Jump to content

MartyBartfast

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    6106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MartyBartfast

  1. Choose an app which allows you to save offline caches and to use offline maps, then you won't need to use any data out in the field. On Android I use Locus Maps with the geocaching4Locus addon and free OSM maps, it's then possible to download caches for an area I'm heading to before leaving home; I believe Cachly on iPhone has similar functionality.
  2. That's just supposition on my part, but if they're doing a tech refresh I wouldn't be surprised if they phase out some of the "old" ways of doing things that have been left in place. For me I just hope they don't decide to tamper with the Browse Map to try and align it with the Search Map.
  3. I'm also getting Error 500 on the old dashboard page. Would it be possible to paste the link for us to switch from the old to the new dashboard while this is being investigated?
  4. Could a passing lackey perhaps paste the URL that the old dashboard should provide to "try the new dashboard"? At least we'd then be able to switch ourselves while waiting for the proper fix (which may never come if the old dashboard is being retired as part of the "user experience" enhancements)
  5. OK I admit I did a silly thing. I was working fine on the new dashboard but was interested to see what was happenning with this bug so I clicked to use the old dashboard and I now have the Server Error and no way (that I can find) to go back to the new dashboard
  6. I have seen this, which then cleared when a genuine message came in and I read it. If you want I'll send you a message and you can read it to see if it clears...
  7. It would also be too easy to game the challenge: I'm gonna go caching tomorrow so I just log a DNF on one of those caches today without even leaving home, then when I find it tomorrow I qualify for your challenge, meanwhile the Caches health score took a hit.
  8. But the links are only failing on this one page AFAIK, so the data set for "all common query structures" is clearly still in place otherwise pretty much every search/bookmark/PQ/etc. would be broken. It would be bizarre coding if each page/query was using its own table for looking up GC codes rather than there being a single sourcewhich everything uses. I suppose it's possible that this page uses it's own table for cache code lookups and it has somehow become lost/corrupted, however if that's the case then it should be relatively simple to recreate the table/view/whatever based on one of the other sources which must be in use elsewhere on the site; if all else fails that's why we (should) do backups... FWIW looking at the log for the TB retrieval I posted earlier shows the cache name and it links to the correct page as shown here when hovering over the link:- Though it is interesting to note that the working link points to a coord.info/GCCODE address whereas the broken link points at a www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCCODE_GCNAME address I wonder why the difference and if that might be related to why it's not working? I also had a look on the Staging site which seems to be populated with data from around the end of Jan and that is exhibiting exactly the same issue so the devs/testers have a ready made place to test any fix...
  9. OK I'll bite. The site knows which cache the activity occured on as it's named in the log for the trackable, so something somewhere has the reference from the TB<->action<->Cache so I struggle to see how it could be difficult to make the cache name link point to the right page.
  10. Sounds a reasonable idea to me, but why exclude coins from this process? I would think they would benefit just as much as the regular dog tag TBs.
  11. I suspect it's because the law in some countries/states requires that sites provide the ability for users of those sites to deny their data being shared with 3rd parties. These laws do NOT require that you're provided with the ability to selectively share with some 3rd parties but not others. Groundspeak have provided what they need to in order to comply with the law, it would probably be significantly more effort to allow the selectivity you've requested and it's not worth that effort for what is almost certainly a very small number of cachers who might want it. BTW the App Authorizations that you can grant or revoke are authorizations for you when YOU are using that app, e.g. to download caches using your account etc. Sites which are doing bulk handling of data such as Project-GC and I suspect geocache.fi aren't using your app authorization to get that data they're using their own, hence they can get data on users who have never authorized that app.
  12. One that could see its whole core product eroded to the point where it's nolonger viable. How much would a one time token cost? I'm guessing somewhere around £20, so how many cachers would be prepared to pay that for each hide. How many caches are big enough to take one of the tokens? All the nanos would have to go (no bad thing some would say), would they fit in a 35mm film pot? maybe, maybe not. But a significant proportion of caches would nolonger be viable. How often would they be stolen because they look kinda cool, or the finder has a beef with the CO, or the finder just thinks it's another swap. Caches go missing, at the moment that's the cost of the container and a bit of paper, but with a token it's much more expensive to lose a cache. How weather proof are they? I guess they could be made 100% waterproof so this should't be too much of a problem. How long do the batteries last? All the tokens I've used over the years are sealed units so when the battery goes the whole thing has to be replaced, so it's an ongoing cost for the CO, if they have replaceable batteries then they become susceptible to water ingress and have a reduced lifetime due to weather. IMO these factors would massively reduce the number off caches out there if tokens were required, and would fall below the critical mass required to bring in the number of players required to keep Groundspeak in profit, so I don't see Groundspeak being so keen on the idea of tokens in caches. If tokens were not required but were optional then I can't see many cachers taking them up for the same reasons, somewhat like Chirps were a bit of a novelty but never really took off. At least with a Chirp they could be hidden in order to discourage theft and they didn't have to be in the cache.
  13. IMO you. If you care about such things I would say in your find note that you were the first qualified finder, then if the other cacher subsequently changes their log to a find then it will be clear why you have "claimed" it.
  14. It seems you're not the only one, a quick google search shows there's a bug in the firmware, see here https://eu.community.samsung.com/t5/tablets/samsung-galaxy-tab-s9-fe-wifi-only-gps-not-working/td-p/8437528
  15. yes, you can get apps to allow you to fake your location and effectively put your phone anywhere in the world.
  16. That's not difficult, contrary to popular belief if you have a server that works it will usually carry on working as long as you don't mess about with it too much, barring H/W failures which can be countered by virtualising or H/W redundancy - in any case the servers are almost certainly from a service provider so that aspect is probably something to credit the service provider with and not GS. I've been doing this for my whole career and it's not unusual to have systems that run without downtime for years, 3+ years+ in my current job and 7+ years in a previous life, but those servers that get patches, updates or application upgrades several times a year will avoid production issues by pre-production testing (which GS seem woefully bad at) and any update that gets into production and results in failures or disruption to the customer will be reverted within hours, or fixed within days. They're not very good at fixing this one, which should be easy. And they still haven't fixed (or even acknwleged) this from almost 2 years ago:
  17. 1: And that's the problem they're so blinkered and focused on changing stuff (which often nobody has asked for) that they frequently break what's already working. 2: They should prioritise keeping the lights on and fixing stuff that doesn't work before pushing out new pointless "improvements". 3: That's just nonsense, as a customer it's not our job at all. I'd like to see you take your car into the garage because it's not driving well and have the mechanic tell you that it's YOUR job to understand how the engine management system works! 4: Really? please tell me how we can raise priorities on bugs, because so often when they're reported they seem to be ignored for months or years and we get scant feedback from GS and there comes a point where bashing your head against the same brick wall stops being fun. 5: I would phrase that as "But frankly GC are pretty bad at not fixing bugs" This particular bug can't be a difficult fix, admittedly if they were on the verge of a larger release that would fix it then it's OK that they haven't been diverted to roll out a specific fix for this, but then they ought to be telling us that the fix is in the pipeline, instead it's silence (which is the norm).
  18. Yes. The Not Chosen option was removed quite a few years ago, and at that point any edits to a cache page which had it would automatically be changed to "Other", if you search the forums there are discussions about it. Last year I was caching in a new area and there was a challenge to find 7 sizes in a day, I knew I qualified because I'd done a similar challenge years ago but when I went to check my qualification I only 6 in a day, after a bit of research I found one had changed from Not Chosen to Other.
  19. Suggestions such as this, or scanning a QR code on the cache, or geo-fenced logging in the field, come up time and time again. The concensus on the forums is always that they won't solve any problem and that they will be so open to abuse/problems that they're not viable
  20. Yes the first allocations were completely random but for round 2 and 3 there was an opt-in page where we had to apply:
  21. The main complaint I would have for this round is that they went from having to apply to giving them out completely randomly. I reckon that will lead to more not being taken up at all, and more pretty dull ones going out. If the random selection was from those who apply for one then they would be more likely to be all used and of better quality. For the avoidance of doubt I did get one this time (but not previously when I applied) so it's not sour grapes from me.
  22. The survey worked for me just now.
  23. No, I (and I think you) believe that the DT rating for a cache should represent it's current state, hence why I suggested keeping the cache and changing it's DT. So I think your question would have been better phrased as : And IMO the answer to this is "Yes". It's unfortunate that some finders might lose a T3.5 find in their stats, but then again they'll gain a T1.5 and there seem to be plenty of other T3.5 caches in that region. And for the record I do track my DT grids, and I once "lost" a full grid because someone added half a star to the T on a cache which had been there for ~6 years due to a new cacher complaining about the nettles at the GZ.
  24. I was initially thinking return the cache to it's original rating, archive it and publish a new one, on the basis that this is now effectively a new cache; however seeing that it's a "historical" cache I'm now coming down on the side of retain the listing and change it's ratings to reflect it's current position.
×
×
  • Create New...