Zogstarlene

When I find a cache I use the "Log Attempt" --> "Found" feature on my GPSMap 62s. This then shows the cache as an 'open box', drops out of unfound caches, etc. on the unit. However when I load the GPX file from the unit into GSAK these caches are not shown as found. I'll give an example: Yesterday I found GC2H93H (nothing special about this cache - just an example). When I look at the GPSMap 62s it does not show in the active caches and shows in the found caches. Presumably all of this information is in the GPX file on the unit as well (or is that a fatal flaw assumption?) I created a new database in GSAK. From GSAK I did a "File" --> "Load GPX/LOC/Zip..." and selected the GPX file on my unit in the ..\Gamin GPSMAP 62stc\Garmin\GPX\Geocaches.gpx location. Back in GSAK all the caches loaded fine. But none were marked as found (as the original PQ was for 'not found by me' caches and had no founds originally on the GPSMap 62s) I did try loading the GPX file from the 'current' folder on the GPSMap 62s but that didn't do anything (seems to be an empty file). Any help would be great!

Was there ever an answer to this? I have the same problem.

I have to comment on the "Jeremy gets to decide what is and isn't a geocache". Undeniably true - he calls the shots. But why the heck would the Jeremy as the CEO of a company care so little about the customers? Here is what I think is the epitome of not caring about customers: Forum poll to Keep Challenges: 3 votes http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/2184225-keep-challenges?ref=title Forum poll to Remove Challenges: 1489 votes before it was closed down http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/2170539-remove-challenges-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-geoca Geocaching.com is really just a software company - their product is the concept plus the site to support the concept. We buy that software+concept bundle. Most client facing software companies care enough about their customers that they have a beta test site. The very best type of beta test is open to any customer, but even a 'by invitation' closed beta test is better than rolling out a new concept (after clearly significant development) without customer comment. Beta testing lets you find out the crap (in your design, in your performance, knock on problems, etc.) before you spring it on your purchasing customers. If Groundspeak had opened up a proper beta test for Challenges: 1. A Beta Test would have pointed out putting as the 'shining example' of a Challenge is to 'Kiss a Frog' was the most idiotic, unproductive. and development budget wasting thing they could have possibly done. (If that one was Jeremy's idea then hopefully some lacky (or all of them) has had the guts to tell the Emperor he was a fool.) 2. Some reasonable ideas on how to improve the roll-out would have come out in beta testing: a. don't make challenges count in the find count until the concept is working well - easier to retrofit counts up than take the heat while the bugs in the concept are being worked out. b. Some method of review should take place before publishing challenges (if not forever then in the initial go) c. Oh - even though Groundspeak knows what a challenge is perhaps we should by gosh have more than a half a paragraph on the web site as to what makes a good challenge d. The crashing of the base Geocaching.com system (that, er, pays the bills) caused by the introduction of challenges would have hopefully been averted. e. Groundspeak would have created several extremely good challenges of "standard" type that could be viewed as shining examples (did anyone mention that the global "Kissing a Frog" challenge created by Groundspeak as the 'best practice' challenge was mind numbingly stupid?) We really like virtuals (and while much respect for Clan Rifster, I'm cool with these 'go use your GPS to go somewhere and learn something' caches counting as real caches.) Jeremy says he spent too much of his development budget on Challenges so they are going to stay in the game no matter what the backlash from the paying customers is - so we better like them dammit! But I could not imagine a worse implementation or worse implementation roll-out.

I don't normally post on the forums. But I'm really upset at the new Challenge feature. Like many cachers I LIKE virtuals as they are now. Like many cachers I voted strongly to bring back virtuals on the enhancement poll run by Groundspeak. I certainly do NOT like this challenge enhancement. Bogus. "Kiss a Frog" is set up by Groundspeak as the 'example' of a good Challenge. Every challenge I've looked at is essentially like that. Terrible! Virtuals took you somewhere. Virtuals required the use of your GPS. Seems like challenges only require you to be good at photoshop. I especially dislike the fact that these stupid challenges count as 'finds'. Benchmarks are actually very hard to find, and you must really work for them and they don't count (which is appropriate.) Challenges can be fulfilled by clicking on a button or by photoshopping a picture and uploading. Challenges should immediately be relegated to a separate website like Waymarking where they will quickly die an appropriate death of attrition.

Ok - so some server was faster than another. That could explain the 'superhuman' message. That does not explain why you can't click on some caches and get the forever 'loading' message. I did 25 caches yesterday - after 2 hours I'm still trying to log them via the web site. This is a big issue IMHO. I do NOT work solely from PQ's.

I got the same thing too. I have also been having a lot of problems with the Geocaching site. Very slow response times. Locks up then says server unavailable when trying to look at caches. Takes 2-3mins to paint a map screen. Anyone else getting these problems? I, too, use firefox.

Having the same problem. I generate the PQ for Tampa FL and attempt to sent to either primary or alternate e-mail address. Nothing ever gets to either e-mail address. I can see the results online (but only 25 at a time - is there a way to up that to like 500 or something?)