Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Today
  2. I noticed a topic was blocked by a moderator and I expect the same to happen with this one. After arouond 20 years in Waymarking, many frustrations and disagreements, this brought me to the edge of going away from WM in a definite way. It's censorship and it comes well in line with the atitude which caused Ariberna to post about the subject. These matters are not to be discussed in private because they are of public interest! The atitude of the A officer is well known and notorious by his decisions of the kind "because I want", completely out of the rules of the categories. It's this kind of approach which mines Waymarking, pulling away new members who depart confused and frustrated.
  3. I can see why you are irritated, because this also happens on my browser on the desktop computer: I tried a new waymark in the US as reference (WM1850K at N 34 36.387 W 096 20.202) which is about 7934 km away from my home. I took a look at the geocaching map by hand (https://www.geocaching.com/play/map?lat=34.6065&lng=-96.3367) which showed me the right position. I figured out that the nearest caches would be GC94BV9 (BURIED TREASURE) and GC979MX (MORE BURIED TREASURE), so they would be expected to be on the top of the list. Then I switched from Waymarking to Geocaching and got a list with several geocaches ordered by distance, but not as expected - the two caches were around position 15 in the list. Then I opened the map with the result list and the map showed the caches at the selected position (which is correct then). So looking closer at the result list again, I found out that this distance ordering is taken from my home coordinates (see image) and not from the selected point. Therefore I assume, that this needs fixing on the geocaching side.
  4. Occasionally.... it depends on a few things..... 1. If I'm short of FPs to give out I might start looking for caches to retrieve them from... this hasn't been the case for a while, especially after the 20FP gift from HQ.... (see below) 2. I would then only remove them from a cache that was archived by a reviewer for non-maintenance. 3. I would only remove them from a player who seemed inactive So, if I give you an FP, and you need to archive your cache yourself, and keep geocaching, I won't take back my FP.... otherwise... I might....
  5. I see exactly the same. A few findings: It's not specific to PQ mapping, it affects the Browse Map in general. It's also independent of the zoom level, i.e. the bug is there both for the "smileys" (zoomed in) and the "dots" (zoomed out). The blank box appears if and only if the cache is disabled. This is independent of your find status for the cache.
  6. This was a straight up case of a slack CO, who was 'woken up' by a NA log too it seems! I DNFd this one on my first try as a newbie, because I wasn't 'capable of reading past logs, reading clues or using a little bit of intuition to find a pretty easy cache'. I remember piggy backing my youngest at not quite 3 years of age looking for this, miles away from the cache of course....
  7. Actually, there is a need if you want to do a search with geocaches and labcaches mixed and don't like to go back and forth:
  8. I wasn't sure if I should post this in the geocaching website regarding the similar bug that was fixed, or here. When I am on a geocache page and click on nearest waymarks everything works as expected. But when I am on a waymark and click nearby geocaches it is not accurate. Chrome. Android.
  9. That is how Adventure Labs were designed and it is, from all evidence, how they are intended to work. You go to the posted coordinates, open up the adventure in your phone, and do the stages (often in the order the creator requires). There is no need for planning ahead. When you complete one lab, you can go on to others, and if they take you to the same places, then that's part of the experience. If you want to plan ahead and "clear" an area in one pass, I recommend another activity: it's called "geocaching."
  10. When I click on the link "waymarks I have visited", directly under the "my unfinished waymarks" link, I would expect it to show the most recent waymarks that I have visited. It does not. However, clicking on the link My Visits does show the most recent ones first. Maybe I am misunderstanding with that link is intended to show?
  11. Yep. I've seen cases like that too. In some cases, caches were archived because the COs didn't want seekers to be harrassed, even though the caches were on public land with a geocaching policy that allowed them to be there. I've seen the opposite situation, where private land was donated to a public open space district. The district removed all the "private property" and "no trespassing" signs they could, but knew they had probably missed some. They actually asked geocachers to report the GPS coordinates of any remaining signs they discovered. There's also a location where a county park and an open space (part of the same public open space district) are next to each other, and have the same name. It's hard to tell where one ends and the other begins without looking at a current map. Fortunately, both the county park system and the open space district have geocaching policies that permit geocaches, but the details of the policies vary a bit. It's conceivable (albeit unlikely) that someone might comply with the guidelines for the wrong part of the park/open space, and not comply with the part where the geocache is actually located.
  12. Yes. A few years back I was wandering around in a section of what I thought was national park (based on the National Park sign at the entrance and all the maps that showed it as such, including the park's own map), when I was accosted by a woman with several large baying dogs in her car who accused me of tresspassing on her land. I said I thought I was in the national park and asked her where her property boundary was and she pointed to a nearby bridge on the service road and said "the other side of that", which was different to her original claim. I told her I hadn't crossed the bridge and didn't intend doing so, and that was enough for her to leave me alone and not set her dogs onto me, but afterwards I visited the national park's office and was told her property boundary was actually another kilometre or so along that road. In the end I didn't proceed with the cache as I didn't want others to go through the same thing I did. It's certainly not unheard of for people to claim public land as their own even when it isn't and the public have every right to be there. Also sometimes public land gets sold off to private parties (our local council, needing to boost their coffers, have been doing a lot of that lately). I had a cache that was along a public road corridor that had been preserved for a road that had never been built. At the time, all the zoning maps showed it as public land and it was actually a popular walking track, but then a "Private Property Keep Out" sign appeared at one end and land sale signs at the other. In all likelihood, the council decided that, since the road was never going to be built, they'd sell the corridor to the adjoining landholders, so I archived and removed the cache while I still could. I don't know what it's like in the USA, but here in Australia it can be difficult at times to determine whether undeveloped bushland is public or private. The green areas on various online maps, which are supposed to indicate public land, are sometimes wrong, for example this area that's shown in darker green (parkland) as opposed to the lighter green for the adjoining national park to the south and grey for private land. The map even shows a walking track through there to the road on the northern side: In fact most of it is private land, which I only discovered when I came across a real estate advertisement offering it for sale. There are no fences, signs or anything on the trail to indicate where the national park ends and the private land starts, it's just that if you happen to walk past that line on the map (or worse, put a cache in there), you're trespassing.
  13. The original coordinates on that picture are certainly a long way from the others, that are all with ten metres of each other. Only been one DNF in 5 years since it was moved closer to the finders suggestions.
  14. And to echo the point - the container does not belong to geocaching.com. The container belongs to the owner. It would be, technically, illegal for the listing service to claim they own the item. At best they are a middleman between the property owner and the container owner. Given the state of the hobby, it would be just as wrong to assume that a random individual contacting the website about a container and ranting and raving about it being on private property actually IS the property owner, and not someone with a personal vendetta against the container owner. Thus, the process for adequately proving you are the property owner. If there is enough drama, then of course all it takes is an archival of the listing, but that will not stop people from potentially doing what the property owner doesn't want them to do. That is not the realm of the website. That is the realm of the container owner who - assuming everything is accurate - trespassed in the first place. But as mentioned, it's been there over 20 years and an issue has just been raised. Sometimes properties change hands. Sometimes permissions are forgotten. Sometimes decisions change. The most effective way for a property owner to take the first step is to understand what geocaching is, first, and then if still desired, contact admin at geocaching.com and/or the owner of the listing, and respectfully demonstrate legal ownership of the property and the request that the listing be removed. Beyond that, business of physical items on property and access to property is entirely between the property owner and the container owner.
  15. There was an instance a few years back with a cache placed in a remote gully where GPS reception is less than ideal. The CO realised that when he placed the cache, particularly with the old GPSr he was using at the time (the yellow brick), and provided a helper photo on the cache page. The trouble was people weren't looking at the description before leaving home, after all it was a tradional so why would anyone do that, and with no phone reception anywhere near GZ, they ended up logging DNFs. Amongst all that, various finders posted what they thought were the "correct" coordinates, but there was almost as much spread in those as the error they were seeking to correct: Things came to a head at around the time of a nearby mega in 2018, with lots of people out caching in the area and not reading the description beforehand, resulting in someone logging an NA. Eventually the CO updated the coordinates but whether they're that much closer to where the cache really is will always be a matter of contention. Pick any one of those suggested coordinates, or even their average, and someone else will reckon it's 10 or 15 metres off. The helper photo really is needed on that cache regardless, as the cache is well hidden in an area with lots of potential hiding places. When I found it in 2014, the original coordinates got me close enough that I was soon able to spot the feature in the helper photo and easily got the cache. Yes, ideally the CO should be across reports of inaccurate coordinates and, when needed, recheck them and log an Update Coordinates, but sometimes you just have to do your homework beforehand and read through the description and log history. I'd rather a cache like that with coordinates that are 20 metres off than no cache there at all.
  16. Yesterday
  17. figured that was the way, My error in not checking, I thought there was a NM /NA log already entered. There is now,
  18. Correcting the coordinates is part of a cache owner's maintenance responsibilities. It's not my job to fix them for the owner, unless the correction is more than 528 feet. In this case, the needed correction is more like 100 feet, which the CO can do themselves using an "Update Coordinates" log. If the community is truly bothered by the discrepancy, someone can log "Needs Owner Attention" / "Needs Maintenance" in an effort to attract the CO's attention. No one has done that yet. If that log does not produce the desired result, someone can log "Needs Reviewer Attention" / "Needs Archived" and the local Community Volunteer Reviewer (me, in this case) can decide whether to disable the cache page under the "Cache Maintenance" section of the Geocache Hiding Guidelines. Or, people can continue to reference the better coordinates provided in prior logs.
  19. How far out are the coords? It isn't an old cache - has a NM been posted? Sometimes a NM/NA will wake up a sleepy CO....
  20. When is Geocaching.com going to fix ALL the MULTIPLE issues of using their site on Safari. It has been happening for over a year.
  21. The items collapse (go away) when the screen width can't fit everything. Can you make your browser window wider?
  22. Thank you. I tried that but it didn't work. Have you any other ideas? I always start on the map.
  23. Is there way to get coordinates updated from what is posted to what is correct for a cache the owner is apparently no longer active. This CO found nine caches and hid two under the name provided, and has not been active on the message board for a while. I just checked, not a long ago as I thought, just over one year. I know he has been contacted about correcting the coordinates on the cache page directly and via logs. Just wondering if a reviewer can change them or is that strictly up to their CO. The cache referred to is GC9Q8Q4. The correct coords are in various logs so they can be seen by searchers.
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...