hstidsen

Information, information, information, information, information, information, information, information ... so, basically, information New users have to learn many things, if you mention trackables and other special items every time you talk about trading it might sink in. Adding "did you take a trackable?" to the logpage will also help a lot.

Not as far as I can tell. For example, this cache still shows two trackables that were listed as being there at the time it was archived. Also note that both of those trackables would probably fall under the topic currently being discussed. I just checked a few other archived caches, and they still have trackables listed. I would swear I had seen a 'This travel bug has been moved to an unknown location because the cache was archived.' message somewhere? If you have a TB in a cache that is archived you will get an email about it, I got one of those recently (1-2 months ago), might be what you have seen. It is not automatically moved to unknown location though.

Two good ideas... Log trackable should be included on the geocache page to make it easier... And the strike will make it more visible... I agree, it would make it so much easier. The default action should be "no action" to avoid bogus "not there" logs by cachers who find trackables annoying...

I would think it would make more sense to use the current five regioner. Granted, it's from a U.S. source, but those are the only official regions recognized on the CIA World fact book site. In order to implement sub-regions GS will need bounding polygons which can be use to specify regions for all the existing caches in Denmark. The old counties would make more sense geographically but they where closed when the 5 bigger regions were implemented. They are historically and honestly would make the system look outdated. I think the best division would be the municipality division, but that would make 99 regions in Denmark and that might be too many?

Love the idea, there are SO many missing trackables in caches everywhere. Usually, if it has been more than 3 weeks and the cache has had more end 2 or 3 visits since dropof the TB is usually gone. In my area, I guess that somewhere between 20 and 40 percent of the TB inventories are inaccurate and it does not help to log notes suggesting that the owner marks the TB's missing.

I agree that Denmark is 1 state, 5 regions, 98 municipalities and Christiansø. It is worth noting that Christiansø has 3 caches and since Christiansø is not in any region og municipality, it is owned and operated by the ministry of defense outside of the municipality system. I also agree that a geografic division would make more sense (but would still be hard to define). However, the danish regions would probably be the most useful division if we are not to go down to municipality level and have 98 (99) regions.

What if it's just a filter, turning off the view of those logs? Cachers could enjoy making the auto-visits to their heart's content, and TOs could hide the logs from their own view forevermore, with a click. A filter like you have it on your account history page (http://www.geocaching.com/my/default.aspx) where you can filter on the type of logs (cache, tb, benchmark). On the TB page it should filter on log type so you could choose to see only pickups/drops, discoveries or visits. The TBs travel-miles should be calculated for all logtypes no matter the filter setting. I would vote for that feature since it seems to satisfy both those TO's that hates the visit logs and those that loves to see where their TB has travelled.

But isn´t that a bug in the cacher and not a problem with the system or an app? Seriously, doing something wrong or not knowing what you are doing isn´t the fault of the "all visited" link on the log page, it is the fault of the person doing it. To me it is exactly the same as if someone sat at home and logged 100 different caches found everyday without ever visiting any of them. It is possible, it is easy but it is not right to do just as it is not right to log a visit on a TB that you do not have with you.

I don´t get it. If I have a TB in my possesion and I take it with me when caching, shouldn't I log a visit when I visit a cache? If someone took one of my TBs and did NOT log visits it would annoy me since the distance travelled would be wrong. I can see the problem of auto-visit when a cacher does not have the TB in his or her possesion anymore but that is not a bug in c:geo or a problem with the TB tracking system, thats a bug in the cacher who doesn´t know how to use the app. So, as I have already said: I don´t get it. What is the problem with logging a lot of visits on a TB?