irisisleuk

One computer with Windows 10 Home, version 22H2, 19045.2486 tried Chrome Version 108.0.5359.126 and then updated to Version 109.0.5414.75 but also Microsoft Edge 108.0.1462.76 And another computer: Windows 10 Enterprise, 21H2, 19044.2364 Microsoft Edge: Version 108.0.1462.76 All give the same issue: won't see the map that belongs to the pocket query when using the map preference Google maps ( shows all caches instead, starting around home location), but with all versions it does show the correct map when using Leaflet. I'm not running any scripts or browser extensions and I only block third-party cookies. And this functionality worked last week and I didn't change anything on my computer.

I posted another bug where I discovered that the problem was that the map preference I have is Google maps and then it doesn't work, but it does work when you change it to Leaflet. This "solution" seems to apply here as well.

I kept on searching, since making screenshots of something that isn't there is very hard to do. And now I discovered that it works if I change the map preferences to Leaflet. It doesn't work when you choose Google maps. So I presume you should be able to reproduce it now by changing the map preference.

When I go to https://www.geocaching.com/pocket/ I used to be able to see the caches in the pocket query by clicking on the maps icon in the Preview column. But now I won't get the map of the pocket query but a map of caches nearby my home location. Also when I then click on one of the pocket queries to the left of the map (under Your Pocket Queries) nothing happens.

I disagree with you with respect your first sentence. The answer was vague, this was just repeating the answer that was given earlier and a response to the question that started this thread. It was not an answer to the questions since: if they can give an indication how long they think it will take, because we haven't heard from them since the previous time they told us they were working on it on Nov 23. I agree it would be a lot worse if we couldn't geocache at all, because that would mean I wouldn't renew my membership until I knew when I could geocache again. I also agree agree it would be nice if this would be our worst problem to occur for the next 12 months, because that would mean that I can easily solve the worst problem I have the next 12 months (and this would not be to continuously using a workaround by the way). As I formulated in my post "no judgement", I would just like a little bit more communication, because for me to "cut ''em some slack", they could also show they understand us. It's not about explaining how many people are working on the issues and how hard they are, and certainly no programming-detailed explanations, but a simple update after a few weeks something like a reply on the post of November 23: "We're aware and looking at a fix, thanks." -> This fix is taking a little bit longer than we expected, we are hoping to get this fixed before Christmas/the end of the year/ in January /any other indication on expected time line. So for now I would already be happy to know if it will roughly take 12 months, 12 weeks or 12 days.

I can only second that. I always use this to prepare for my geocaching trips, so it was annoying last couple of weeks to work around it, but I was counting on it being solved soon. Luckily my time to go out was very limited, so didn't have to deal with the issues too much, but now the holidays are approaching and I really hope this gets fixed soon. So please let us know about progress and when you expect this to be solved so I can plan accordingly. No judgement if it can't be solved quickly, it's just that I would like to plan ahead a bit. If I can't do my geocaching activities temporarily the way I'd like to do, I can plan to do other things instead until the estimated bug fix closed date.

I ❤️ Geocaching Logs!

So the 'will attend' is useless unless there is a maximum amount of people that can join , where it then would serve as a means to determine who is allowed to come? In other words: if nobody takes the effort on writing a 'will attend '' and I as an event owner would then decide to cancel the event since I don't want to go the event location and risk being on my own, then I, as an event owner, would be wrong to do this?

There was another option which I see nobody mentioned: cancel/archive the event a day before if nobody posted a 'will attend'-log. I've noticed that geocachers seem to be kind of lazy with posting 'will attend'-logs (they could even log: I'm not sure if I will make it but I will try to make it happen) when there is no maximum of people stated. I feel that in the past it was more common to inform an organizer that you intend to attend, but nowadays people don't want to commit, although it isn't even a real commitment with consequences. They expect the event will take place anyway, so they show up or not, decide on the day itself. If there is no need to post a will attend, why would you?

Yes, I can confirm it is fixed now!

I'm not referring to the profile page, the bug is just the link in the e-mails you get when someone logs a cache. Corrention on this comment: you are right, I didn't notice this difference, I thought it was just a wrong link, but it is even more weird.

In the e-mails I receive with logs on my own caches or those on my watchlist, the link in the name after "Logged by:" is incorrect. Instead of linking to the profile name of the logger it links to my own profile.

Roman Colosseum : we were in Rome in 2008, this was our first geocaching year and I don't remember if there were that many geocaches back then. I do know we weren't premium member back then so the information we had was limited in our gps and we brought some print outs, which of course also limits the amount of caches we were going to do. It wasn't easy to find the cache we've found closest to the Colosseum since it wasn't just a matter of looking at the smilies on the map. The cache we found back then is now archived, so no smily on the map anymore, it is a traditional: SPQR - IL CIRCO MASSIMO. We found it on Sep 2, 2008 and according to the log we found it just a few hours after arriving in Rome and even in the dark it was an easy find. Petra: Yes! We found several caches here on Oct 24, 2016, for this list I'll pick the oldest one, the traditional Petra. Great Pyramid of Giza: we visited the Great Pyramid of Gizo and many other wonderful historic places in Egypt in 2005. But this was B.C. (before caching) for us, so no finds in Egypt. Taj Mahal: on our to do list Great Wall of China: on our to do list Machu Picchu: on our to do list Christ the Redeemer: on our to do list Chichen Itza: not really on our to do list, but we've been to other Maya sites. Maybe if we happen to be close Photos taken at the cache location in Petra:

Ik weet ook niet hoe de volgorde van de favo's wordt bepaald, maar je kunt in ieder geval niet uitgaan van de log(datum). Ikzelf vergeet bijvoorbeeld heel vaak om een favo te geven, aangezien ik bij het log schrijven meer aandacht heb voor het log en het uitzoeken van eventueel erbij te plaatsen foto's. Maar als ik dan (vaak heel veel) later aan de slag ga met mijn foto album van alle activiteiten van dat jaar loop ik weer door de logs en dat is dan vaak het moment dat ik alsnog de favo geef die ik eerder was vergeten. Daar kan dus best een jaar tussen zitten. Er zijn overigens ook nog diverse andere momenten die mij terug brengen naar de logs en dan me realiseer dat ik (nog) geen favo heb gegeven. Als ik bijvoorbeeld in het nieuws of een tijdschrift artikel iets hoor/lees over een bepaalde plaats of natuurgebied, dan herinner ik me ook nog vaak de cache ervaringen en kijk ik nog eens naar de caches die we daar gedaan hebben en merk dan op dat ik bijvoorbeeld nog vergeten ben een foto erbij te plaatsen of een favo te geven.

Onderaan de pagina zie je "contact us" staan (dit brengt je naar https://www.geocaching.com/help/), hier onderaan zie je dat je een bericht kunt sturen naar Groundspeak (het bedrijf van deze website). Als je in je bericht uitlegt wat er is gebeurt, doe er ook een link bij naar het profiel van deze gebruiker, dan zullen ze de logs van dit account gaan verwijderen en het account gaan blokkeren.

Weet je zeker dat de TB verplaatst wordt? Van "took it to"-logs (dus niet de echte verplaatsingen zoals drop en retrieve) krijg je geen meldingen.

I'll be happy to get them on the road as well. Just send me a message if you like them to start their journey in the Netherlands or Belgium. And if you have specific wishes with respect to goals etc., don't hesitate to add this info!

You can hide the souvenirs you don't want to show on your profile at https://www.geocaching.com/my/souvenirs.aspx .

Or maybe they are waiting for it to get archived to be able to publish the cache for the Geotour since Connersville already has a lot of caches. ?

According to this website there will be 30 geocaches in this Geotour, to be published this month.

The log is a bit strange, but so is the situation with this cache. The log belongs to cache Wood's cache published on 12 Feb. But this cache was published before as WOOD's cache on Oct 26. But since the coordinates were way off (about 20 miles) it got archived. But it was found back then and it seems to be exactly the same cache, maybe even the same logbook, the only difference is the coordinates might be right now. So to respond to the post of arisoft: the finder visited the coordinates of this cache, he found it, the log is probably in the logbook, exactly at the spot where he found it a couple of months ago. Should he drive back to sign it again? Normally I would say this is a new cache, a new GC-code, and by the way you have already logged the other GC-code, so why two smileys for one and the same cache? But on the other hand, considering the mess with the first cache ... But from the log it is not clear to me if he logged it again, it could be that he means that he found his log in the logbook, so he logged it twice, but this time it counts as a FTF.

17 years after the question was first broadcasted...

Why would a CO place a cache to make sure you don't understand them? I'm sorry, but this I find hard to believe. Some earthcaches are more difficult than others, just like any other type of cache. And as with any other cache you can decided whether it's worth the effort or not. We enjoy the earthcaches, they make sure you take the time to read the information panel, and make sure you actually think about how and why things have happened. And if you do many earthcaches you learn a lot, especially because certain topics are used often and you start to recognize similarities all over the world. Reading the cache page before the trip can sometimes already lead to discussions, what could it be.. is it like.... And we also enjoy the photos cachers add to their logs, much more cachers take the time to place a photo with an earthcache, with an easy traditional we seldom see a nice photo of the beautiful surroundings. And yes, some earthcaches are more difficult than others. Luckily most of them have a description in English, but still since English isn't our native language there are lots of words that we don't know, or better said since we've done lots of earthcache: didn't know. All these specific geology words are of course not part of a basic language set. But we've discovered many cache owners are very good at explaining the theory with lots of photos and drawings, that make it a lot easier to learn. We almost always do a lot of research before a trip and this includes reading cache pages. We check if we understand the subject and the questions and if not we translate and search for info in our own language. It's like preparing for a difficult multi caches where you have to make sure you have all your tools in place, have read the cache page so you know if you need any special codes etc. And if it is too difficult we just skip the cache, but if the photos show us something special we probably would still visit the spot. With respect to your question: if we would go to a location where there is an earthcache and a traditional at the same spot, our first choice would be the earthcache. Not just to learn about geology, but also because they make sure we take the time to really see the environment. With other caches you can end up being too focused on finding the cache, you totally miss the real special things. And if the questions are too difficult, or too time consuming (doesn't happen often btw), we'll look for the traditional just to mark our visit to the special location. Unless of course the traditional cache is suitable for trackables and I want to move some, or if it is a unique cache, specially made, then both caches will be logged!

I don't understand, only the code on the item IS needed to log a trackable. Maybe you found a trackable that isn't from geocaching.com but from another site like geokrety which you can't log on this site? Or maybe you got a message from one of the trackable owners from the trackables you retrieved in October last year but still haven't moved? They might also use the reference number instead of the tracking number when they contact you.

Not to be negative, but I'm a bit worried: Is this the cache you've found where one of the attributes is "not recommended at night" and where in the description it says "Park hours are Nov-Mar 0800-1700 Apr-Oct 0800-1900." ? I'm not familiar with the area, but if you went somewhere at night where you were not supposed to be I'm not so happy with your video.