Starglider

30 Euros are currently about 39 USD. That is a difference of 30%. VAT in Germany is 19% max, depending on the type of product. And there wasn't even an e-mail from Groundspeak announcing the new price. I had to find this thread by accident as it was mentioned in a different forum. Well, then good bye Premium Membership. I am not going to renew it when it will be due next month.

The "it's all about the numbers" kind of geocacher will log the find on a different date, no doubt. There is no way to keep these people from visiting a cache. Even if you remove the logbook some will bring their own film can and still log a find. If you remove stages of a multicache some will know ways to get the missing information. But in case of places that are illegal to visit at certain times of the year you can at least prevent the online logs that encourage other geocachers to do the same things and that show the whole world where and when geocachers break the law.

Not everyone logs finds immediately with a smartphone in the field. You are assuming that this kind of lock would make it impossible to log finds for dates before the cache was disabled.

I support this suggestion. But why should a cache owner need to lock a disabled cache? Why the extra step? When i disable a cache it is for a good reason so I don't see why a cache should be disabled but not locked for find logs. I would find it more logical if it was always impossible to log a disabled cache as found. This would be easier to implement since it would not require a "lock this disabled chace for finds"-Button.

Das gilt im deutschen Rechtssystem nur eingeschränkt.

So maybe we should rather refer to it as "line spacing"? On my screen it looks as if there are lots of extra empty lines on the new pages that blow up the page size. Not on yours? (running Firefox 3.5.7)

There is far too much whitespace It does not look nice and I have to use the scrollwheel a lot now to pan around on the pages.

The PQ I built 1.5 hours ago has now been processed. Thanks a lot!

I created a PQ today several hours ago and it was not processed yet. I tried deleting it and creating a new one but that didn't help but a "my finds"-query that I ordered at the same time was sent to me. Update: I just noticed there must have been an error in the filter criteria so I had to rebuild the query. Maybe the PQ server just wanted to save me from getting a PQ with just 5 caches? Let's see how long it takes until the new one gets processed.

I couldn't agree more.

Although I see your points, how often does it really happen that a parking waypoint is that far from a cache location?

If a cache listing has an additional waypoint of type "Parking Area" doesn't that mean that parking is available at this cache? I wonder why the website doesn't automatically set the "Parking Available" attribute when a parking waypoint is added. That would be one thing less that a cache owner can forget to do. One could even go a step further and set this attribute only if there is at least one waypoint added for parking. So it would be completely autmatic and maybe encourage some of the cache owners to add parking waypoints instead of only mentioning them in the cache descriptions.

Owner notifications for changes of log contents and for picture uploads would really be great. Even if that means that I would get some E-Mails if people eliminate typos. It could be worse, like people completely changing the contents of their logs or load up spoiler pictures without any kind of notification.

Many events do have a limited number of attendants due to limited space or other resources, i.e. events on board of a ship. It is this kind of event where the head count is critical and it is this kind of event where people usually do log "will attend".

So that'is bascially restiricted to 10% because there is a lack of trust in the users of the scheme. Misuse would be an issue if the recommendations were anonymous. While there may be good reasons for anonymity in a scheme where you can "bash" a cache with a "poor" rating I don't see why positive recommendations should be anonymous.

A rating or ranking system should be something that helps people to find the caches that they personally like. I know GCVote and use it. It is good to quickly identify two types of geocaches: Those where almost everybody would agree that they are poor and those where most people would at least agree that they are extraordinary. One could say it is good to find the pearls and avoid the crap. But the vast majority of geocaches on GCVote end up with an average rating of 3 stars (meaning "average"). While this is generally a fair overall rating for these caches it is not helpful. If you read enough logs you'll notice that it is always the same things that people like about cache hunts: Beautiful or at least special locations and sceneries, clever camouflages, cool gadgets, stories told, physical or intellectual challenges, some kind of thrill, learning something new while caching and last but not least quick finds. It's just not everybody likes all of the above. I love great views and special locations but physical challenges like climbing are not my cup of tea. Among the many caches that are "average" there are lots of caches that are quite good in one or two of the categories mentioned above. A good recommendation system would tell me which caches are probably more to my taste than others instead of a ranking system with just an overall rating that may be fair but in most cases useless. You would still be able to find the pearls because they would get many recommendations in several categories. A cache that gets no recommendations at all (not even for a "quick find") is probably really poor (or very new). But getting no recommendations for their caches would not frustrate or offend cache owners as much as when people say that their caches are poor.

As the word indicates spoilers spoil the fun for both the cache owner and most of the people searching the cache. It is part of the experience to be surprised or to get over some difficulties while hunting a cache. The cache owner has put thought in what information he gives away in the cache listing in order to create a certain caching experience (if it is a cache worth mentioning). Spoilers change that experience for everybody who happens to read them. Example: "I was surprised when I found this cave and the very cool skull decoration at the final location. And boy that sound that came out the box when I openend it scared the sh*** out of me. I hope you guys will have as much fun as I had when I went for this cache " (Fotos of the cave attached) Btw. I have never heard anybody referring to the geocaching guidelines when talking about spoilers and why they should be avoided. However, could this disclaimer not also be interpreted to mean, "when you log this cache, you may include spoilers in your descriptions or links"? I interpret that as "there may be logs containing spoilers that have not yet been deleted" since the cache owner can't see the logs before they are published.

A very good idea!

I actually think that caches on the Ignorelist shouldn't be displayed on the Geocaching map by default. I like to use the map to plan my caching trips and it is quite annoying that the ignored caches are still visible there. That makes the ignore list pretty useless.

Is it a bug or a feature that on the cache pages the lock icon is used for "archive listing" and the trash can icon is used for "disable listing"? That looks quite wrong to me. Archiving a listing is a pretty permanent thing (I can't undo it on my own) so I would expect the trash can to be the right icon for that since things I put in there are usually gone. Temporarily disabling a listing is like locking out visitors for some days so I would expect the lock icon there. But it probably has been like that for years now and I just never noticed.

I honestly couldn't care less about ALRs like "take a picture of yourself [insert any stupid task here] and post it in your log". But there is another type of logging requirements that demand people not to do certain things in order to protect the cache or to avoid trouble. For example not to post spoilers in logs or not to not search a cache at night since that could annoy or frighten the locals. The only means of a cache owner to discourage people from doing these things is his ability to delete logs. If this new guideline means that cache owners are not allowed to delete online logs any more regardless of their contents as long as there is a log in the paper logbook it means they are without defense against people who find it fun to use logs to spoil the game. As a cache owner you have the right to spend time and money placing a cache, you have the duty to maintain it - and that's it? All power to the cache finders? Is that how Groundspeak wants it to be?

Google maps not working here either, using IE8.

I don't want this link in my profile because it looks like begging to me too. Either move it to a less prominent place or provide means to opt out.

I just tried it with the new player version 2.0.4907.4007 and that shows the cartridge files correctly now.

Very true. Reviewing cartridges would require to view all images and videos and even listen to all audio material used and to have a look at the source code. That would require a number of highly qualified reviewers spending a lot of time. And they still might miss some easter eggs. I believe the most realistic solution is to provide an easy method to report cartridges with inappropriate content. Of course you would still need people to check these reports. At some point in the future when Wherigo got really, really big there might be so many complaints that Groundspeak will need to recruit volunteers. Any bets on when that might be?