- Bruce, I have version 1.2.. According to their website, that is the latest.. Should I use the import feature? Mike "Insert useless tagline here" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce S" <bruces1321@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: <geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 1:42 AM Subject: [GeoStL] Re: GPX vs LOC > - > > Mike, > You probably need to download a newer version of expertgps. Older > versions do not handle gpx files very well. If you open the gpx file with a > text editor or excel you will see it has all the caches. > > Bruce > > > > > > >From: "Mike Griffin" <griff@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >Reply-To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > >To: <geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >Subject: [GeoStL] GPX vs LOC > >Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 21:04:59 -0600 > > > >When I download a GPX file with the following criteria, I get a handful of > >caches in expertGPS. However, when I download using .LOC file, I get 5 > >times as many. Both have the same criteria, Traditional that I haven't > >found from zip code 63304 for 150 miles for a maximum of 500 caches. > > > >GPX file shows a total of 53 caches > >LOC file shows a total of... well lets just say I quit counting at 240. > > > >Any ideas what could be happening? > > > >Mike > > > >"Insert useless tagline here" > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail > > **************************************************************************** > Our WebPage! Http://WWW.GeoStL.com > Mail List Info. > //www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/list?list_id=geocaching > **************************************************************************** > > > > > **************************************************************************** Our WebPage! Http://WWW.GeoStL.com Mail List Info. //www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/list?list_id=geocaching ****************************************************************************