drdr88

It's less a development feature and more a toggle on/off switch to decided extent of the map.

Did someone suggest those guidelines should change? Did I? It's totally possible.

You had said "thinking hiding guidelines will change," which is what I'm asking about.

Hi Cerberus, what change in hiding guidelines are you referring to?

If you look at it objectively, you'll see it. Bare minimum, a GPS marker could slightly reduce the likelihood of cache review denial.

Not ignoring it -- removing it from the web page entirely. Or fully fleshing it out to include a GPS marker (and not hidden stages).

So the 528ft rule applies to hidden stages too, huh? That makes it tricky. GPS marker is still useful for those who use the planning map as a tool outside, but the map in general is seemingly meaningless. A map with limited functionality doesn't serve much of a purpose. It should still be all or nothing.

To clarify: Functionality to add to planning maps: - GPS map marker - Satellite imagery Functionality not to add to planning maps: - Hidden stages, clues, way points The current planning map doesn't include hidden locations, and it never should. The only conflict for a new geocache is whether it falls within 528 ft of the first stage and/or physical location of an existing cache. Although the website doesn't flesh this out.

Hey niraD, I'm not seeing any connection to hidden stages in the topic of this thread discussion. Can you help me understand how hidden stages are germane to this discussion? The feature feedback offered is the inclusion of a GPS map marker and possible satellite imagery to aid in the hiding process.

It sounds like you're saying that Groundspeak may have a specific reason as to why the planning map has limited functionality? To me, it's all or nothing: either a fully featured planning map is offered to individuals hiding caches, or it isn't offered at all. Since the website admins have the inclusion of a planning map for any and all people hiding geocaches, it appears to me that they *want* those individuals to have that tool at their disposal. Enough people likely requested a visual representation of the 528 ft rule, and Groundspeak obliged. In summary, my features suggestion wasn't published in order to discuss whether or not a planning map should be included to begin with, but to improve the planning map that's already present. I've hidden hundreds of letterboxes on Atlasquest and LetterboxUSA with little to no guidance whatsoever (those were the days!). It's not hard to do. But if Groundspeak wishes to include a planning map as a feature for the geocache hiding process, then they might as well include GPS location so a person hiding can discern eligible locations in real time. My feature suggestion is focused more on live GPS map marker than it is satellite imagery. Am I in an ineligible zone, or out of it? E.g. I have a neat gadget cache that I want to hide on my property... but there are other geocaches nearby which limit where I can hide said gadget cache on my own property. What are my options to hide this gadget cache on my property by using the planning map without having to reference other tools as well.

How does feedback get submitted and/or reviewed here?

Probably no reason for the planning map at all, then.

I don't know if they are referring to the cache hider or seeker.

Absolutely true. But in a sea of 0-1 favorite points, there is normally that one big fat cache that stands out from the crowd and is worth a cacher's while. I aspire to "fix" those saturated areas in this way. All of my thoughts and feedback occurred to me while playing around with the planning map on the web page I linked, not necessarily in correlation with a cache I have in mind. Although I do aspire to add some flavor to overly saturated areas with gadget caches and other stand out caches. But those caches aren't ones I tend to rush. "If that person did those caches, they wouldn't need a way to find an open spot." Not sure what you're saying here.

Hard agree. Especially useful for Mystery and Multi caches. Also useful for those who use personal notes as a means for documenting their experience with said cache, especially a long-term cache that could take months to complete, which could lead to a particularly intriguing cache find entry. If this is a technical limitation, however, then there is little we can do. But it's worth lighting the fire, for sure.

Out of curiosity, who is "we?" Because if an actual Geocache/Groundspeak rep is here in this forum, then I'd be ecstatic. When's the last time that happened? Seriously though, who are you referring to when you say "we?" Perhaps I could explain this feedback better if I broke geocache types into two broad categories: 1. Geocaches hid by those who wish to highlight a unique environment or locale. These cache hides tend to have few nearby caches with conflicting 528 ft radius zones. 2. Geocaches hid by those who wish to express the cache itself or a story behind the cache. With these caches, locale is secondary, and tend to have a higher quantity of caches nearby and therefore limited eligible areas outside of the 528 ft radius zones. If someone wishes to hide a cache in a saturated area (not recommending it, but it happens -- and it could add flavor to an otherwise dull area with dozens of caches, if it's a particularly high quality cache), then it would benefit them to be able to see in real-time what areas are eligible for new hides instead of banking on trial and error cache-reviewing process. The blue dot GPS marker would help with this much more than satellite imagery. E.g. A person interested in hiding a new cache doesn't have a special locale in mind, but wants to see what hiding options exists at a nearby park. So that person goes to the park, uses Groundspeak's planning map (webpage on a mobile device), sees their real-time GPS location, and scouts the areas that fall outside of the ineligible radiuses of existing caches. Now they can find logical hiding places in the eligible zones of said park and can gather coordinates that they know will absolutely not be denied by the 528 ft rule. As long as they meet all the other requirements, then their new cache gets approved with only one trip to the park.

But you cannot do this while simultaneously viewing the planning map that has the nearby cache radiuses (the red zones around caches indicating the 528 ft limitation).

Be a little more specific and I can answer your questions.

https://www.geocaching.com/hide/planning.aspx Feature suggestion: Add satellite imagery to distance/planning map in above link to better enable individuals hiding new caches to correlate objects with conflicting radius of nearby geocaches. Add GPS "blue dot" real-time location for the same reason. These features will create a more robust map that allows individuals hiding caches to better scout areas in real-time and in advance, as opposed trial and error from denied cache hide reviews. Another nice feature would be to add the ability to scout for and hide/publish new caches in mobile apps.

So how does this form work? How do we get some momentum with this?

Great! So how does this forum work? How can we get this escalated? Is there anyone in particular to tag to see some action?

I accessed list view from the map itself and not from the menu side bar.

The screenshot contains the prompt for the list view I am referring to. The box in the upper right hand corner was accessed by tapping on the three vertical dots. Max and 99, once in this list view and after tapping 'back' to come back out of it, what happens for you?

Hi HHL. Are you in the feedback/engineering team? First time here, for me. I'm here today to suggest improvements, not ask questions. Your workaround is utilized frequently.

Current app behavior: When in List View, tapping phone 'back' button closes the app Recommended streamlined behavior: When in List View, tapping phone 'back' button brings user to default map screen, without closing the app