thebruce0

This pretty much explains it: [media]

Ok, so it seems there are a few fences here everyone is sitting on one side or the other... Date restriction on qualifying finds (after a date): * Fair for newbies who have many qualifying caches nearby still to find / Unfair for vets who've cleared out all nearby qualifying caches No date restriction on qualifying finds: * Fair for vets who may already qualify for a challenge / Unfair for newbies who have yet to find enough qualifying caches Date restriction on placed (before a date): * Fair for newbies who still have many qualifying caches / Unfair for vets who may have already found all qualifying caches No date restriction on placed: * Fair for vets who may already qualify for a challenge / Fair (unfair, relatively speaking) for newbies who have an assortment of qualifying caches to find The way I see it, there are really two types of "Challenge Caches" here, based in a system where generally you only "find" one cache once. 1. Without any date restriction, the challenge is actually more like an ACCOMPLISHMENT. That is, anyone can log the cache if they've accomplished the required goal, at any time in their caching career. 2. Forcing a date restriction on finds is a very different kind of challenge, more like an active challenge with the intent of getting the cacher to complete a goal. But this is certainly more fair/unfair to cachers if a date restriction is in place AND qualifying caches can't be re-found. These two challenge types can't coexist, in the system with finding a cache only once. However, there is an out... if, as mentioned above, the purpose of a challenge is to get cachers to enjoy the attempt of the goal (and not to consider it a competition), then why require the date restriction? Why not simply encourage that limitation, for the fun of the challenge? Sure, there may be people who just want to log the cache because they've already done it, but there may be many who would consider the challenge and see if they can actually accomplish the goal with caches they haven't yet found. It allows cachers who have accomplished the goal to legitimately log the find, while still giving those who have a choice the choice to have the fun (again) you hope they will have. I understand the desire for the date restriction - I own grandfathered challenge caches with date restrictions - and I supported the concept of date-restricted challenge caches. But I've come to understand that there's a line between "accomplishment" and "challenge" where the date is concerned. The latter, in the GC single-find system, urges more of a competitive context, rather than a 'have fun doing it how you like' method. Without a date restriction, it allows cachers to defeat the challenge however they see fit (adhering to the remaining rules), making it fair for all, while encouraging people to attempt the challenge again - for the fun of it. And heck, you can even reward people who accomplish the challenge after the publish date however you see fit. I do a similar thing with difficult puzzle caches for which I know many would not solve on their own; we also have numerous large group caching events where multiple cachers log a find on a puzzle they didn't solve (like using technology or special knowledge they don't have), or that requires a task they didn't complete (like climbing a tree), or that has a terrain too high for them to tackle (like scuba caching or swimming to an island). If you reward people who complete whatever task you hope they will complete in their efforts, then you no longer need to debate what constitutes "legitimate" finds for logs on your cache (which Groundspeak merely supports as the cacher having their name or group name in the logbook). Those debates are headache- and angst-inducing situations. tl;dr: By removing date restrictions on challenges, Groundspeak has opened the floor for a more even playing field when it comes to cache statistics relying on a one-find system. All you can do without making Geocaching unfair to different people is to encourage people to take on challenges how you hope to have them experience it. IMO, if Groundspeak allows a date restriction, they should also state that the challenge owners allow re-finding/logging of caches, which is sort of pointless since there's no evidence the cachers has actually re-found said cache(s). Anyway, if they allow it, then Challenge Caches should really be split into two classes - Accomplishment Caches (no date restriction) and Challenge Caches (dated, go and do it from this point on, every cacher can start with a blank slate). Really, it doesn't seem worth it...

For writing code, I suggest avoiding any editor that visually formats your code if it provides you a way to 'convert' it to HTML; unless you know how to scour the resulting source code and optimize it. MS Word - stay away from it for HTML creation. Even copying formatted text may attempt to convert to HTML when pasted. Notepad is about the simplest, quickest tool to use for code writing, if you know your basic HTML. You don't see things like bold and italic text, but you do know that when you copy and paste the text, you get exactly what you saw copied. As mentioned, Word can bloat the pasted text with loads of unnecessary behind-the-scenes formatting code. Even if you write html source code into Word, if you copy it, you may still get hidden formatting codes. Notepad. Notepad notepad notepad. Or Notepad+. Or an editor that is known to have a solid, optimal HTML creation feature. Ideally, if you want to create html formatted cache descriptions, your best course is to learn HTML basics so you can write your own content, rather than relying on WYSIWYG editors without verifying the source they create. Basic HTML really is basic Then, once learned, use notepad if the gc.com entry box is too restrictive.

Sorry, blame my jingoism. But I love my neighbors to the north! I'm hoping that when I submit a revision, I can widen the distribution to include Canada. I'll also investigate including Canadian bench marks. If you have a link, that would be most excellent. Thanks, Vince Well, I managed to make a US iTunes account and nab the app As for Canadian benchmarks, there are links to benchmarks and resources on Waymarking.com - http://www.Waymarkin...235c49&exp=True There's also the one Brass Cap cache, a virtual now, GC43F3 in Alberta which has become a grandfathered listing (afaik) which "moves". From its hidden date, you need to find the current benchmark, or a previously logged benchmark, and include a photo or the numbers. So that listing has a link to a GPX of hundreds of benchmarks in the province that have been logged (master index, cap map). But that's only Alberta. *shrug* just some input, no idea how you incorporate the benchmarks, so do with it as you please ETA: After some manual searching for importing into my Geosphere app, I've also located the CSRS database which contains all Canadian geodetic benchmark stations. I've imported a report of over 500 in/around my home city as waypoints for that app (after a lot of work to determine the best way ). Not sure how usable/accessible that db is for a dedicated iOS app, but they might have an API for db access... haven't looked that deeply.

Also requires living in the US (benchmarks are US only, but some of us like to cross the border now and then have to use a workaround to get the app in Canada)

Yep, a lot of what I said was just echoing what's already been said... just voicing the position I support, nothing new. I'm glad with TBs that you don't have to trade up! Man... That's a great TB in this 6 month lonely cache. Wish I had a better one to leave in its place... oh well, maybe better luck with the next finder! Actually that happens a lot with TBs anyway... Rule of thumb: Never drop a TB in a rarely found cache. /strollingofftopic

That's only true if you use a QR code reader that doesn't display the URL (if it has one) and giving the option of navigating to that URL. Fortunately, there are QR code readers that *do* give you that option. This. QR Codes are just encoded text. It's the app that decides what to do with it. A QR-encoded URL is practically just like a ROT-13 encoded URL. Some scanner apps though will recognize the decoded URL and jump to the page. Don't use a scanner that does anything with the decoded QR code without either showing you the result first, or asking what you want to do with it. QR Codes themselves are just harmless tools for information transmission.

Ultimately, you make the decision yourself, but if there's nothing wrong with them and people like them, there's no "game" reason to archive them. If people don't like them, they don't have to find them. Both cemetery and parking lot caches have their critics and detractors, but ultimately they're "allowed" (that is, under the presumption that adequate permission is granted as per the agreement when publishing - whether that's an explicit "ok" from a land owner or general allowance of public access in that manner) So, for that shopping center one, if you feel you want to archive it, that's your choice. But I'd avoid doing it simply by opinions expressed here. It's enjoyed by finders and positively commented, so barring your own preference, I don't see a reason for archival. But that's just me

Ahh... "what's the story on" implies an existing story... "what are your thoughts on" implies potential story, for example I dunno... strictly speaking, I don't think there's a guideline against business names in user account names, like there isn't for logs posted to a cache listing. Though I haven't checked the rulebook, so I could be wrong. AFAIK account names aren't 'reviewed' either. *shrug*

Don't name the FTF prize though if it's to a store. That may also be considered commercializing. "Gift card for $10 of coffee or donuts" would be ok, but more than likely "Tim Horton's $10 gift card" wouldn't.

Can't wait!

Personal attack? No (The Incredibles' reply seemed out of place too). But your response seemed so very over the top compared to what Don_J said in his post... In it is positivity... gratefulness... clear expression of personal opinion... satisfaction that icons can be changed to assuage that criticism of the change... and thanks. How did that prompt... You disagree with what? His opinion? The practical observation of issues with usability? His recognition that icons can be changed and improved for himself? Your response made no sense and only inflamed the exchange... There are far more negative posts that you could have responded to. The general tone of this thread isn't so much now that Groundspeak must change because people "don't like" the new design. It seems to me the strongest argument here now is the legitimate concern over accessibility, shape and design in regards to colour blindness. Practicality. Not opinion. If you like the icons and you have no issue with them, great! Keep using them. But if someone offers a legitimate concern, there is no reason to call them out as simply being "negative". And it causes people like me to perpetuate the "negativity" with responses like this one.

Experience with 4S battery life: Don't keep the GPS running the entire time you're caching. For one, there's no need. Secondly, if you have overhead satellite or maps, you can use that to get near the cache (or navigate trails, if gps isn't desired), then turn on the GPS. The app I use, Geosphere, has a quick option to turn GPS on or off, and that greatly increases battery life in the field. Thirdly, I use this beauty of an accessory ($20) which uses 4 AA's and provides a full charge (or, you could even make your own); using AA's means the batteries are easily and quickly swappable if necessary, and sharable with other devices you may have that need AA's (flashlight, GPSr, etc). So, again, if you're willing to put the one time effort into making battery life a non-issue, it's most definitely worth it. Next?

I've got the hack-proofing reverse engineered such that earwigo's method is ineffective. And as I mentioned earlier, I had a friend who encrypted LUA source code itself with a complex mathematical algorithm, which was run inline (thus making the cartridge incompatible with the iPhone Wherigo app). I managed to crack that, and let him know how along the way, which he appreciated (and it was fun ). So yes, I'd say there is no way to completely hack-proof a cartridge. As I mentioned above, if the cartridge contains the final coordinates, or is able to verify or validate coordinates, then they are retrievable - obviously it may take more work depending on how hidden the coordinates are, or how munch skill the hacker has. And this is why as I mentioned above, the only way to make a cartridge "hack proof" is to not include final coordinates in the cartridge, even if there are also red herrings, fake coordinates. Make the player become the validator. By that I mean... for example, provide only the encrypted solution - make it so that the user has to enter a decryption key, such as the answer to a field question, but don't code a check function, only a decode function. If they get the answer wrong, they'll only see gibberish (the app itself won't know if the answer is wrong). The player can see whether the solution is valid or not. If someone were to hack it, they'd only be able to find that encrypted message, and track the source code to see what sort of encryption it is. But without the key, they'll never get the answer. Their next and only course of action would be to take the cipher elsewhere and try to crack that, without the key or by trying to determine it. But that's beyond Wherigo cartridge hacking. Example (and this is a very weak one, since a vigenere is an easily crackable cipher): If I were to provide the "win scenario" as displaying the vigenere encoded message "Ibvutr pftd zv scepeih uitqsg npis vty edc xwnnty xnie tpxr yk tce", and the question "What is the colour of the sign?" then that's as far as hacking can get. No final coordinates are in the cartridge (other than possible red herrings). So if the person on site answers the question wrong, the vigenere cipher would display gibberish, and they could try again. If the hacker knows it's vigenere, they need to do exactly the same thing at that point, if they want - try to determine the key (or, you know, just go there properly and answer the question first hand). tl;dr: What's important is the concept - if the app can "decompile" the cartridge to execute it and somehow confirm to the player what the final coordinates are, then the hacker can "emulate" that decompiler and "cheat" to get it. Doesn't matter how complex the encryption or misleading the content. The only "hack-proofing" which disallows that is to not include the answer in the cartridge at all (or any validation of an answer). However, that's on the high end of amount of work required to foil hack attempts. Do you really want or need to go that far? *shrug* There are people who will hack. There are people who will simply use other people's scripts, and if they don't work, give up. And there hackers ranging from people who only open files in notepad or a hex editor, to people who decompile, analyze, reverse engineer, etc etc. Just decide how far you want to go, how difficult you want to make it to hack. If you don't care, then don't do it Keep in mind, hackers (both ethical and unethical) enjoy the mystery and the puzzle... the harder you make it for a hacker to achieve success, the more likely they'll work even harder to crack it (and that's why I didn't give up on my friend's mathematical encryption algorithm, which he hand-coded in LUA, until I decoded his inline source code. If he'd encrypted it with a method requiring a key from a field question, I likely wouldn't have been successful)

Smartphones with GPS use satellites. Older smartphones used cell tower positioning. Newer smartphones use that to enhance the GPS position reporting. GPS-enabled smartphones do indeed use satellites. (at least, most of the recent ones; the original iPhone for example had no satellite reception, using only cell tower positioning, while later models use both satellites and towers - aGPS). Are you using a "cell phone"? Or a more recent smartphone? There would be a difference, as older phones without GPS may use cell towers to emulate gps positioning, thus yes with no nearby coverage they'd be useless. Don't go caching with a cell phone The 4S certainly has GPS ability with no cell tower coverage. As mentioned above, I even used the 3GS in the desert, east of San Diego, with zero cell coverage, and pre-cached any maps I'd need. Worked like a charm. (note that without caching maps in the app while still having data coverage, the gps will still work, but you'd be reduced to essentially a distance and bearing to the target, with no satellite or map imagery for support). eta: smartphone gps support can be seen in this table (aGPS is better than just GPS, btw)

Indeed And the more reports of experiences the better for people to decide. It's like movie reviews... just because one person hated or loved a movie doesn't mean everyone will; just gotta find the reviewer who's as close to yourself in preference, then maybe grow to trust their reports; otherwise, go see it and decide for yourself Heck, I've loved movies that have flopped, both in general reviewer scores and in theatres (sometimes in both). The only movie review I trust is my own, heh. In the same way I value reports on content over opinions of enjoyment, I'd value finding out technical specs and capabilities with real-world experience to help determine if it's applicable to my own caching style... I've considered a GPSr myself, but with other factors like money, other device uses, and practicality, I personally haven't been able to justify getting one (yet?). I've stuck with the 4S, and from own experience in relatively extreme, and urban, and distant places, that's been sufficient for me. But I haven't climbed a mountain yet (actually, I did visit the top of Sulphur mountain in Banff, but that's all touristy =P), nor have I scuba cached, or gone for the APE cache in Brazil (someday soon hopefully! ) Then again, I also have a battery container that holds 10 AA's, and an external pack that uses 4 AAs to keep my phone charged on extended trips, and I've got a lot of experience with my app which is now like 2nd nature in my mind when caching . (actually beta testing the next major release of Geosphere now, which will be a big jump over the current) But anyway, I digress...

Au contraire. I've cached with the 3GS and upgraded to the 4S, and have only used that since I began in 2009. The 4S is plenty capable in forest cover, rural areas with little or no cell coverage (cell coverage is not required for GPS use), and out in the desert (and that was first hand with my 3GS - my group of 4, 3 non-cachers and myself, were relying solely on my device..in the desert). I tend to voice up in these threads because the thought tends to be one person's experience means it's one or the other. Ultimately, use what you're comfortable with (balanced with tech capability), because as much of a 'negative reputation' smartphones have, they are capable of providing a successful and fun and solid caching experience. Use what you're comfortable with, because while "smartphones" on average may be less accurate or capable than GPSrs, high end smartphones are certainly far more capable, and it's the app that more defines what your experience will be like. The best caching combination, as most anyone will agree, is a combination of both smartphone and dedicated GPSr. Generally, the GPSr will be faster and may be more accurate than a smartphone. But by no means is caching with a smartphone only good for 'beginners' or limiting technologically. If you know how to use the smartphone and optimize its use while caching (for battery life, pre-preparation for rural trips, and data organization and communication), then a GPSr may never be needed. In short, a GPSr may guarantee you a smoother caching experience. A smartphone can provide (as a device) far more than just a solid caching experience, thus it can be more expensive. Both classes of device provide specialized capabilities that can improve your caching experience. Therefore the best option, if money isn't as much of an issue, is both. And please, if caching with a smartphone, only cache with a mid- to high-end smartphone with quality GPS support. =P Also please, ignore people that say caching with only a smartphone is, generally speaking, a bad idea. Context and detail matter "smartphone" is far too broad a term by which to classify a gps device. Perhaps try a forum search, for there have been many a raging debate regarding smartphone vs dedicated gps...

*sigh* Regardless of anyone's icon opinions, the matter still stands of the issue of colour blindness and accessibility! This is less about preference, and far more about practicality and usability.

Works like a charm! Makes me want to put more effort into creating a full, proper icon set... =P a few things still stick out that can be improved... hm

Hm. Just noticed that the reviewer note is blue, but the reviewer user icon is green, and the lackey user icon is blue. Another design consistency issue to FIX

Who should do this ? You ? Ok you are right, if the final contains 5000 dollars and the first finder gets it. Ok, how about a compromise ... if it is not absolute necessary *), Wherigo owners should make no protection. I want to convince programmers that it is more useful for others without that "feature" and questions from the reality are much better and enough ! Newbies can learn something and players who solved the cartridge can play it again at home (with the real codes they got during the walk). Sometimes there is more than 1 way to the final, so they can "walk" the other one. *) I think this are nearly all wherigos "questions from the reality are much better and enough" - I completely agree, for an ideal world. However, I know from experience that there are both 1) cachers who will decompile difficult Wherigo cartridges (whether to skip the activity, or for the FTF), and 2) owners who do want to make it as difficult for those people to do so as possible. What we want, or wish for an ideal experience really is irrelevant. All my comments above were discusssing were possible ways to make protecting content more complex, for those that wish to do so... to make it as hard to hack (or 'cheat', to some) cartridges as possible. I'm not saying every Wherigo needs uber-protection. You're more than welcome to continue making fun cartridges that ask for real-world answers, yet still hide the final coordinates within the cartridge without protection. For most people (owners and players) that's enough. For others, it's not...

Right, that's basically what I was referring to -- if there's no verification in the cartridge itself. Is the user told whether the final calculated coordinates are actually correct? If so, then it can be reverse engineered (mathematical calculations aren't hard to reverse, especially if you get the decompiled source code). ie, there can't be a validity check in the cartridge at all, else it's hackable.

OTOH, they may be staying silent to avoid rustling the hornets' nest while they recreate the icons to be implemented shortly...

Nice find, fbingha... And a, ahem, quote of importance:

If he want to do this, its his own decision, why should I force him to do something he doesn't want ? Sure, but that is your choice, as the CO. Not every CO thinks like that. =P If I understand what you're saying, that doesn't mean anything for someone who just wants to increase their find count on geocaching.com. You don't have to solve a Wherigo to log a find on a Wherigo listing on gc.com; you only have to sign the physical logbook. The discussion of hacking wherigos is very similar to the discussion of 'cheating' on 5 difficulty puzzles, for instance. Groundspeak (rightly) can't really enforce rules about what constitutes cheating, but the CO has every right to decide what they do with their listing, or puzzle, if what they believe to be cheating has become rampant. Many COs will archive their puzzle cache if the answers are swirling around in the public, effectively ruining the challenge of the puzzle. Some don't care, some do. Nope, because if I just want to sign the log, I don't have to do all the steps in 'reality' to get the final coordinates of the physical container - if there's no protection of that information in the cartridge - no matter how "good" a Wherigo is So do I. I like to actually complete wherigos without 'cheating'. Unfortunately, there are many who will do what they can just to get the final coordinates. Some COs want to retain the appearance and challenge of whatever they've set up (puzzle or Wherigo or whatever), and if a vast majority of "finds" didn't actually do what was intended, it can (depending on the CO) alter the perception of the listing, whether it be difficulty, fun, challenge, time, uniqueness, etc... Once again, no one can say what's "right" or "wrong" about protection from cartridge hacking - it's entirely up to the CO to decide how much work they want to put into making it hack-proof, because yes, there are people who'd rather just log the cache than be forced to do all that work if they know how to bypass it. (and I know first hand that there are people who will gladly skip stages of a multi-cache and just go to the final if they have those coordinates, instead of doing all that work) And this is also touching on elements of why ALRs are no longer allowed for most cache types.