Crow-T-Robot

I find it simply ludicrous that the Geocaching app, which is supposed to be the "official" geocaching app, still doesn't have some of the most basic functions that those evil 3rd party site scraping apps have. With how hard Groundspeak has pushed to move their business model into the realm of smartphone caching, their app is laughably incomplete. Yes, you can't post OM logs, or NM logs, or NA logs (or anything beyond Find, DNF or Write Note). Yes, you can't log trackables with it. Yes, you cannot post Field Notes with it. Yes, the map loads interminably slow. But, that Message Center works beautifully, doesn't it?

It seems to work as far as clicking on the icons, for me. Yesterday, I couldn't open anything from the map. There are still some bugs, though. When I use my mousewheel to zoom in, the icons blow up to about 10x their size before resetting to normal. The opposite for when I zoom out...the icons get tiny before resetting. Edit: it's seems to have stopped working again.

I'm curious about this. Are you getting this type of communication from the reviewer if you disable your own cache or when the reviewer disables the cache? If the reviewer disables the cache, it's pretty standard wording to include that they will archive the cache if you do not respond within 30 days. It's boilerplate. It doesn't mean the cache has to be visited/fixed within 30 days...they just need you to communicate back that you're planning to/able to maintain the cache. It's been stated a few times in this thread that reviewers have the ability to use their judgement and they do. If you are communicating to the reviewer that you intend on visiting/fixing the cache but need a little more time (or a lot more, in some cases) and they are responding with "NO! YOU MUST VISIT/FIX THIS CACHE WITHIN 30 DAYS OR I'LL ARCHIVE IT!!!", then you have an excellent case to take to appeals and that reviewer will get straightened out by GS.

And here i thought i was the only person on the planet who pretty much only used my phone to, you know,, talk on! I use my phone for all sorts of stuff when I'm at home or work or otherwise close to a charger. When I'm out and about, it's put away and only used when needed. All the other features are nice, but it is, primarily, a phone. Smartphones have been touted as "the end of boredom." On the hand, some say we're losing our creativity by being entertained. (No, that was inane 1950's television that turned our minds to mush. ) However, while sitting waiting for an appointment, if there are no good magazines and no one to talk with, what should we do, practice origami with dollar bills or broaden our knowledge with a smartphone? I just don't use my phone that way very much if I can't plug it in. I may need to call someone or look up something important and the phone is no use to me if it's dead. I know other people use their phones more heavily away from home and allow their children to use them, but that doesn't work for me. I try to not leave the house without my portable charger in tow (the thing is a beast but I can get 4-5 full charges for my phone off of it). I don't have my nose constantly buried in my phones screen when I'm out but some apps, especially Pokemon Go, are real battery drains. Even more so if it's a sunny day and you have to turn the screen brightness way up. If you only use your phone sparingly, a small lipstick sized charger is great for emergency uses and peace of mind.

I log all of my caches from my armchair. I find them by using my hands, feet and eyes. I am confused on how to feel. Should I be proud of being a 50% cacher who actually goes out and finds caches or ashamed of the 50% cheater who logs from the comfort of my chair? The answer, of course, is 42.

Pokemon Go would stand a much better chance if they didn't have server issues every 10 minutes.

By the way you have it written, my guess would be to get the answer for F, you take the answer for N and add 21 to it.

That is an entirely different problem. The OP logged that the cache needs maintenance. It does not. OP considered that it need NA. It does not. Yes, CO should disable the cache. But that is not covered by NA or MN. That is an area not covered by NA or NM. The cache does not need maintenance. To think that it needs to be archived is utterly bizarre! Perhaps instead of nitpicking to death what the term Needs Maintenance actually means and becoming offended at some phantom insult, the CO (or you) could just take the NM for what it is: a log to alert you to an issue with the cache. It doesn't have to just be the actual container that needs maintenance. What I found utterly bizarre is that a CO would flip out over a simple NM log.

How about get a list of caches, or write down the names and comments then when you get home manually log them into the site. This is exactly what field notes do...without the hassle of you having to write anything down. The app uploads the field note to the site, with the date and time that you found the cache along with any notes you entered while in the field. Then you can write up your log when you return home. For how I use the app, I really like this version of the app. I'm just waiting for field notes to be added to make the switch to the Geocaching app as my primary caching app. I was hoping that that would've been part of this update.

Who Cares? I really don't think you understand Geocaching. I do understand geocaching. I was giving an example of how communities are not always covered by a post office within them. That said, we have established that some don't even mention a community at all. Some because they're puzzles and don't want to spoil the location, others because the owners simply don't know where they placed the cache but the coordinates. Although they must've had permission somehow. I can't wrap my head around why this matters in the slightest. If I wrote on my cache page that I hid the cache on the moon, as long as the coordinates lead you to a cache...who cares? If you're saying you can't figure out how to navigate to the coordinates without knowing what city/town/township it was placed in, then I'm not sure where to begin. There is a map on every cache page.

The horror. The...horror.

There was nothing in my log that I wanted private. Yes, anyone can read the log. What I felt was wrong/rude was for someone who doesn't even know me to sent an unsolicited PM with their opinion of my log. What is wrong/rude about them having an opinion of your log and sending you an unsolicited PM about it? It sounds as though they could have had more tact in their approach, but receiving the PM shouldn't cause you to feel insulted. Was there something in the message that you could take and learn from? It may not have been wrapped in a pretty bow, but that doesn't mean there wasn't some helpful advice included in the PM.

Good job on challenging yourself and meeting that challenge! Geocaching has limitless opportunities to push yourself past your comfort level. The one bit of advice I would give is if you find a container on the ground, don't assume it was the previous cacher who "just threw it on the ground", especially micros. I've found plenty of caches that had fallen from their hiding spot (and so will you) and I would guess that 99.99% of those fell because of natural causes and not because someone tossed it on the ground. I've also been caching down a trail, a few hours behind someone else caching the same trail and it became apparent that they WERE just tossing the caches down or leaving them sitting on the ground. That sort of thing is thankfully pretty rare around here. Even if you just meant that it looked that way but didn't really think someone actually tossed the cache on the ground and walked away, writing that in your log creates unnecessary angst. Something generic like "I found the container on the ground" conveys the same message without creating any bad blood within your caching community.

Do you still record it as a find on geocaching.com? I was told in not so certain terms even if I actually find it and log it online it is NOT found unless I sign the log. What I'm wondering is if he isn't signing because he doesn't feel it's up to his standards, why would he claim it as a find on-line? He's giving credit to a cache that he clearly feels doesn't deserve it. Don't get me wrong: I would claim the find on a cache with a disgusting logbook I couldn't sign, and I'm fine with anyone else claiming it. But I justify not signing the cache because it's physically impossible. It seems contradictory to justify not signing the physical log based on the amount of respect the CO shows the cache, but then logging the find on-line, anyway. If the physical cache isn't worthy, how is the idea of the cache at GC.com worthy? To me it's a "what's the point" thing. Why bother pulling the pen out of the pocket to sign a scrap of paper that you get a pretty good feeling the CO will never look at. Why get frustrated pulling the tightly wound scroll out of the button nano and write on that tiny bit of paper, then worse, re-rolling it to fit back in to the lid. Especially when you know that there's no way any cache owner will actually be able to decipher most of the squiggles and initials on the scroll, if they bother looking. (Anyone here own a button nano and compare the squiggles against the online logs?) Why bother extracting the moldy bison log when you know the owner is a carpet bomber, has over 1000 hides that he doesn't maintain, except to asks finders to please leave a throwdown if they can't find the cache. What's the point of signing a log that the cache owner doesn't care about? Why expend the energy and sometimes the aggravation? Which logically leads to the next question, which is: what's the point of logging such a miserable cache online? Why mar your caching history with it? I found it. I want to log it as a record of my finds, and I can then filter it from my map. No I don't want a found cache on my ignore list. Which also begs the question: how does a meticulous cacher come to search for a garbage cache by a known cache carpet bomber in the first place? If the hypothetical cacher in question already knew the cache was going to be garbage by a bad cache owner, why would the hypothetical cacher search for it at all? One reason could be because Groundspeak doesn't give us many tools in which to filter out junk caches. There are tricks you can perform with GSAK to help, but if you didn't use that, putting a CO's junk caches on ignore one by one is a pain. It's sad that with all the technology at our dispersal, it's easier to just find a cache to remove it from the map than it is to do a mass ignore of what you know to be lame caches by poor cache owners.

Wait until you reach Unobtainium level. That's where the fun really begins.

So, how far should we require these volunteers to travel to verify every cache submission/issue and how quickly can we demand that they respond? Reviewers kids are sick? Too bad, I want my cache published so call a babysitter and go check out the location. No gas money? Get another job and make sure my location gets checked on as you travel from one job to the other. Tired? Come on, lazy...get off your butt and publish my cache! If they get a cache submission every day of the week, are they allowed to wait until a convenient time to take a look and decide if the cache is worth publishing or do they have to run out every time a cache is submitted? Or do they group it all into one hectic day, a day which could be spent doing things with their families, doing needed yardwork or out geocaching themselves? And God forbid they would ever want to take a vacation themselves or just take a day off and watch the grass grow. How about large cities? One or two guys might handle something out in Iowa but two people in NYC or Chicago would be out checking on caches so often, they'd never be home to actually hit the publish button. I think the system works pretty darn well as it is. If you're seeing problem caches getting published, the blame goes to the CO who either lied or omitted information, not to the reviewer. While having local cache publishers MIGHT keep the guideline breaking caches from getting published (if, you know, local politics didn't get involved), it would doom the game. It wouldn't take long before everyone would want nothing to do with publishing caches.

This email threatens deletion if someone doesn't contact you. No, it doesn't. It offers to delete a log filed by mistake. You really have to screw up your eyes and think really bad thoughts about me to see that as a threat. I don't know you and I don't think really bad thoughts about you, but I would have read that email as a threat as well. "If you don't contact me, I'll delete your log". You may not think it comes across that way, but it does.

Great! If your name is in the log book from two years ago than by all means log it. Just be thankful it's not one of mine. Curious, what would happen if it was one of your caches? I'm curious as well. The two statements are at odds with one another. The log is valid, so you'd let it stand but it's late so...would you give the cacher a good scolding for not being more prompt with their logging? Glare at their log on your computer screen with a really mean look on your face? Silently wish upon them two dozen DNF's? What? Do cache owners really get themselves wound up over arbitrary matters such as this ?

My latest cache was submitted for review at 07:52. It was the last thing I did before going to bed that morning. I woke up to see it was published at 08:12 that same morning. So, total time from when it was submitted to published was 20 minutes. That's highly unusual (at least for me), as most of my caches have probably averaged about 3-5 days to get published.

There are still cachers who do not use apps to navigate and the cache owner has the waypoints available anyway, no need to make use of APIs etc. No company in the world can ensure that children cannot go out with their parents and go search these caches. Well yeah, but you'd still need to go through the website or some other channel to get the waypoints in the first place. My point is just that, based on the rules as written, if you're caching with kids under 13 you'd have to cache in a very specific and narrow way if you're really trying to stick to the letter of the Terms of Service as written, and that they seem to be written more narrowly than intended (for example, I've seen Groundspeak post pictures of children under 13 using the app, which is technically a violation of their own Terms of Service as written). That may be the underlying intention behind it, but that's not how the provision is written. The terms of service specifically include the app as being defined in what constitutes "services", and then it specifically says that anybody under 13 is prohibited from using their "services". Maybe that's not what they intended when they wrote the provision, but you have to read it as written, not as how you think it was intended. Section 1.A.i = "The Agreement applies to the following services of Groundspeak: ... GEOCACHING.COM website and mobile application" Section B = "The websites and mobile applications above, including all associated software, content, products and data will be referred to throughout this Agreement simply as our "services."" Section C = "If you are under the age of 13, you are not permitted to use our services. If you are under the age of 18 but at least 13, you may only use our services under the supervision of a parent or legal guardian who agrees to be bound by this Agreement." And to be clear, I'm not saying I think the you shouldn't cache with kids. Or that I think the Terms of Service are well written or that I think they're intended to prevent kids from caching. Obviously Groundspeak promotes children caching all the time... my point is more just that the Terms of Service maybe aren't written so well and don't exactly match up with the reality of how people play the game. I wonder how many kids under the age of 13 attended a Block Party event and Groundspeak had to spend all day chasing them away from the area.

PQs. I don't think most could cache today without loading thousands they'll never do into that gps. I know I couldn't cache without having a bookmark of solved puzzles from around the world so that if, in one snowy day in hell, I'm in that area of the world, I can find the cache...if it's still available. Seriously, I have opted for recurring payments from day one and I plan on that method until I get out of this game (if that ever happens). So, this doesn't affect my membership decision one iota. But, the shadiness of this kind of switch is pretty disheartening. At least add in a blurb about how to cancel the membership after purchase if one doesn't want the recurring payment to take place. Even the seediest of adult sites has something along the lines of "credit card will be billed at $29.99 per month on a recurring basis unless cancelled" at the sign up stage. We haven't sunk to the level of trying to out-sham adult sites, have we?

You're already relying on volunteer reviewers (whom you may have never met) who are the arbiters of whether your cache (challenge or not) can be published or not. In the case of Earthcaches, you're also relying on a whole other set of volunteer reviewers who are the arbiters of whether your Earthcache can be published or not. Somehow, relying on volunteers seems to work out pretty well, most of the time. Is Project-GC prepared to handle the volume of requests that are going to come in after challenge caches go live again? Challenge cache owners quickly spiraled out of control with the amount of tedious and stat heavy challenges they created and caused the moratorium with the onslaught of appeals. There is no reason to believe they won't do the same thing but this time, the bottleneck will be Project-GC trying to keep up with the demand. It's not hard to fathom PGC getting to the point of making a cache owner pay to have a checker written.

jdaoudblahdbllnibazq Twenty letters on the nose. And just as much meaning as "." or "found it".

Wicked devious, and a really cool idea... but it's sure to go missing. People will paw around and fling it who knows where, never knowing they had their hand on it. That and I have a hard time believing the log wouldn't become a soaked mess after a few months out in the elements.

Any container where the opening is smaller than the body of the container (unless you can fit your hand into the opening). Getting the log out of those, usually a pill bottle, is more of a pain than rolling up a nano log.