Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by thebruce0

  1. Just like every cache, the ratings and attributes can and will never indicate the 100% single and only manner of signing the log as the CO intended. They are simply guides as to what to expect per the owner's opinion. As long as everyone remembers that regions and opinions differ, and that the only 'requirement' is your name in the logsheet, then you can be as creative as you like getting to the cache, whether your method is accurate to the listing or not. Which is why it's always a judgment call as to whether you think there's a "problem" with the listing vs how you found the cache - and at what point you do something about it immediately, or let the CO know and wait for a response to proxy maintain, or let the CO know and just move along, or just say nothing at all. The one option that should never be on that list is taking it upon yourself to assume what the listing should be - or what the cache should be - and "fix" it yourself without even letting anyone know; cuz you know, it ain't your cache
  2. If I'm unsure, I return it to where I found it. Only in extremely obvious situations do I place it differently than found (ie, the CO is very clear where it should be, by description or hint, and that's not where it was). But if I place it where I found it and it seems off, then I'll be clear about that in my log. So many people don't care and just log what they find so the CO never really knows if the cache is still in place as intended. At least then my opinion about whether it should be a 1.5T+Tool or a 4T is clear in my log, and if the CO interprets it as though the container has migrated, they can choose whether to come back and fix it. But if the hint, for example, says 10' up the pole, and I found it at 1' up the pole, I'm going to do my best to place it back at 10' -- regardless of the T rating.
  3. As a side note, the web map doesn't do this either. If I want to see specific coordinates, what I tend to do is enter it in the search, so the map centers on that location, then zoom in all the way to get a sense of the actual location. With the GME browser extension I can add a pin at the coordinates (sometimes trial and error to get the exact lat/lon).
  4. Yes, Project-GC's maps allow showing the original or corrected coordinates. Cachly on iOS also allows you now to use the original or corrected coordinates. I find it hard to believe that HQ isn't at all working on some manner of implementing a feature like this... at least I hope they are
  5. I have. I think that sometimes a tall person places a cache and thinks that's easy to reach, when many people can't reach it. Then rates it 1.5T and the next person needs a ladder, or to climb the post . Well, you can also stand on the ground and use a very very long pole. What's evil is if it's too high, and it's attached, thus you need to leave the ground. All of these are factors to consider in the T and/or attribute settings.
  6. Yes remember there's accuracy for the device which is only so far, and there's precision of the coordinates which is that 3 decimal standard for geocaching. Old smartphones may have a bit of an issue, but newer phones shouldn't have nay problem. And if they do it's likely any device will. Sometimes you might find a spot that everyone seems to report "bouncing" gps. If there's nothing you can do to get a more accurate coordinate, you can counter it by providing a more descriptive hint and description. I hate when people log that their gps reading was different and assume that theirs is correct, after loads of finds without problems or even 'spot on' gps comments. Or, when a cache has numerous comments about the coordinates being off, but the CO assuming everyone is wrong and not adjusting their listing. All you can do as a CO is do your best to provide as accurate coordinates as you're able. If you're not confidently certain then just get a friend or few to help.
  7. Use Project-GC's MapCompare tool: https://project-gc.com/Tools/MapCompare Set your profile name, add the Show Disabled and Archived filter, add the Centerpoint filter with a radius that's not wider than needed (it could take a while).
  8. You can also view the unpublished cache in the mobile web browser. For easy data you can still edit the personal note. But you can Edit the listing in the browser. And if you want to use gps for testing, try the above suggestions (in-app set waypoints to another cache, or use another gps app that can provide coordinates)
  9. You can bookmark search results - the filter parameters are in the URL, so you can effectively save any search setup and go directly to it from a bookmark. Handy workaround. Not really... same can be said about gps coordinates (I wish they'd use the same unified input they have for corrected coordinate entry, auto-sensing the format). But, for a date the format requested can be shown in a label. There are plenty of websites I've visited where I have to enter m/d/y in the format they want, not the format I like Even so, it would be trivial to provide a localized set of date input fields dependent on the user. A tap-tap-tap interface may be much more mobile-friendly, but less desktop friendly. Providing both input styles is really the more accommodating way in web design.
  10. Actually, geocaching as a hobby can exist without geocaching.com. This is just a listing service. And there are plenty of "listing" services that may charge for the privilege of listing whatever it is they list on their service, because of additional features they provide to make it more worthwhile to list on their service. Consider this site no different. Actually, it is because the hobby isn't impacted fundamentally by any paid membership perks. One can be a 'basic member' (or would you prefer 'user with non-premium functionality'?) and still fully participate in the hobby of geocaching. Additionally, the cost of a paid membership is around one restaurant dinner per year. Content may be populated by members, as a listing service, but non-paying users should probably be happy that paid content isn't completely restricted to paying members only; there's probably more reasonable argument for HQ to enact that policy in fairness to paying members. But they still choose to make the standard use of this listing website free for all, so that geocaching as a hobby doesn't have a paywall to participation...
  11. Yep. And the 'nicer' it looks, the more likely it is someone will move it. If it looks TOO nice, the more chance there is someone will keep it . But if it looks like a piece of paper attached to something (or nothing) it may just keep getting passed up either as trash or swag no one wants. Geocachers knows the TB symbol - if you make a proxy, be sure to include the symbol and something that stands out from run-of-the-mill swag. That'll help.
  12. Another major difference: Earthcaches, Multis, and Wherigos are all standard geocache listings. Adventure Labs are not. They can also actually be placed on the Ignore list. Adventure Labs cannot. A couple big differences when it comes to "just ignore them" ALs are in a limbo state between being entirely distinct and their own side game, and being another type of geocache listing. And they're much closer to their own thing than to a geocache listing. But yes, no one disagrees that one can simply 'just not do them.' that argument can be made about anything in this hobby. But honestly that's missing the point of the discussion - that's either how to improve them and their integration, or requesting they be made entirely distinct.
  13. On the flipside, while you assume "most casual cachers" have low find counts and only Traditionals (a point that really is pretty irrelevant to the topic, true or not), that kind of minimizes the relevance of those of us who only cache with a smartphone and have well over 10,000 finds and been geocaching over a decade - likewise one can assume that the number of cachers (casual or hardcore) who only cache with a dedicated GPS device with no mobile access to a smartphone (much more relevant to the topic) is as rare as those like me are assumed to be. So is a smartphone really a special tool? Anyway, I'd say smartphones are ubiquitous enough not to be a 'special' device; but, it could still be prudent to indicate in some way that a field puzzle, or afield task is required. You can't look at it and move on to the next stage (unless you can mentally decode a QR). It needs 'solving' - and it so happens that smartphones typically have a convenient tool for 'decoding' it automatically.
  14. Once again, i don't there's anyone saying Adventure Labs are bad an universally must go away. That's fine. The biggest critique is that they are statistically and practically half-way geocaching, in regards to implementation in the website and the activity's relation to 'generic' geocaching. I'd wager there'd be zero issue if they were entirely their own thing. Maybe, even, a bit more acceptance by people who are critical of this "annoying lab project" (because they could do them without affecting their geocache listing statistics and history in any way)
  15. The app could provide a feature setting to disable in-app notifications. Seems like a reasonable setting to turn off those promotional popups and alerts...
  16. For comparison, month 1: Found a Multi-Cache: 600 Found a Mystery Cache: 500 Found an EarthCache: 450 Found an Adventure Lab Cache: 350 Found it: 325 Base camp: 325 - Peak: 4884
  17. You need to realize that this is a filter, nothing checked, no filter set. Whatever it's called technically doesn't matter as much as what it does. If having nothing checked returns everything, then the options are subtractive, reducing results. If the only way to get everything is to toggle everything on, then the options are additive. Here the options are primarily additive. But, with nothing checked (eg the cache types) all are returned. It's not the first time this has been done. With nothing selected, a section reverts to the 'default' of returning all -- uncheck all cache types, and all results will match; but check one cache type, and only that will be returned. So the question is - how literal should the options be? Uncheck everything to return the same results as having everything checked? Or default to all checked so the definition of the filter options remains consistent? The options have a mix of functionality. I'd personally prefer to see everything additive, and begin with everything checked that returns a 'standard' search result. Make adjustments to the options as desired. (ie, if no cache types are selected, return nothing, otherwise it could confuse people) eta: Alternatively, I've seen this functionality as well - if nothing is checked, disable the section so it's clear that the relevant filter is not being applied (that is, returning all). In that case, cache types being visibly disabled (and having nothing checked) returns the same result as all cache types being checked.
  18. And, at least to my knowledge, each of those stickers would need to be listed as physical waypoints since it's something the owner has left physically at the location, as opposed to looking at something that already existed there.
  19. I agree. And have got comments occasionally that they're glad there's a checker. IMO, part of the 'challenge' was tracking and managing the qualifications and documentations yourself, included in the D rating. But alas, HQ deemed that to be beyond the scope of the geocaching experience and that every challenge requires a checker. Which as you say seems to make disallowing 'bookkeeping' kind of moot -- however planning to qualify (finding caches for challenges) isn't simplified by the existence of a checker, so 'bookkeeping' challenges are still disallowed.
  20. Ahhh, right - it's not required to post the results. It's only required that you qualify. As long as the checker shows green, that's the only requirement. Pre-moratorium could require posting evidence of qualification, not post. Still, straight up archival seems harsh. Here the CO would have been given time to make the change to the text. (maybe this CO was already given that time though? who knows)
  21. Yeah that's an odd one. It's a straightforward double fizzy challenge. The only thing maybe that seems out of place is in point6, the mention of the UnChallenges in the series, but that's not this cache; maybe someone thought that sentence was referring to this listing (not requiring documentation)... yet right after the mention of the Challenges in the series that do require documentation. Very strange... agreed, either a mistake, or something else going on (maybe the CO is deleting valid logs? shrug). The archival reason though (on the surface) does seem incorrect.
  22. The DT grid shape wasn't declined in the context of lat/lon, it was just a 'user-defined' shape, on the DT grid. Or moreso, the impression of a user-defined shape. The more it looked like mere cumulative stats, the less likely it would be considered a subjective user-made boundary, which in theory could end up as anything one could imagine. That limitless nature of "user-defined" is likely a factor in the banning. Not that I agree with that restriction, because that's where creativity is spawned but the key aspect is "user-defined", not primarily lat/lon or DT grid. I would assume any sub-grouping of statistic (including text) that is subjectively chosen by the user would be considered 'user-defined [region]' (thus requiring "bookkeeping" to determine qualifiers, rather than easy searches and standard stats). Which is why it was kind of odd that selecting individual counties was allowed; but I'd guess that counties are generally so large that you can't really make a subjective 'shape' out of them, and PGC provides county stats... Yet there are some challenges that have special checkers coded, which once again comes back to submitting to what HQ deems 'reasonable' for a challenge concept or exceptions to general limitations. *waits to see if someone draws a 'picture' by filling in select counties across the United States and uses that as a geographic boundary for a challenge completion* haha
  23. It could be possible to create the ability, on a single account level, to re-verify a souvenir. In this case it wouldn't happen automatically, but much like PGC queues up profile stat updates, one could request that the requirements for a souvenir be revalidated. This doesn't address couch-cachers (why would they willingly choose to revalidate a souvenir for removal if they fake-logged to get it) but, if that functionality can exist, then it potentially be expanded to proxy-queue souvenir checks, or even limit the checks to a certain amount per day/week/month. Perhaps a user's souvenir scan revalidation could be triggered only on log deletion or date adjustment. It could check for souvenirs related to the original log, then queue revalidation for only those souvenirs. That way if a user makes a log adjustment, at some point a relevant souvenir may be removed if it no longer applies. And the checks don't overwhelm the system, it's still just a once-off once the system gets to it, and it wouldn't require a user to make the initial request. There are ways to make it work....
  24. My understanding was this falls under "bookkeeping" challenges which were added as disallowed post-moratorium. Maybe they just added the details recently, but text-based challenges haven't been allowed for years. Officially, at least. Perhaps some got through, and perhaps some got archived if reported (per fizzymagic & rock chalk's exchange). I was miffed at the coordinate-based challenges being denied (with the new rules) as well, but I came to accept that the only 'region' based parameters you're able to use for challenges that are not considered "user-defined" are countries, states/provinces, and counties. Counties the odd one being that PGC has those details. I have had challenges published wherein qualifiers are only within select counties - but choosing a "user-defined" boundary of lat/lon minutes is disallowed. Around the moratorium I was working with our reviewers to try to get a series of challenges based on all of these rules published, but was blocked at almost every turn. I barely got one published that has you finding geocaches - cumulative - for D+T values. ie, a certain number of 2.0 (1/1), 2.5 (1/1.5 or 1.5/1), 3.0 (1.5/1.5, 1.0/2.0, 2.0/1.0), etc up to 10.0 (5/5). If you put them on the DT grid, you're finding sums across the diagonals, so it looks like diagonal lines. Nope, disallowed - user-defined 'shape'. I shifted the depiction to look like a diamond - column one shows DTs that sum to 2.0, column 2 to 2.5, etc - so it took shape like a diamond (6.0 having the most DTs in the middle column). Nope, disallow - user-defined 'shape'. It barely got by when the breakdown of DTs became secondary to the math - Find X number of caches where the D+T = N. Part of it was simplicity, obviously, because these "starsums" seemed hard to explain simplistically, even though conceptually it is simple. But if any depiction of the grid looked like a 'shape', it was denied. Personally, I think the DT grid showing totals for the diagonals would really have been easiest, but it "looked" like user-defined regions, so it was denied. I've simply resigned to any boundary-based challenges being as granular as county borders. My hope for challenges in specific bands of latitude were denied. But not counties. No wiggle room. It's just the way things are now. IMO the post-moratorium rules reduce the flexibility for creativity, but at the same time, if you allow too much creativity you open the door to complexity, and that's exactly what people (yeah there are these people) didn't like about the way challenges were evolving. Of course now we just get "advanced" challenges that the top tier of a region keep publishing for themselves, with barely enough qualifying geocachers for it to pass They tend to end up favouring those with quantity or on the high end of any skillset or proclivity (such as heavy travelers). In essence, we've exchanged creativity/bookkeeping for accumulation/quantity. And I can see the benefits and criticisms of both. *shrug* So yep, what fizzy said - we're at the whim of what HQ decides is an allowable challenge. To my end, I just like to see challenges that get people thinking outside the box, or doing things they haven't done before, or having experiences they may not have had if the challenge hadn't prompted them to. And, at least we still have the grandfathered pre-moratorium challenges to keep us keeping-books if we want to
  25. And, the majority of complaints don't have anything to do with comparing one's stats someone else's as if they're "winning". There are many other practical uses to tracking numbers and statistics that aren't about competing.
  • Create New...