thebruce0

Ok I see what you mean. In other words, like "That doesn't seem too difficult", or "too much to ask". Agreed

What doesn't irk me? A human moderator sharing an irk like the rest of us humans.

Irrelevant. Subjective 'wow' factor. The listing has instructions. Regardless of 'remarkability', if the reviewer allowed it to be published then those are the requirements to fulfill to log it as found, if sufficient for the CO.

True enough! What about the median density? haha probably no different. Ontario is just HUGE with vast forests and lakes, so even the vast swaths of compressed powertrails and series to its south are nothing by comparison. Nunavut's probably got the least average density though... Interesting stats!

Ontario the biggest province c/o all the power trails - road/hike/paddle - and challenges...

Everyone should just do as they please, and if all the COs don't like it they can all feel free to archive all their caches. ... oh wait...

Exactly my process as well. And I go by 1 week, then mark it on my calendar when to come back and deal with the log if necessary

Therefore keystone, a moderator, shouldn't be expected to respond to the other thread.

"optional" as in "not required" eta: physically signing the logbook = required (to log online) logging the find online = optional (not required)

I think the point of the OP was missed and the focus was shifted to an element that, while not permitted now, is not the reason for the dispute nor seemed to have caused any issue nor is relevant to the issue at hand. One log was 4 years old, verified, and valid [reportedly]. The other log was not [reportedly], and not due to the method required per above. The 4 year old log was deleted after it was determined that the new log was not valid and deleted, thus can easily be seen as retaliatory. I don't think that both logs should stand, if the information we know is accurate.

It takes creativity and an understanding of what compels a person to desire doing things in order, beat to beat. Compelling narratives aren't bad, it's if they're badly implemented. From what I've seen, people are more upset about badly implemented linear ALs than they are about 'narrative' style ALs; they seem to be more forgiving about so-so linear ALs, and just don't want to unnecessarily/needlessly feel like they had to do something linearly. eta: Another way to put it - those more likely to complain about linear ALs on principle tend to be the ones who just want to sign the log and not do caches, like multis, the way the owner intended (which requires more work). (emphasis intended)

That could be hard to nail down unless you define "Challenge Cache". There were ALRs long before 'challenge caches' were a thing. Could be quite a task to locate the first cache that was published that required a finder to do something before signing the log... but interested in finding out if that's solved

lol, hey a raw list of GCs could have its uses. I haven't needed a complete finds list in forever... but good to know an alternate method to PQ is out there

It'd be nice to see, but I get an "Unknown error fetching html output" (Chrome and Firefox)

Seems like it's intended to be locations within the radius of the AL locations directly. My curiosity: It seems to include locations from ALs posted from a farther distance than the AL being viewed, which is good. Cachly only shows locations of other ALs IF the posted AL location is loaded in the current search. For eg: AL with 5 locations spread 500km apart, and posted at one end. Cachly wouldn't display the other 4 locations until the current search includes the posted location at the far end. Can anyone confirm that this update to the official app will actually show the other locations of that AL if a nearby AL to one of them is being targeted, even if it's 500km from its posted location? If so, that is a very good feature to help not miss any (non-sequential) unrelated AL locations.

Most data storage keeps the Y, M, and D values accurate (thus sort properly wherever displayed); it's not good to store date fields as static text/values. It's really just the visual representation of date data that can be confusing across country borders. But that's why the visual naming convention is so important when it's not a matter of a system that displays it in localized date format (such as file names that are static). It's almost always the D/M values when both are <=12 that confuse people if the year is not displayed first. blargh.

One design idea to make these light-grey-on-white preview text boxes better: Just make a text block above the entry block! Solid black text that shows above where you enter the log text. It can be hidden if desired after a certain threshold. Visual design. I know I rarely every read more than a word or 2 of input-box preview text if I'm about to type over it. Survey: How many novice users have actually read the "Describe the..." preview text on that input box?

Press enter to send is a function typically on by default for text messaging. Web based messaging almost universally allows line breaks. So there is precedent for 'enter to send', but it has always been a (minor) annoyance for web-based messaging systems. Even FB and Twitter allow enter for line breaks by default.

Are you referring to the panel with buttons when navigating to a traditional? Because you can swipe down to drop it to just a line or two. You don't have to live with the panel and buttons covering much of your screen.

The confusion is because of events vs "E"vents. One are anything that could be classified as a gathering, the other is the literal name of a geocache [listing] type. "Events" are what counts, not just any event. A CITO is an event, but it's not an Event, or an event cache.

Yeah, he passed a few years ago (feels like it; January 2022). Local guy in Ontario, fun dude he was.

(side note: This is related to the official geocaching app)

As an anecdote, you can find social media posts from newbies who are excited to find say their 5th geocache, just the one, and at most 1 per day - most. I drive home and could stop for 5 roadsides within 30 minutes with tiny detours to my regular route. There's no question that experienced geocachers will pick'em up at a rate new cachers will find (yes) impossible. They haven't got there yet, don't know how it could be done (let alone the debates about 'most caches in a day' hitting that 1000 threshold). So I do agree that it's unreasonable to expect that even the average cacher would find the Hard requirements (at least most of them) actually easy. I've advocated in the past for a "harder" Hard, and I think that's been happening. But I definitely do not expect something like 40 finds in a week or less to be a standard for 'hard', as for most of the worldwide community that would be more like 'insane'. ETA: Maybe there should be an 'insane' souvenir although that might hit some political correctness triggers

Okay remember they're working with average worldwide stats, which they know and we don't. If they pick a hard that is actually hard for the 1%, it would be extremely inaccessible. Any challenge they pick will lead to the top tier shouting "boring!" - live with it; we need to live with it. It's a worldwide hobby, and the vaaaaaast majority are nowhere near the level of activity we may profess. We are guaranteed to get "boring" challenges when they are presented to and intended to be accessible to the worldwide community. That's why we have Challenge Caches. And even then, here, Ontario is getting a 'cream of the crop' effect with new challenge cache revisions periodically published that are catering to the handful of the same top crop cachers who are always traveling and caching daily with insane statistics, creating these CCs that are many multiple years away from even the average cacher in Ontario - but 10 people in Ontario qualify so it's good go to. Usually it's 10 from among the same 30ish cachers in the entire province (at least who legitimately find their caches rather than mass group caching 95% of the time). Now imagine that effect for the world. The other way to look at it is to instill your own challenge on top of the presented challenge - they propose a theme, and points rewarded for caches that aren't technically part of the theme (favs and any cache type finds?) - so MAKE it a challenge and score for yourself, only for the relevant finds. Ignore the souvenir scoring, don't reduce your caching habits to avoid points for non-relevant finds, and just score yourself, earn the souvenir the "pure" way, even if you technically earned it on day 1. Or only count caches that are thematically related. If Hard is too easy, then make it hard. Or just accept the souvenir because you're that good of a geocacher, relative to the worldwide community. *shrug*

-