[Cathunter]

You don’t need to fulfil it’s goal, just move it in the right direction. A mile in the right direction beats any distance in the wrong direction.

[Cathunter]

Thanks for following up with this Brian, it is pretty much the response we expected.

[Cathunter]

A shot in the dark, but on my Legend I can change the map detail through the map settings menu within the unit. The factory setting is “normal”, but changing it to “more” or “most” brings in the detail, right down to even seeing the logging roads in the Black River State Forest.

Has anyone tried loading any of the other Mapsource products (like Roads & Recreation) into a 60 series? I know they won’t do autorouting, but the map detail would be there.

Also Bec, if you didn’t know, Garmin is offering a $50 rebate on the purchase of new color units.

[Cathunter]

quote:

---

Originally posted by cacherchick:
I assume if there is no goal tag, the bug is just supposed to travel. Anywhere. Hope I haven’t messed up anyones bugs.

---

Goal tags did not become popular until more recently. There are plenty of caches and geo-coins out there that have a goal, but you will not learn what it is until you go to log in in the website.

It becomes more of a problem when people are moving bugs long distances. A good example would be to pick up a bug in Nevada and bring it to Wisconsin, only to find out that it’s goal was to go to California.

[Cathunter]

I’m with GrouseTales on this one.

I would much rather put on 100 miles and see several places with totally different caches than to spend all day on one cache.

Then again, it is all about location!

[Cathunter]

If it does not have a tag on it explaining it’s goal, the person who picks it up should not be held accountable for moving it in the wrong direction. How would they ever know, until they got it home to log it?

If I put a bug out with a goal and no tag, it’s because I want it to move about, hoping that it will gain a lot of miles and eventually make it to it’s goal. The fun is seeing where the bug goes to get there.

Much like I would not want anyone to re-paint or otherwise modify one of my caches, I would not want anyone to attach anything or otherwise modify one of my bugs.

Personally, I prefer bugs be naked. Please don’t wrap them in zip-lock bags or hang anything from them, without the owners permission.

[Cathunter]

quote:

---

Originally posted by shrek & fiona:
shreks idea was shot down real fast when he posted it make a new icon for temps

---

Shreks idea is great! Unfortunatly, no one member of the WGA can make a new log type for temp caches on the geocaching.com website. All we can do it recommend it to the management of that website.

EnergySaver has also made good points.

I urge every member to think about what they would prefer to do, instead of what Groundspeak allows us to do.
Groundspeak provides us with a cache listing service. They will continue to amend their ideas and policies as long as individuals and groups like the WGA continue to provide input.

It is evident that WI is somewhat of an outcast in the area of temp event cache logging. As has been said before- SO WHAT? We do it our way.

Let’s not stop looking at new ideas…There just might be a better way. It’s not about Groundspeak or the WGA— It’s about Geocaching in Wisconsin.

[Cathunter]

Although I am very much into the covert aspects of the game, what does it look like to state on a cache page “if the authorities are in the vicinity, don’t try it” ???

This is absolutly not the impression we want to leave on people when they are learning about geocaching. Not to mention that there are geocachers who are land managers, police, DNR employees, etc, etc. I’m sure some of those folks are paying members, who can see the members only caches as easily as you or I.

Using members-only caches to reduce the muggle factor? Yes!
Using members-only caches to share something explicitly with other PAYING geocachers? YES!

[This message has been edited by Cathunter (edited 04-07-2005).]

[Cathunter]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MajorBrat:
Okay, I agree that it is a personal choice as to which whether Magellan or Garmin make a better GPSR…one’s own experiences are all we can go by. However, I disagree that Mapsend is not good software! I love my mapsend program and have never had a question about its functionality. (Again w/ the personal choice, ‘eh?)

---

It’s ok that you disagree. I don’t think I said Mapsend is no good. Have you spent time using both? I have both, and a couple of others.

Here’s an easy test-
Pick out a few of the questions regarding mapping or waypoint formats from the WI Geocaching Trivia thread. Try answering them using Mapsend. Then try it using Mapsource.

Mapsend is fine for putting maps in your GPS, but Mapsource has far greater functionality beyond just that.

I’d be interested in hearing more from people who have spent time using both brands of GPSr’s.
What can one do that the other can’t?

.

[This message has been edited by Cathunter (edited 04-07-2005).]

[Cathunter]

The Explorist was Magellan’s way to compete with the Garmin Etrex. It suffers from a screen which is too small and even worse, now a color screen which is very hard to see/read in any sunlight. The new battery system forces you to plug in the unit to re-charge, much like a cell phone. Although the life of the Li-Ion battery is much improved, the newest Explorists are coming with a electronic compass, barometer, thermometer, and altimeter, which is going to reduce the battery life down to only a few hours. Last I knew, there was no way to turn WAAS off either, which is the other battery killer.

If it has to be a Magellan, the Meridian Gold is a better workhorse than the Explorist any day.

Also, no GPSr is complete without getting the detailed maps.
Magellan’s Mapsend software is very limited in function compared to Garmin’s Mapsource software.

You can have my Garmin, when you pry it
from my cold dead hands.

[This message has been edited by Cathunter (edited 04-06-2005).]

[Cathunter]

Given the lack of other decent options, I think it is a GREAT IDEA!!!!!!!!!!

If SLAGA can do it, WGA can and should!

[Cathunter]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fishcachers:
I was under the impression that I was pretty much required to ask for permission before placing a cache. (From geocaching.com website: “By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.”)
~MF

---

There is a grey area here which is the reason 90% of the present caches in Wisconsin exist at all.

Most simply put, if a public property has not enacted a policy against hiking, biking, walking, (or geocaching), it is assumed that it must be ok to do so. By not having said that we can’t do it, it must be ok then, right? Permission is assumed, since no rule has been placed stating otherwise.

Bottom line is that permission is a good thing. If there are no rules, we act at our own risk.

My personal opinion is that if you are hiding a cache in a location where the chances of you or other cachers being witnessed are little or none, there is very little risk in utilizing the grey area that exists.

An interesting thread here.

[This message has been edited by Cathunter (edited 04-02-2005).]

[Cathunter]

Congratulations!

Now you have 1 less excuse for not finding that next cache.

Now you will need some new mapping software.

This combined with your RoadMate should get you to 1000 finds by the end of the year.

[Cathunter]

I totally disagree with the whole “liability” angle. The state allows us to hunt, hike, fish, ATV, snowmobile, camp, etc, etc, etc. on their land.

How would geocaching be a liability concern any more than all those other things?

The only liability is that the person giving permission might get his *** chewed for approving anything other than the ordinary.

[Cathunter]

Interesting question….. i’ve been to a good many of the WI State parks and don’t recall ever seeing such a thing. Did I miss something?

[Author]

Posts