IceColdUK

GPS accuracy (or at least, responsiveness) on the phones I first used for caching was certainly an issue, but I don’t think that’s the case now. As others have said, any GPS will struggle near tall buildings and under tree cover. And you have to remember there’s no guarantee that the cache coordinates are 100% accurate. The GPS will get you to the approximate location but then your cache-sense needs to kick in. :-) There are some cachers who only ever use phones, and there are others who only ever use a GPSr, but like many, I use both. I prefer the GPSr for the planned hike in the country, but the phone comes into its own for impromptu urban caching. Even on those hikes, I will get my phone out at GZ to check logs, photos, satellite imagery, etc., and to write draft logs, but generally I like to keep it safely tucked away for emergencies. For me, the main advantages of a GPSr are robustness and battery life. Tough phone covers and battery packs go some way to addressing these issues, but IMHO not quite far enough. (Others will disagree.) However, there is a learning curve. We’re all familiar with the standard(ish) behaviour of phone apps these days, but learning how your new GPSr works may be more of a challenge! And you do need to be better prepared and a little more tech-savvy, to get the correct maps and caches downloaded to the unit. If you can get to a local event, I’m sure you’ll be able to get other cachers to ‘show and tell’. Good luck.

Thought I'd 'bump' this thread just to make it clearer what problem I'm trying to solve, and to see if GS have any plans... I use GSAK for planning trips. I also add a 'Log Section' Note for solved puzzles, so that I can recall my 'puzzle-solving experience' by the time I find the cache (which could be months or even years later). I cache using a combination of GPSr and phone, but typically use the phone to add draft logs whilst in the field. I could use the GPSr, but (i) it's much easier on the phone, and (ii) because the logs are written back to the website there's less chance of losing them. Back home I complete my logging using GSAK: 1. Move my planned caches into the Publish Logs tool. 2. Compare the list to my Drafts on the website: change the Log Type (Found, DNF, Note) and Date on those that were attempted, and remove any that weren't. 3. Apply templates e.g. to include that 'Log Section' for the solved puzzles, my 'signature', and maybe a little boilerplate to say who I was caching with, etc. 4. For each cache, cut and paste the details from the Draft log (on the website) into GSAK, then rewrite as necessary, to describe my 'cache-finding experience'. 5. Add TB visits and drops, and photos to appropriate logs. 6. Publish all logs. :-) It would be really useful, to be able to extract the Drafts from the website, for import into the GSAK Publish Logs tool to simplify step 2 and 4. (Admittedly, there may be an issue of the draft notes being overwritten by the templates at step 3, but I'm sure those clever people at GSAK would be able to come up with something...) I really can't see myself moving away from GSAK Publish Logs tool, but does anybody have a better way of streamlining their logging? Thanks.

There's already a Cricket Pitch Micro series in UK - mostly in Surrey and Sussex - but it hasn't been added to in six years, and only has seven active caches: - https://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=d912eb33-cc73-473e-9296-54b05d54e1c0 If you're keen on a cricket-themed series, then it may be easier to expand this one rather than starting from scratch...

It’s a fair point, but if you don’t log them as Found, they will stay as unfound on your map. You may have enjoyed the hunt, but not so much that you’d want to accidentally do it again. ;-) I’d be fine with an explanation and a photo on any of my caches.

There was a similar case discussed on a UK Geocaching FB page recently. It seems that the CO had been trying to update their coords using the ‘Corrected Coordinates’ option (i.e. where you might enter the coords of a solved puzzle), instead of Admin Tools > Edit. He gave up, archived the old cache and created a new listing: same name, description, etc., same cache container, same logbook, same location ... but a different GC code. (I’m assuming the CO didn’t even need to go back to GZ.) I think the FTF element in this post is distracting slightly from the more basic point: regardless of who’s first, would/could/should you log a find on the ‘new’ cache without revisiting? After all, your name is on the (recycled) logbook. Personally, I wouldn’t, but I have some sympathy for the finders of the archived cache.

No big deal, but I thought you might have taken the opportunity to make the 'tool tips' on the cache page consistent with the descriptions on the attribute descriptions page (https://www.geocaching.com/about/icons.aspx).

Just created my first Cache since the December 5 updates that removed the Short Description from the Edit screen. I see that although the my new listing has no Short Description, the cache page is still rendered with an (empty) ShortDescription section, and a break (<br />) that leaves unnecessary whitespace at the top of the page. Not a big deal - I was just trying to get consistency with a previous cache in the same series - but easy to fix?

Not wishing to harp on about this 2 mile rule, but... For my two puzzle caches moving the listed coordinates is a real nuisance and will involve slightly reworking the puzzles, but I’ll manage. But what about GeoArt - there must be plenty of examples where the listed coords are more than 2 miles from the cache. Will it be possible to make any changes to these caches without changing the coords (and ruining the art)?

I understand the guidelines. What I don’t understand is whether the intention was to get older caches in line, or whether this is just an unfortunate side effect of the change. If the latter, it would be nice if the validation could be applied only if posted and/or final coordinates were moved. Is there any chance that this will be changed? Do you know how many existing mystery caches are affected by the change? If I do move the posted coordinates to allow me to update the cache page, will a reviewer be able to move them back to their already approved position? If not, I have a couple of puzzles that will need to be reworked. :-(

I agree. Fair enough for new caches, but it seems very poor that I am forced to move the coordinates of an existing cache as a result of a software change.

I also already was requesting a change here as I still believe this is complete nonsense (sorry that for ), BUT the official decision made was that this simply is as it should be! Final answer regarding that came from Frau Potter. The fun thing is that it would be ok to have the first stage being away 1000s of miles but not the final itself. Don't know if this fact might help you... I could change the posted coordinates to within 2 miles of the final, and add an additional waypoint for reference but this would draw more attention to the location and the hint to the puzzle becomes less subtle. Some may say this is a good thing(!), but I'm not happy that I'm forced to rework my puzzle when nothing has actually changed. LivingInNarnia, is it going to be possible to bypass this validation if neither posted nor final coordinates have changed?

When I submitted a mystery cache a couple of years ago, I persuaded my local reviewer to allow fractionally more than 2 miles between the posted coords and the final. (The posted coords provided a subtle clue to the puzzle.) I would guess there are many existing (older) caches that are considerably more than 2 miles from their posted coordinates. What was a guideline, is now being strictly enforced by the code, even for these existing caches. I've just tried to update my listing (simply to change the hint), but cannot save the change: Final coordinates are more than 3.2 km from the Posted Coordinates. Is there any way round this?

This is all so negative. Yes, there are issues with the implementation, but for some COs this is very useful - a simple to add checker for their puzzles.

Fair enough. :-)

But that really is arse about face. I want to know I have the correct solution before I correct the coordinates. (The danger is that you leave incorrect 'corrected coordinates' on the cache, and head off to search there when you spot the puzzle piece on the map.)

I think what d-n is saying is that some COs deliberately give incorrect final coordinates to the reviewer, to prevent a cache being rejected due to proximity issues, and therefore this 'native' checker is not for them. ;-)

I think this is going a bit off topic - I'm sure there are plenty of threads discussing 'when is a multi not a multi?'. The question here is, should it be possible to add a checker to a multi? Well, clearly there's nothing to stop a CO adding an external checker, so what's the problem with allowing them to add a native checker?

I have about 50 puzzles, and a majority have a coordinate checker (GeoCheck.org) - this has the advantage of being able to display a little more information about the puzzle theme and solution, as well as additional hints and waypoints. For these puzzles I can't see myself moving over to the 'native' checker anytime soon. However, I think this is a welcome new feature. Some thoughts: - Of course, it should NOT be mandatory. - Assuming it stays optional, then I don't see why it shouldn't be made available for any cache that has a 'Final Location' waypoint. (Many Letterbox Hybrids are actually puzzles, and some Multis should be!) - I don't think there's any need to replicate all of the functionality of existing checkers (fuzzy coordinates, dummy solutions, keyword validation, intermediate waypoint checks, etc., etc.) - keep it simple. - The box is massive! I think it would be nicer to implement as a popup along the lines of the 'Correct these coordinates' option, or as an expandable 'div'. - I'd prefer to see a single field, but no big deal. - I'm not sure about the automatic update of the coordinates, but think that it would be better to make this optional by adding an 'Update coordinates with correct solution?' checkbox. I have a few puzzles that (once solved) provide coordinates in plain text - it didn't seem necessary to provide a checker for these. However I know that it is useful to be able to confirm your coordinates for a long-solved puzzle ahead of a trip, so I am likely to add the native checker in these cases.

Yes, this was on the new profile page, but that was only for illustration. I had the same issue with the ads on cache pages. Looking again now though, and I'm being served up a different set of ads (on profile and cache pages) - none that fire up the speakers or mess about with the page, and all easily ignored. Watch this space! AND THEY'RE BACK!

Maybe you already have an ad-blocker installed? I displayed my dashboard (https://www.geocaching.com/account/dashboard) in six browsers on two PCs: HOME PC 1. Chrome After about 30 seconds, the page automatically scrolled down to the ad below the menu on the left-hand side, and started playing it. 2. Microsoft Edge Same behavious after about 10 seconds. 3. Microsoft IE11 Strange. A different selection of ads when I tried IE - no music or auto-scrolling. WORK LAPTOP (on a VPN) 1. Chrome A 40 second wait for the page to scroll down and start playing the ad. 2. Firefox Same behaviour after just a second or two. 3. Microsoft IE11 Popup: "This page is accessing information that is not under its control". Clicking 'No' disables the ad. Clicking 'Yes' and the ad plays after quite a (nice) long wait, but only after I'd scrolled down far enough to see the ad on the screen. This investigation has cost me dear - I'm now not going to be able to get the 'Go Compare' tune out of my head. :-(

I'm assuming the issue is with Google Ads rather than Groundspeak, but the ads on the Geocaching website have become infinitely more irritating overnight! The 'full media experience' is bad enough, but the volume can at least be muted. What's even more annoying is the way the page automatically scrolls to put the ad in frame. Hadn't really been bothered enough to install an Ad-blocker before but I will be now. I'm guessing I won't be alone...

I had a similar issue on my iPhone. Removing website data resolved it: Settings > Safari > Advanced > Website Data > Remove All Website Data Thanks, Richard

I asked these questions via email, and got the following replies from HQ: 1. Does the official app use the same API as third party tools such as GSAK? 2. Does the API allow access to Drafts (i.e. Field Notes), specifically read access? Followed this up with: 3. Any plans to change the API to allow read access to Drafts? Pity.

Isn't the same API used by the official smartphone app, as well as Cachly, GSAK, etc.? Regards, Richard

I arrived on this page for just this scenario. I was hoping it was possible to import GC.com Drafts into GSAK. (Export of Drafts to "FieldNote.txt" say, and import from there would be fine). If logging Drafts from a smartphone, it would be great to be able to process them through GSAK's Publish Logs in a similar way to the field notes you make on a GPSr.