pppingme

The ultimate answer: One of those RSA key's that change numbers every 30 seconds, most people have seen them by now. Attatch the key to the cache, cacher finds cache, notes the time and makes note of the current number. Each number can only be logged once, and it has to match the date/time of the log.

Bookmarks may sound like a fix but they are still a LOT of manual labor. Even if I downloaded a .gpx of my bookmark, I still don't have good coordinates. What the original poster suggested I think is close to a fix. I personally would like the ability to add coordinates to ANY page (of course they are private to just me) so that when I do grab a .gpx, those are included. This would be useful for solved puzzles (the OP's request) and also for any other coords that may come up, like figuring out a better place to park or trailheads, or any other useful additional coords that the cache owner didn't include.

Oh no, I prefer the current behavior and would not want a change to it. Any change could very well mean a DNF logged against it (and thus the possibility of it missing). If it only pulled changes to the page itself, then I would miss DNF (and other) logs.

The problem is when your logging multiple finds. For example, think about this, you log a cache for 12/31/2008, then right after that you log one for 1/3/2009, for some reason it seems to be easy to forget to change the year. I see this every year. I think a better warning would be if your trying to log something more than 1 month old. If it were based on published or hidden date, it wouldn't provide warning if your logging a cache thats more than a year old.

Seems to be working for me. Are you running any kind of ad blocking software or something like that?

False positive. Since about the 9th, pc-cillin has been reporting EVERY site with google ads as being infected with spyware or adware. Many of these programs are just simply going overboard because they dislike another company.

If your caching with data thats more than a week old, you are asking for problems. I do check to make sure I don't have stale data (more than a week), as do most cachers once they learn how, but by disabling for a week (maybe it should be 10 days or two weeks, this point could be looked at) then the site is at least flagging my database for me.

In the past I've proposed two different solutions to this. 1 - Disable caches for more than a week before archiving. At the very minimum this will flag the cache as disabled for people that only pull weekly PQ's. If people are either checking "is not active" OR aren't checking either active/not active caches in their PQ, then they are already expecting disabled caches in their results, there is no downside to this. 2 - Include archived caches for a week (again, only if users are selecting not active or aren't selecting either, because they should still be expecting disabled caches). The first solution is a policy change only and wouldn't even require any site reprogramming (except to check to see if a cache is already disabled and check the disable date). The 2nd would require a slight modification, but should still be a very easy change.

Do you have your GPS set to display coords in the DD MM.MMM format or the DD MM SS.SS or DD.DDDDD format? It should be DD MM.MMM if you want the "display" to match whats on the pages here This is only how the unit "displays" the coordinates. So, all of the following are the same: 35.091283 (dd.ddddd format) N35 05.477 (dd mm.mmm format) N35 05 28.62 (dd mm ss.ss format) or another example that really shows the point: 35.99999 n35 59.999 n35 59 59.96

This is one of the key reasons that people maintain offline databases. I personally like to carry 10 logs on my PDA when I'm out caching. The best way to accumulate logs if you want more than 5 is to use a program like GSAK, when it gets a new PQ loaded, it updates the actual cache info then just adds to the logs, then you can export that to your PDA, GPS, and everything else in a format you like.

Like it or not, I've got them, and they ARE accurate. I guess your upset because you can't figure it out? You're the one making the claim. The burden of proof falls on you. So far, you've failed. Yet you've offered NO proof or claims that contradict my facts. If you think its wrong, PROVE IT. The facts are what they are. I don't even get why you are arguing this, do you think its higher or lower or what? Whats your game?

Like it or not, I've got them, and they ARE accurate. I guess your upset because you can't figure it out?

Still waiting to hear where you got your previously mention figures from.... Do you dispute them? The only way you could is if you know another number, so if you dispute it, offer up your number. They are accurate, I got the number accurately, and it hasn't been seriously disputed.

Oh, that's too much fun to resist straying off the topic... To believe Potato Finder's statement, you must also believe the following: It costs more than $4.00 to stamp a number on an aluminum tag, attach a keychain, and send it in the mail to someone. It costs hundreds of dollars to designate a block of tracking numbers for geocoins. It costs hundreds of dollars to post a custom icon to the website for a geocoin. Those t-shirts in the Groundspeak online store really do cost $19.99 to produce. The four Jeep Travel Bug contests were done for free as a public service because Groundspeak likes Jeeps. Groundspeak doesn't see a dime of the revenue from the GPS Adventures Maze. It all goes to the museum and the maze design company. Garmin and DeLorme and Trimble didn't pay anything to integrate their products into Geocaching.com's features. Wow, is it all you can to to twist things out of perspective? GC would STILL make money without these items, these just pad the pocket even more.

I've received a small handful of corrupt zip's over the years, have you tried opening it with something else? If you have the real winzip utility there is a repair program with it as I recall. You might also search around using google, there are a handful of zip repair utilities out there. If GSAK reports it as corrupt, its probably corrupt, I haven't seen gsak report a bad zip in error, every time I couldn't open the zip with other utilities either.

Wrong... Subscription fee's pay 100% of the site, plus a couple more sites that really aren't getting used. Look at it like this, there are about 80,000 premium users, at $30/year, thats $2.4 million/year. A quick survey of users in my area a while back indicated that a lot of them were paying $3/month and not paying yearly, that could increase revenues to over $2.8 million. I'm not going to dispute that there is some significant hardware involved (at least two web servers, a sql server and a separate forum server for the gc.com site, more for the other sites that come out of the same subscription fee's), but not to the tune of revenues generated by the site, and bandwidth is so cheap anymore its a non-factor. There is no question that certain people are profiting significantly from the site. This is not a "hobby" or for fun site, this is a commercial site with a clear intent to make a significant profit.

Look for any programs that try to auto-clear cookies, even some of the "spyware" and "adware" programs out there may do that.

Are you getting an error or do they just not show up? I just tried uploading one and it worked fine. If they just aren't showing up, try unchecking that date check box, its caused issues for me before.

I completely agree with this. I've lost track of how many times I've gone to find a cache that had a recent "DNF so I replaced" and found both the replacement with one or two log entries AND the original with log entries that date back to when the cache was placed. One time I actually found three, the original (with logs back to placed date) and two replacements. When I come across this, if I don't have any doubt about the original cache (usually going by log dates, placement date and comparing recent logs to my PDA), I always remove the extra's and log what I did online. A repair (fixing a container, adding a log book, etc) without owner permission is one thing, a blind replacement without owner knowledge/permission just isn't right.

My wife did. When we visited a cache, almost every time we wrote in the paper log with my wife, or with my kids, or with my family. My wife later created her own account and backlogged everything she had (we had good notes in gsak), I eventually expect my kids to do the same.

Have you gone back in to make sure it saved correctly? That form is quite buggy sometimes.

Why does it matter that a particular device can only create a certain size, the size that the site allows should be that size OR BIGGER, there is no downside to having the website allow a larger field than an arbitrary device (the colorado in this case) can create. Why does it matter if the site can accept MORE characters than the colorado can generate? It doesn't, its not a fixed field size file thats being uploaded, its a delimited file. IF the colorado (or any device) can only generate a field of "x" length, all the site needs to do is allow an upload of ">x" length. In no way is the import or upload going to break if the colorado can only generate 500, but the site can accept something larger, say 2000.

The cache owner or reviewer needs to fix. It shouldn't have been approved if it was like that from the beginning. There are no caches from before 2000 unless they have bogus dates, like this one.

Sadly this issue has come up more than once and GC has given no indication that they even care about it.

Is your log more than about 480 characters? If so, see this: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=186591 If not, you might cut/paste the contents here and see if anyone can spot a problem.