Team Van Dyk

I use a Camelbak Mule NV containing the following: 1. Swag 2. Travelbugs and Geocoins 3. Otterbox for iPhone 4. Fisher Trekker Space Pen 5. Gerber Infinity Flashlight 6. Gerber Suspension Butterfly Multitool 7. Canon S95 Camera 8. Aloksak bags (running the gamut in sizes) 9. Rite-in-Rain Logs (runing the gamut in sizes) 10. Pencils 11. Cache containers (decon, micro, and nano) 12. Marmot Power Stretch Gloves 13. Lansatic Compass 14. Bushnell Powerview Binoculars 15. 3M Ultrathon Bug Spray 16. Tick Key 17. Afterbite Pen 18. Lighter 19. pH Strips 20. 3 1" Rare Earth Magnets 21. 50' 550 Paracord 22. Duct Tape 23. Tecnu Extreme Poison Ivy Scrub 24. Lightweight First Aid Kit 25. Ponchos That's it. --Matt

Yes, but when older software is no longer supported, it usually still works. The old 4.2.2 Version of geocaching for iPhone does NOT. Technology changes, life moves on. I suspect that there are more apps on the iPhone that do not work with the older operating systems. You just happened to find one. I guess your faced with a choice, upgrade the OS or go find and old etrex. From what I can tell, there have been no changes to the operating system that would cause an older version of the app to stop working. From what I can tell, Groundspeak has changed its programming specifically to cause older versions not to work.Fact 1: The old version worked Fact 2: I changed nothing. Fact 3: GS released a new version of the app. Fact 4: I did not change anything. Fact 5: The old version stopped working. The logical inference is that GS intentionally and willfully disabled the old app. I suspect that the new version contains some sort of "flag" and that the GS database checks for that flag and returns "No Results" when it is not present. The fact that your setup was supported as long as it was is a miracle. They aren't specifically targeting you. Why would they do that? Your being phased out because the way the API works has changed as the OS and the app have moved forward (and you have chosen not to). Why should they have to maintain the backwards compatibility of the API any more than they do the app? More importantly, why would they? Waste of resources.

When you go to log a find and select "found it" the option shows up.

Yes, but when older software is no longer supported, it usually still works. The old 4.2.2 Version of geocaching for iPhone does NOT. This is the nature of the beast with iOS and with the changing landscape of API-reliant apps. You can't very well expect Groundspeak to ensure that its API runs a several-generations-old version of the app on a several-generations-old OS. It just doesn't work that way anymore.

Rather than trotting out old, and possibly irrelevant threads, it might be more productive to work with your Reviewer to zero in on what the issues are and how to correct them. Best of luck! Oh, thanks for jumping to conclusions. Didn't ask for that, but thanks for doing it anyway and continuing to feed the reputation of this forum. To the extent it matters (which is doesn't), the conversation I'm having with my reviewer is significantly more esoteric than that. If it was just about trying to establish precedent (relevant or not), that's not tough: GC321E4, GC2MP0W, GC2MP0Y, GC33Y9X, GC33KBW, GC33YAZ, GC2R9K6, GC2R9JB, GC2TQM5 (and these are just the ones with “average” in the cache title). Thanks again for your concern and unsolicited advice. WHOA! Time to cut back on the medication. Without any specifics included in your 'Original Post', Touchstone was merely attempting to provide some helpful advice on the most obvious reason you would want to reference that thread. Maybe you already knew that little detail. Many cachers don't. I was thinking the same thing when I cam in here to see if I could help any. If anything, I would say you are (if anyone here is) 'continuing to feed the reputation of this forum.' Have a nice day! There were enough "specifics" in the original post to answer the question asked. If I had wanted an answer to the question he thought I asked, I would've asked it. I didn't. His decision to presume he knew what I was asking and then condescendingly answer a question that wasn't asked is, well, par for the course around here. You have a nice day as well!!

Challenge caches must but attainable, but they don't have to be attainable by everyone. From the Knowledge Books: This is largely what the discussion with my review has been about. He had some hesitation over the challenge's attainability (even though I've attained it myself) on the basic premise that it's too difficult to attain for cachers with high find counts and too low of averages. I, of course, argued this point suggesting that the rule only requires that it be attainable (not easily attainable by everyone) and pointing out that it is no more biased against cachers with high find counts than many of the popular challenges requiring large, disparate find counts are against cachers with low find counts. I wanted the links to the other caches, not for precedent purposes, but rather, so he could see the logs for those caches which show that these types of challenges are found (with relative frequency) by cachers with find counts all over the spectrum. I'm pretty sure I was right in my reading of the rule, and I'm pretty sure I would've been able to successfully appeal, but in the long range scheme of things, my reviewer is a good dude and I know he's doing his best. He has a different interpretation of the rule than me, and really, it's his that counts. So, in the end, I abandoned the argument and agreed to an alternative which permits cachers with find counts in excess of 1000 to log it on the basis of their averages over the 1000 finds immediately preceding the logging of the cache. --Matt

I think the right one "lights up" on inactive caches.

Thank you. Thus far, this is a great update with no significant steps backwards (as near as I can tell). Nicely done!!! Keep up the good work as you address the remaining issues!!!! --Matt

Perfect! That's the one. Thanks! --Matt P.S. Question answered. Mods, feel free to close this thread. I'd delete it, but can't figure out how to do so. Thanks!

Rather than trotting out old, and possibly irrelevant threads, it might be more productive to work with your Reviewer to zero in on what the issues are and how to correct them. Best of luck! Oh, thanks for jumping to conclusions. Didn't ask for that, but thanks for doing it anyway and continuing to feed the reputation of this forum. To the extent it matters (which is doesn't), the conversation I'm having with my reviewer is significantly more esoteric than that. If it was just about trying to establish precedent (relevant or not), that's not tough: GC321E4, GC2MP0W, GC2MP0Y, GC33Y9X, GC33KBW, GC33YAZ, GC2R9K6, GC2R9JB, GC2TQM5 (and these are just the ones with “average” in the cache title). Thanks again for your concern and unsolicited advice.

I saw a thread on here a few months back discussing a couple of popular challenge caches that required finders to have an average D/T rating of 2.0/2.0 or higher in order to log it. As I recall, it was in the Oregon or Washington area. Anyone else remember that thread? I'm having trouble finding it and need it for a discussion I'm currently having with my reviewer. Thanks! --Matt

Is it just me or has the CO deleted his all-caps Note and removed the "no co-FTF" ALR from the page?

His one post is, not surprisingly, on this very topic. If you go about 2/3rds of the way down the thread (started by the at-issue CO), this exact topic is discussed: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=274449

Considering the OP on this thread is the cacher in question and that this topic is already discussed beginning about 2/3rds of the way down, perhaps these should be merged: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=274449

+1 Tecnu before outbreak. Zanfel after (if, for whatever reason, you forgot the Tecnu). Both work great and make caching in PI-heavy areas easily manageable.* --Matt *Note: To my knowledge, no one on our "team" is allergic to PI, so if you are, YMMV.

With all due respect, my response to this is that if you are finding too many caches to post decent logs for your finds, then you should find fewer caches. The logs left by cachers are the only thanks COs get for the hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours they spend conceiving of, preparing, and placing caches for you to find. The least you can do is write a little something, give a little feedback, and thank them properly. I note you have 50 finds, and 0 hides. I'm guessing your perspective will change if/when you join the ranks of the COs. As an aside, we're all busy people, and an "apology" in advance is no apology at all.

The 10-mile search radius issue is being discussed in this thread: http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75277-Groundspeak-iphone-apps/suggestions/2006375-4-5-update-find-nearby-and-advanced-search-radiu In that thread, Moun10Bike had this to say: My response follows: This is simply untrue. It is not 50km (~31 miles) for EITHER Advanced Search OR Basic Search. No search results are returned beyond 10 miles. This is true for both Advanced and Basic. If the Lackeys intended to bump it up to 50km, they have failed to do so. Fix it immediately. I'm not asking. I'm demanding. I'm a premium user who has paid for the iPhone app and dumped hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in your store. Fix. It. Now. It is neither necessary nor reasonable. It is a ridiculous business model. If you're over capacity, the answer is to increase capacity, not decrease service to loyal paying customers (see above on that point). The increase in users which put you over capacity almost certainly came along with an increase in revenue which should be put to increasing capacity. It's quite simple, really. Decreasing the service you're providing me (and, again, that I've handsomely paid for) is downright theft. If the increased revenue resulting from the increase in the number of users that have pushed you over the edge is insufficient, then raise the rates. Problem solved. No theft. Which is completely useless. Think this through. Advanced Search permits us to filter search results, but because of this 10 mile cap, THERE ARE NO SEARCH RESULTS TO FILTER! See above. I'm paying your salaries, and I'm demanding that you fix this or AT LEAST do what you said you've done (increase it to 50km) which you clearly have not: Screenshots: Basic Search (bottom of list, no "Next 30", 9.9 miles furthest cache): Advanced Search (bottom of list, no "Next 30" 9.9 miles furthest cache):

Nicely done.

Down again...or, at least, extremely bogged down (has been all morning).

The 10-mile search radius limitation was re-introduced in v. 4.5.5 (for both "find nearby" and "advanced search"). PLEASE DISABLE THIS LIMITATION OR INCREASE IT TO 50, AND LEAVE IT ALONE!!!

No.

Reading through the responses on the feedback thread was enlightening. I'm starting to think that the geocaching community has a much larger percentage of tinfoil-hat-wearing, FUD-spreading Luddites than the broader population. Don't get me wrong; if social media isn't your thing, that's great (and, frankly, a bit admirable). But, goodness sakes, these buttons are nothing more than links to GC's social media pages; it's not the mark of the beast. --Matt

Finally.

Phew! Good to know!

Yeah, I have the GC app and a GPSr. It would be a neat feature, though, if they showed up like POIs along a route. Obviously not suited for actually finding, but helpful for seeing if there happens to be one off that exit somewhere.