AdventureRat

I suspect that at that point there will be some cachers still actively working on this challenge that already have the archived combo. You'll probably have to announce some future date for the archival to give them a fair chance to finish. I know I wouldn't want multiple contracts taken out on my life.

I reread this topic completely and, unless I missed it, I never saw OpinioNate say that this release was ever implemented. Any chance we could get some clarification on this?

I would hope that your entry into "the database" would be a duplicate of one that's already there because I reported exactly the same issue 18 months ago. Markwell's reply assured me that the issues with using Home Coordinates were already well known at that time (apparently just not to me).

Use "Restore Files" from "Backup and Restore Center" to find the restore point created immediately prior to your install. Use it to revert your environment to it's state just before the Firefox upgrade.

I had one PQ run around 3:30 AM PT, and two more run about three hours later. I haven't received any of them yet, so I'd have to say that the queue has not been cleared. Something a little bizarre is that on my PQ page, it now indicates that all three of these PQs were generated at exactly 2 AM PT.

The type is "Unknown Cache".

Absolutely. I installed that version of Google Earth just over a week ago and immediately started having that problem. I didn't try resinstalling Google Earth, but I did download the Geocache Browser for Google Earth again, but it didn't change anything.

The Share attribute allows others to see your bookmark list, but only if they know the exact link to access it. Display your shared bookmark list, then send your friends the address from the address bar of your browser. They will be able to see the bookmark list by using that link.

Then the listing guidelines should be modified to require that a cache owner indicate on the cache page that the cache has been removed, or relisted on another geocaching site, within a certain timeframe. There are cache owners that no longer participate in the "sport", and also ones that for some unknown reason, fail to maintain their caches. In any event, no action or response may be forthcoming from these cache owners. In every instance, I would not expect the local cachers to adopt these caches and maintain them in perpetuity. I know of a few caches in my area in this position, and I would prefer that they are killed off so that the area is opened up for new and improved caching experiences. If that requires me to make a few trips to do some clean up, then so be it. Juicepig's suggestion is just one way of accomplishing this.

Sorry, but I can't agree with the parallel that you're drawing. The Geocaching.com web site is not a bank, and I can't see how anyone can profit from being able to view premium member caches. I would also not consider the issue to be of high severity. Here is an exerpt from a pinned topic titled "How to report Site Issues", from within this very forum: I wanted to just post a note on some guidelines for posting a site issue to this forum. If you come across an issue and are able to readily repeat the process for which it happens please follow these steps. 1. If you run other browsers on your system try and see if it happen there as well. 2. Review forum topics and see if someone else has posted something similar. 3. Create or add to an already existing topic. 4. Post the following information for the issue: Your Operating System: Windows XP, Mac 10.4, etc.. Your Browser with Version number: IE 7.0, Firefox 2.01, Opera 9.1 Cache GC code if the error occurred there Any URL's that you feel would help. 5. If I can not repeat the issue, I can not repair it. So the extra information is a must. Thanks for helping me help you! -Raine The OP has done exactly what Groundspeak asked. I could see your point if the issue had to do with something like obtaining actual premium membership status without paying for it, but not this one.

Caches Along a Route PQs are now working! I just created and ran one under IE6.

Microsoft Knowledge Base article id 927917 seems to match the symptoms, but I couldn't say for sure whether that's the problem here. If it is, Microsoft says that it affects IE 5.5, 6.0 and 7. Even though it is identified as an IE bug, the only suggestions are to recode apps in the manners suggested. There does not seem to be a fix, or any suggestion that one is coming.

I hate to tell you Ralph, but "Tour de Matchedash - Badlands" was published after April 8th, so you can't use it. Try "Fishy View" (GC15TZE) for your 4.5/5.

The two that I have scheduled to run every Thursday are now 9 hours later than normal, and counting.

Well, I need a CITO event, along with 26 D/T combinations, 23 of which have a 4.5 or 5 as one of the ratings. Big surprise there. Just to provide a little more fodder for the 5/5 discussion, I look at the difficulty rating as being a combination of "how difficult is it to determine the actual coordinates", and "how difficult is it to find the cache once I get there". The distinction that I am making is that determining the actual coordinates doesn't just have to be solving a puzzle. For example, if I set up an unknown cache that requires finding a number of 1/1 micros in order to determine the coordinates, that doesn't seem too difficult. However, if you needed to find 400 of them, possibly spread over a very large area, I think that qualifies as being very difficult. I also believe that it would be difficult if it only required finding ten micros, if each one was rated 1/5. I'm not looking for any concensus in my own personal thinking, but I'm merely suggesting that defining difficulty is not as straightforward as some have suggested. Having said that, I plan on completing a series this summer that will ultimately lead to giving me my 5/3.5 find ... and I WILL be able to sleep just fine at night.

Great idea. It would probably look like this. O wait, it does already its the current 18 month old guideline. Groundspeak makes an exception for the Venue name so people can find it. It surprises me to see people demanding that the reviewers not allow the name on their page to be consistent. All caches are looked at on a case by case basis. This is the reason for no precedent. This allows more caches to be listed. If Groundspeak went to the hard and fast rule some people demand a lot less caches would get listed. The fact that they are guidelines is a good thing. As I stated, that was an example. There seem to be many things missing from the guidelines that are being treated as black and white, with only a few exceptions. These may include (not a complete list) event caches, and more specifically, menu links for the establishments hosting the events. Nowhere in the guidelines does it say that mentioning the venue name in an event cache is acceptable, yet it seems to be a standing and understood exception to the commercial posting information. Similarly, the guidelines don't mention that posting a link to the menu for said event venue is unacceptable, even though it seems like a logical extension of the undocumented venue exception. I think that more information made available to the geocaching community up front would translate into less time wasted by users, reviewers and Groundspeak personnel. BTW, not that sticks and stones will break my bones or anything, but I am a little surprised by the sarcasm in the second line of your post. I tried to make my post factual and constructive, and I don't believe that I was sarcastic in any way (even towards Groundspeak), or made a personal attack at any individual. I would not be surprised at such coming from another forum user, but I would expect forum moderators to be held to a little higher standard.

Personally, I'd rather they be working on the servers (which is probably what they are doing) and working on the version 2.0 upgrade. I'd be a bit upset if they were in here wasting their time over a ridiculous argument in the forums. Groundspeak is a large company with employees to perform different functions. I don't expect that the people that support the servers or the online applications also perform public relations functions, so a Groundspeak reply in this thread shouldn't impact that effort. IF Groundspeak wants to streamline the process surrounding the commercial or not issue, simply update the guidelines to list the items that they have decided are black and white. For example: Cache listings may not have business logos, or direct links to any business web sites or documents displaying business names. The only exceptions that will be granted require review and pre-approval by Groundspeak (document the pre-approval process here), and proof of the pre-approval needs to be provided to the reviewer at cache listing submission time. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree completely with what has been done to this point, but as it stands now, a lot of effort is being wasted by cachers and reviewers on things that are perceived to be reviewer judement calls, when in actual fact many of them are quite black and white from Groundspeak's perspective. Proactive communication goes a long way.

The folks that frequent these forums can and will find anything relevant to any topic. For that reason alone, one shouldn't make any sweeping or guaranteed statements about anything unless there's 100% certainty. I know that I didn't realize that part of the title of that cache that TheWhiteUrkel linked to was a business name, so perhaps neither did Keystone. I don't know. Since I don't believe that Groundspeak has any complete documentation of instructions that they've provided to various reviewers over the last little while pertaining to perceived commercial caches, nor do I believe that they have a complete history of their direct communication with various cachers over this issue, I don't think that they could make a statement about anything with any certainty. What is very, very disappointing is that with this kind of vocality from the user community, Groundspeak hasn't directly communicated anything, even without a guarantee. ** Edits for spelling

There's no question (in my mind anyways) that we should play by the rules. However, two of the issues being discussed in this thread are "Are menu links REALLY commercial advertising and WHY?", and if Groundspeak is actively ensuring that menu links are not included on event cache listings, then why isn't this particular no-no specifically included in the "Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines"? Perhaps you can provide some restaurant insider insight into the first one. Policies can be changed. If a convincing argument is made to support the policy-opposing viewpoint, Groundspeak may change their direction. I'm not willing to lay any odds on that, but it's a possibility.

Actually, the Geocaching.com web site and the Groundspeak forums are part of a business, so the political analogy really doesn't fit too well. While I think I understand where you're coming from, it might help if you're a little more specific as to what you'd like to see from the user community in terms of responses to your initial post. BTW, isn't letting the geocachers review the moderators something like letting the prisoners review the guards?

Sure, i'll have a large fry and a medium coke Since you have nothing useful to add on this thread and just seem to want to stir things up, please refrain from further posts. I'm sorry, but Eelow is clearly sporting a rather large chip. Could the "Anything Else?" be any more sarcastic? Sarcasm is met with sarcasm... Sorry, if you want to ride me for being sarcastic, let's share the love with Eelow&Beelow. Anything else? Hmmm ... Sarcasm is met with sarcasm. Maybe from your perspective that's the way it works in the forums, but from Groundspeak's perspective, I think not. From the Forum Guidelines: Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect. Complaints: If you have an issue with a specific post/topic on this board, please use the ‘report a post’ link in the lower right hand corner of the post. We will review the post and edit/delete if necessary. I'm not saying that you are the only one within the scope of this thread that isn't exactly playing by these rules, but in my opinion, you're certainly coming across with a more "holier than thou" attitude than anyone else. It's hardly distancing you from the behaviour you're condemning. And of the half dozen or so posts you've made within this topic, I would have to stretch it to say that one of them directly addressed any of the four questions posed by the OP in the initial post. And now to the most important forum guideline you've crossed ... Sock Puppet accounts will not be allowed. Now that I've made this post, put me down for one on topic and one off.

Well put JD. By my thinking, posting the menu link to make the fare more generally known to the participants may actually be detrimental to the venue. I look at the menu and think, "Geez, that looks like a real dog's breakfast. I'm going to grab a bite before I get to the pub so I don't have to settle for eating their food just because I'm there already." Whereas if I don't make the effort to look for a menu online, I'm eating what's there no matter what. I just can't see the free advertising or commercial value of the menu link. If anything's to be considered commercial, it's mentioning the venue in the cache listing at all. But I think that most of us would hate to see caching events held at mystery venues!

It would be nice to know exactly how you load the waypoints into your GPS. I would assume from your original post that you are most likely dropping your pocket query into MapSource and loading it using that. As Keystone says, traditional caches only are the way to go for you. Any other cache type would open you up to additional logging requirements, unknown numbers of stages, or fake coordinates in the case of mystery caches. I bet it's a real challenge too. Everytime you go on a hunt, you have no idea of the difficulty or terrain rating, or even the size of cache. You're full value for every find!

LOL Pass your cursor over your name and you will see that your number is 574114.

Apparently not known to quite everyone. It just seems to be the "Home Coordinates" specification that causes the problem. If I use any of the other three available "From Origin" options, it works fine. Perhaps Groundspeak should have spent a few extra dollars for the quality implementation of the Home Coordinates code. I suspect that no one would want to run around with a list of their faults pinned to their shirt, but perhaps it might be nice to have a pinned topic that lists known site issues that are in line to be addressed. No ETA is necessary (although that would be nice too). The awareness would just be appreciated. Thanks.