Zor

Does anyone know the GC code of the very first official MEGA event? I'm trying to do a bit of history on the subject and can't find much on the first mega.

Does anyone here know if a change was made recently that disabled the sending of emails when you now authorize GSP via the API? The website I run uses a GC login plugin that leverages the API. Everytime a user logs in, it would present the "authorize" screen from GSP's API, and then send them an email if they clicked allow. It seems these emails are no longer sent. I'm just wondering if this was intentional or by accident. I actually prefer not to get the email but am just wondering if it should be doing that.

Instead of GSAK 101 doing Geocaching Software 101 and include GSAK as one of the topics. I think that makes it less commercial.

This was exactly how I approached my first WiG cartridge. I wanted something that wasn't just a tour or walk through, but something that had a taste of those exact elements. I ended up combing The X-Files and LOST to create an adventure where someone had to solve a mystery around one of our local lakes. Takes almost 2 hours to complete the whole thing but man was it satisfying to make. I really wish more of those kinds of WiG's were out there.

Did anyone ever get an answer on this? Do we know if the project is dead or just in limbo at the moment?

I actually do this kind of event every year. This is the 5th year I have done it. LOTS of fun and lots to do. Check it out. http://monctonsraceforcache.com

I would tend to agree. In my area, there are some good spots where caches have been hidden but the owners are long gone so it's just the finders who end up doing the maintenance. The locals have gotten into the habit that if an owner is gone, log the cache as NA and then replace it with a new one from a cacher who will actually take care of it.

For starters, a lot of people are griping at GSP about this change and seem to think that the switch in maps is supposed to be an "improvement". It's not. It's simply GSP's business reaction to the change in licensing the map data from Google. The one thing that I have not seen anyone here mention is that they could have opted to remove the maps completely. I suspect the reaction here would be far worse if they had removed all of the maps from geocaching.com. But instead, they opted to at least give you something until they come up with a better way to make this work for all involved. Would you have rather had no maps until they figured something out or at least something in the interim? I would bet that the folks at GSP knew all along that the moment they switched to OSM, there would be a huge backlash from the users because of the lack of detail. But there choices were limited in how they would proceed. Remove the maps entirely? Nope, too much flack. Give them OSM maps? Better than nothing but will not be as good as Google and we'll still get lots of flack but it's beyond our control. Charge more money for use of Google Maps? People would gripe that their membership fees shouldn't be going up. No matter how you do this, people were going to gripe anyway. I would much rather have at least something for a map instead of nothing while GSP works out the kinks on how best to serve it's client base. I don't hold anything against them for this change because I see it as merely the first step. This was going to happen one way or another (because of Google's changes) and now that it has happened, it's time to figure out what the best options in moving forward are. Not sit around and bash a company for making changes that were beyond their control.

As always, thanks for the hard work. Can't wait to see what comes next.

To be perfectly blunt, it's about time. Events have always been about getting geocachers together, but the one thing that cachers like to do the most is go caching, but yet we haven't been able to have an event to do just that. I've always sort of understood the half logic used by GSP to have their non organized hunt rule, but for many situations, the rule didn't make sense. Plus, there were plenty of other organized hints where the event was very obviously for the hunt, but still allowed for some reason. I know for myself, I am anxious to see how this turns out as it would directly apply to an event that I host every year that I have to do a work around in order to get it listed. It will be nice to see if I can actually have my race event (here for specifics) listed as an event vs a BBQ at the end of the actual event. Please post updates on how this goes.

Has anyone else had issues trying to load the 3.2 topo to a Garmin 60cs? I had the Ibycus topo's on my Legend HCx and never had an issue but when I loaded them on to a friends 60cs tonite, the map screen was completely empty. Any ideas?

I like to believe it's probably more complicated than that. You are probably right. I was kinda hoping a Reviewer might chime in and offer their thoughts, as regards the current text of the guidelines, on two completely unrelated events, on the same day, in the same geographic area. Because I am not a Reviewer, I have no clue what goes on behind the scenes. All I can see is the guidelines we are asked to follow, and the OP's example, which, on its face, appears to follow those guidelines. I'm seeing four possible reasons for this, in order of likelihood: The OP is either fibbing, exaggerating or misunderstanding the incident. There are new guidelines which have not been published yet, which the Reviewers have been asked to enforce. I'm a complete dunderhead, and utterly failed at comprehending the guidelines I read A Reviewer is pushing his own private agenda, inventing guidelines to force the game to match his biased aesthetics. At this point, only a Reviewer can provide an answer. The original situation that came up was this: Two cachers listed two events on the same day. One was for a wing night and one was for a bonfire. The bonfire was being held later in the evening at a different location and the wing night was being held at a local pub. At some point after the two events were published, the pub went out of business so instead of simply having the reviewer change the coordinates to a new venue (which would likely have avoided the situation and been the better thing to do), the cache owner archived his listing, and listed a new one. A different reviewer came in and denied the new listing claiming that him and the other cacher were "event stacking". It took a good week of back and forth between the event owner, the reviewer, and the other cacher who had the bonfire event listed, before the reviewer finally allowed the pub event to be listed again. In this case, the cachers fought and won their case but it definitely made us locals wonder what was going on since we'd never even heard of that term before. Since then, the same reviewer has also denied other events claiming the same thing. This is how I ended up starting this thread.

Yup, in fact one of them was in the exact same location as GW9 and only an hour after the official mega had finished. They had different names and were "different" in their own ways but were in the exact same spot and anyone who was left over from the mega would have gone to it. So how is that allowed yet multiple different events spread out throughout the whole day is considered stacking?

One thing I'd like to point out, saying you can't get 60 caches in a day without cheating is a FAR off statement. I've done 158 in a day with three other people with me and we all signed each log (no splitting up to log finds). Did 44 on foot by myself on a trail and could have easily have snagged another 30 had I wanted to. The amount in a day should not dictate whether they are cheating or not. And your analogy with the professional teams is an interesting one. The biggest thing with cheating in those leagues is that those are professional sports, and money is involved for the teams, players, managers, owners, etc. The scale is FAR larger than with geocaching. Realistically, there is no "score" with geocaching and having a high find count does not gain you anything other than being able to "say" you've found all those caches. Me having a higher find count does not make me "better" than someone else but I do know people who view it that way. At first I cared about people who didn't sign my logs but now, it is rare that I delete a log because I know they didn't sign it. I have way too little time as it is to police how others play the game. If they want to delude themselves by claiming to have found caches when they really didn't, that's up to them. I should not let how others play the game affect how I enjoy the sport. The only exception I would make is if someone logged a find on a cache that I know I had spent a CONSIDERABLE amount of time working on and they just claimed it without doing it and signing the log. In those RARE cases (hasn't happened yet), I'd consider checking the physical log sheet and then deleting the log if their name was missing.

A recent discussion on one of our local association forums came up on what seems to have changed (for our area anyway) with regards to how reviewers are now perceiving event caches. A lot of our local cachers have been having a terrible time trying to get events listed. In more than one instance, we've been denied event listings claiming that we were "event stacking". Yes, the events were on the same day but were completely different events (a wing nite, and a bonfire) by two completely different cachers at two completely different locations. The first event was published fine but when the second event went into the queue, it was denied because we were "stacking" events. Yet weeks before, we had a lunch, CITO, Flash Mob, and dinner event all on the same day and there was no issue with that. Does there not need to be some consistency? We also saw a change in how events can be named. We have a monthly breakfast event and apparently now, we can't include a single word from the name of the restaurant we go to in the name, yet we've been doing that now for almost 3 years. Can someone explain to me how after doing something for 3 years it's now considered against the rules? I don't see that listed in the event guidelines. I know it says that publishing of a previous cache does not set precedence, but it's kind of hard to have that in there when month after month, year after year, things are published fine, and then without notice it seems, somehow it's different. Lastly, we have other events which are now being denied because they were considered organized hunts. Folks getting together to have a chat, food, and then go hiking after the event. This is considered an organized hunt? I'm also a bit confused about how an event cache can't be listed to have geocachers come together to go caching. I would think that we'd WANT to get folks together. Regardless, has anyone else experienced issues in getting events listed?

Does anyone know where "bugs" are for geocaching.com should be reported? I think I found one in the "Find Another Player" option but am unsure as to where to report it. Any help is appreciated.

I've been using PQ's and CaaR for a few years now and I typically trust the results I get. But I have been planning my route for driving to GW9 this year and I want to maximize the caches that are available near the route I am taking. I worked out my route from Moncton, NB, Canada to Warren, PA and created 6 CaaR PQ's to give me the caches I want. Each PQ is restricted to 2KM of either side of the road with a maximum of 1000 caches. I generated all of my PQ's, loaded them into GSAK, and then exported them as a single GPX to look at in Google Earth. When I compare the geocaches from my GPX file, to the geocaches shown by GSP's Google Earth Plugin, I notice that there are small gaps in areas that don't make much sense. For example, in my route, it has GC2F8KN & GC2F8M3 in my PQ, but GC2F8KY is not in the PQ. I also noticed that GCRMFX is also missing. I have tried various variations on the either side of the road distance but it does not seem to include these caches. In fact, I actually see other caches that are farther from the route that do get included, which makes it even more confusing. The only filters I have are caches I have not found or do not own. I don't own those caches nor have I found them before. I also have puzzles and multi's filtered out and neither of those caches that are missing are non-traditionals. This gives me a bit of a concern as I want to try and make sure that I have ALL of the caches that are closest to my route so I can optimize my ability to snag caches while enroute. Does anyone else have any suggestions on how this could be corrected? Do you have a better way to collect the caches for a big trip like this? Any suggestions are helpful.

I have a Chirp cache which is a little different (GC2MWBC). It's actually a 3 part multi but because it requires Chirp, it's listed as a puzzle. The seed coordinates bring you to the Chirp which brings you to another site where you need to use a Wifi detector or Wifi compatible device that then gives you coords to the final. Seems to have gone over well.

Well as I expected, I got some good answers, good feedback, and a couple folks who are clueless about what I am talking about. Thanks to everyone, sincerely. Interestingly enough, Keelmann And Cici made an interesting point about being a newbie and just not knowing any better. The logs that came in that got me to post this thread actually came from a newbie cacher who I ultimately sent an email to, welcoming them to the game, giving them some useful links for caching sites in our area, and also gave them a heads up on the shortlog hate which is prominent in our area. This area has a very active caching community and it's unfortunate that yes, the mobile phone usage has increased and thusly short logs are becoming more common. I find it incredibly disrespectful to just TFTC for a cache, but most of you are right in that there really isn't much I can do about it. If I thought that deleting someone's logs would actually change the situation, I might consider it. But the reality is that if I did it for one, I'd have to be doing it all the time. I suppose it really isn't worth it because in the end, at least they did go out and find the cache right? It just "bugs" me that I'll get 20+ logs from part of a series of caches and all of the logs are nothing but "TFTC". Very unfortunate. I can at least take a bit of solace in knowing that I do get some pretty lengthy logs on other caches. Good with the bad right? Oh, and thank you for the kind words on my caches Mr.Yuck! Much appreciated.

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=204 This contains what I believe to be the "rules" on logging and it doesn't actually say anything in there about not being able to delete someone's log because you don't like the content. All it says is that you should use your powers carefully. I think if the cache listing is technically "owned" by the cache owner, then should I not be able to delete a log if I see it is not within what I want to have in my listing? I'm just throwing it out there for feedback

For a series of 100 caches, I never expect personal messages for each cache. However, something like "Went out and did you series and had a great time with some fellow cachers. TFTC" and then copy and paste that log for the whole series is fine. I'm not talking about having to have EVERY log be some long story for each cache. I'm talking about at least having the courtesy to say something more than TFTC or

I've been caching for a little more than 3 years, and have hidden just under a total of 210 caches. I have a very large series of 100 caches near my hometown, as well as many other series of caches on trails and parks. I have spent a lot of time hiding as a means of giving back to the geocaching community for what it has given to me. In my area, and perhaps others as well, newer cachers have taken it upon themselves to log every find they get with only TFTC or a smiley. That's it. No thank you's (real thank you's), no stories, not even so much as a copy and paste log (which would be fine if it had some content). Many of the folks from my region are becoming increasingly frustrated by the fact that these cachers are not sharing ANYTHING about their find in their log. Now, I have been known to TFTC once in awhile, and on big cache runs, sure I do copy and paste logs, but I always try to include at least something meaningful like "Spent the day out with some friends caching and snagged this one. Thanks". Even that is far better than just a TFTC or . The question I have is whether or not, as a cache owner, I have the right to delete logs from my caches if I am not happy with the "short log". Yes, the finder found the cache and did sign the log, so I know that they are supposedly entitled to log the cache online. But as the owner of the cache, do I not get a say in whether or not those types of logs are acceptable? I have RARELY ever deleted logs in the past, but with a series of a 100 caches, and getting 100 logs with nothing more than , I find it to show complete and utter disrespect for the time and effort I took to hide all those caches. The least a person could do is log it with something more than 2 characters. If I go out and delete these short logs, am I violating any of the terms on geocaching.com? Just looking for some feedback.

So I read your original post and have read a bunch of the replies and admittedly, I see how this could be such a volatile subject. Here's my take on geocaching.com. I'll admit that for myself, I find the site pretty easy to move around in but I've also been caching for 3.5 years and have gotten used to how things work. There are however things I stumble upon now and then that I never knew were there. It would be nice if things weren't so spread out as much. Profiles are profiles are profiles. I think of my profile account when I click on my name as more of a "history" than a profile. It's not a profile, it's my caching history, and a launchpad into other things that are specific to me. It's not a place to show off who I am. My "profile" page is the actual page people see. To me, I see them as totally different entities, not the same thing repeated twice. It would be nice if things could be consolidated a bit more in a dashboard type of interface, but I have seen far worse. Social networking... there are SOME aspects to social networking that I think have merit, but the problem is that people get worried about privacy and keeping their real and geocaching lives separate. I think the idea that you could have the option to integrate certain things, but with that integration turned off by default, and available for those who want to use it, is a great idea. I used to use the Twitter feature to post my occasional finds (can't do it anymore since field notes no longer work on the iPhone app). That being said, I think something like the Geocaching LIVE idea is very cool. Where I'm from, we have a local news/information site that runs a live Twitter feed that local cachers can push to whenever they want. We use it as a means to liveblog various geocaching events and hikes the locals are doing. Anyone with a cell phone can post an update, and for smartphone users, they can upload photos and share them instantly with other folks who are on the site. Folks who can't make the event or group hike can follow the activity live via the Twitter feed/liveblog. We have had a LOT of positive feedback on that sort of thing. Folks like the idea that if they want to, they can see pictures and notes from folks who are actually out in the field right now. That kind of "social networking" would be very cool to see on geocaching.com. I believe this is what live.geocaching.com was supposed to be. The search page for caches, I actually agree with you. I despise that page. I use the address box to search by city once in awhile, but I ALWAYS end up opening up the first listing, scrolling down to the map, opening up the full page map, and then build a PQ from there. I personally would love to see that page overhauled. Yes, it has lots of options, but it could use some updating. I don't have any suggestions I'm just giving my opinion. I can understand how some people would view the official site's layout as somewhat old schoolish, but I also don't think we're looking at a geocities website either. There is always room for improvement. I mean hey, they finally got the forums replaced, and although I can't stand the look of them now, I do find they work better. You need to take it step at a time. Inch by inch, life is a cinch. Yard by yard life is very very hard.

In my area, there is a husband and wife who are avid geocachers and enjoy the sport thoroughly (and have been caching for 6 or 7 years now I believe). They have hidden more than 75 "micro logic puzzle" caches. These are all puzzles which require you to solve a logic problem. They love creating these puzzles and caches. Every single one of the caches is a 35mm micro cache that is placed in an uninteresting place and it is done this way on purpose. All of the folks in my area that enjoy puzzles love these caches and continue to wait for more to come out. They have said countless times that they don't want to "take away" from really good locations with puzzle caches because they know they don't get found as often as traditionals. Since only a small percentage of people actually like puzzle caches, they cater their micro logic series to them and make sure that the "puzzle solving" is the biggest part of the experience. For those who enjoy these types of puzzles, they have a lot of praise for my two caching friends. I personally can't stand puzzle caches of any kind, but MANY of the folks in my area love them and love the micro logic series. So to say that it is lame to put a micro as the final for a puzzle is purely your opinion and not the opinion of everyone out there. That's my opinion.

Not available to ship to Canada