redsox_mark

This is the approach I take. My logic behind this is cachers generally take more notice of DNFs than WNs. If, for example I can't get to the cache because the footbridge (which the CO intended to be used) is closed, I would write a DNF, to make that more visible. Unless they want to or come prepared to swim, other caches will have the same issue. If I abort my journey for my own reasons, I would tend to log a WN or nothing. I can see a grey area; e.g if the cache was rated Terrain 2 and in my view it really was more like 4, and that increased terrain is why I gave up, I might log a DNF and explain that I found the terrain much harder than I expected. But I don't feel others need to do the same. Either DNF, WN, or nothing is fine.

Late to the party but I am also saddened by this change. For me, it ultimately comes down to mapping. I use a GPS for caching and I have very detailed, specific maps loaded which show footpaths, hedges etc (in the UK). I find it much easier to navigate and find my way using these maps, especially in the countryside. In a city or town, I can just about cope with the maps on the Adventure Lab app - though they are even inferior to the maps on the Geocaching app. But when doing an Adventure Lab away from towns it is hard for me to find my way without good maps with footpaths. I have no need or desire to see questions on my GPS. I just want to see where to go.

I am aware of that Facebook site, and some of my puzzles have been posted on it. For my puzzles, I think far more are found but with local sharing of coordinates. As a puzzle setter, I try not to let it bother me. I know some people like solving them, so the puzzles are for them. If others aren't interested in the puzzles but what to find the caches, and someone gives them the coords, that's OK with me, at least they are finding the caches. I'd prefer they at least try to solve them, but I can't control that.

Around here, reviewers have been "giving notice" (roughly "there seems to be an issue, please fix or state you plans within 30 days") for caches disabled for a long time, and that includes ones disabled because of COVID-19. Then 30 days later if no action the caches have been archived. I've seen several caches which I know are fine, but were archived because the CO disabled them for COVID-19 months ago, and hasn't enabled them (and didn't respond to the reviewers note). I know it is the CO's fault for not responding, but I feel sad to see otherwise good caches go.

I've read the whole thread, but this post way back on page 1 answers it for me. I draw the line at being at GZ, being part of the team, and contributing. If I feel I contributed, and my name (or team name for the day) is on that log, then I will log a find.

True. Or even if there is wifi at each of the locations, then that's great. It works with a small geofence zone then. My point was, and is still, about the argument that the reason for allowing a large geofence (or even turning it off) is so people can log from their hotels which may be far from the Adventure Lab. And my point still is: If they have to go a large distance from each location to get service, then they can't really do the Adventure Lab. So I conclude that turning geofencing off (which is what this thread is about) is only useful if you want people to be able to do the Adventure Lab anywhere.

I understand that. I would like visitors to be able to do my Adventure Lab without a data service. But if the only service they have is wifi in their hotel a couple of miles away, that doesn't seem a very workable solution, especially for a sequential adventure. So I figure it makes sense to keep the geofencing small. That way, when the app says they are close enough to answer, they know they are close to the place with the answer.

I don't really understand "geofencing... so people can log from wifi at a hotel etc." Adventure Labs require a data connection. I have recently set a "typical" Adventure lab, where you need to go to specific locations and get information to answer the questions. If you have signal at the locations, then you can answer the questions there, no need to go to your hotel. If you don't have signal at the locations, then how do you play? I guess you could: 1. From your hotel, look at the locations, where they are on the map, and what the questions are. 2. Go to those locations looking for the answers (not using the app, as you don't have data service at the locations). 3. Return to your hotel to submit the answers. But I doubt many will do that. Actually as mine requires the 5 locations to be done in sequence, they would need to go back to their hotel after every stage. So I put a small geofencing zone (50 metres).

I liked Netchvilski too.

Good question, I'm not sure. Mine uses sequential order, as does my friend who noticed the same issue. I've only completed one myself as a player. It didn't use sequential order, but the use of the journal on that one gave the same message for each location. I can't remember if it showed me the journal for Location 5 or not, but as it didn't include any new information it didn't matter.

That is a good solution/workaround. In mine, the way I've done the "story", is you get information from 1-4, and then take it to 5 where you answer a question based on what you learned on 1-4. I would have to make major changes to avoid Journal 5. It's just had it's first find; the cacher found the information without trouble. So I'll stick with what I've done.

Thanks. I have documented in both the Adventure Lab itself and the Bonus cache that they need to look at Journal 5, which they can do once they have completed the Adventure. So cachers should figure it out. It's just not as nice of an experience.

I did some searching but didn't find anyone reporting what seems an basic bug with Adventure Labs. I have a 5 location Adventure, and I use the Journal to give information to the player. Immediately after completing locations 1-4, the button "show journal" pops up, and they select that and see the Journal. Good. But not with location 5. After giving the correct answer, the player gets congratulated for completing the Adventure, then it ends. I have a "bonus" geocache which requires information in Journal 5. The Journal is still there, and the player can access it after the Adventure has ended. But it would be a much nicer experience if the journal came up automatically like it does for Locations 1-4. I was talking to another Adventure Lab owner at an event last night, and he has the same issue with his. Does anyone know if this is a known issue. or if not how I can report it?

Having done my first Adventure Lab, my thoughts: I like the interactive experience. I also like AR caches and Wherigos (in general). So another tool which allows caching to be augmented with interactive "storytelling" is good. I wish it was more integrated with the website and official geocaching app. Specifically, I would like: To be able to search an area/map for Adventure Labs (AL) , same as for geocaches. (I know AL has it's own map, but it is separate, and not as flexible as searching on the website). To be able to get notifications when an new AL is created. To be able to see my logs from an AL on the website, and the "smiley" on the map. (I like to revisit the map from time to time and see what I've found where). I know Lab Caches were always different. And with the old style Lab Caches, I was OK with that. If I went to a Mega event and there were 10 lab caches there, I don't need to see those on the map, I can see my Mega attendance. But if I go to a new city, and only have time to do an AL, I won't see in my geocaching map that I "cached" in that city - only on the AL map. With Adventure Labs being more like a virtual cache, I'd prefer to see it more integrated. For the one Adventure Lab that I found, the creator did something I liked; she also created a "Mystery" type Geocache as a bonus. This meant that, as well as having a physical cache to find, it meant I received the notification about this "bonus" cache; which is what told me there was an Adventure Lab. And because of this, I was able to log my Adventure Lab experience on this "bonus" cache (as well as in the Adventure Lab app)... and I see the smiley on the map.

I think it still applies. I see most cache owners wanting to have a good reputation, and that in part drives them to set quality caches. I also see most of them limiting the number of caches they set to what they can maintain. Of course; some drop out of the game; or things happen where they give it less focus over time. Some jump in and hide many before they understand the maintenance which will be involved. But I think the general statements there ring true for most cache owners today. At least near me.

I do too... The "issue" with this one is the location; on the map looks like an urban hide. And it is in a suburban sort of place. But there is this lovely church and interesting walk to unexpected greenspace, that I just didn't notice before.

Whilst it isn't perfect, I like this promotion more than most previous ones. I won't reach 500 points unless I target high FP caches, which I've started to do. Yesterday I found a nice multi. It is a cache which was published in 2005 and only 14 miles away (as the crow flies), but I never would have targeted without the promotion. I enjoyed it - interesting stages and theme and good final. Had > 50 FPs.

Many of my favourite caches are like this; they have one or more themed physical stages, which don't have the constraint of needing a log. Then a nice big cache at the end. I own a few like this myself. One reason you don't see more of them I suspect is that multis (and puzzle caches with multiple stages) don't get found as often, so some owners are reluctant to set them. It is also more effort to set.

Yes. Groundspeak uses a standard political map of the world. But as they use a different definition of "Ireland", it causes issues with the maps. I have them both filled in, but that's only because I've found caches in the UK as well as Ireland. (Though as I've found more in the UK, Northern Ireland is coloured darker than the rest of Ireland).

LIke others, I would feel awkward asking someone I don't know to arrange an event on my behalf. It has happened to me but "naturally", and that was great. E.g. in preparation to a visit to another country, I ask a CO for some help on his puzzle caches. He is helpful and we begin chatting, he also gives me helpful advice about where to visit etc.. and then he offers to arrange an event which coincides with my visit. I was very appreciative of this; but I wouldn't ask someone outright to host one. I've never arranged an event myself while travelling; but I don't have an issue with it. I attended one this weekend arranged by a group of visiting cachers from Germany. I do always look to see if events are already scheduled when I am planning to be in a location, and I've attended several events like that.

In my view you did nothing wrong. Ok, quoting the details of the guidelines can seem a bit "preachy", and making it bold I suppose makes it more so. But still what you said is correct and you weren't offensive in any way. I'm sure I've posted similar logs before, though more recently I use a "softer" log like "I would have listed this as micro rather than small".

I have a single experience of appeals. My log was deleted (in my view unfairly). I put a lot of detail in my initial request, but their immediate reply was to send me a template with a list of "standard" questions (some of which I had already answered). . I answered them and my log was reinstated a week or so later. I suspect they may have also asked the CO for information of their side of the story, but I don't know. My case was different than this one however. I signed the existing log.

I'm sure this will happen to me sometime, but luckily it hasn't yet. Whilst I can't find an explicit guideline saying this, I believe the spirit of the caches is education. If it is clear that someone was at the location and made an honest attempt to answer, but didn't get it 100% correct, what has happened to me is the CO told me where I went wrong (so further education), but told me that my find should stand. If you don't attempt some of the questions, or the CO has reason to believe you were not there, that's different.

The risks and methods to address them obviously vary greatly depending where you are. Where I am (England), the biggest dangers are humans, and cattle. When caching in cities and towns I generally stick to daylight, or very lighted areas, and I turn back if I don't like the feel of an area. In the countryside I try to avoid cows with calves and bulls. Carrying a gun isn't an option. When travelling in other countries, I research the local dangers, and adjust. In Australia I was concerned about snakes, in Johannesburg I took extra precautions for the human risks.

I'm surprised about them limiting to 250. I can understand they want a controlled trial, but if you compare to the AR caches (and logically, this is just another "toolkit", like Wherigo or AR), anyone could hide one. It has been 1 year, and there are around 600 AR caches. If you limit to 250 cachers; I suspect only a fraction of those will actually create one. Many will opt in without knowing what they are signing up for. Why not let anyone who meets the criteria create one? I really don't think there will be thousands.