This topic contains 3 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by 
Astro_D 15 years, 2 months ago.
-
Posts
-
Just added this idea to the forum: Update Benchmark Database. Be sure to check it out and add your feedback!
You stole the GEOCAC benchmark pix for the post! I like it!!! Did you get to Green Bay to see the one we placed for Wisconsin? I like your idea as well!
I would love the database to updated, but alas, don’t think it ever will. Way to much work. And it won’t be a complete snapshot as there are still many BM out there that are not entered into the NGS database. I’d just be happy to be able to have benchmark PQs. As it is, I have to download each county, convert that file in another program, and then import to GSAK to use. Hopefully, when this laptop dies for good and I get a non-vVsta type program – I can once again send the GSAK files to my PDA. Then I can actually have all the datasheets to use in the field when we go on a hunt.
Right now with limited laptop use (It overheats and shurs off too quickly), we haven’t done any BM hunting. Which sucks!
I honestly haven’t gotten out of my area much to do any benchmarking, but your post on the forum here is what made me think of posting the pic 🙂 I’ll get there one of these days. Did that one get it’s PID for the NGS yet?
I know it still wouldn’t be an all inclusive list, but it couldn’t have been too difficult to integrate it in the first place. You would think it’d be as simple as using the latest, most up to date database the NGS has. I’m thinking a lot of people are too lazy or just don’t know about the other sites that list them. If they were right there next to the cache listings, more people might hunt them, in theory keeping them in better shape for longer.
PQs would be nice. I don’t even have that option for caches! My hardware is so old I just plug in each coord set individually.
@glorkar wrote:
I honestly haven’t gotten out of my area much to do any benchmarking, but your post on the forum here is what made me think of posting the pic 🙂 I’ll get there one of these days. Did that one get it’s PID for the NGS yet?
I know it still wouldn’t be an all inclusive list, but it couldn’t have been too difficult to integrate it in the first place. You would think it’d be as simple as using the latest, most up to date database the NGS has. I’m thinking a lot of people are too lazy or just don’t know about the other sites that list them. If they were right there next to the cache listings, more people might hunt them, in theory keeping them in better shape for longer.
PQs would be nice. I don’t even have that option for caches! My hardware is so old I just plug in each coord set individually.
Well, when you come to GB, give a holler! We’d love to meet ya. (No we’re not the serial killer types LOL).
I’m still leary of having the BMs listed next to the caches. Most cachers don’t seem to give a hoot whether they ID the correct mark or not – its just another pretty icon to add to the stats. I think a lot of cachers also stay away from BMing simply because they can’t count them in their find totals (THANK GOD for that!).
Perhaps if there would be some mechanism in place to monitor and remove bogus logs (epsecially those without pixs confirming the recovery), I might be more open to the above suggestion.As for plugging in the coords into the GPSr… We found that 99% of the time we go off the description, not the coords anyway. THe coords put us in the ballpark, but th detective work is alot more fun. Kind of why we prefer BMing.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.