edexter

Are there any plans to make the search function on the geocache site actually function properly? Entering the exact current location on the website returned a result more than 40 miles away while Cachly show one a quarter of a mile distant. This is not a new issue. edexter

Old wine in new bottles: Needs Maintenance and Needs Archive become Owner and Review Attention Requested. As far as I can tell the change is grammatical and will have about as much positive effect as most label changes have...For instance here's a local cache history: 4/2/22 Found log stated "No container just a log - and it is wet - tried to hide so not wet" At this point cache has 20 consecutive finds. 4/15/22: Owner Attention Requested log 4/24/22: Owner replies: "I will replace when I can get out there as I'm out of work currently for medical reasons." 4/20/23 : A year later and following five more finds of "the log with no container" second Owner Attention Requested log is posted 7/25/23: Following the first and only dnf a third Owner Attention Requested log 9/19/23: First reviewer attention requested log noting that cache is missing. It has been 17 months since the CO acknowledge the cache was missing but cache hasn't been replaced or disabled. 11/11/23: Second Reviewer Attention Requested Log. To sum up: Five logs requesting attention, one "I'll get to it when I can" response a year and a half ago. The cache has a very specific hint and is clearly gone yet a year and a half later, still listed as active. So the change in language has not been useful for increasing the accuracy of the listing service. Missing caches are still listed as present. As for the issue of the over eager reviewer archiving viable caches: I personally have seen no evidence of that in my area (SE Massachusetts). Generally if a CO monitors thier caches and responds to requests it's not an issue. Abandoned caches are a different story... edexter

That would be great. When might Cachly 8.1 happen?

Can the cachly app show your track?

1, Download the manual the manual for your gps online and read it 2, Open the main menu page and push the down arrow, locate the compass ikon and drag it up the the main menu page.

I typically rate the terrain for the highest difficulty that will be encountered with an explanation on the cache page of what you will find while doing the cache. Very steep river banks should probably get a t3.5 or t4 rating so the rating might be a 2/3.5 and the description something like: "terrain is generally a 2 except for a short very steep section section at GZ. Be careful: don't fall in."

I believe the purpose of an "NM" or "Needs Owners Attention" log is to point out that the cache container is damaged in some way and is no longer watertight. The most common complaint is that the log it too wet to sign. Many folks simply note that, don't post an NM, replace the wet log with another piece of paper and move on and the cache never gets fixed. Even when you do log an NM frequently nothing happens. Here's a prime example (names excluded to protect the guility) 5/7/21: Cache first reported as damaged "This cache needs some TLC. The box is rusted, and filled with bugs and moisture. 12/18/21: Sixth report of damaged cache: "Old, needs maintenance" 12/26/21: First "Owner Attention Needed" log: "Wet log. Relatively empty. Left some thing but the condition of the cache box itself is bad" 10/2/22: After another half dozen wet log reports: "Everything inside was pretty wet and getting moldy." 12/23/22 "Reviewer attention requested" log: "No response to NM Log posted a year ago; seven logs since report issues including leaky container and destroyed logbook. NR from CO who has not been active since 2019" 12/31/22 "Post reviewer note": The Reviewer posts a boilerplate note requesting "CO check on cache" 5/25/23 Note: "No response to NM Log posted a year ago; seven logs since report issues including leaky container and destroyed logbook. NR from CO who has not been active since 2019" CO has never responded, cache is still old, rusty, leaking and limping along as folks add baggies around it. This is a typical "No Maintenace Required" Cache more than two years on. edexter

If you read the logs you can get a good idea of the likely fate of the cache. If the CO archived it and says they pulled the cache, it's gone. If the CO archived it because it was missing, especially if they decided to archive it after they couldn't find it, it's also likely gone. Otherwise, it's still there, though most likely in rough shape. The smaller the cache, the more likely it is to be there but on the ground, under debris. Very few of my woods cache containers ever "go missing" but in-town caches have a much shorter lifespan before they are "muggled" (vandalized or stolen). Caches that are subject to natural forces also "disappear" with some frequency due to storms and floods. I have on rare occasion come across an abandoned archived cache still in place and still intact (ammo boxes) and removed and recycled them but mostly the earth recycles them. edexter

I spend a fair amount of time and creating and updating my cache pages and can't help but notice that over time some of my background images have disappeared. Does anyone know why this happens? The images used are all mine and located on my computer. I can upload them again easily enough once I notice it, but I'm wondering why it happens. Thanks, edexter

Groundspeak decided to eliminate benchmarks from the geocaching system, gave notice and then got rid of the listing page and all the logs. All that remains is the number of benchmarks you logged through the site. Those of us who benchmarked actively expressed our unhappiness with the decision but it had no impact at all. edexter

I find the % of Fav Points much more relevant than the total number of fav points and it would be simple to show both. Using a five point scale to indicate how much you liked something would probably actually be worse. I use Fav pts as a screening tool when I cache in unfamilar areas. If a cache has a high % of Fav pts, I look at it in detail. A scale based on objective factors would be more helpful for screening. Factors that I consider relevent relate to size, placement, cache container quality, the cache page, the envoronmental beauty, and the trail, and maintenance. If I were to rate a cache based on my preferances (You have your own and they will differ from mine) a lowly rated cache would be a micro, placed above pavement, with a wet log (non waterproof container), with a five word cache page description, by the side of the road, by a CO who doesn't do maintenance. I would rate that a zero on every scale and it describes about 20% of all caches placed in my area. A highly rated cache for me would be a small to regular sized container (room for log book and pencil) placed in woods by water, that is waterproof and of sturdy design, accurately described on a cache page that contains useful information related to the cache and area (parking, trailhead), that offers a hike of at least a half mile in a beautiful area, that the CO regularly maintains. The idea would be to have your subjective view tied to some objective criteria. My experience matches barefootjeff: caches with 5 fav pts with 10 finds are hidden from view (and those are more likely to be the ones I'd look for). Locally, the cache placer and the d/t rating, are more useful screening tools than the FP total. But on my travels, I don't know who places "my kind of caches" and it sure would be nice to have a better rating system, if I'm going to drive an hour or two.

For the longest time I’ve wished that geocaching had a rating system like other large listing services. If I want to buy something at Home Depot or Amazon every item has a score based on a five point rating scale by the users of the product. I can look at individual reviews or the aggregate score or the relative ratings at each point level. I can see what peple liked and didn't like. Geocaching has millions of caches, many tens of millions of finds and a single binary scoring system: fav point? Yes or No? That’s it. Dig down one level you can see the percentage of folks compared to the number of finds. The structure of the system is unbelievably crude. You “get” to award a favorite point to no more than one cache in ten. Though the apparent intention is to highlight "the good stuff", the information is largely negative since most caches have very few or no points at all. The caches with the highest absolute number are disproportionately tourist destinations or very old and provide little information other than “lots of people liked to go here”. I could create a better method of conveying information about the quality of a particular cache experience in ten minutes and I bet you could too. I think it’s time for geocaching to create a cache rating system that is useful to it’s users. What do you think? edexter

So. I think this issue can reframed as "what are the odds that a cache is really missing if they can't find it?". The idea being presented is that cachers with more finds are more likely to find a cache that folks with fewer finds. I think that in general that might be true, but the learning curve is much steeper than 1000 caches. Most folks know what they are doing way sooner than that, but leaving that aside here's how I view "the odds". I think, in terms of ability to find caches, my skill level is average or a little below: I find about 91% of caches I search for, record my dnfs, and track them to see how many were actually WNTs (Was Not There). The average difficulty rating for my finds is 2.0 (I seldom search for caches rated d 3 or higher so my stats apply the typical hide, not the super toughies) Turns out 4% of caches I've looked for were missing. (Based on: no further finds: cache repaired, replaced or archived by the CO or archived by The Reviewer) This tells me two things: 1, five of nine caches I didn't find I missed: so my find rate is 91/96 or about 95% and 2, 4% of caches are missing at any given moment. No matter how good you are, you can't find what isn't there. (This tells you something about folks who never record a dnf...) So, if you assume that a single dnf means there a better than 50% chance the cache is there, posting an NM log at this point is not helpful. (It's a false negative) Once the dnf string hits four though, there a better than 90% chance the cache is missing, so it seems reasonable to post one, to get the CO's attention. Compared to the average cacher, I am highly attentive to maintenance, aware of every dnf posted (I mean you get notified about every log, so...) and apply my own discount to dnf reports: If a very experience cacher reports a dnf, I typically check it. A real newbie, not so much, but two or three, I go take a look. In my experience, this issue is much less "too frequent NM logs" as "too infrequent owner maintenance". (Two thirds of all NM get no response at all from a CO and end up being archived by The Reviewer months or years later.) MNTA's experience is typical: 10 NM logged, 2 repairs to date. edexter

I find relatively few people will log an NM under any circumstances and most NM logs are not responded to by the CO. I suspect that Turfje65 is one of the minority of cache placers who take their responsibility to maintain their caches seriously and get annoyed by the occasional "false alarm". If you can't find a cache, a first step is to post a dnf, not an NM log. It doesn't matter how many finds you have. If you there are a string of dnfs ahead of you, then an NM log could be appropriate. As for "false NM logs", I can sympathize, but the incidence of "log wet, container damaged" Notes is typically five to ten times more common that "log wet, container damaged" Needs Maintenance logs. I typically deal with "questionable" logs by contacting the cacher and asking for more details. edexter

As I get older I notice three major changes in my caching activities: fewer long high mile hiking (and driving) days, much more cache selectivity, and more time spent placing and maintaining caches than in the past. The first change is partly do to aging and partly due to "clearing out the radius" of nearby caches. I'd much rather hike than drive and as the distance to the nearest "unfound good caches" increases, I'm less willing to drive an hour there and back. About five years into the game, I pretty much lost interest in micros within 200 feet of parking and since they are about half of all placements, my field of interest shrank. Most folks place single stage caches, but since I like to hike around the woods, once I started placing caches, I placed mostly multis that have five or six stages and involve a walk of a mile ot two (on average). Multis are exponentially harder to find, place and maintain than single stage caches but way more fun to my mind, and since they are closer to home the ratio of drive time to woods time shifts the right way for me. Plus, I know I'm going to enjoy the area and the cache since I only place stuff I'd like to find. edexter

As of 4/16/23 if I begin the search from my home coordinates and click "find nearby caches that I haven't found" I get an accurate list. If I click on any cache on the list and do the same thing I also get an accurate list with that cache as the center point . So it does appear to be finally working again. edexter

Still not working. It's been quite a while now.

Update: tomturtle reported problem with "Find nearby caches that I haven't found" on 11/16/22. As of today, 1/9/23 problem has not been resolved. At present the "search near home location" function is working, though not the search by current location nor the search by coordinates nor the search by city and state...

A week later, I entered a location search for a cache near N 38° 43.645 W 076° 39.307 (there is a cache at that location) and was rewarded with a list headed by a cache at N 38° 48.951 W 076° 32.339 .. Trying the nearby caches function yielded the same result. Neither are remotely close. What's up with this?

Having recently noticed that the "search by Geocache" function was returning nonsensical results, and the "nearby geocache" search also was not working, I tried "Search by Location" for Huntingtown, Maryland and was rewarded with a list showing the closest cache to be three towns and 11 miles away from Huntingtown... edexter

I may be late to the discussion on this (but a search of this site by "location" query generated no hits) but when I enter a coordinate set in the search box I get a nonsensical result. The "find caches nearby" function hasn't worked for weeks but I just noticed this one. Anyone know what the issue is?

Papa-Bear-NYC logged 578 benchmarks on the GC data base and likely thousands more on the NGS site. His extensive notes, descriptions and photographs, especially of historic marks such as his efforts on the Eastern Oblique Arc were certainly inspiring to me and other Benchmarkers. edexter

Follow up: after the note above appeared the CO archived that cache and another RW cache within a few hours. Two down, 442 to go ;-)

Yes, the process is supposed to be: The cache has a problem and someone posts an NM log, the Co responds and fixes it and posts an OM. Or the CO fails to respond and someone posts an NA log, and the CO responds with an OM log and fixes it. Or The Reviewer disables the cache, gives the CO a set time to fix it and if there is no response, archives it. And yet... (Since I have previously been rebuked for "naming names" this cache shall remain un-named but unfortunately not atypical...) Note/NA log posted today 12/19/22 "It's hard to tell what it takes to get a CO to repair a cache or to archive it when they no longer want to maintain it. It's also hard to tell what it takes for The Reviewer, whichever one that might be to nudge the CO but apparently this is not enough... NM Log 4/17/22 "Found it! Sadly this one was left open and everything is totally soaked.Soaked with water. Needs maintenance" NA log 7/8/22 "Container full of water and log is saturated. Has been reported as needs maintenance before, does not appear CO has logged in for a while. Consider archive?" Found log 7/8/22 "...the contents are absolutely soaked - log is not writable. The cache is in desperate need of TLC but it looks like the CO is no longer caching so perhaps it should be archived to make room for someone else. TFTC" Found log 9/18/22 "I found it open wet and moldy. I was able to sign but needs maintenance.. Lid is also cracked" Found log: 10/3/22 "Cache is definitely in need of some TLC, but we were able to sign it!" Found log 10/30/22 "TFTC, unable to sign log, lid is cracked" NM Log 11/7/22 "the logbook was a solid block of gluey paper. I was able to sign the top sheet, as the whole block was nearly dry, but there's only room for one or two more signatures. This cache needs a new logbook. Posting a needs maintenance log." Again, just saying...

Could someone enlighten me as to what The Reviewer role is once a cache has been placed and listed if it is not to monitor the condition of the cache to maintain the accuracy of the list? Whose task is it aside from the CO? And when the CO abandons their responsibility who is supposed to step in aside from The Reviewer? Everyone who feels it is the COs job is correct but as my personal experience shows "urging" other cachers to maintain their caches fails because 1, they have left the game, 2, they just don't do it, 3, they get angry with you for suggesting it. Try communicating with a few "no maintenance" caches owners it and see how that works out for you ;-) Upon occasion I have offered to do maintenance on a cache I particularly liked (50% take up rate) or to "adopt" the cache (2 for 7). While this can fix the cache it doesn't fix the Red Wrench. Ah, enough on that problem. Thank you edexter