their units needed averaging for caching, maybe their users should take the same advice. :unsure:

They also left it of the Colorados.

Which I always thought was stupid, even my Garmin GPS III had it.

Link to comment

The Oregon 450 I have says for best results wait at least 90 minutes and take another averaged reading. Ikve just started practicing with the waypoints (planning my first self-placed caches now) and have been gettting readings 1/1000 difference. Not too bad, but I guess I will beta-test them before I list and see how it goes!

Link to comment

1. Use averaging to get a good set of coords.

2. Walk away.

3. Tell the GPS to navigate to the new waypoint.

4. See if it gets you close enough (should be within 2 meters at least).

 

That is what we do. Sometimes takes a few trips before my QC department is happy. Few things that my QC department hates worse than bad coords! Generally, we get good compliments to AB QC for the coords. So, we'll continue to do it this way.

Link to comment

Garmin's take on averaging aside, the "Walk Away and Check" method is flawed in a most basic way.

 

I'm sure many cachers have had a caching experience where, as they approached GZ, they saw a likely spot and followed their noses instead of the GPS, bringing them straight to the cache. Once there, they look back at the GPS and see that the unit is pointing 40 feet to the East.

how exactly is the example you gave related to the averaging feature being flawed? :blink:

 

i call it bad coordinates to begin with

It had nothing to do with averaging. The word "aside" means that I was speaking to an issue beyond averaging. It was an example of how most people have experienced phenomenon I'm talking about in the situation I proposed below:
Having just hidden the cache, knowing exactly where it is, it is extremely unlikely that you won't walk towards the cache even if the GPS is pointing behind you! <_<
seriously? i have an extremely hard time believing that people are that, lets just say "un-gifted" to sabotage their own test :lol:
You have read these forums before, right? I've seen plenty if evidence of "un-gifted" behavior.

 

At the speeds the hiders in the video were walking away and then back, there is no way they were accurately testing if their GPS was actually pointing at the cache they just hid. (That is what this thread was started for, after all!)

Link to comment
Having just hidden the cache, knowing exactly where it is, it is extremely unlikely that you won't walk towards the cache even if the GPS is pointing behind you! <_<
Someone who doesn't notice that the GPSr is pointing the wrong direction isn't using the "walk away and check" method very well. That isn't a flaw in the method; that's a flaw in someone's ability to use the method.

 

The point of the "walk away and check" method isn't to walk towards the cache. As you pointed out, anyone who remembers where they hid the cache can do that. The point of the "walk away and check" method is to verify that the GPSr leads you back to the cache when you approach from different directions, and with different configurations of the GPS satellites. To do that, you have to pay attention to the GPSr.

Well, I'm skeptical, but regardless, the method you describe is hardly the method being demonstrated in the video posted by the OP, who just happens to have started this other thread.

Link to comment
Well, I'm skeptical, but regardless, the method you describe is hardly the method being demonstrated in the video posted by the OP, who just happens to have started this other thread.

 

Actually it is. There's two different MOs to the "walk away and return" approach:

 

1) Take a reading, walk away and tell your GPS to navigate to the new waypoint. Closely follow the GPS until you get to GZ (according to the GPS). See if it's anywhere close to the actual cache location.

2) Take a reading, walk away and tell your GPS to navigate to the new waypoint. Walk back to the cache location. See if the GPS gives you a reading of anywhere close to the taken waypoint (according to the distance shown on the GPS).

 

Both accomplish the same thing. The only difference is that in the end, the headings (either towards the cache site or towards the waypoint) will be in opposite directions. Other than that, it's exactly the same thing.

Link to comment

Garmin's take on averaging aside, the "Walk Away and Check" method is flawed in a most basic way.

 

I'm sure many cachers have had a caching experience where, as they approached GZ, they saw a likely spot and followed their noses instead of the GPS, bringing them straight to the cache. Once there, they look back at the GPS and see that the unit is pointing 40 feet to the East.

how exactly is the example you gave related to the averaging feature being flawed? :blink:

 

i call it bad coordinates to begin with

It had nothing to do with averaging. The word "aside" means that I was speaking to an issue beyond averaging. It was an example of how most people have experienced phenomenon I'm talking about in the situation I proposed below:
Having just hidden the cache, knowing exactly where it is, it is extremely unlikely that you won't walk towards the cache even if the GPS is pointing behind you! <_<
seriously? i have an extremely hard time believing that people are that, lets just say "un-gifted" to sabotage their own test :lol:
You have read these forums before, right? I've seen plenty if evidence of "un-gifted" behavior.

 

At the speeds the hiders in the video were walking away and then back, there is no way they were accurately testing if their GPS was actually pointing at the cache they just hid. (That is what this thread was started for, after all!)

They sped up the video, so they were probably walking a lot slower then that. You can't be serious. :laughing:

Link to comment
Well, I'm skeptical, but regardless, the method you describe is hardly the method being demonstrated in the video posted by the OP, who just happens to have started this other thread.

 

Actually it is. There's two different MOs to the "walk away and return" approach:

 

1) Take a reading, walk away and tell your GPS to navigate to the new waypoint. Closely follow the GPS until you get to GZ (according to the GPS). See if it's anywhere close to the actual cache location.

2) Take a reading, walk away and tell your GPS to navigate to the new waypoint. Walk back to the cache location. See if the GPS gives you a reading of anywhere close to the taken waypoint (according to the distance shown on the GPS).

 

Both accomplish the same thing. The only difference is that in the end, the headings (either towards the cache site or towards the waypoint) will be in opposite directions. Other than that, it's exactly the same thing.

 

Actually, we were NOT averaging. We were taking a single reading, walking away long far enough to get the GOTO WAYPOINT screen and walking back. This IS NOT a recommended way to get really accurate coordinates. But in that other thread, someone asked if it wouldn't be better to take a second average of the waypoint rather than walking away and back. It has certainly gotten a lot of interesting responses indicating how much effort people exert (or don't exert) in trying to get accurate coordinates.

Link to comment

If you have the desire to dig deeply into the accuracy of GPS, try wading through the charts and explanations in this abstract. http://www.teddriver.net/gnss/Long%20term%20prediction%20of%20GPS%20accuracy%20-%20Understanding%20the%20Fundamentals.htm

 

In the years before geocaching was invented, I used a $5000 GPSr to locate State Forest corners and other points in central PA. I used Differential Correction to locate points. Standard procedure was to take 3 three minute averaged waypoints. The one of the three with the best residual and an acceptable PDOP's was the one we used. Sometimes, I had to go back to a corner if the residual or PDOP was bad.

Collecting the ephemeris on a day you are geocaching will give you a better chance of accuracy than the ephemeris your GPSr collected a week ago.

Link to comment

Interesting--no one uses the method that I do...

 

First of all, I'm lucky to have a Garmin (although crummy in most other ways) that tells me the accuracy of the currently displayed coordinates, in feet. When I'm under 20 feet, that's pretty good. When I'm under 15, that's excellent. When I'm under 10, that's outstanding.

 

So I get the most accurate reading I can according to my Garmin, then I walk North, South, East, and West (usually about 20 feet in each direction, if I can). After going each direction, I head directly back to GZ to see what coordinates I get.

 

I have had excellent luck with this method for the most part.

Link to comment
First of all, I'm lucky to have a Garmin (although crummy in most other ways) that tells me the accuracy of the currently displayed coordinates, in feet. When I'm under 20 feet, that's pretty good. When I'm under 15, that's excellent. When I'm under 10, that's outstanding.

 

However, you do realize that those numbers are just estimates, right? If you GPS says the accuracy is 10 feet, the coordinates can still be 50 feet off, or by any other amount.

Link to comment

Well, I took between 1 and 3 sets of coords with my 3 caches that I put out the other day, depending on the difficulty of the caches, and then did the "walk and check" with all of them a few times. Seemed to work pretty well, and with the HELPFUL hints I gave, no DNF's or complaints yet. (which is how I personally like it, I don't want a lot of DNF's on my caches)

 

You can tell if your gps is acting wonky because of tree cover, etc. If that's the case, you are not going to get super coords no matter what you do. You will have to either give a good hint, or up the difficulty.

Link to comment

It's funny, but the best luck that I've had is to put the GPS on satellite mode (with bars/satellites/changing numbers showing, etc.) and walk very, very slowly to the spot I want to mark, stand there a minute, and mark it. That's usually a lot more accurate that then the back and forth, switching waypoints, etc. I've gotten a better fix that way then doing multiple readings or averaging.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...