fbingha

I am with you, except it doesn't snow here.

The Mystery icon, by its very definition as a catch-all, suits every cache. A cache of this type can be nearly anything, hence the "?". While a new type may be defined in such a way as to make a better fit, challenge caches fit just fine under the Mystery/Unknown/Puzzle/(whatever GS is deciding to call it today) type. Don't confuse that cache type as being one where a puzzle must be solved and the cache is not at the posted coordinates. That type includes, but is not limited to, caches with those characteristics. Personally, I'd vote for an attribute, for the same reason that you wouldn't have a night cache type. As T.D.M.22 pointed out, a challenge cache can have characteristics of a multi, puzzle, or some of the other cache types. Therefore, they should be listed as the best-fit cache type, with an attribute to indicate that the cache also has challenge cache-style ALRs. If people are concerned about not being able to pick them out on the map, maybe the developers could code the map so that it modifies the icon if it has the attribute. How about putting a "*" on it? Yawn. I wasn't confusing the original intent of the "catch all" category. Today, the question mark icon is seen by most cachers as a cache that is not located at the posted coordinates since this is how it is most utilized today, not as it was in 2003. Challenge caches should have a different icon as they have ALRs. With non challenge unknown caches, I will go to GZ and from there I will do something that will allow me to find the cache or log a DNF. Yes, of course, there are puzzles that require a computer but let's say I use my smart phone. Challenge caches, I go to GZ, and there is nothing I can do to log a find unless I've already achieved the ALR or willing to go do it. If I've found 27,000 caches then chances are, whatever the challenge is, I've already done it. My opinion, Challenge caches are distinct enough from every other 'unknown' cache to have its own cache type. I admit, I am not fond of Challenge caches as I see them having become quite 'cheesy'. Merely a quick reward for the prolific cacher. Definitely a perk for the Platinum Members. I am stuck on the ALR. Just my opinion, as I said. No one needs to correct it.

Since Challenge caches allow ALRs and generally are located at the given coordinates, the mystery icon seems entirely ill suited.

This being a forum, I realize everyone always likes to explain why something is the way it is or alternative ways to achieve the desired result. Still, I think it quite possible for Groundspeak to generate distinct icons from their existing icons for the zoom level that is one out from the default. That is all, this is merely a hopeful suggestion that I realize will never be implemented.

When you zoom out one level on the default map, Earthcaches turn into the Virtual ghost icon. Yes, I understand that Earthcaches are virtual. I also see they have a standard icon that is different from grandfathered virtuals. Can you not come up with a small earth icon to use at the zoomed out levels so one can easily distinguish between the two types?

It is problematic that they allow users to enter HTML into cache descriptions. Groundspeak has allowed users to use most raw HTML in their descriptions. Since the editor is only going to be able to create a subset of HTML, some HTML that is has been manually used won't be able to be converted back for display in the editor. I suspect this is the real reason there is no WYSIWYG editor for cache edit. What needs to happen is the only HTML that is accepted is the HTML that can be created with the editor. I won't be surprised if they make this change at some point. Caches created after point A in time will only work with the HTML that the editor can generate. Then they can convert that HTML back in the editor upon edit. They can actually take away the non WYSIWYG mode so you can't create HTML that the editor won't process. It takes away some of the power user's options but these are the type of changes that are made when interfaces are simplified and output is directed more towards a mobile world.

It is quite the mystery, this one. Groundspeak has done the work since they have an editor for cache creation. Using the same editor for cache editing is quite doable. My only guess is they are stuck on being able to convert the generated cache description back into a format that the editor accepts. Or perhaps they are stuck on blocking cross scripting issues. Either way, a competent web development team can handle this. When I implemented a WYSIWYG (CKEditor) editor for post editing, in the forum software vBulletin, I did creation and editing at the same time. Why they didn't? A mystery, as I said.

This^ It was very helpful to explain to some folks why a certain area might not be good for another cache. I find the map of my area very helpful. I've gone through a lot of the archived caches that are in the areas that I hide. It has helped my hiding strategy's for the particular terrain.

You can remove the plating from bolts by leaving it in vinegar for two days. Then put it in a dish with some water, but not covering it, then agitate it oh so often. There ya go dark, rusty bolts.. I have bolts out that I've done this too.

1. Put your geocaching name in 'profile name' 2. Select your country/state/county 3. Click 'none found' and archived 4. select any cache size or types that you wish to filter to 4. click filter

You can do so at http://project-gc.com/Tools/MapCompare I tested my county and it shows 3915 archived caches that I never found. I have used this to find a few archived caches that are still out there. All were of the sort where someone complained about the log and the CO either archived it or ignored it.

For this coin, http://www.geocachin...aspx?id=2092699, I laminated a note that explained what it was, please move me, don't keep. On the other side I put a QR code that goes to the TB's page. I stuffed this into the other side of the coin pouch. I thought it looked rather spiffy. Still the last person held it for 7 months until I asked them to drop it. Thankfully they did. Then a 15 find cacher came along next. They didn't mention taking the coin, but, they surely did so bye bye little coin. You can see an example of my little note on this page, on another of my trackables. http://www.geocaching.com/track/gallery.aspx?ID=4759577

One of those followup low number cachers picked it up and didn't log it. A new cacher rarely passes up the chance to take a travelbug. They miss geocoins but not those travel tags. Oh too often I watched mine get scooped up by someone who played for one day or for one week. I had a lot of travel bugs, gave up on them and sold the numbers off.

What you really need to do is buy a vinyl sticker with your art printed onto it. I did this in the past to make movie props. It costs $5 to $15 if I recall, as the charge for just creating one sticker is much higher than getting them in bulk quantities. Search the web for 'vinyl sticker' until you find somewhere that will let you do a one off print at a custom size.

I hope your reviewer sees this and never allows you to hide a cache. Spares. Really?

Hey now, I write the validation for my input before I ever write a bit of HTML. It isn't a "loophole" or "backdoor", just bad coding. Your code should by DRY but that also means using whitelists and blacklists for what data is acceptable in the given situation. It isn't acceptable for "42-no" to be accepted for a non reviewer, heck, probably not valid in any situation. This is a minor annoyance since this isn't a banking webiste. I do hope one can't manipulate data beyond attributes using the same form data techniques.

Makes one wonder what other reviewer functions one can manipulate. This sort of thing should be taken very seriously as a proper design would have never had these to begin with. Proper input validation is of the upmost importance for stopping XSS and sql injections.

There you go .. I "manipulated" my attributes page to deny maintenance. http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5FWCM_where-cats-creep?guid=f6fc7b36-e5eb-4053-a06a-c198adee3a5d Groundspeak programmers failed in doing proper attribute permissions validation on the post method of the backend.

I created a couple new caches yesterday and I did notice the needs maintenance attribute was one of the options. Since I was going through each attribute to check those that applied, I did consider its usefulness. I didn't come up with any reason to check it so I didn't.

My avatar just happens to look like a competing item, may have even been used to create one but isn't an actual picture of said competing item.

You can always glue the leaves to something and place that over your cache.

The real savvy use:

I would have no problem with the removal of PMO caches if, and only if, it is replaced with a "Hide from Free App" switch.

Within a 48km radius from my home, there are 669 geocaches. (Really terrible huh???) Anyway, of that 669 geocaches, 191 are premium only, which is about 28%.