rapotek

To improve geocaching quality, both finding and hiding, I can suggest the following. It is not my idea, but a slightly improved solution existing in an alternate system. Maybe similar one exists somewhere here but I did not find it. Introduce a list (optionally with approximate locations on map) of local volunteer geocaching guides, i.e. geocachers who wants to help newbies to know geocaching better or even show the activity to someone who think about entering into it. A geocaching guide should meet some requirements, f.ex. being active seeker/hider, having a substantial amount of finds with different D/T ratings, having highly rated, well maintained caches etc. An interested geocacher can contact one of the nearest guides, ask her/him about something or arrange an outdoor meeting to learn what to do and what to do not on real examples, and finally leave a "mark" in the system telling how helpful this guide has been.

Żaden guru jakoś się nie kwapi z odpowiedzią, więc ja spróbuję ? Ostatnio na forum jest nawet dość świeży wątek na ten temat. Ogólnie podejście do tematu jest takie, że właściciel ma prawo skasować log, w którym spoilery są umieszczone bez jego zgody, ale "w dobrym tonie" jest najpierw spróbować skontaktować się z twórcą wpisu i nakłonić go, aby samodzielnie ten wpis zmienił.

Well... I read it as you were saying that you could solve each mystery in your area if you wanted to. I agree with asking a Reviewer, as I wrote before. I agree with trying to find by myself coordinates of every cache which could have physical waypoints in given area, too (can be difficult with multicaches having no distance limit). But definitive answers like "go and find by yourself" can discourage a cacher not interested in mysteries etc. from placing any cache.

You know, I envy you this attitude: "if I wanted, I'd do" even the most difficult mysteries. There are some mysteries in my area I am not able to solve for years... Of course one can get the final coordinates from other finders. It is somewhat unsporting if used for purpose of cache find only, but in some circumstances it is allowable in my opinion. One of the local cachers wanted to place a cache too close my mystery final. When warned about it by a reviewer, she got my final coordinates from its previous founders and asked me if I could move it some distance in given direction. Well, I couldn't find another place nearby fitting the cache size, so she had to find another place for her cache. Later she found my mystery out of curiosity, but it seems she is not interested in solving by herself more difficult mysteries. I agree, in case of PMO mysteries, multicaches or other "not direct" types this can be a big problem for basic members. In case of PMO traditionals there are ways to approximate physical waypoint coordinates.

You can ask your reviewer if a particular localization is "free" before placing a physical cache there. My reviewer not only answers in reasonable time, but when I start a cache listing in this localization soon after his response, he "reserves" the localization for the cache for a month giving time to publish it.

So everyone has to stop requiring any improvements or bug fixes, then? These are release notes and users here give feedback how do they perceive the changes and new functionalities, not how to bypass them, am I wrong?

It is a workaround. The solution would be if the sources passed from server to browser were functional enough without any additional add-ons. Maybe GS should add a disclaimer saying for example: "To have the page fully functional you will have following add-ons installed:...", then it could be treated as a solution ?

There is a multi nearby where I cannot find its first stage although it should be on coords. The GPS conditions here are difficult, it throws me over 15 meters around while physically standing in one place and there is no clue for the first stage, so it is unknown for me what size it is and where to search for it. But it is D4.5, so I just have to keep trying

So it is how I suspected. It is funny for me someone call this list "leaflet" options. The same list can be organized and available in openlayers, google maps api and some more libraries I think.

What are the "Leaflet" options? I looks like leaflet is used in both search and browse maps, but as it was written above, leaflet is only a JS library to draw maps, icons and other elements and to interact with them. What can be seen as a background map for caches are "tiles", sourced from OpenStreetMap or Google Maps or something else. The Browse Map gives a wider choice of sources only.

The link itself is still functional, the "click" on the link is not (and was not then), because it is blocked by the page itself by browser script. Just choose "Open the link in the next tab/window" from the link context menu or copy&paste the link address, enter and you are in.

I admit I do not understand. What do you mean? If available, I always use puzzle checker, the one provided by Groundspeak or third party ones, to verify if my calculations are correct. Even when I know the method and have the right data to start with, there always can be a stupid mistake leading to coordinates far from the cache final. As for the topic itself, I am only a basic member but I do not like the new map 'priorities', too. Mostly because searching is so limited for me that I do not use it at all, browsing I do very often. If this step was meant to engage more beginners in the game until they become premium members, I doubt it is the right choice.

If time is not needed, why to log a date at all? The single fact of 'Found it' or DNF etc. should be enough whenever it was logged, shouldn't it? ? It is only a matter of scale. I geocache sometimes in an alternate system where hours and minutes are sent along with a date of log. I always try to submit the correct time, most often rounded to 5 minutes, and I suspect that I am in minority in that. But there are entries from other users with more or less correct times and they helped me a few times.

Mine sometimes too, not weeks but days after. But I try to note down an exact or approximate time of found or DNF for my own information. Anyway I have faced the situation not once where there are a 'Found it' and a few DNFs logged with the same date. A cache was found earlier but the fact was logged later than DNFs, so the last entry is 'Found it' instead of DNF and it is not correct information for next seekers. The more detailed timing could help in keeping the right chronology.

The most uniform format would be Year/Month/Day then. With four digits in year to be more specific. What I miss sometimes is a time of cache logging (hours and minutes) apart from the date itself, but I do not expect to see this functionality soon.

There is even more to it: non-premium members see on 'Recently Viewed Caches' list a 'Log It' link with 'https://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?ID=<cache_id>' address. Whereas on the page itself the link is blocked locally, the same address opened in browser's separate tab or window works without restrictions. All it takes is to choose 'Open link in a new card/window' from the link context menu.

Yes. I forgot about it. In More functions -> Geocaching tools. It is even easier to use, you do not have to enter coordinates manually.

I do not know how this tax map works, but there is a tool in Poland looking similar: http://mapy.geoportal.gov.pl/imap/ There you can find borders of land lot with its number. There exists web pages where you using land lot you can find land and mortgage register number with land owners but you have to pay for it. Official way to obtain documents needs to prove legitimate interest, at least it was so few years ago. And there is no guarantee the property owner contact data is up to date. Anyway there was a forest road not far from me a few years ago. It was a kind of 300 metres shortcut between two other roads but frequently used. It turned out that it was in the middle of private property parcelled out from public forest long ago and suddenly there appeared a fence crossing the road. Now there is a house where the road had begun. There was no cache there but if there was any, placed on basis of policy used for public country forests, it would be lost now.

You can install some compass application to measure current degrees, if your phone has a compass device available, but I prefer to use GCC application with its Coordinates -> Projection tool. There I enter the source coordinates, desired distance and bearing and in result I receive target coordinates. I suppose there are more applications having even better tools available.

Sometimes, especially when it is not clear if the property is public or private, even digging up information about who is the property owner can take time and money not to mention contacting with the owner and get permission. It may be safer to stick to areas having geocaching policies or general permissions announced by local reviewers for example.

I totally agree with 'N days ago' switch to exact date and vice versa but there should be included (or clearly unified) a time zone too. If not, there is a possibility to see on the list a valid log entry with tomorrow's date.

In my opinion almost the whole Australian continent is a 'dangerous area' but that is a minor thing I should be more specific here. If simple entrance into area can be dangerous whatever purpose you are there - looking for a particular cache or only passing without any geocaching on mind - it is a dangerous area, a deep swamp for example. If you can relatively safely pass area, even close to the cache, but without looking for it - it is not a dangerous area (and as I wrote before, area is wider than single tree for me). I agree, of course, one can see something dangerous where someone else does not, it is subjective view and always be. But going back to the tree example I put before - if I made a cache like this and add 'dangerous area' attribute, because I consider it dangerous, I am almost sure there would be questions 'what is so dangerous here, it is such a quiet neighborhood?' or something like that.

That is why I wrote my understanding of area is different. A single standing tree is not area for me, it may stand within area. I know it may only be a semantic difference but if I ask some people not involved in geocaching the answer would be the same. A 'dangerous location' or even 'dangerous place' would be more meaningful in this case.

It is possible that I understand dangerous area differently. For example: there is a forest with roads quite often traveled by walkers, runners, bikers etc. I can hardly name it a dangerous area, in daylight especially. And there is a cache near the road, placed on a tree at about 5 meters. It does not need special equipment because thick branches are available from the cache to ground level almost. But it is a dangerous cache for me because the risk of falling from the cache height is not marginal and it may end badly. Yes, there are many attributes covering dangers but there is no common attribute which will warn on the first sight: this cache hunting can be harmful if you are not well prepared, look closely at another attributes and cache description to know more. I someone tries to avoid any kind of potentially harmful actions, one look will be enough to ignore the cache.

Difficulty/Terrain too much depends on a cache owner estimation, it is too ambiguous in my opinion. But there are more attributes to choose from, although the icons do not suggest so. There is a 'Difficult climbing' attribute, it can be used with 'Tree climbing required' together to flag up the climbing requiring higher skills. Also, there is a 'Climbing gear required' attribute, with 'Tree climbing required' it can be used for really challenging trees. But I miss a kind of 'Dangerous cache' attribute. There is a 'Dangerous area' attribute but it is not the same, I suppose. I mean an attribute which says the cache is placed in such manner that getting to it without sufficient skills and equipment may lead to serious injuries or even death.