Sandy

Understood. We are aiming to communicate more effectively. Thank you for the feedback.

The next version of this app is currently in production and our Mobile Engineering Team are mindful of this issue as they work on the build. We will release as soon as this version of the app is stable, which will likely be within the next three to four weeks. Cheers.

What a wonderful program. Congratulations!

Hello everyone, We have sourced the problem and the fix will be implemented during the site upgrade at the end of this month. We appreciate your patience, and ask that if the issue persists past May 31st, you email contact@Groundspeak.com with your username. Cheers.

Please read Guideline #7 carefully and note that it says, "Exceptions to this guideline will only be considered if the requested photograph is related to an Earth Science logging activity such as recording a phenomenon." It may be that your photographic requirement does not specifically request that cachers record an aspect of the scientific phenomenon. If the request is simply to take a picture of it, you may not be meeting this strict exception. My best advice is to discuss this further with the Geoaware reviewer and determine how to make the photographic task more scientifically robust.

Quite clearly stated in Guideline #4 is this: 4. EarthCache sites can be a single site, or a multiple site. No items, box, or physical cache can be left at the site. You must have visited the site recently (within two months), checked that the site is safe and have taken multiple GPS readings to ensure accuracy of coordinates. You are responsible for disabling an EarthCache if conditions regarding access, safety or other issues, change. In addition EarthCaches must meet the current Geocaching.com guidelines which state, "You must visit the geocache site and obtain the coordinates with a GPS device." Yes, we expect that all cache owners of EarthCaches have actually been to the site of the EarthCache, and based on that visit develop the logging requirements. I understand that you have discovered caches about which you are doubtful. I suggest that you email contact@Groundspeak.com to explain your concerns, so that we can look into this matter further. We will of course address any caches that we deem to be problematic. A reminder from our Geocaching.com guidelines, "If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it."

A commercial post by GeoBoltHu was removed.

Closing this thread on request of the original poster.

Primarily, we want to encourage cache owners to act on Needs Maintenance and Needs Archived logs on their cache pages. When cache owners are no longer active, or have not taken any action to maintain their own cache for some time, our Volunteer Reviewers can help by stepping in. All Needs Archived logs generate an email notification which is directed to the local reviewers. (Please note that Needs Maintenance logs do not generate a notification to local reviewers.) Most reviewers action these notifications monthly, or even every two or three months. Regardless of the time frame, this is a big job in most regions. We ask our users to please be mindful that our volunteers' main focus and responsibility is reviewing and publishing caches. We are grateful for their work on caches that have been reported as 'Needs Archived", as it is an additional task to their core volunteering duties.

Edited out references to the original text that upset one user. Seen the apology and accepted apology. Thanks, all.

Closing topic.

Removed posts about the ADA. Off-topic and the initial post that refers to the ADA is inflammatory.

This thread - once productive discussion - has devolved into a series of misunderstandings and rather curt comments. Closing to avoid further digression. If the OP has not been addressed, please start a new thread. Everyone, please keep to the topic.

I have not been unprofessional in my dealings with you. Rather, I explained to you that the thread you started was a complaint, without clear argument and without constructive criticism - further that I addressed the complaint, so closed the thread. I gave you the opportunity to start another thread, even using the text that you posted in this thread, as it could possibly lead to a more constructive discussion. To address the general concern about the newsletter content: The newsletter first links to the new guidelines, with the request, "please read the updated guidelines." It then provides a summary of some guidelines. Guideline seven reads, "Requests for photographs must be optional." That is the stated guideline, which is included in the newsletter summary as, "Any requests for photos are considered optional." There is no intended deception in the text of the newsletter. The newsletter provides a very general overview of only a few guidelines. It is understood that there are disagreements about this text, but it was crafted by people who are highly involved in developing and sustaining this cache type, and respectfully disagree with this stance. The guideline itself has been hotly debated - and we understand that. Change causes concern and often heated discussions; now the complaint is how we get this information across. We hope to (have) address(ed) this concern to your satisfaction. At the end of the day we know that these discussions become so intense, because all parties are invested in EarthCaching, including Groundspeak and the G.S.A. A reminder that our feedback site is a good idea to post suggestions, such as follow up newsletter articles about EarthCaching. We do want to keep spreading the message about EarthCaching, particularly those ECs earning lots of favorites point. Thanks, everyone.

I will reply to you privately and you can decide whether I can post that response in this thread.

I am sorry, but recently I am more and more getting the feeling that the cachers in this forum are not treated as adults. Too many topics are closed before it is even possible to comment on the topic, ask questions, provide answers etc that are both on topic and reasonably respectful. Take e.g. this example http://forums.Ground...howtopic=266954 (I did not see any attempt to start a new discussion about photograph pro/contra there.) http://forums.Ground...howtopic=266805 (The thread was not about a special Earth caches, but in general about Earth caches on tribal lands) I can only speak for myself, but the two things that demotivated me most in the recent months with respect to Earthcaching were the change of the language guideline (effectively disallowing me to use English) and the fact that so many threads get closed here without any reason apparent to me. I do not come to the forums to find friendly advice, but to discuss about controversial topics. If this is not possible any longer and we all are just allowed to write how happy we are and how much we enjoy everything, then participating in this forum makes no sense any longer for me. I agree that an effort should be made to treat each other with respect and to try to be helpful when someone seeks advice or help. When there is however a wish for discussions and debates, when not allow them as long as they do not get personal. I have never encountered that many moderator interventions than during the last months and I feel that there are too many. Of course, this is Groundspeak's forum and they can decide how to handle this forum. I just wanted to reply to your posting to let you know that everything has two sides and what you apparently like to see in this forum is quite different from what I wish to see here. Cezanne We do want to encourage genuine discussion - and we allow many threads that critique our products and our decisions - like this one. We have had a particularly high amount of reported posts and threads lately. We act on these when the thread has shifted off-topic, or if the original question has been answered or thoroughly discussed and the discussion has digressed to personal jibes. There have been many examples of personal comments of late, and if they are at the end of a long - much-discussed thread - we want to stop the discussion from digressing further and close the thread. If it is a shorter discussion, and it won't disrupt the discussion too much we can sometimes just remove the posts that have offended. I know it must seem like we are keeping a closer watch - and we keep abreast of current topics in our forums - but of late users are being more active in reporting other users. There have been some major upgrades, additions and guideline changes in recent times, and it seems reasonable that people want to discuss those. And we want people to discuss those.

"Any requests for photos are considered optional." This is the general stance. The majority of photo requirements submitted with EarthCaches prior to the guideline update requested shots of the cacher at the location. The guidelines are now more detailed in what will be allowed as an exception, but this is a newsletter summary of the guidelines. I am closing this topic, as it is not fruitful and the topic, as you mention, have been hotly debated many times.

Topic has digressed. Closing.

Moving thread to "Geocaching Topics".

The main question in this thread has been addressed. Closing topic.

The cache in question is being addressed. If permissions are not established then the scope of the cache itself will change.

No, I agree with that. Meets the guidelines on geocaching.com as well as the EarthCache guidelines.

Groundspeak supports this practice. We want each cache to be reviewed on its own merits. It is the cache owner's responsibilities to ensure that all necessary and/or appropriate permissions have be obtained before the cache page is enabled.

Closing thread, as Geocaching.com does not support this software and this discussion should happen out of the Geocaching.com forums.

Closing this thread. It started with a valid - and non-judgmental - question and digressed into mud slinging. Please be mindful that the forums are a place for discussion of issues, and users should refrain from personal attacks.