thebruce0

Until it's fixed, you could try forcing the mobile browser to request the desktop version of the website if it's available. It may help.

So... that makes it sound like ANY external website requires a privacy policy and a disclosure agreement in order to be used on a cache page. That seems excessive. And way out of reach, as many websites used for puzzle caches are just websites with content. Now mob cache functionality is more than just a website that provides content, it's functional and makes use of user data. But "any site or app" is way more far reaching than user-functional websites... I hope that's what they were referring to, not just "any site". I know plenty of web-based puzzles set up on personal websites that don't have any form of policy let alone intentionally adhering to any international privacy laws. Has the approval process for any and all external website links been changed?

We can't control what other geocachers do. Not everyone 'likes' to post NM/OAR. They are good to post if you feel the owner should tend to the cache. It's more annoying when no one posts one on a cache that clearly needs one, leading to a sub-par geocache find. So, yep, good that you added the maintenance log if you deemed it necessary.

I log for the day I found the cache. Yes, this is the correct practice, even if you log the cache [post the log] many days later. That's where occasionally there's confusion - 'log date' sometimes is used to refer to the date on the log, and the date the log is saved to the listing. Date on the online log ~ should be date the cache was found Date the online log is saved to the listing ~ not required to be done on the same date it was found.

Phones or GPSrs, everyone I know who doesn't log right away has something - a draft or a flag on the device - that they set when they find it. Offline. Chance they'll log them all when they get home? 50/50 at best. I regularly hold drafts for a few days these days unless I feel the urge to post them or have an imminent immediate reason to (like ftf logs). I don't know anyone who tries to mentally "remember" which cache they found, let alone that and forget the date they found it. Side note: I feel like sometimes there's a bit of cross-talk about the term 'date you found it'. Sometimes I see questions about whether you should 'log the cache the date you found it'. Some people interpret that as referring to the value of the date field on the log, and some interpret it as when you physically post the find log to the listing. I think the vast majority of cachers make sure the Date of the Found It is accurate the date it was found, even if they post the log on a different date. But I think there are some who do have a personal ethic of posting their Finds on the same date they actually found the cache (thus the Date Found value is implied accurate). But there is no rule/guideline saying that the Found It log must be posted on the same date as the log was signed nor the same date in the Date Found value; but it is good practice to date the Found It for the date it was actually signed, regardless of when you post the log to the listing.

Yeah.... no. Not so much a security feature as a sufficiently annoying requirement that would become a game-killer. Won't happen.

"Don't overthink it" I think is paramount. FTF is too vague. Everyone has different ideas and personal etiquette. Just define what you're "first" off. Someone who signed the log first might claim "first to sign". Someone who posted the log first might claim "first to log" if they were with other friends (happens in events a lot :P). You could claim ftf by "first to solve the puzzle AND sign the sheet" if the solution was determined by a loophole, eg. Or "first to find after publish" (against beta-tester ftfs). And so "first to sign AND qualify" is a perfectly legitimately FTF claim, IMO, even if someone else logs later saying they were first to sign the log sheet. There's no conflict - they were first to sign the log sheet, go on them. You were first to qualify as well. Good on you. Who has rights to the "FTF" reward? There is no reward. This is why I use a trackable now for a more accurate distance-traveled. Much easier to make adjustments to be more accurate, and can include visits to non-find geocaches as well, and owner visits. IMO there are 3 possible dates to log the find on for challenges, and I go with the latest date of the three, while the first is the 'cleanest' find. 1. Date the log was signed (permitted if already qualified) 2. Date qualified (if the log was signed before qualification) 3. Date qualification was determined (exception case, least preferable - eg, signed years ago, forgot, re-checked today and now qualify, but no idea when; so log it today, as that's more preferable than 'years ago') But per the OP, yeah, just clarify what you're "claiming" first of. Then there's no determinable conflict or doubt.

Another way you can put it, if you "find" something that someone else moved, which used to be how you hid it, then you didn't find your cache, you found whatever it is that the other person did to your cache, so it's still technically not a 'new' find on your cache. Still an owner maintenance if you fix it back to your cache.

Unfortunate for the web-based AR implementation, as that doesn't require any downloads. But it may just be the compatibility and accessibility isn't quite there yet. It may also have to do with making use of GPS in the web app, similar to the question of 'mob' caches making use of gps safely and privately. Who knows. But I definitely hope that HQ will in time allow web-based AR functionality. That's the way mobile devices are going, really

You can also design window decals to place on the outside of tinted windows. They'll last for some time but may eventually begin to peel or crack. Simple to replace anyway. Plenty of printers stores out there can create window decals.

As I've said, the system is in place to allow the cache owner to decide if that log is legitimate. And yes, there are people who reportedly take advantage of the 'group caching' loophole. And it's frustrating and infuriating - but not "cheating", and most often people have just now decided to shrug it off because nothing can be done and it's not worth the effort. As I always say, as long as the cache was found that day, it no longer causes me angst if 30 people log it found when 1 person did and the rest just 'claimed' it under the group caching name. It's annoying, but it's not cheating. I choose to encourage better etiquette, because as mentioned before, those other 29 are "only cheating themselves" (while also annoying any cache owners who crafted a geocache experience that was skirted merely so they could earn a +1 smiley, and they can't do anything about it if the owner can't "prove" those 29 finders weren't also present). And no, a code word won't help, because that 1 person would just tell everyone the code word. Same problem. But even less agency on the owner's part.

And... the mechanics no longer provide for logging Found on your own cache. So the point is moot. That is not what the log in the context of geocaching implies. May as well log that I 'found' the trailhead. I 'found' parking. I 'found' the GC code! No, the "Found It" log is created to indicate that user has accomplished the needed task in order to state that they have discovered and found the geocache. That's the implication. An owner can't do this on their own physical geocache. That is one reason, I can agree.

Same here in Canberra. Mostly all the CO has to do is attend. Yep, and that's what the log implies - the poster has attended. A host may also "host" the event, but there is no log for that The host hosts, and attends, and earns the right to log Attended. But if a "Found It" log implies the act of discovery and success, a hider cannot "Found it" on their own geocache [which they hid, not including adopting after finding].

Do you have any reference for this requirement? It is new to me. Many players sign caches they definitely haven't found but they meet the requirements to log a find. In many cases, this happens when a group on geocachers are searching a cache at the same time and only one of them actually finds the cache. We both know what "you" means. The nature of getting your name - or the name you're caching under for that find - on paper is irrelevant and always arguable. Personal ethic aside, HQ will not arbitrate the method of ink on paper. The point to the phrase is that you - whether by touch or sight or vocal confirmation or some other sense - have "found the geocache!" and your goal is to have the paper signed with a name you identify under. The intent of the spirit of the activity is confirmed as a "find" by signature on paper.

And then one person takes that photo and shares it to their group of friends privately, they all log the finds, claim it, and lock them in because "but we had the code word!" It's nowhere near as simple as that. And you add layers up on layers of methods to thwart such 'cheating'. Or, you can let people duke it out themselves, while encouraging the proper spirit of the activity - sign the logsheet, or convince the owner you found it. Then log it online.

There isn't - until a diligent owner who upholds their agreement in owning a cache and maintaining it (including the online listing) checks the log and finds that the user's name isn't on the sheet. Then *wipe* goes the log from the history. And it won't be restored unless appeals decides that there's sufficient evidence that the find is legitimate, per the guidelines. Beyond that they generally take a hands-off approach encouraging the hider and finder to decide themselves. And if that's the case most likely nothing will change unless the finder can change the hider's mind. The mechanics of this hobby are set up so there is no technical "cheating" - mainly because it's not a competition (whether or not someone's find count is accurate does not affect any other user one iota), and any comparative value placed on stats is entirely inferred and subjective. There can however be misleading information - typically, inaccurate logging practices that can mislead geocachers. But that's not "cheating", that's abusing the system and negatively affecting others' experiences. That's why cache owners have responsibilities, and why guidelines are in place to demonstrate good etiquette and processes to minimize that angst from misleading information. But as soon as you insert a technical programmatic line that universally determines validity of a find, 100% absolutely guaranteed there will be people from every nation taking advantage of the fact that with no judgment to be made, illegitimate finds can be logged and protected purely for the sake of the numbers and stats. And then, the 'find' loses all meaning if the owners can't make the reasonable judgment about what is and isn't a find. And if you say well, they still can, then there's no point ultimately in the technical logging allowance. Just sign the sheet. Just sign the sheet. Or explain why you believe you found the cache and your log should stand so the CO will agree. Simple concept, really. Code words and technical hurdles codified in the game are just adding complexity that will also add enticement to circumvention and make the whole process an enormous headache to keep 'legitimate'.

No one ever believed or says that a name on a log sheet is hard objective proof that the one who signed the name is the one identifies with the name. And with that you see why everything else is a grey area. Who signed? You? A friend? Were you 1 foot away or 10 feet? Alone or in a group? Signed with initial or full name? Real name or caching name? Is it even legible? No, in practical application the rule does not require a person to sign their own legible name to a log sheet to 'earn' the right to log it online. In practice, in effect it's simply that the name you cache under and sign the log with for that find is on the logsheet in order to protect your log against deletion from the CO. And the mature, reasonable adults need to arbitrate their own disagreement first. I don't think HQ ever meant that the reason behind this 'rule' was literal "proof" of a find. It's merely the most streamlined mechanism for making a judgment which can never be guaranteed correct 100% of the time. It's a simple rule, a straightforward rule, and fighting over it is ultimately much more hassle than it's worth so it's up to the participants to decide how to deal with the disagreement. HQ doesn't want to get involved with quibbling as a very distant 3rd party. It's simple: Name in log = Online log. Who's going be first to try to skirt the spirit of this activity? The finder or the hider? Hopefully neither if both understand the spirit. If I log a find online by photo log or for whatever other reason I'm sure it's 'found' but my name is not on the log sheet, I am ready for the log to be deleted and accept that fate if the CO decides. Because I know the find log isn't "I saw the cache" or "I touched the container" or some other opinion about what constitutes a "Find". My Find log for physical caches implies that I got to the finish line and signed the logsheet. If I try to log a cache found where that wasn't the technical outcome, then I'm fine if the owner deletes my log. Sure I could be miffed if I really feel the find was deserved, but again, my feelings and opinion don't prove anything. Adjust your goals so that signing the logsheet (having your name in the log after having found the cache, whether alone or with friends) is your personal and primary goal when looking for a physical geocache. Then all the bases are covered. And if you're not certain the owner will be satisfied, document your accomplishment in photos and be ready to ask for an appeal.

How is this proof for the finder? Hypithetically, lets say a cacher finds a cache and signs the log. Let's say now the CO decides for some reason that they wish to delete the log. How can the finder prove he found it? Yes they can dispute it with GS. The CO could invent a log omitting the finders signature. GS probably would side with CO. I'm guessing, never had to apeal anything. Maybe others know better here. Mhm, that's how it works. It's not a perfect system, but if people play legitimately, that's the purpose for signing the log sheet. If a person claims that the signature is theirs, almost certainly an appeal will have the find log reinstated and locked so the CO doesn't delete it. That's the intent. Of course there's always room for people to be deceptive. Let's not encourage it. If the CO finds no reasonable evidence that a user actually found the cache (typically by signature on the log sheet) they have grounds if they choose, to delete the Find log, and generally HQ will stand by that. Yes, people quibble over details. Ultimately that's not relevant to the reason the guidelines say (in so many words) that you sign the log sheet and you then may log it online. That's the baseline. Not signed? CO has grounds to delete the log. Signed? The CO should be letting the online log stand. Beyond that, quibble it amongst yourselves and sort it out. Still not solved? HQ will arbitrate based on that one guideline: Is the log signed? If so, then the find is locked against deletion.

I contact the last holder and give it a short amount of time. I know there are times I have dropped a TB, aiming to log it along with my logs, but someone by chance swings by and finds it the same, grabbing from me, or the other cache it was in, thinking it was forgotten or something. I want to give it miles, so I have to message them and let them know I'm grabbing it back so I can properly drop it by log into that cache, on the correct dates, then they can properly pick it up from that cache. Then I message the owner to let them know what's going on. It's a big hassle. But there are 2 takeaways: 1. Log trackable activity as soon as possible (I try to now to log TBs separately and immediately if I'm out on a trip and may not get to logging caches for a day or two or more). 2. Don't assume a TB is missing or forgotten; make a habit of contacting the last holder to see if they just forgot, and find out what they plan to do. Nothing? Then grab it. 3. If you grab it without indicating where you grabbed it from (like a cache, if it was still listed in someone's possession), consider being courteous and giving it the travel mileage by dropping it in the cache you found it in, then retrieving it. You can delete any extraneous logs. That at least is how I tend to handle TB corrections and etiquette these days.

enh. To log an event as Attended, you just need to Attend the event; as a host of the event you also attend the event. To log a geocache as 'Found', you need to find the geocache. If you placed it, you didn't find it; you own it. There is a difference between "attended" and "found it".

Suggestions that improve the accepted process of the actual hobby can be much more reasonable and feasible than suggestions that attempt to alter the core process at a fundamental level introducing new mechanics that people will, guaranteed, inevitably attempt to circumvent. Especially if it's new-and-shiny, where the established norm has gone through many years of rigorous 'playtesting' as it were, and still survives. The more that strict rules and processes are introduced, the much easier it will be for people to 'break' them and objectively cheat and cause heartache and frustration in the community. As people will always try to push that limit, this game has accepted that a massive grey area with few strict rules, wherein community is encouraged to lean towards ethical activity and the spirit of the hobby and debate amongst itself issues of opinion rather than codifying them into law, is the least chaotic mechanic for this hobby's success and longevity. Sign the paper logsheet as evidence to lock in your find online. If there are issues, the owner and the finder can duke it out. If it comes to breaking a general term of use for the website, or breaking one of the few rules, appeals can step in. They regularly recommend that geocachers come up with a solution themselves, since HQ does not want to be the arbiter of subjective he-said/she-said debates. Technology will be broken by people who desire it enough, and if the 'rule' to break is solely defined on what the technology is programmed to do, then cheaters will win. Rather, leave it loose and encourage the spirit of what this is about, so there is less 'value' in cheating because then, as they say, "they're only cheating themselves". Game developers (vs cheaters), system administrators (vs hackers), puzzle creators (vs puzzlers), and others, often deal with this same dilemma. Hackers have to weigh the desire to win with how much effort it takes to do so. So you either make it ridiculously hard to cheat, or you make it less 'rewarding' to win. In geocaching, "cheating" merely gets you statistical numbers and you miss out on experiences. So, focus less on numbers and more on fun, without trying to 'protect' the numbers. If someone can get a smiley by spoofing their geolocation easily and quickly, or getting an answer without doing work, generally speaking, they will. Especially if there's nothing the other side can do about it. Adventure Labs had to deal with that - the technical aspect. And they're still attempting to deal with people circumventing the 'spirit' of the concept; eg armchair-logging massive airport series requiring only an easily attained code for each 'Location' (ironically) to boost that smiley count). Geocaching Challenges (in their hayday) had to deal with that - the value proposition. Except that it got SO loose and people abused it towards mocking the concept that they killed it off. No, the reason why geocaching is unique and still successful after 24 years is that no other game is like it (well, letterboxing which predates it I guess). All these other location-based digital technology games have a hayday, and often die off, whether the cost of keeping it running is too high, or cheating runs too rampant, or something bigger and better comes along... Why hasn't that happened with geocaching? Because ultimately the best value one can attain is in the experience, not the numbers, and it does not rely on changing technology nearly as much as any other game. GPS. Website. Simple rules. Deal with everything else yourselves. Forge amazing experiences for others to enjoy. Boom, done. Other methods of 'proving' the find have been suggested over the many years this game has been around. So this suggestion really is nothing new (sorry to say), which is another reason there's a good amount of blowback. The debate's been rehashed over the years; there's nothing new under the sun.

Part of me wonders about handwritten codewords that might be confusing Yup. For a cache or two I published in the past, I used label makers to punch numbers/text into sticky labels. Those last through weathering and are super easy to read, 3d, and easy to replace if lost or broken. Highly recommended. But, whatever is on those labels is always used as an intermediate waypoint needed to get to the next stage or final - not a requirement to log a find online. (ick)

Ya, but I'd guess there'd need to be an objective metric to determine if the event listing 'qualifies' for the category. I think that's typically why they go with expected attendee count.

IANAL, but I've been informed that the icons are open source and publicly usable, not owned by GCHQ. Apart from trademarked/copyright names and terms used in geocaching specifically, the attributes (most if not all) are free to use. Someone could double check and verify that...

Oh I agree, I feel like they overdid CC events and handed them out the wazoo so they lost their sheen. This wouldn't be an idea for people to get the CC event type, it would be to categorize events that opt in to be a 25year event that aren't mega events, and an umbrella under which to award the 25year souvenir for people who can't attend a megabut can attend a 'special' event, without reducing the sheen of the BP mega. Of course there would be criticisms of the idea, there would be of any idea, it seems here, unless the Block Party event type could be applied to any event worldwide even if there were only 1 attendee. That's (frankly, imo, ridiculous). It's all a grey area of differing opinions of attendee counts, accessibility, etc. Why 25? Why not 20 in a slower area? Too much, maybe 15? How about just 5 because there's only 4 cachers in 100km square? I only suggested 25 people because it's on theme of 25 years, and it's not unreasonable an event size for a special event in most any area of the world. If you can get 24 people, you can get 25, and even if an average event is much less, you could hit 25 if you know even a few more non-geocachers. There will always be "not good enough" complaints. How about trying to find a solution that isn't just complaining and ranting and that might rather be enticing for HQ to consider, which isn't contrary to and trying to change official plans already in place and announced? *shrug* Brainstorm.