thebruce0

This touches a bit on why Adventures are not the same as Geocache listings. Earlier on there was the issue with people reusing adventures in other locations, remade, and messing up people's histories. Cache listings have a log that remains attached to the GC code. In theory people could rework the GC listing to something else, but that happens FAR less often than ALs being reworked to something complete different. ALs don't (at least on the surface) have distinct logs like cache finds do. AL find history comes off more like a lookup of an Adventure marked complete, to see all its details, where cache finds feel more like looking up your actual find log - though it still pulls all the data from the current cache listing it's connected to. Minor difference, but the implementation still feels different. Project-GC can now look up finds on cache listings as of the find date (eg, using the DT history checker), but ALs don't have that luxury. AL finds are often out of timing with cache finds because AL completions are immediate whereas cache logs can be posted as drafts; so a day of caching may look like 20 AL stages followed by 20 finds, when in reality they were all intermingled. So, when GS made Adventure locations part of the stats, in a way they reduced the implication of the 'cache find history' towards more just a generic record of finds/completions than a chronological history of caching activities. And because of the more 'live' lookup for AL data, and less of a sense of one-made-becomes-history that caches have, I find AL history to be less consistently reliable, despite being a part of our "geocaching" history. The closest it could get I think is making AL completions distinct logs (like cache listings), and if an AL changes, it becomes disconnected from its prior completion logs. Then at least people can know that when they look at their AL completion history, if the AL is no longer what was originally completed, they won't see an Adventure marked found that they don't remember at all. But that would be a significant overhaul of the logging process for ALs... It's that or disallowing Adventure edits after some arbitrary threshold of time or activity... =/

Yeah I think in that context the "responsibility" term is less an enforceable responsibility, and more like, since no one else can do it, it's "up to" the cache owner to do it. Other items on the list are similar, where they could become enforceable if not doing the task happens to a degree that could be considered abusing the system or shirking ongoing responsibility. Most often that's never the case though. And in the case of reporting lost TBs, I doubt there's any situation really where it could become an abuse of the system, since it's a lack of an action more than misusing a feature or ability. Interesting subject... Agreed

Well, remember the cache type is also really more of a catch-all than a specific definition. Its definition is more like what's left after the other cache types have been defined So... I like'em. At least it gives somewhat of a flexible room for creativity.

Right, gotcha.

No but reviewers do. If you want to post a DNF, do so. If you don't because you were in a group, then don't. But choose because of the CHS. I have traveling personal TBs that I visit to all the caches that are related to them. My personal gps TB visit every find. My car TB visits every cache I drive to. My kayak TB visits every cache I paddle to. (my logging them isn't perfect, I've missed a bunch, but that's my intent) They're never dropped in a cache listing because they are never left at a cache. They are with my personally for discovery if other people see them. This is a very common use for personal TBs. For me, if I have it with me, or perhaps left in the car. If I visit the TB (which isn't mine) to a cache I find that's relevant to its goal, I'll more likely visit it there if I remember. As a TB owner I'd love to see it's movement travels to locations that are relevant to the goal I set it. I don't care so much if my TB physically approaches every cache container or virtual waypoint. I just like to see how it moves and accomplishes its goals I'm not sure about "maintain the caches' inventories", but the ability to mark as missing is certainly a help to the TBs' owners since the CO is the only one can objectively identify if a cache is missing and does not have relevant TBs in its possession. I'd say it's a helpful final punctuation ability that the CO has; but it's not their responsibility (in the strictest sense, not sure if the word appears in the guidelines :P) because they have no control over who "drops" TBs into the container. I think it's similar in obligation to maintaining the integrity of their caches' log history. Anyone can post any log at any time, so no one should expect that the log history is going to be 100% accurate 24/7. And clearly it's not a responsibility to the point that if a false log is reported the CO will immediately see consequences. It's more like, the CO has the ability and it's in good spirit to make use of that ability for the sake of the community - ensuring Find logs are consistent with finders' signatures, plus other log types, and TB logs. It's better for the community, but not a required obligation. That's how I understand it at least.

The easy way I think of it - if it's my account (regardless of whether I let someone else use it) it doesn't simply feel right at all that there I finds logged on my account that I did not find. Why would you want to have finds logged in a different country for you when you know you did not find those geocaches? You miss out on all those experiences (many almost certainly would be amazing) for the sake of... a numerical stat on your profile that implies something not true? As others have said, joint accounts are different. But if I had one of those, I wouldn't think that the find implies "I" found the cache, but in that case that my partner did towards our shared journeys. However, I'm pretty OCD and I'd want to somehow record that it was one that she found and not me; which is why I'd generally avoid joint accounts At the moment I have a bookmark list for caches she's found as she generally doesn't use her own account and log them, heh. So yeah, it literally doesn't make sense, it logically doesn't make sense, and personally it just entirely skips the spirit of the activity. How that feels to you personally tho is entirely subjective. I would hope the spirit of the hobby informs your personal ethic towards general propriety...

I think it may also be fairly regional... in my area, it's pretty common to vary between a note and a NM for any 'issues'. For example if a log is full, I might write a note - the CO would be informed, as it'd be up to them if they care about the log-signing experience as part of their cache, whether to replace the log ASAP or leave it. If I had a sheet I might add it (not remove the old one) and post a note. If I could sign the/a log, I wouldn't NM. If I couldn't sign the log for whatever reason, I might add a NM, taking a photo (and accept the COs judgment of the log validity if not signed) - that's because the cache condition has hindered the expected task required to claim and secure the find, through no fault of my own, and would also affect other finders; an issue the CO should remedy. (and most COs here won't delete Find logs such as in the case I describe) Container problem? almost certainly a NM. Log issue? More often, a note. But that's how my region tends to handle it. Perhaps the general line between note and NM after locating the geocache is whether "the cache condition has hindered the expected task required to claim and secure the find, through no fault of the finder".

My own experience is the opposite. On something like 90% of the DNFs I've logged the caches weren't missing, I just couldn't find them or get my name in the log on that attempt. There are multiple factors as to whether a person's DNF is on a missing cache or not, from difficulty to experience to environment... my educated guess is my rate is likely very similar to fizzymagic. But my local area gets a lot of cache cycling, archives and republishes, due to caches going missing or getting damaged. And I like to think I have a lot of experience lending to the idea that if I DNF, it most likely means I would have found it if it were there and it actually is missing. I do occasionally check back on my DNFs and more often than not they're followed by more DNFs, and an owner checkup or an archival - moreso than a Find. I have seen a few followup finders call me out about the DNF, surprised that I didn't find it when they did so easily (it stings) But - this also then goes back to whether something happened between my FND and the next log, that wasn't logged... some COs don't want to post their maintenance if it wasn't prompted by a request for maintenance, for fear that it also degrades the appearance of the cache listing, so some caches may get 'quietly' fixed up; or perhaps due to secret proxy/community maintenance. But these exceptions are so relatively rare that I highly doubt they'd affect the reasonable outcome of this research; maybe add to a small margin for error.

I wanted to try to fill my calendar grids for letterbox and multi finds, but there are so few left near home that I've skipping so many the last few months. If there's a wheel challenge requiring either of those it'll give me more incentive to go farther for it on any day I already need one

I would guess that if there's a complaint about a misleading attribute (from a user or themselves) it's something they could look into, much like bad coordinates. But I haven't asked my local reviewer what they'd do for something like this. They have taken retroactive action against caches when people complain regarding something that isn't right about them. So sometimes reviewers claim "no precedent" and do nothing, and sometimes they take corrective action; based on that knowledge, I'd say it's their call unless HQ has explicitly told them do not take action for specific types of complaints. As there's currently no EV attribute, I'd say it's probably wide open as to whether the local reviewers would decide to police-on-complaint caches with the illegitimate attribute. But, I don't doubt they wouldn't require verification before publish... that, AFAIK, is something they're only allowed to pre-police on a couple of top priority attributes.

My fear is this quick info panel will get used so much for its convenience that it will 'train' users on the lack of cache options. Missing log types, missing cache details... to counter it can become a kind of info creep. A quick-panel should really only provide a couple of the most common functions, not so much a condensed summary that obviously can't provide all relevant details. It turns into an 'uncanny valley' that's neither here nor there, but used to much it may as well be there. I don't think the log types should be one-tap buttons; make it a 'log this' button with a 2nd tap to choose (from more) log types. Have a 'view details' button to view all non-terse details (including hint). etc. The quick nav panel is more about how info is presented, not always how much is presented. A "one-click" design mentality is really only better when working literally towards speed, not necessarily simplicity. Two clicks to accomplish something, when organized and presented well, can end up with a simpler and better overall interface than everything being one-click away. Reducing clutter doesn't have to mean removing clutter. So I guess the point is: Is the quick nav panel intended for speed or simplicity? If it's a mix of both, it can end up worse off and competing against the general interface. ...then ya gotta deal with 'advanced' features in the interface

I do have to say, I could understand the draw some might feel with it. When we find geocaches, we sign its log, but we don't really take anything tangible home from them. Letterboxing, you use the (in theory) unique one-of-a-kind stamp to leave a mark on your physical log book as a keepsake and record of your visit. You open the page and see and touch the stamp made with ink that was put to paper at the location of that stamp. We can take pictures, but that's not quite the same... some people love getting passports stamped when visiting other countries; I'd argue there's a similar draw to that. I brought back a few small lava rocks and pebbles from my trips to the UK and Iceland. Again, similar draw - the tactile, tangible keepsake and memory from that location. Maybe I should start getting into real Letterboxing...

"now"? What changed, since when? Or is just because they're thrown in with geocaches (though typically by exception) for arbitrarily long? "Find geocaches - including attending events or completing Adventure locations". In a way there's a spectrum of "geocaches" in this game from literal to not-at-all-except-by-association. Literal physical geocaches -> exceptional/grandfathered non-physical 'caches' (virtual/webcam/earthcache) -> events -> adventures. Everything but Adventures has a "Geocache listing". Nothing's changed any time recently with ALs to make them any more part of the game other than connection by exceptional association. They're not geocaches, but they - by association - fall under the broad a vague label of "geocaching" according to geocaching.com. Really just still as much a part of it now as they were when the app was released... And because of their minimal integration in the stats (being run by the same host company), they can be used to a degree in challenges and souvenir accomplishments. I don't see anything's changed with that, for years. This, exactly. That's why challenges are a fun (ymmv) aspect to geocaching. They're not everyone-gets-a-prize. And why souvenirs are a kind of vanilla challenge; more accessible (as in not a cache find smiley, but a digital reward, worldwide). Because they nudge you, generally speaking, to potentially do something you don't usually do, then there's a reasonable expectation that not everyone will be able to earn it. "Earn", another good word for people to remember

Hmm...

If you're asking what other people will think about finding such a small log, well that doesn't matter, it's your cache But as otherwise said, as long as you're willing to put up with increased maintenance periods IF the amount of people signing the log means it'll fill up faster, that's also entirely up to you.

Even more timely, the last podcast I released, before this news, has a segment where I talk about the hint affecting the D rating of a cache and I touched on how the official app seems to place more importance and significance on the hint over the description. It wasn't laced with opinions on that matter specifically, but helps validate that there's a clear implication and reputation that the devs really don't place much value in the description for mobile app users. I don't think any other mobile app gives that same implication... imo it's quite unfortunate If there is a good reason (ymmv, but an actual conscious decision) for this strategy, I for one would be interested to know. Who knows, there could be factors at work unknown to our side of the fence here.

It's kind of funny, as I was reading and I came to this: The first thing my mind thought was 'oooh, I was wonder if they'll provide easy access to the description before the hint?' ... and then that question was answered I do, honestly, wonder why the mobile apps devs seem to have a negative view of implying that the description is more important than the hint. Great opportunity here to show that geocaching is more than go-to-coordinates-and-search. It just logically makes sense that the description would be paired with information about what you're actually directing towards. Even if it's a tap to open a new panel or something, just please provide that mechanic to demonstrate that the descriptors of the thing come before the additional help to find the thing...

Are you toggling each quadrant that has even a few pixels of the object needing to be identified? The image selection blocks is a fairly standard captcha variant these days.

No argument here

I completely agree, and I too hate that phrase "everyone plays how they want", which as you say is often used to defend practices that negatively affect others in the community. I vastly prefer "everyone enjoys the activity differently" which gives the sense that there are rules or guidelines and an inherent spirit to the game. But with such a variety of preferences, everyone's activity is 'not enjoyable' to someone else. I honestly don't know any geocachers who actually do proper Letterboxing. On the contrary, in Ontario there are powertrails (on land and along water) and geoarts of Letterboxes, many either with single-letter tiny stamps in micros to be technically allowable, or even placed without stamps and no one bats an eye. They attract a certain type of geocacher who love the experiences they provide. So the proliferation of a certain experience changes the landscape of the local geocaching selection, and over time the community adjusts to accommodate people who enjoy the predominant geocaching experiences, and less for people who enjoy what's much less available. Overall enjoyment on average doesn't change, even though the style of experience has shifted. So there will always be people who think the game is changing for the better, or for the worse Personally, I'm all for encouraging enjoyment of various aspects of the hobby the way they were intended to be enjoyed; not taken purely for their statistics, numbers, and missing out on intentional experiences. ETA: Point to the OP: You can place Letterbox[ hybrid]s along rivers and lakes as well, just make sure they have a stamp in them ;P

Degraded for people who dislike power trails. Enhanced for people who enjoy power trails. The effect of that change on the entire activity is objectively more complex and nuanced than your one opinion. (and no, I'm no not exclusively pro power trail, as I've seen both beneficial effects and adverse) And no power trails weren't technically "disallowed" - rather they were given a category of their own (attribute and limitations in writing) to reduce the wild west of people trying to get away with stuff. Similarly, LB Hybrids needed a ruleset to make them a 'thing' that was related to geocaching and thematically similar to Letterboxing - without being pure letterboxes.

I suppose this doesn't apply to the hide-from-3rd-party-apps 'feature' So the option would really only relate to the email address anyway. It does seem kind of frivolous; but it's similar to the option for people to see your email address or hide it on your geocaching profile (ideally, they should be the same option, instead of just an AL reporting function)

if the user can hide the email address, then it effectively makes the sender a no-reply email address. Unless replying can be like the message center and push the reply to their MC inbox. Or the system can just forward the reply silently to the original user by proxy. Otherwise... yeah, reporting an error becomes an anonymous one way alert. =/

Yes I think the 'nearest address' annoyance was fixed some time back; haven't seen that happen for a long time, at least while entering coordinates. However for navigation it will location the nearest end point depending on your travel method, but in my experience it provides a dashed arc between the closest access point and the desired coordinates. THAT is what you need to watch for with, for example, caches opposite a sound wall near a highway, where it may navigate to and stop you ON the highway as the closest road point - but it'll still give you the dashed line to the coordinates. 'Navigate' itself is really the function to make use of correctly if at all. Viewing coordinates in google maps should be fine.

Interesting, I've got that covered in an upcoming project of mine