tenebrus

Yup, this continues to fail both as a test link and as a playable private lab link. While setting up this lab does not feel the way that the abandoned Wherigo Builder did, the behavior of testing it does. And what makes this still even more infuriating is that these problems were not encountered in the first Adventure lab I set up.

I am attempting to merely test my own adventure lab so that its ready-to-go and this does not even require me to get out of the car because I already have all the answers from photographs taken before the travel advisory. However it seems that running either a test or as a private lab, I keep getting every response as "incorrect answer". I'm getting very frustrated because I've been down here four times now and I would like to know whether this is some silent back-end hold on publishing the NY adventure lab, for which an error message describing the issue would be highly appropriate to include, or whether the adventure lab itself is not set up properly. That too is frustrating because I actually have set up a previous Adventure lab without any difficulty. So, what the DNF is this? (In case anyone was wondering how I got two of them, the first one was awarded to me as the moderator of a geocaching group and I have always considered that to be my community's adventure lab even though it is connected to my personal geocaching account.)

Using an Android 6.0.1 smartphone and logged in to geocaching.com, I try to log a cache. But the drop down menu for LOG TYPE is broken. Whatever the first option is, I'm stuck with it. I've crosschecked it with various cache types (Traditional, Webcam, Event), previously found status (to trigger DNF as the top option), and even in two separate smartphone browsers (Chrome, Dolphin). Everything works EXCEPT for the Drop Down menu which ONLY worked once I requested the Desktop version of the cache pages. The mobile version is broken, right?

THOUGHT #1: I'm with jholly in not wanting to pay more just to get Google Maps back. In fact, I went out today (since my last post in fact) and I (re)discovered a very useful alternative to using the Google maps to find my caches: the coordinates! Sure I used the OSMs to get the gist of where I going and an overview of the area. But then, I found 32 out of 32 caches using just the coordinates, a GPS receiver, a compass, and my good ol' fashion book of local street maps. Funny that... I had a good time doing it too. It seems that the OSM maps were good enough to start the journey on a good note. That's not exactly "horrid" to me. In fact, that's downright "useful," which is the general threshold that I have for being happy with the maps that geocaching.com chooses to use. THOUGHT #2: I see a lot of people here lamenting about all of the Google Map things that we no longer have and how much more they'd pay to return them. Imagine how much shorter this thread would be if we removed the posts focusing exclusively on Google Maps, Bing, Pictometry, price structures, etcetera. So... instead of all that, can we just keep the discussion on the topic of these new maps -- good or bad -- and maybe put those other comments in a better suited topic? THOUGHT #3 (mostly for B+L): The same can be said about the use of bold fonts and all caps. While I do not deny that your response is true on the surface, I'd like to rebut with something deeper: your response seems to have added zero content that addresses the actual topic. As such, it can really seem to be passive-aggressively snide and hoping to come off as clever. But whether that is true or not is not really important. Instead, please regard Thought #2 above and keep it on topic. Thanks in advance.

Wait.. would that? Would that actually be cheaper than Google? Re: FEATURE REQEUSTS: * The scale should be added and (I think that) it can be added on GC's end. * Similarly, having a slider/picker SAVES ON DOWNLOADED MAP TILES for the simple reason that you can skip over the unnecessary intermediate scalings. (Isn't the number of map hits what caused this problem in the first place?) * ADDED TO YOUR LIST: I'd still like to see added to the list the Crtl+Click new tabs go to the background in Firefox. Instead, they now steal focus and in order to open a short run of caches, I need to return to the map tab manually for each cache opened. Needless hassle over here, but not a deal-breaker. Oh, and a little thing called perspective for us posters: There are, at current, like 550 posts in this thread. Even if there were no repeat posters and all of us were premium members who pulled our renewals away, we might collectively save up that money and rent ourselves one Google Map tile to somehow share this month only. It's called perspective, people. Being louder doesn't make you more right, or an expert on the issue, or even worth listening to -- it just makes you a wheel so squeaky that maybe it's not worth oiling anymore and maybe a brand new wheel is dirt cheap and plain ol' easier to replace. So, in closing: Quit your twitching, gear up, and start caching again, Folks. Remember, YOU ARE THE SEARCH ENGINE. Duh.

I really only miss two things with these new maps. 1. The scale measurement. (Yes, this topic is covered elsewhere) 2. That I could launch into separate tabs a few cache pages without each time having to return to the maps. That is, to keep focus on the map tab while opening new cache tabs. Maybe this is a Firefox issue and not really an OSM issue, but I'm having a hard time believing that Crtl+Click on the pop-up description bubbles now work that fundamentally differently that it shouldn't work. Sure there's things that I don't care for with the new maps, but at the same time, the beef here is really with Google, not Groundspeak. If your business so heavily relies on other businesses to succeed, you really are at their mercy or need to make hard decisions. No blame here, Groundspeak. Granted, I remember what it was like to cache in 2004 where my GPSr didn't have loadable maps, SD card slots, ports for data transfer, etc... Heck, I didn't even have DD MM.MMM -- I only had DD MM.MM and had to triangulate to get closer than 50'. So, these OpenSource maps are better than what it could have been -- I mean, was. And, by far. Right, folks? In the past 8 years, Geocaching has gotten a lot more accessible, but at the same time, it has gotten quite soft too. Please try to remember that in geocaching "You are the search engine" (Man, I sound old. And you kids get off of my lawn, goshdarnit!)

First of all, Folks, Geocaching doesn't own Google Maps; Google Maps owns Google Maps. As much as I'd like to see Groundspeak continue to use Google Maps, people here have been too fast to blame Groundspeak for an issue that may well be out of their decision processes. What has been the outlash at Google Maps? Who here has complainèd to BOTH. If it hasn't been you, don't be surprised if I discount your opinion here. Secondly, Geocaching has grown soft since its inception where all one got was a brief description and a set of coords. Following a Family Circus "Jeffy path" to Ground Zero is a privilege, not a right. Game on, as is - get over it. Okay, onto where Groundspeak may in fact be to blame. If there are no hybrid views, why non? Groundspeak, where is your transparency? If the aerial views are at best 10 km x 10 km, or if they take forever to load, why is this a solution? Typically, the move from "beta" to release does not involve a loss of features, and yet here we are. These maps should still be beta in acknowledgement that they are less than a reasonable solution. Tsk tsk, Groundspeak, for selling this current state of affairs as the real product. That's on you. Maybe it's time for Groundspeak to consider getting into the map database game. That is, for all of its projects (Waypoints, Geocachinhg, Challenges, etc), maybe it's time to own your own content, Groundspeak. It seems that your business model is at the mercy of the map providers. And, as this thread reveals, customers are vocal about this issue. Of course, an undertaking of this magnitude is not going to be some overnight solution, but maybe it's the future. The status quo, however, reveals the elephant in the room: dependency is dependency and must therefore be planned for. Sadly, this seems not to have been the case, a (seemingly) hasty decision was made, and the product is suffering. Please plan better for the future of Geocaching. Best wishes, tenebrus

Um, yeah... feature request: a phone app that lets me knock this guy down a few pegs. </IRONY> Actually, while I am very much in alignment with baack40's point of view regardless rampant apathetic TFTC logging**, I also feel that it is important to merely say that what your opinion of geocaching is is just that: your opinion. I happen to agree with it, but at the same time, I acknowledge that the sport of geocaching is always evolving*** and that others will play it in ways that I don't (or won't). I hope that others reciprocate this level of respect of differences. As such, having a TB-QR code isn't the end of the world; it's use here would actually be an authentic application of "augmented reality"*. If enough people would like it, then it would be worth while to implement. Otherwise, they can shelve the idea and leave it to the motivated TB owners to implement it third-party. tenebrus *defined here as near-seamless connection of real world to cyber-world. **Note: my stats: over 4000 finds, average log length is 30+ words. ***My first caching GPSr (my 2nd GPSr) would only give N XX XX.XX W XX XX.XX. We had to triangulate everything.

I've just tested the same issue on my Motorola A855 and achieved the exact same effect: namely, deny the access, then try again to log in. This is a particularly egregious mistake considering the warning to never give out your log in information before the second person logs in. In my case, my wife's login was persistent on my phone even AFTER a phone reboot. This is a HIGH PRIORITY BUG. Agreed. It's nice that it has the option to grab a trackable (if you go to the main screen and search by trackable), but it would seem that I cannot use the app to ever drop one. Don't enough trackables go missing without encouraging it? This is a REASONABLE HIGH-EFFECT FEATURE REQUEST. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- In general, I'm very happy with the app. The improved GUI makes it easier to read. The database processing is noticeably slower though (note: this is both PQs from the web and .gpx from an SD file so I'm guessing that it's the app itself here). I've got reasons both to like and dislike that a .gpx file with more than 100 caches in it will now show up (and quickly) on the Map View. The advanced searches are awesome. Overall: it's a B+ update. It almost had the A, but there are just some glitches (ex: the switch user fail) that are too big to ignore. Also, as a wishlist item: I'd sooner want to see my stats than my souvenirs. And then the pipe dream for a future release (i.e., not a bug fix version - fix those first): an interactive touchscreen map option to trace a route on the map (perhaps even multiple disjoint segments) with my finger, which is then searchable like a .kml route, which is then savable as an offlist line for future use.

The page is at this point pretty much finalized and we are looking for a great event. Hope to seek folks there.

1150.4 miles away. I, living in Albany NY, just drove my inlaws' car down to their summer home (in Orlando, FL), but, ahem... found Zeke's webcams (2 of them) on the Gulf Shores in Alabama. (Shoulda taken that right turn at Albuquerque, huh?) Awesome trip though. The furthest caches that I ever did a round trip drive on were in Louisville, KY (just under 700 crow miles away).

Of all of the reasons that have been mentioned, I see at least one absence: a quest cache. That is, some cache that requires a collection of other caching requirements (e.g., every DeLorme grid in the state, every county in a state, a 9x9 difficulty-by-terrain completion, etc...; my definition is that the expected number of component caches needed in order to succeed on the quest is at least 5**) In fact, I intend to find one of my own quest caches (GC19A60) sometime in the next few months. What I am going to do, however, is to ask a geofriend to pick some future date (so I can warn other cachers of the plan) to hide it elsewhere (within 0.1 miles) at about the same difficulty/terrain level. Then, I will in fact go to FIND it (and put it back where it normally is). I wouldn't do this for a normal cache at all, but for the bragging rights of having completed the quest, and by actually creating the conditions for an authentic find, I wouldn't feel ashamed to do so. As an aside, I have finds on 2 caches that I have SINCE adopted. I didn't magically UNFIND them by adopting them. ** The awkward wording (as opposed to just saying "needing 5 or more other caches") came from the now archived Need Space? Bonus cache, for which the 4 pieces of true coordinates that needed to be collected were hidden randomly amongst 16 possible Need Space caches. Though it would be possible to succeed with only 4 component caches finds, the expected value, where it finally becomes more likely than not, was actually 14 of the 16. Note: this was a non-trivial calculation here.)

I can get direction to the map using a URL such as: http://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx...lng=-122.413333 http://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx?lat=45.291&lng=-122.413333 However, perhaps I know that that will only produce the 2 caches and I'd like to plan a larger trip. Hmm.. can I prezoom it the way I'd like to? Hmm... http://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx...13333&zm=12 http://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx?lat=45.291&lng=-122.413333&zm=12 Yup. So, here's my question. What else can be used as URI-passed-variables so that I might generate a custom default goto map for my area? There's a few things that I'd like to be able to do on the first try so that (A) I don't have to ping the GC server multiple times to update the map; and ( I don't have to go through multiple steps on the client-side for actions that I now regularly take. Examples, just to name a few: Hide My Finds (I'd like often to be checked upon loading) Hide My Caches (I'd like often to be checked upon loading) Unselect Wherigos and Earthcaches (or sometimes selecting only Wherigos and Earthcaches) Show Numbers on Map (either on or off, depends) Collecting the Map Size Option (that is, why waste time loading for the biggest map size when I'm only going to use the smaller ones, especially if it risks going over 500 caches?) And... if these do exist, and if I do use them directly in some (X)(HT)ML generated button/form/script, I wonder what that means for the Create Pocket Query there. (Honestly, I never create PQs from there, but I thought that it'd be an important consideration to address.)

So, that does sound like your definition of Multi vs. Puzzle. I think it works.Hmm.. not so sure. Are you suggesting that Puzzle-at-Home is a Multi because one could have the real first coordinates? I would have a Multi where the listed coordinates for Part 1 have a physical container. I would hate to discover that false coordinates had been torn up only to later discover that some geocacher afterwards realized that the real first container was elsewhere. Regardless of opinions in this topic, I think that clearly distinguishing real coordinates from fake coordinates is non-negotiable. If would eat my own opinions on the matter in order to keep that one distinction clear. The Solve-at-Home vs Solve-on-the-Go distinction is merely wishlisting.

"Solve on the trail" is something like "use the keyword that you find at the waypoint" to do something. That is, from home, one wouldn't know what, exactly, to solve. Like knowing the cipher but not the keyword until you actually get there. The same is true of (some!) fill-in-the-blanks from the local signage. In contrast, "solve at home" would mean that one could solve it in fully before "getting there." I hope this helps.

Fill in the Blanks Yes, the distinctions are difficult. I usually think this is the difference between a Puzzle and a Multi-cache (but then again, maybe not always).Dang. Great counterexample of Fill In The Blanks. Yeah. That's a Puzzle, by my definition, but against what I had stated. As for the Solve-It-Where stuff, a "traditional" Multi-Cache to me involves starts by having the initial WP up front with a Puzzle/Mystery/? involving some activity to produce the IP. (Awaits next counterexample. ).

Just my thought's on them. I'm interested in what others think about these as well. Here lots to think about. Really. Lots. And perhaps more questions than answers. Puzzle versus non-Puzzle. This too would be a good distinction. But it is hard to decide what defines a puzzle. Is reading a sign, determining a couple of digits, and heading over to the WP a puzzle or not? How about a Rot-13 cipher? A Vigenère cipher? A code wholly unto itself without the option of finding an online Java applet? An epic riddle requiring lateral thinking? Somewhere along the spectrum, this would turn into a puzzle, but where exactly? I suspect that this is the basis for an epic debate. Although my heart wants Puzzle versus Non-Puzzle Mystery caches, my mind is having a hard time finding any self-evident good place for that line between them. Until the time that I find this line, I cannot justify a distinct cache-type. If I had to vote today on the matter, I would suggest that anything involving only fill-in-the-blanks and simple 4-function mathematics to be not a puzzle, and anything beyond that (including rotation ciphers) to be a puzzle. For example: if I have a cache called Clark Kent's Dressing Room listed to be at N 32 CA.CHE W 65 FI.NDS, where the trick is to use phone button subsitution (i.e., N 32 22.243 W 65 34.637 ), then it's a Puzzle, although not a very hard one. (Also, I suspect that one would be wet out there in the ocean). Also, I would like an easy distinction amongst Mystery caches between Solve-WPs-at-Home and Solve-WPs-on-the-Trail caches. Sometimes, I will be planning a vacation somewhere away from home and this distinction would save a lot of time in preparing which caches I might hunt during the trip. Is this necessarily a need for a distinct cache-type? Hmm... I don't know. Perhaps this is something better reserved for attributes. Quest Cache. Absolutely should be used. In fact, any component cache of a Quest Cache should be indicated on the Component Cache pages. Ideally, such cross-notification would be automated at the owner's choice. That is, the process for setting up a Quest Cache would include the Component Caches, much the way one includes Additional Waypoints. Then, much like Bookmark Lists, they would cross-link to each other AUTOMATICALLY because of the Quest Cache's information. I would like the ability to exclude any Quest that I wish not to hunt down. (Okay, actually, I often seek out Quest caches, even on vacation trips, but I understand the opinions of others with whom I've spoken about this and the general consensus is they are a nuisance to anyone who doesn't want to do them.) Also, even my idea for automatic cross-listing isn't perfect. Consider a DeLorme Challenge. Any cache in the grid will do. That couldn't be automatically determined ahead of time by the Quest Cache owner. Furthermore, some quests involve list completion before earning the final coordinates from the cache owner whereas others are simply determined by visiting the components and collecting the data directly. My idea does not clearly address this concern, although I suspect that the distinction is very close to being able to determine ahead of time any cross-listed caches. On a side-note: should there be a minimum number of caches needed to call it a Quest. That is, a 25+ cache Checklist Cache would be much different than a Cache whose coordinates were all on the back of the logbook of the cache 529 feet away. Which ones are Quests? All of them. Somewhat arbitrarily, I would suggest having the following requirement. (A) Must visit at least 3 other caches to qualify. Night Cache. Minimally, something should be indicated. If it truly is a night cache, and a flashlight (or like "special equipment") is required, then it is technically "Terrain 5" according to the suggested rating system offered when submitting a cache. Hmm.. that just doesn't seem right. I had to either rappel down a 50' wall or kayak across a lake in order to earn the bulk of my Terrain 5's... carrying a flashlight just doesn't seem to be the same thing. So, again, cache-type or attribute? I'm okay with either, but perhaps the suggested rating guide take into account Night Caches in helping to determine more accurate ratings. A night cache just off of a park-and-ride is a lot different than a nighttime 3-mile loop through state game lands when it comes to terrain ratings. I've done both kinds. Maybe flashlight required is better suited to Difficulty. AudioCaches (PodCaches). I've seen a small number of these popping up too. They are caches for which a person must listen to an audio file (eg.: .mp3) in order to navigate themselves somewhere. The GPSr gets involved somewhere (or else it's not a geocache -- or so suggested New York Admin). Granted, the audio file might involve Mystery-like data collection in order to determine real coordinates. These too would fall into the special equipment category as Night Caches, where the Terrain is not necessarily 5 despite what the suggested rating is. Perhaps the solution is the creation of a cache type called "Special Equipment Cache" which would include those Terrain 5 caches, but for which a Pocket Query set to Terrain less than 5 would sort out most Night Caches and most Audio Caches from the most physical Kayak Caches, Rappelling Caches, and Dirigible Caches. Seed Cache. No way. This seems to encourage some poorly planned geotrash. Granted, not always, but often enough that I think we must consider our sport's appearance to muggles. Whenever I think of seed caches, I also think of bomb squads. No thanks. We participate in an activity that inherently involves suspicious acts - sleuthing, hiding, going off-trails, loitering, etc.. - this is all perceivable as deviant behavior. We would be remiss if poorly planned caches were the public image of this sport. (Not to mention that a Seed Event Cache would be quite silly. "Okay, folks: Monday night, Brian is hosting Wings and Smileys. Tuesday, Sarah is hosting Pizza and Smileys. Wednesday, TeamDNF is hosting Bowling and Smileys. Thursday, NumbersHog2345 is hosting Picnic and Smileys. Etc..." Well, unless it were a CITO Seed Event. Nah, probably still overkill, huh?) Finally, an administrative issue. What about all of the previously-issued caches that would fit into these categories. How should the update happen? Would I retroactively get a Quest Cache Find for the NY DeLorme Cache.

Why should a reviewer care? That's not the reviewer's job.You are right. I take it back. I believe it is not the reviewer's job and this is off-topic anyway. The feedback that I received from New York Admin was that multiple finds were unapprovable. Certain grandfathered types, like moving caches, are okay though in that multiple finds would actually happen. Undiscussed was the notion of finding multiple temporary caches at an event, but I suspect that the label "Attended" indicates that they too should be logged only once despite the number of temporary caches that one might have found (or not) during the event. Also, I think that caches which have been replaced but for which significant modifications have occurred might qualify for multiple find logging, although these, in my experience, have been encouraged to be listed as a new cache entirely (sort of a CYA side-step of grandfathering approvals - remember that previous caches do not set precedent for approval of new ones).

For the record, I have a cache called Orange Ya Glad I Didn't Say Banana where, like the joke of the same name, goes on for an unknown amount of stages. In general, however, I usually give out that info.

Agreed. I'd say that (2) is not wholly tenable. Geocaching is done by a minority of people in public spaces that are populated by muggles. From time to time, muggles learn of geocaching. But if a geocache is hazardous, dangerous, trashy, unpleasant, etc., it does reflect on the whole community of geocachers. Simply ignoring it does not address this concern, and I haven't seen much discussion from this point of view. I'd propose personally ignoring the cacher's caches when seeking to find caches, but do not ignore the cacher's caches when it comes to the public image. This harkens of (1), consensus building, sending the photographs to the cache pages and inviting the admins to see for themselves what is going on. They have a stake is this activity too.

I'd like one as well. Thanks --tenebrus

Nice cache. Just a question... my geocaching partner left off a travel bug there, swapping it for the one in the cache... how should that get itself logged? Is that a hand-off?

Well.. my PumpkinEve is quite adamant of having her own account... and I can't say that I blame her. In fact, today was the first time that I geocached without her. A weird feeling actually. It doesn't seem to be fair to individuals to not be able to have an accurate account of caches found in all (as a team or alone)... especially when sometimes a group will go out and all get to log it in... But I see the other side of the coin too: it doesn't seem to be fair to a locationless cache owner to not be able to have an accurate account of total caches found. I don't know really. I'd like to be able to SHARE these experiences (including the logging of it) with PumpkinEve (the way that traditional group geocaching can be shared), but I guess rules are rules.. unless the owners let them be broken. Anyway: I think that I will make it my personal policy to only be doing very high quality locationless caches. I found that it would be quite easy to fluff up my number of finds by filling it with locationless caches and not get to the real spirit of the game: actually finding neat hidden stuff. Thank you to all who have replied or have yet to reply.

I, well, we (PumpkinEve and I) had a question about locationless caches. For most of our caches, we will be together (living together and being in a relationship tends to do that). However, we want to maintain independent geocache accounts for when we are exploring independently. However, we have noticed that many of the locationless caches have listed "one location = one person/team" and also as "one location = one log". What is the general etiquette for listing from separate accounts a find of the same locationless at the same time? Would we have to each find our own locationless entries? Is this on an owner by owner basis? Etc... (This was originally posted within a different locationless forum, but my sweetheart insisted that I try this are its own forum topic).

I, well, we (PumpkinEve and I) had a question about locationless caches. For most of our caches, we will be together (living together and being in a relatinoship tends to do that). However, we want to maintain independent geocache accounts for when we are epxloring independently. However, we have noticed that many of the locationless caches have listed "one location = one person/team" and also as "one location = one log". What is the general etiquette for listing from separate accounts a find of the same locationless at the same time? Would we have to each find our own locationless entries?