thebruce0

It seems odd because HQ seems to like focusing on mobile first design, yet this 5MB size cap seems geared towards desktop users who would generally have a bit of an easier time adjusting image sizes if necessary. This change seems to affect mobile-only users to a much greater degree because yeah 5MB for a standard phone photo is almost unheard of these days. Lots of extra legwork to be able to upload photos if primarily or exclusively using a smartphone to log... =/

Technically speaking, you could set up a proxy email that sends everything to a personal email. You could have email and never give out your private email address. But then ultimately it's kind of pointless because you're getting emails anyway, from an email address that is known out there. There's no point in having a 100% private, unknown email address. There is reason to have proxy email addresses so your personal email isn't connected to another identity (I do that for some special-purpose emails that just forward to my personal email). So setting up alias emails? Perfectly reasonable. Setting up an email to remain 100% confidential/private not known to anyone? Unrealistic. imo.

The most reliable instant-notification-on-email app I've found, really, is gmail. Set up a gmail account for gc notifications, then turn on push notifications in the mobile app. Other email providers may ping but I've found gmail to be the most instantaneous option. Depending on how fast you really need those notifications You can also have gmail forward those emails to another primary personal inbox if you wish. I actually set up a forwarding account on my domain for this geocaching account which copies emails to a gmail account for notifications, and to my personal inbox for my record.

Southern Ontario has numerous challenge trails, from easy 101 challenges to themed challenges to more extreme challenges. Just look at the map with the challenge attribute

It's not always about toughest caches; if there's any kind of grid they're working on there cold be holes of specific DTs, even easy ones. If find date is involved that throws even more complexity into the finds as they may be choosing to save specific DTs for specific dates. Too vague to know for sure, but as they say usually the easiest explanation is the right one; and I'm gently siding towards not logging DNFs as well

And this is why it's always up to the reviewer to decide what to do about logs like DNFs and NM/OARs on caches that are 'beloved' but seem to have an AWOL owner. And it's why the CHS itself doesn't do anything. So yeah, I agree it's still appropriate and accurate for the experiences associated with a geocache to log DNFs and OARs when they are consistent with the experience a user has had with the cache. After that, it's up to the implied owner and local reviewer to decide which way to move forward.

"Trig" categories (not just American)

Sounds like geocaching in your area.

So convince them the unowned listing is worth keeping despite it being unowned. That's your task. It's not theirs to find a reason to keep it active. As already addressed, reviewers and HQ can make that exception and have, in extreme circumstances, because they have been convinced to do so. That is the exception, not the rule. Because the implied owner by the "Owned by" field is not longer confirmed, confirmable, or accurate, through a reasonable and extensive approach of allowing said person to respond in a timely manner. Thus, it is now no longer deemed "Owned" and now abandoned property. So, on the road to archival. ... ... It can't be any clearer. As you repeatedly make very very clearly known in this forum so everyone is aware, I'm still sorry to hear that. ...There are places in the world it hasn't even started. As I said, if you want a website that lists unowned property or waypoints for amazing hikes and experiences, make one, commission one, or use one that already exists - like Waymarking.

It's been addressed over the years in these topics and those of listing adoption. Property ownership issues. As you just quoted from the T&C. Ask someone at HQ. As we all know, they are "a listing service" and will avoid any presumption or implications that they in any way own the property people choose to list on it so as not to claim any responsibility for the physical objects. I know you've seen the threads where this topic has come up before. Because no one knows if the owner has abandoned the listing. It happens when there is an issue - when a reviewer has chosen for whatever reason to require owner intervention/response. That has been addressed. As explained earlier, to the world it's already "trash", but this website imbues them with a subjective value having implied claim to ownership. And so in this environment it is merely listing what has an implied owner. And they have built the company and website on the foundation that if that implied ownership is deemed no longer valid, it will move towards archival at the judgment of reviewers and lackeys, for the sake and safety of the community and the company and the perception and rapport of the hobby to law enforcement and organizations that manage natural and conservation areas -- worldwide. Exactly. So it's a privilege to have it listed. For as long as you the owner abide by the standard requirement to have it listed. BE its owner. How many more times must it need to be repeated?

The legalities and liabilities of this problem for the company have been addressed, as well as the solutions. And stop assuming and projecting my motives. I have never stated or implied that is what I want, I have been addressing why it is for this website, in the agreements everyone checks when they choose to list their property on it. I want the website to continue. I want the company to continue. So they have a standard and a purpose for the website. They can choose whether to enforce that standard or provide exceptions. And exceptions are just that, exceptions to the rule. Not obligations, not expectations. Exceptions have been shown and demonstrated. But the rule is if you abandon your listing, it moves on a reasonable and extensive route towards archival. All the reasons why this is the expected path have been addressed.

Why must you demand that abandoned litter be listed on geocaching.com as the only way for wonderful experiences to be enjoyed? There are plenty of other ways to get people out and enjoying the exact same experience, just with the trust that someone is responsible for it. Or even a website that provides experiences that no one is responsible for (like that website that lists "unfairly archived quality geocaches", or that Waymarking category to accomplish the same). Why must these abandoned containers remain actively listed incorrectly as owned active geocaches? That is not what this website is promotes. And anyone who lists their property on this website agrees to this. But we've been over this. Repeatedly.

Absolutely absolutely. My point was that it wasn't stored online in order that a different phone may also be able to continue from where your user account left off. That it's only locally cached and not specific to the currently logged in user has been a loophole that's allowed other users to complete ALs using someone else's phone who visits the locations.

Right, if you visited and opened the locations but didn't answer the questions, it's reasonable to believe that the fact you opened the locations to answer them is a temporary caching state that's stored locally on the phone, not in your account. So a new phone means having to revisit the locations.

Then convince the reviewer not to archive it. Or else blame the reviewer for archiving it. None of that changes the fact that the inevitable end of the listing that was abandoned by a person who gave up their rights to it being active is archival, and so ultimately is the fault of the physical container property's owner. It's either worth keeping listed without a confirmed owner (a decision by a reviewer or hq which risks problems of its own), or it deserves archival (as in that is the stated and expected and agreed up on result of listing abandonment).

Per their own instructions: ...as well as per log formatting up to this point, as well as per the log display view that hasn't changed in the cache listings, a hyphen should not convert to a bullet. If they're changing that too, then it's another visual esthetic change that's going to bugger up years of past log displays, again. I use "* " to make a bullet list. I use "- " when I don't want a bullet list.

There is another annoying formatting bug with the new log page. The preview indicates that "- line text here" is being converted to a bullet list, but that is not in the instructions. I saved a log, and in the cache listing log view, it appears as expected. But when viewing the log entry directly it formats like the 'new' preview as a bullet item. That's not nice. =/ Here's how it looks. What I'd like, as I've been doing for my logs is this format: However while the same template text in the log is displaying correctly in the listing logs, the log view and preview block display the above as this: Yes, even losing the line break. Hyphen shouldn't convert to a bullet. And I'm guessing that conversion to a bullet list may be the cause of the loss of the line break. Would love to have this formatting return to what it was.

Depends on the nature and content of the DNFs. ETA to be clear: 6 DNFs by experienced cachers on a low D cache may warrant an OAR. 10 DNFs by average cachers on a high D intentionally hard hide may be par for the course and an OAR is an annoyance. There is no 'rule', there is only judging case by case, cross the bridge when you get to it.

"APE cache archived[... in 2001]" Important bit of info

I only don't mind puzzles while traveling if it's a legit puzzle (accurate DT, eg) and it's a cache I neeeeeeed for some challenge Then I might put effort into solving it. Or I'll find it if I'm with someone who has solved it. But I'll still want to know or learn the solution for my own edification = )

That's been addressed. "Reviewer or HQ can be convinced otherwise." If not, then archived. That's been addressed. "more the exception than the rule." Nonetheless, it's personal property which by report is essentially no longer claimable by anyone. HQ has to decide if they want to 'risk' implying ownership if they decide to adopt it out without 1st hand permission in order to keep it active. It's already trash, as many who dislike geocaching would claim. It's literally stuff left in nature with an arbitrary "owner" per a website claiming to maintain it. If according to the website there is no longer an owner or someone who passed on ownership 1st hand, then to the website it is now arbitrarily unowned trash being listed on the website. Regardless of how much joy it may bring people who find it. And you echoed my point - archiving it doesn't make it disappear. First, because it's a listing service, not any form of proxy ownership; and second, that means that experience is, for all intents and purposes, still there to enjoy even if it's not listed actively. The only "waste" is that there's no longer a statistic to be gained by finding it (if the listing is locked), and it's no longer searchable as an active geocache in good standing - the standard geocaching.com seeks to uphold. Wow. Harsh. As if everyone who stops geocaching does so on purpose to "give a finger" to the community. Like, for example, people who have the temerity to die before adopting out all their caches. I think you have perfectly expressed the contempt and entitlement inherent in your position. I don't think I could put it any better. Yeah, it was harsh. I needed to cool down. As for dying and other extenuating circumstances, you missed where I addressed that. And by my educated guessing, those situations are by far the exception not the rule. My point was addressing the resulting feeling something is "lost" to the community because of the action of the ex-owner who has set-it-and-left-it, knowing (by implication of agreeing to the terms of listing on the website) that they are abandoning a potentially wonderful geocache with no way for it to legitimately remain active if it comes to a reviewer's attention that it needs a check or its owner needs to prove responsiveness. So that is entirely on that owner. So yeah, such people are effectively leading to that reaction, because they are 'taking away' that experience for others (as described here) by simply abandoning it to the ether. Yep, and just like reviewers have a 'no precedent' rule, HQ can decide on a case by case basis whether a cache listing merits upkeep either by community or some other means once it's determined that an owner is AWOL. Someone with power needs to be convinced. That's what it comes down to. -- I would say, what does it take to be "active"? If I don't respond within a day, does that make me inactive? Is it abandoned trash if I've never revisited the physical container or made a change to the listing in 10 years having no issues, while being an otherwise active geocacher? My point would be that if there are no issues - at all - with a cache and listing, having never been brought to a reviewer for some form of attention, then it's effectively no different than such a cache with an owner that is still actively geocaching. The implication of the listing details is that it is owned by someone. Once it comes to a point that said ownership is required to be verified, then the question of whether the listing should be archived arises. On one hand: I know that there have been cachers who've gone AWOL and people have been hush-hush about caches they own which have been great experiences, trying not to ruffle any feathers so that they don't get archived (knowing they can't adopt it themselves, or they would). The moment there's any kind of attention drawn to the listing for a reviewer, then it rightly goes into the inevitable process towards archival, if the reviewer deems it appropriate. In some cases people have recreated the listing and published it to keep the experience alive. Yay Additionally, on the other hand: I believe I have seen reviewers take proactive action on listings that are effectively in good standing mainly because they've been informed a geocacher is no longer in the game and they decided to review all of their existing owned listings. Giving them, of course, a chance to 'save' them by being responsive. My stance? As I mentioned earlier - it's literally already stuff left in nature we hope no one considers trash. We just imbue it with subjective value with listings that imply property ownership by someone. So, until that ownership can no longer be verified, then yes it's a privilege to have it listed while abiding by a minimum standard, which was greed to when posting the listing. And there's always an extensive grace period (excepting essential immediate issues), a long window of opportunity for that owner, or any passionate community, to make a reasonable case that the listing should not be archived as abandoned unowned trash. Because of all of that leeway in place, I do believe that if the ownership of an item cannot be actively verified when deemed necessary, its listing should follow the procedure HQ has laid out towards inevitable archival. That means - once it arises that someone in power feels it necessary to verify ownership of the item. By extension, absolutely yes an item may be found and enjoyed for 10 years before anyone even realizes the owner has been AWOL. If it was known 9 years ago, it'd almost certainly have been archived 9 years ago. If it's known after 10 years, then it may be archived after 10 years. That is the process I believe is logical, clear, and reasonable. And if someone not in geocaching comes along at any time and decides to pick up the item left in nature and dispose of it because they felt it was trash, well, they really aren't wrong. But, that's a matter that the owner of the item and the picker-upper need to hash out themselves, because it's a matter of property ownership (not item listing), with rules/laws afaik that may differ around the world. Geocaching.com wouldn't be able to fight back against the picker-upper claiming theft, nor could it be blamed for its theft since it was listed by its owner's choice and discretion - because GC is just a listing service, not an owner of any of the items it lists. And that mechanic has to apply universally, across the worldwide board, as the baseline. There can be exceptions. But those are just that - exceptions to the rule. Geocaching.com is a worldwide website that lists active, trusted, owned items in nature as geocaches; that's the expected baseline. The moment that status for a listing is called into question, unless a reasonable defence can be made to make an exception (which can differ from region to region, per local reviewers), the standard result is a generous grace period in the process towards archival of the listing during which the defence can be made. If no defence can be made, it is inevitable demise. Not with a bang, but a whimper.

The OAR and RAR logs are heftier logs that, IMO, should require more work to add, as they affect more than merely a visible log history. They have a function and importance beyond recording a visit. As arisoft said, the change to a 'toggle' saying a cache needed attention was fairly recent. That change introduced a number of general headaches only really discovered once it was rolled out. Rolling back to the way it was could be perhaps considered "the lesser of two evils", as it were. But I do think it's better. It may mean fewer OAR logs, but at least if it does result in an OAR, it's a much more intentional OAR.

One response, because this really seems to be the core of your position: What you see as "good quality robust caches [without anyone claiming ownership]" I see as a person who has given the finger to the community and left trash in nature, for which no one else has provided a convincing reason to a reviewer that it should remain active in such a "good quality robust" state, for argument's sake. Even if it is indeed still an amazing experience and quality container with no reported issues (other than whatever factors led to it being archived by a reviewer). -- knowing that there would be no 1st hand confirmation for the personal property to be transferred to a different owner -- knowing that there will be no 1st hand confirmation of its consistent and intended experience and status and safety -- knowing that they're leaving something in a trash-like limbo state like that unowned, unclaimed, in nature That to me is disrespectful (in most cases - sometimes there may be a death or extenuating circumstances, but those really are the exceptions to the rule), to the community, to the game, to the owners of the listing service, and ultimately to nature. To those caches - the ones you love to see active, and hate to see archived "merely" because of an unresponsive owner, I too mourn their loss, but remain adamant that if it truly is a great experience that's "lost" from geocaching, there is zero reason why it can't still exist for those who would fully enjoy it --- just not as an active geocache owned by an active geocacher. That is the required standard for the listing service. Anyone is free to disagree with that standard. Go make a different website if you do. And I have no sympathy for someone who simply drops their ball and walks away, but for the sake of that local region that may be greatly lacking in active geocaches would absolutely encourage someone to replace it with a new and shiny one for the community to keep playing there. As I said, take up those abandoned and archived listings, and create virtual locations, such as Waymarks on Waymarking.com, and promote them as unfortunate or unnecessary archivals. If there's enough desire, people will still go find them. But I would bet that there isn't, and that people generally are in it for the geocaching stats and smileys, with the experience being the bonus (as amazing as they may be). If people want the Waymarking stat enough, then it'll stay alive. It's almost exactly the same process. And if the container is still there, what really is the difference? A smiley on a different website, yet providing the same fantastic hike and nature experience and amazing container that's being both praised and mourned (alive for as long as it lasts without an actual owner, assuming it's not listed somewhere else and it really IS still owned; which really means they did give the finger to the geocaching.com community) It's like "the app that shall not be named" that's basically giving geocaching.com the finger by refusing to use the API. Does that mean it, of its own merit, is not a good app? Of course not. But there is a standard for having the privilege to share someone else's data reliably and with permission. Don't abide by it, and you get banned head to toe. Likewise, there is a standard expectation for listing your personal property on geocaching.com. Don't abide by it (or by extension abandon it) and it gets delisted. It's as simple as that. Even if you made an amazing listing. Because clearly the website owners would rather one less "amazing geocache" on the map than list abandoned trash, YOU, the unresponsive owner, you alone, are "leading to the demise of the game". If you don't think so, then start another website with lower standards.

Make a website that lists "virtual locations of past geocache hides that were amazing experiences". Then you import the list of "quality" but archived geocache listings as analyzed from a Project-GC search result. Then no one has to claim anything, disclaimers can be added showing the reason the location is listed, whether the geocache may still be there, its last known condition, etc. No one claims to own anything, just a series of waypoints people can visit, either for the amazing experience, or to experience whatever is left of the most-likely abandoned and unmaintained object at gz. That's not what geocaching.com wants to do, but who knows, it could be the start of a new game. Benchmarking was kind of like that. Waymarking IS like that. Is there no "needlessly archived geocache listing" categories on Waymarking.com? Maybe there should be. Anyway, I'm going to bow out because clearly I'm getting frustrated and this is no longer directly related to the thread topic. But still hopefully valuable points being made. *shrug* But honestly, I DO think that this context of archived cache listings could make for a good Waymarking category and solve a whole LOT of people's gripes about what's lost with their archivals. To recap: This isn't about caches archived that had reported problems. This is about caches archived because their owners are unresponsive (reported problem or not). Caches archived having responsive owners means that a reviewer has decided that the cache warrants archival even so, not the CHS. Those are instances to take up with the owner and the reviewer. Caches archived [by a reviewer] because of nonresponsiveness means that they have not been convinced, at all, that the listing is worth keeping active. So once again, it's something to take up with the non-owner and the reviewer. Not the CHS. There's no basis for it to consider a highly subjective "wow factor" about the cache itself. It can, but that once again is a call by HQ. Not the CHS. And per the thread's proper topic: Should a NM be placed when not finding a cache? It depends on the reason for the NM - the Owner Attention Requested - log (now a more appropriate name given its enforceable intent). And if the owner does not respond, that leads it down the road to archival. It's always been that way, but now it's more clear with the OAR log type name.

What the point of this? The property's owner said they don't want to list on the website any more. So? That has nothing to do with anything but that person's subjective judgment about their own property. If they archive it, that's on them. 100%. They don't have to. They chose to. Regardless of a CHS ping email which does nothing. So? That's their choice. If they're active they could adopt the listing out - change the implied ownership to another active geocacher who IS willing to maintain it, and continue the standard of "every listing is owned by a geocacher who is held to a minimum standard of ownership", implying a safe and trustworthy hobby. And that's perfectly legitimate and no one should fault you for that choice. There is absolutely NO reason why anyone should. It's your property, and you chose to remove it (another good step to remove your otherwise geotrash). If you want people to still have an amazing experience there are plenty of other ways than by placing a physical item in nature and listing it on a website. Sad for the community, but if you wanted the community to keep it, you could attempt to find another active geocacher to adopt it to. If not, then it's off the geocaching map because it'd otherwise be unowned abandoned trash. Somewhere in nature. It's not a problem unless you believe there's an obligation on someone to keep the landscape populated with geocaches. There is not. That's the baseline. ANY geocache listed and available to find is a privilege. And comes with an expectation and (very simple) minimum standard. I don't want geocaching to keep abandoned trash listed. Someone else can start a website for that. Seriously. It could be a very successful website. But it'd probably attract lots of people who would go out and "claim" the trash as their own. In that case, the website probably wouldn't last very long, unless it's billed as a sort of "abandoned treasure" FTF race website. And would likely also list objects that are not geocaches. And then probably even objects errantly believed to not be owned, but actually are. Then who'd take responsibility for stolen items someone thought was not claimed by anyone? Even as innocent as geocaches or letterboxes still listed on some other website? It'd probably fall on to the website owners. They may have to settle cases, or withdraw the website from some countries for legal reasons. Yeah I don't think it'd ultimately be all that successful listing implied unowned trash objects in nature to "find"...