ecanderson
-
Posts
5638 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by ecanderson
-
-
On 2/19/2024 at 7:45 AM, icezebra11 said:
This MOB cache is one of my most memorable multi-cache finds. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC6TWAG
It had seven stages and four of them were MOB, including one that was in the middle of a lake (stage 6). Denali41 and I did this together and we had five devices between the two of us to get the MOB stages. While there were seven Found It logs on the cache, four of them were "beta testers" that never actually worked through every stage (including one of the team cache owners), they were only present when the final was placed.. Denali41 and I were the only two true finders.
Wish I'd been with you guys. That said, how is it that it didn't get archived due to Stage 5 issues?
Just realized I haven't seen a CEGT cache since 2017.
-
On 2/16/2024 at 3:03 PM, Keystone said:
You can figure out the answer by reading this page.
It is unnecessary to set up an account to solve puzzles there - unless you wish to log out and resume later for some reason - but leaving a browser tab open works fine, too.
Even after an account is set up, you can opt out of use of your data apart from what's necessary to fully use the site (as mentioned above, saving puzzle states, 'posting' puzzles for others to solve, etc.). I don't see anything there that would run afoul of privacy requirements.
-
On 3/5/2024 at 8:58 AM, CyberTrek23 said:
Yes I would like to know more about pocket queries as I am new to Geocaching.
A couple of places to start:
https://thegeocachingjunkie.com/2016/02/10/mind-your-ps-and-qs-a-how-to-guide-on-pocket-queries/
and
-
47 minutes ago, Keystone said:
I've received dozens of emails from Geocaching.com in this time period, so it is possible that the problem is on your end. Have you checked your spam folder? Who is your email provider?
If others are missing emails they expected to receive, please post details including the email provider (Gmail, etc.).
It's been a long time - asking users to investigate this with their providers usually requires that they supply the IP addresses of the mail server(s) that are sending the mail. Might be time to re-publish these here. I know several users contributed to this effort quite a long time back, but finding those messages, assuming that those IP addresses are even still current, would be a chore. If you folks can provide them, it's a lot easier than a bunch of us looking up IP addresses on incoming emails to find them all.
A few I've noted lately:
Email notifications re caches and left messages
63.251.163.224 (mail01.Groundspeak.com)
63.251.163.225 (mail02.Groundspeak.com)
63.251.163.228 (mail03.Groundspeak.com)
63.251.163.229
etc?
Newsletters
156.70.151.216 (sparkpostmail.com)
156.70.151.217 (sparkpostmail.com)
-
On 2/2/2024 at 2:12 PM, jadefalcon said:
Being a software Product Owner, I know that they have 100 other things in their backlog and only so many resources to apply to those issues.
Being a software 'Product Owner' (and lead developer), I would mention the concept of "regression testing", but it probably wouldn't mean anything to anyone at gc.com who reads these threads.
If you do NOT apply resource to that task before you let a new release into the wild, you'll still likely have to do the same amount of work to deal with your bug, but now you've managed to piss people off in the interim. So why not do the work up front instead of annoying people by doing it after the fact?
-
.png)
5
-
.png)
1
-
-
On 1/6/2024 at 11:35 AM, OneKindWord said:
Ever since the new logging format has been implemented, I have been unable to access my full trackable inventory when logging a cache from my desktop. When I click the "Trackable inventory" dropdown menu and then click "Show all", it brings up 1000 trackables, but I have 1982 in my inventory. No matter how many times I click on "Show all" it will not bring up the rest of my inventory as it did with the previous logging format (it used to pull up 1000 on the first click, and then the rest with a second click). So, if I want to visit or drop any of the 982 trackables that aren't shown, I don't think I have any way to do that. Any ideas for a fix on this?
Raffle off 982 of them at the next Wingin' It event?
See you there!
-
On 8/30/2023 at 2:41 PM, worrellsquirrel said:
Hello all,
We apologize for any delay with this fix. We are working to address several bugs with drafts that appeared in quick succession, some of which have been trickier to figure out than others. Your patience in the meantime is very much appreciated. Thank you.
Might have a regression there, Squirrel. Last week, I had the older logs showing up as others have mentioned.
Today, no old logs appeared, but the website code completely reversed the order of the content of the geocache_visits.txt file. The first one in the *.txt list was at the bottom of the online 'drafts' list, and the last in the list was at the top.
-
On 6/1/2023 at 8:31 AM, thebruce0 said:
someone nearby consistently uses UPB in logs and titles but won't confirm what it means...
Would not leave as much of a spoiler as "UPR" in a log, just my own find notes, (Unnatural Pile of Rocks), for example, but could the UP be the same for these caches, and "B" perhaps Bark or Branches? Ring any bells for those caches?
-
Still seeing the occasional *new* "paper on flat refrigerator style magnet" caches here, usually on transformers.
-
And Comcast doesn't provide a whitelisting feature that doesn't require building a FULL exclusive whitelist.
-
10 hours ago, Bl4ckH4wkGER said:
After internal review, all our email servers properly deliver to comcast and we don't see any spikes in rejections.
So I'd encourage you to pursue the two options I gave above.
It's not a question of throttling or rejection (which you would see in the logs on your end, usually triggered only if you were sending to a lot of invalid/dead Comcast addresses), it is/was instead Comcast's dumping of accepted mail into users' SPAM folders instead of users' regular inboxes, which was new behavior. Will continue to monitor here.
-
Not specifically a web site issue, but certainly needs to be noted.
As of Sunday 4/2, all gc.com email I receive has been thrown by Xfinity/Comcast into my email's SPAM folder. Sounds like there might be a 'reputation' issue there that should be addressed.
-
35 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:
Precision without corresponding accuracy is just meaningless digits.
That assumes that the claimed "precision" is even there.
I don't really care how precise you make the display - a 4th digit isn't even cute, much less useful at this time. It reminds me of folks who publish puzzle caches that resolve to dd.dddddd.
The 64 isn't going to get anyone closer to a cache for having 4 digits of precision. I do not understand the claim that "None of those models were precise enough to support the fourth digit like your new 64 is!" The 64 has no better repeatability to a 4th digit (precision) than others I've seen in the field.
Not sure why Atlas doesn't understand that repeatability is precision. He's usually the first to get the terms right. As long as I can hit the target in a small group, even if way off to the side, that's repeatability. It likely also means I have a sight adjustment problem or a bad habit, but that's for another day...
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Atlas Cached said:
You are referencing accuracy, not precision.
The 4th digit is all about precision, not accuracy.
I'm aware of that. Again, we've been down this road before.
If results aren't repeatable to the 4th digit, doesn't much matter to the person using the device to locate something whether it's 3 or 4, does it?
-
1
-
-
On 5/12/2022 at 6:20 PM, Atlas Cached said:
None of those models were precise enough to support the fourth digit like your new 64 is!
When the technology allows for repeatability down to less than 1 foot square for consumer units, get back to me on that.
Haven't we been down this road before?
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
It being a rainy day, a little playing with Search has yielded some surprising results:
- There are 997 terrain 1.0 caches with the Significant hike attribute
- There are 136 terrain 1.0 caches with the Tree climbing required attribute
- There are 65 terrain 1.0 caches with the Climbing gear required attribute
- There are 61 terrain 1.0 caches with the Difficult climb attribute
These aren't all old caches either, a lot have been published in the last five years. It really makes you wonder...
No doubt edited after the fact.
Do these show the Wheelchair attribute? I ask, because once set up as 1.0T + wheelchair, you cannot switch off or use the 'negated' wheelchair attribute.
-
I swear I recall back in the early days when 1.0T meant flat, level ground - end of discussion. If one could reasonably expect to reach a cache from a wheelchair, one was expected to use the wheelchair attribute to flag the accessibility of the cache.
-
1
-
-
Although not mentioned in the 66's manual, it appears from the 'help' section on Garmin's support pages that this process is still performed using the old POILoader program. Looks as though this is still done using *.gpi files, which may be built from *.csv and *.gpx files by POILoader. Can anyone confirm?
-
It used to be a relative piece of cake to upload custom POI to a Garmin automotive device of fairly recent generation. Drop a file into the right folder, and bingo. (The older units were a bit more work, but workable).
Is it still easy to do this on the most recent generation of their automotive units (DriveSmart)?
Do they still support *.gpi and *.gpx format?
As I read the current manual, it bothers me that it appears that the only interface for POI is via FourSquare. Tell me I'm wrong, please!
-
On 8/24/2022 at 10:36 AM, thebruce0 said:
If the game were just stats, then people's bogus logging behaviour would have zero consequence to others. But log history is public and can cause people to take real world action or not - and these days that action can be super expensive. SO, accurate logging history, as much as it can be, is paramount to a happy community and successful hobby on the large scale.
Apply that thought however, just felt the need to re-emphasize the importance of accuracy of a cache's log history.
Well said. My original point exactly. Over the last 12 months, it's become difficult to know what logs to trust without first checking find numbers. That's certainly no guarantee of an accurate result, but I'm having to discount many logs by those with smaller counts this year. Rather than trusting DNF and found logs as one might expect to do, am having to spend extra time checking up on my own caches, not all of which are easy to access. Found logs when they're actually MIA doesn't help me or other finders, and may delay my action to correct things.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 8/19/2022 at 9:27 AM, ChriBli said:
If the problem is that people are armchair-logging caches that are missing (and I agree that is a problem, even though this is rather easy to spot when it's a low-count basic member logging with "lol"), then I don't see how your suggestion would help. For there to be a logstrip to compare to the online logs the cache can not be missing.
They're logging both types. Logging the unfindable ones are the bigger issue since that's prone to throwing off finders, and also the none too swift gc.com algorithm that alerts reviewers to potential problem caches.
If all their logs get deleted, perhaps they'll get tired of the armchair game?
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:
Read that thread and noted the "20" issue might be the root cause, but I'm seeing counts all over the map for these sorts of things. One finder with 61, another stuck somewhere around 10. So not sure if the "20" is playing into it here or not, but doesn't seem to be. Those who do achieve 20 don't seem to be hiding anything. More like kids playing with phone apps. And as I say, they never have validated email accounts, which is something else that has been beaten to death, but that I find a big problem with the gc.com approach, especially with the advent of the app.
-
2 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:
@ecanderson I see you have 7 caches that will show in the free app for basic members (ie, Trads at D/T 2 or less, Events, and GeoTours) If it gets too bad, you can PMO them for a while.
Definitely a thing this summer.
As I say, I don't really care so much if people are claiming bogus finds on caches that aren't issues ... there will always be armchair loggers out there ... it's the finds on problem caches that are the larger issue. The bogus finds will also throw off the algorithm that flags the local admins that there may be a problem with a cache.
When you say "Definitely a thing this summer", I assume you're saying that you've been seeing this in your area as well?
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Is it just in our area, or are the rest of you also seeing an extraordinary number of bogus finds from 'cachers' with low (< 100 finds) counts this summer. It's as though people are downloading the app and just logging things. Some of these logs are on caches that aren't even there, some 'finds' occur after a long string of DNFs by experienced cachers, and none include any log signatures. Online logs are of the 3 letter "lol" sort, a short string of meaningless characters, or something equally unhelpful. None reply to queries about their finds at the message center.
If you're not paying special attention to the counts of these 'finders', it's easy to be led into thinking a cache with a string of DNFs and a few recent 'finds' might be worth looking for after all.
Hate to get into 'cache police' mode, but all of these finds on caches that aren't there to be found is getting pretty annoying. I really don't care if they claim ones that ARE there to be found but that they never visited. Time to start going back to the old practice of comparing online logs to those in the cache, I guess. I'm going to start doing it, and it would be good if my fellow COs would consider doing this, too.
The process isn't very hard since once you see that the first half dozen you check have no signatures, or they've been logging caches that are disabled and truly MIA, you just delete all of the logs for your caches by those folks to clear things out.
-
.png)
1
-
10
.png)
.png)
.png)
MOB Caches - a new tool
in General geocaching topics
Posted
Interesting. I have a 'stage' of an adventure in the same park that I may have to adjust to another location. It used to be open to the public apart from special events - they would sometimes rent it for weddings on weekends. Lately, it seems to be closed pretty much 24/7/365.