Rikitan

Great job, I'm loving new logging interface. Reporting one minor bug: In Log Preview, uploaded Image is titled by Image Description, instead of Image Name. However, it's correctly titled by Image Name after log is posted. It's only Log Preview, which has it wrong. Kudos to development team!

A shout for (one of) my good old friend. For newbies - Colorado Great contest, thumbs up!

Interesting .. disabled all scripts, still not sorting properly.

Sorting of the caches on Search map by Found date is not working. Test it: https://www.geocaching.com/play/map?lat=48.160317&lng=17.167467&zoom=14&asc=true&sort=founddate both Chrome and Firefox both Old - New and New - Old other sortings work fine Thank you for looking into this.

Hello, does anyone has troubles in uploading GWZ file recently? https://www.Wherigo.com/cartridge/upload.aspx Choose file Upload GWZ file ... ... long wait ... ... black screen with ERR_CONNECTION_ABORTED message. Any hints? P.S. No HTML tags in description, no special characters in the name. Thank you.

I'm reasonably confident that usual parking fee does not count as access fee. It use to be optional and voluntary, as there are many possible means of transport, including free options (hike, bicycle, drop & lift by friend, etc.)

Maybe it was lost too. Not a big deal.

I'm using my wife's account to log NM at my own caches. It also adds extra sense of urgency, psychologically I remember those days when I was testing new log flow - and this is one the issues I've addressed back then. Didn't understood this re(move) of important CO tool/option.

I'm releasing "proxies" for years. I'd love to see original geocoins and tags still traveling .. unfortunately all of them have been lost or stolen I use to wait couple of years, then create and release batch of laminated copies, always attached to some little souvie. As example .. this is one of my latest batch. I spent lot of money to buy originals, so I'd like to see them alive and moving. I'm sorry that originals are stolen, that's how the world works and we can't change it. This is the best I can do to fill the geocaches up and show my geocoins to others - how they looked before they were taken by someone. It's better than nothing. Oh, by the way - it is yet to happen should original trackable to resurface after years. 2 copies traveling at the same moment - this never happened to me yet. If it will, I will just contact geocacher who is holding the copy to keep it, or discard it.

Hello, you can only add a link to the cache page, it is not possible to embed it.

Good points. I agree with you. Website is not helpful either, it does not provide any explanation when some attribute should be used, and when not. Most often I see it with Seasonal cache attribute, so many local owners understand it as available in all seasons. Just from top of my head. There's more important work to do, not only expanding the list, but as you said, streamlining, get to common understanding, etc.

I'm glad TB log count is not longer displayed there. This is step right direction. FP% would be nice to have, good comment. Back to above questions ... Why? Just my opinion: Because in general, measurements motivate people* to do something what is measured and presented. * not all the people, and not the same way - of course! Number of trackables logged. Sadly, this measurement (besides other numbers and rankings) motivated many people to share lists of trackable codes with others and mass-log everything what had 6 digits, no matter if they ever seen that trackable. Sorry - but having discovered as many trackables as possible is not a point of their existence. Stats are making people to do silly things. Number of DNF logs I'm proud of my 1386 DNF logs (you may see your own count here). I have no problem to display it to others in my profile. But what would happen, if DNF logs count will be added as new profile statistics? We are back to motivation - there are players, who would take it as a challenge to break all the records. You only need few ill-motivated players who will start to log inappropriate DNFs, just because of some ranking, or number. How much harm it can do to others, you can surely imagine. Number of FPs Compared to 2 measurements above, I can't see any significant harm, or ill-motivation here. I'm absolutely sure there are many players, who will look at their number and start their quest to make it raising. Either they will try to hide more quality geocaches, or more popular ones - both are good for the game. Or they may ask friends to exchange FPs - I admit this would be wrong and I hope there won't be many such owners. Overall, it will have positive impact on the game for all of us. Why can't we configure? I tried to explain my opinion, why it is important to think about motivation of players - why they are doing some actions and if are those actions healthy for the nature of the game. Of course you may have different opinion, I just explained why I think this is step right direction.

Another point of view: If I was you, I would keep my time capsule resting in safety for the future (generations). It's so valuable now, imagine what a treasure it will become for your kids and for kids of your kids .. If you'd get it published as geocache, you'll invoke a lot of risks: Frequent visits of strangers will expose its hideout. Game is not played by honest people only, someone may steal it. If there is only 1% risk of bad intention, after 100 finds it is multiplied to 64% (formula: 1 - (0.99 ^ 100)). Players may trade your valued items out, even if you ask them don't to do so. Many don't read anything. Many read only hint. They may close capsule slovenly and humidity will finish the damage. Happens so often with geocaches. Sorry for skepticism - turning your capsule to geocache is sort of bye-bye.

I don't know the right answer, there are so many good points raised above. If it would land in my queue, I would probably discourage the cache owner from using original hidden date. More or less due to Hangup #2. Hangup #1 is possibly not 100% considerate to others, but in reality - irrelevant. In case CO would push on, I would need to check with others, what's the best approach. What's for sure - you won't be able to go back beyond May 2nd 2000, technically impossible now. I also do have a cool story, not so cool as yours, but: On 21st Nov 2010 I hid a cache. While I was working on the listing (and doing other procrastination stuff), another cache in proximity was published on 3rd December 2010 I didn't get any favor (rightly so) from my local reviewer, but decided to stick with original place. I kept listing in "waiting" mode and took cache back home, so nobody could be confused by random find. Now, after 9 long years, I have the place finally free - conflicting cache has been archived recently. You're guessing right, I was thinking of keeping the original hidden date ..

When you are zooming, filtering and sorting on the cache map, URL address in your browser is changing. Just bookmark your preferred view - or as many as you need and it's done! I agree this is core browser functionality that does not need to be replicated by website.

For years, I store pictures for my listings in one dummy, unpublished listing - more precisely in my logs, posted to that listing. This way I have everything important at one place, structured and hosted by geocaching.com - so they won't be lost or broken in the future.

Has anyone mention this recommendation yet? https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=51&pgid=292 You may want to consider and use a bit simplified language in description. Disclaimer: I think that logging tasks of your Earthcache are interesting and attractive to solve. I think the math Q is good integral part of the lesson and it should not be beyond capability of 14 year old to understand and solve it. If someone "does not like the math" or can't answer these question, they may log Note or DNF, or ignore this EC completely. Invalid log deletions belong to standard owner maintenance tasks.

I can see some reasoning behind "not applicable", but they should definitely explain it to you. Just guessing .. story of those door is quite interesting and unique, worth to visit, however I would not describe them as "appealing to the eye and make you want to stop and take a picture".

Wow, extraordinary! Congratulations.

Your idea with 10 would be OK without any major doubt. The only realistic additional type to make it 11 is Mega Event, yes. Other types are even more rare, but lot of them are available choices too. Now. The key question can be reduced to this one: "Are there plenty of caches (from pool of rare type Mega, Giga, Maze, etc) available at time of publication? Let's say, now?" If I believe quick search on Project-gc.com, there 51 of them at the moment: https://project-gc.com/Tools/MapCompare?profile_name=Deepdiggingmole&nonefound=on&onefound=on&bothfound=on&ownfound=on&type[]=GPS+Adventures+Exhibit&type[]=Giga-Event+Cache&type[]=Groundspeak+Block+Party&type[]=Groundspeak+HQ&type[]=Groundspeak+Lost+and+Found+Celebration&type[]=Mega-Event+Cache&type[]=Project+APE+Cache&submit=Filter Are 51 "plenty" of options? My personal opinion is YES and I would guess that your Appeal have chance to be successful. If not, we have to accept it. Borders are blurry and interpretations are different, sometimes.

Although I agree that initial NM log would be more appropriate, based on your experience with unresponsive owner - NA log is also right action to do. There is no reason for apology from your side. There's string of 5 DNF logs from May, June, July and August on D1.5 cache - with no reaction from cache owner. I suppose cache need attention of reviewer. Now it is posted, ok. Wait for further actions.

„Kto chce hľadá spôsob. Kto nechce, hľadá dôvod.“ — František Vláčil Transl. „If you want, you're looking for the way. I you don't, you're looking for excuses.“ To be fair - low density area can really be problem, especially when there are only few owners caching. Still, there are ways ..

This is rare. If it happens, CO can delete those logs, or contact reviewer or HQ for additional help. I agree it would not come good if COs would have possibility to lock the listing on their own.

Great .. Yes, final wpt is a bit strange requirement for challenge caches. Some reviewers want to see it, even if it's equal to posted coordinates. Some don't need to see it. Safe option is to keep it there.