Team Van Dyk

Makes sense. Thanks folks. If I manage to find it, I'll post the correct coordinates in my log and shoot the reviewers a note.

According to the log, this cache is nowhere near its posted coordinates: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=1835fe5f-3b27-4e6a-97b8-e1b0ab902494 Most of the finders have indicated in their log entry that it is around 40-70' away from the coordinates on the cache listing. Knowing this, I'll be going back later today to try to find it. If I find it, I'd like to post the correct coordinates in my log entry, but not if that would be frowned upon. Thoughts? --Matt

MODS: Please delete this thread. Reposted the question here: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=258690 I inexplicably missed the existence of that thread when I started a new one. Sorry about that. Thanks!

This TB has been MIA for years as have its owners: http://www.geocaching.com/track/details.aspx?guid=0a45863f-492d-44b1-a33f-5d872ad0d7f8 Unfortunately, I didn't read the TB log before I went to this cache for the specific purpose of picking it up (the cache itself, incidentally, had been muggled a couple days prior to my arrival, so...double whammy). Left a NM log entry reporting the muggle and the missing TB. Anyway, to whom do I report this factoid so that the TB is removed from the system's inventory (and, thus, removing that tempting bug icon from the list)? Thanks!! --Matt

This TB has been MIA for years as have its owners: http://www.geocaching.com/track/details.aspx?guid=0a45863f-492d-44b1-a33f-5d872ad0d7f8 Unfortunately, I didn't read the TB log before I went to this cache for the specific purpose of picking it up (the cache itself, incidentally, had been muggled a couple days prior to my arrival, so...double whammy). Anyway, to whom do I report this factoid so that the TB is removed from the system's inventory (and, thus, removing that tempting bug icon from the list)? Thanks!! --Matt

I'm relatively new to geocaching, use an iPhone (for now), and do it as a family activity. I sign every log, thoughtfully compose my log entries on the site, take pictures, actually move TBs in their intended direction, CITO, note maintenance issues, replace baggies, and am in the planning stages of hiding our first cache. In other words, I doubt very highly that anyone would accuse me of cheapening or damaging the activity in any way. In fact, I would imagine just the opposite. Point is, this is exactly right (except for that last part): Correct. A wise man once said (I think it was Sol Seaker) it's not Geocaching with smartphones, it's logging with them. By the way, the Iphone sucks. Just in general, nothing to do with Geocaching. But, having lived through the above-discussed fly fishing bonanza of about a decade ago (and the mountain biking bonanza before that), I can certainly see the concern. And, I find this to be both funny as hell and 100% accurate: --Matt

Thanks for the tips folks!!! --Matt P.S. I picked up a couple aLOKSAKs. They are pricey, but hopefully they'll do the job. It'll be interesting to see if the bag itself gets "borrowed".

Somehow I missed this. So when I log it as "found" and include a "Maintenance Note" at the end of the text in that log, that is incorrect? I will oftentimes do this even if it doesn't immediately need maintenance (getting near the end of a log; bag starting to not seal properly; etc.). I do this as a heads up to the CO as just an FYI. --Matt

Is it just the forum? Can you run PQ's? Can you use "favorites" points? Those are just two of the benefits of Premium Membership. Oh, and another useful benefit: bookmarks. Contact Groundspeak, that's really all that anyone here on the forums can advise you to do. Yes, it's just the forum. All other features work fine.

So far, the Groundspeak site has had pretty much everything I'm looking for, but its selection is also quite limited. For instance, I know I'm soon (in the next week or so) going to want a pretty big cache container (50mm ammo can, I think) and a small handful of travel bugs and geocoins (beyond those carried on the Groundspeak site). Thoughts on what the other "major" reputable vendors are? Thanks! --Matt P.S. Is there any particular brand/model of ziploc or ziploc-esque bags that work best in true 4-season states (i.e. Michigan)?

Same problem. Been a premium member for a few weeks now...yet...no premium access on the forum. Please advise. thanks!

Do you have another link? That one didn't work for me (I'm a premium member). Thanks! --Matt

Sweet. Do you otherwise like the Mule?

Curious what people think as between the Camelbak HAWG and the Camelbak MULE. This pack will double as my MTB pack, so want the hydration AND keep it as small as possible, so the MULE would be ideal. However, need to make sure it has room for all the following: 1. trinkets/swag 2. pen 3. ziplock bags 4. flashlight 5. trackables (travelbugs, geocoins, etc. 6. logbooks 7. binoculars 8. multi-tool 9. camera 10. bug spray & anti-itch 11. rain ponchos 12. first aid kit 13. compass 14. gloves Any thoughts on the list would also be helpful, but really interested in thoughts on the pack. Thanks! --Matt

I knew I had to proceed with caution on this topic which is why I have the second paragraph of my initial post. If the answer is, "no", that's fine. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. I would prefer it if this were available as an option, but if not no big deal. Thanks! --Matt P.S. Although it's neither here nor there, the reason I was asking is so I could add a link to it on our family's landing page here: http://www.vandykfamily.com/ The following comment is exactly right, and while I believe the site can easily serve both types of users, I'm not trying to start that debate here: P.P.S. If anyone honestly believes that giving users the ability to make their profiles public will somehow cripple the performance of the site, please shoot me an email. I have a bridge for sale. Note to Mods: I'm honestly not trying to start a big debate here. Just wanted an answer to the question. As far as I'm concerned, the question has been answered and this thread can (and probably should) be closed. Thanks!

Is there a way to make one's profile "public" (i.e. don't need to be logged into the GC site to view it)? I understand that this would not be a desirable feature for many GC users, but I don't know if it's even possible (in a toggle in the settings or something) to do if one would want to. Thanks! --Matt

I'll tell you the problem: Many of my actual friends are geocachers. Not just Facebook "friends," but actual friends. I like having Facebook alert me to things like their kids birthdays, their return home after vacations, and their job promotions. But if I start getting an email alert every time one of them finds a geocache, I'll have to unfriend them or something; my phone would be buzzing all day, every day. I get that, but that's a question of the social networking manners of your friends, and isn't, in my mind, particularly relevant to whether or not GC should provide the option. In any event, I think most folks would chose "Option ( b )" (excluded from your quote, but discussed in more detail above) anyway, in which event you would only get notifications of specific finds that your friends specifically decided to broadcast. --Matt

the resources that would be allocated to implement that feature can be used to fix/implement other more important features Yes, here were my thoughts on that argument (posted above):

It occurs to me that it might be helpful to demonstrate what I mean by selectively posting to twitter/facebook on a case-by-case basis (i.e. "Option ( b )") as opposed to auto-tweeting or auto-posting (which would, as you point out, flood friends/followers). This is a quick and dirty mockup, but under Option ( b ), the log page in the app would look like this: If you tapped the "f", it would light up and then share to facebook when the log was posted. If you tapped the "t" it would light up and then share to twitter when the log was posted. If you wanted to share to both, you would tap both the "f" and the "t" such that it looked like this: Then when you clicked Save & Close, it would upload the log to the GC site in the usual course and post to the selected social media outlet (in the example, both FB and Twitter). You could, of course, choose not to select either one (and, in fact, the default should be set to neither) in which case it would just upload the log to the GC site like normal and not post to either one. Hope that's a little more clear. --Matt P.S. Sorry for the crude mockup. I would, obviously, expect it would be a little more refined than that, but only so much editing I could do on my phone.

I wouldn't. As indicated, I would employ option ( b ) which would only post/tweet finds I specifically told it to. Giving users that option would not necessarily flood followers/friends.

This is what my suggestion is: If someone wants (a), in my book, that's there prerogative; I'd almost certainly use ( b ). But, again, what does GC (or any of the GC users) care if I choose to flood my Twitter or FB streams?

I see. Yes, I would imagine that those restrictions have eased dramatically. The www would be largely unusable if every page with Like or "Share to Facebook" or "Recommend" or Tweet were blocked. And, again, if some IT department decides to block pages on that basis, that's hardly something Groundspeak should concern itself with on a policy basis. --Matt P.S. For the record, the share options I'm suggesting is, essentially, a switch in the user account settings that uses the FB or Twitter API. This would not result in anything whatsoever appearing on any of the cache or profile pages (i.e. this is not the same as adding a "Like" button). So, even if you had such an overzealous IT department, that risk is even lower than it would've been with a Like button.

There's no conceivable reason permitting users the OPTION of enabling the sharing options I describe in their settings should cause the site to be treated any differently under "many people's" IT policies. If it causes an overzealous IT Department to block the site, so be it; restricting site functionality out of a largely baseless fear of getting the site blocked by corporate filters is a little tinfoil-hat-type nuts. Fact is, permitting the EXTERNAL sharing OPTIONS I describe would not, in any way, change the functionality of the GC site itself or convert it into a social networking site. That is, my suggestion would not cause the site to violate a "no social networking" policy any more than it already does. Re the snarky copy/paste remark, that's cute, but not consistent with the way the interwebs works today. --matt

Fair enough, but permitting users to broadcast their finds to their social networks (external to the site) has nothing to do with "finding geocachers" or the core functionality of the site. Indeed, that level of integration wouldn't make it any easier to "find geocachers" than it is right now. As for the concern that facebook/twitter integration in the manner I described would divert resources from fixing the current site issues, I haven't been around long enough to know if that's a realistic concern, but if it is, I agree entirely. Fix functionality issues first, address social networking integration second, and site navigation issues third (I didn't mention this one in my post, but at some point, the site does need a bit of an overhaul; it's not exactly user-friendly). But, saying "don't add these features until you've fixed what's broken" is materially different than "don't add these at all". As an aside, I did not mean to imply that the "old timers" are anti-social (and looking back, I don't think I did), but I apologize if it could have been interpreted that way. Thanks for the response Don! --Matt

Alright, I've read this entire thread and while it's clear that there is a contingent (maybe even a majority) of long-time geocachers that would prefer to NOT have any Facebook or Twitter integration, the question remains, "why not?". I realize this is my first post, and I realize that there are strongly held views here, but please hear me out. Where is the harm in providing users the OPTION of connecting their Facebook and/or Twitter accounts to their GC account for purposes of either (a) tweeting or posting their log entries to Facebook automatically, or ( better yet, selectively tweeting or posting their log entries to Facebook on a case-by-case basis (preferably via a toggle option on the log page in the app)? Since it would be an option, it would be purely optional; no one would be required to connect their Facebook or Twitter accounts if they didn't want to (or didn't have one); as such, providing the option would not seem to impact the anti-FB/Twitter crowd in any appreciable way whatsoever. So, where's the harm in that? The best I can come up with is that permitting such social network broadcasts may act as an advertisement for the game resulting in an influx of new users. At first blush, this may seem like a good thing, but I can see a fairly compelling argument for it being a bad thing. Since the geocaching universe exists in the real world and most new users are much more likely to be finders-only, it's unlikely it would be able to "scale up" sufficiently to handle a large influx of new users without doing damage to the game. Moreover, there's a not-insignificant learning curve involved in geocaching "correctly", and were there to be a large influx of new users, there would almost certainly be an increased number of etiquette "issues". That said, I'm guessing here since those who have objected to the notion in this thread have been a bit "light" on compelling rationale for their objection. So again, I'd ask the more seasoned folks to advise on the reason behind their objection. I surely hope it's not a general curmudgeon/luddite sentiment that certain folks simply don't want more people playing "their" game...although, if I'm honest, it kind of looks that way.