gmj3191

Has the 3 millionth cache been identified by Groundspeak? The 2 millionth was identified (GC46N4E) and has become a key cache to visit, and I can't see why a 3 millionth cache can't be identified using the same criteria.

This is the key to the OP question.

Here in Australia we've been asking for years if the apps can log using the local device time instead of Seattle time, like almost all other apps do. How hard can that be? If we go out caching on our east coast, all our logs up to about 4pm have yesterday's date on them. On the west coast it's worse by several hours. It doesn't even get a mention in your proposed improvements. What is it about this relatively simple action, which almost all competing apps do, which is so difficult in the Groundspeak office?

There seem to be a number of things to consider here:- - It seems Garmin are much more interested in bio metric devices these days - Soon only obsolete versions of browsers will support NPAPI - There are workarounds to get geocaches into Garmin GPS units - Most cachers seem to use phones rather than GPS units now All of which tend to make me think that the Send To GPS feature in geocaching.com is pretty much lost to us forever unless a third party can write a replacement plug in for browsers. Groundspeak could intervene and do something for us if they cared enough. Seriously though, it's not really something I would use a lot. I generally load my GPS with GSAK, and also it's a simple matter to drag a GPX into the Garmin/GPX folder if I need to. I can also use export a GPX from c:geo and use an OTG cable to drag it from my phone to my GPS.

An unfortunate side effect of Groundspeak not validating users is that all my placed caches now are tending to be Premium caches rather than caches accessible to those choosing to cache as free non Premium members. If I was a cynic, I'd be tempted to think that this is the direction that Groundspeak would like us to go, by creating an environment where more and more people become Premium in order to rise above the chaos created by the unverified masses. Luckily I'm not that cynical.

Looking at this from the other direction, what is the justification for not validating a new login by checking that they have a valid email address and that they're not a robot, especially considering most other legitimate organisations do this? - It allows a slightly easier account creation. - It might allow the overall numbers of cachers to be boosted by non motivated short term visitors who don't really contribute to the game - ...... can't really think of anything else. The impacts of verifying users are : - If you really want to join, you still will. - Having to create a temporary email address to join will put off some malicious users - Having a modern capcha type account creation check will put off the robots - Having an email address will allow new cachers to receive guidance from experienced cachers - Valid email addresses will assist to track down missing trackables, or query the circumstances around logs which need investigation by the CO - Valid email addresses will allow cachers to ask COs about their caches, or placement techniques, or other valid communication. There are very few arguments against validating your user base, and many reasons why its beneficial. It definitely won't fix the problems 100%, but it will help and have many excellent side benefits. It is hard to see why anybody would argue against it. Malicious or salacious logs can still be reported to Groundspeak, that doesn't affect the argument either way.

I'm in a number of forums and FB groups in Australia, and regularly see issues and hear about problems affecting hundreds and probably thousands of geocachers. We are suffering from a number of issues which also seem to be affecting geocachers around the world. The problems centre around bogus cachers who - vandalise caches - post nasty logs of a disgusting, abusive, racist or vulgar nature - post logs pointing to ad sites or phishing sites We feel much of this problem could be alleviated if Groundspeak reinstated the validation of email addresses before admitting new geocachers into the system. We feel it is just too easy now to to get an id in the system, and malicious users and robot users are running rampant. Please consider this matter and help us clean up the problems affecting the whole Geocaching community.

On Tuesday night (19/5/2015) I did a presentation about Geocaching to the Victorian Toyota Landcruiser Club, in Melbourne, Australia. After the meeting, a lady approached me and sheepishly gave me a little box wrapped with a ribbon. Inside was a travel bug she had picked up in Antarctica in 2004. Since then she’d held onto it because she didn’t know what to do with it. In 2012 somebody showed her how to log a Discovered log on it, but that’s all that had happened since she retrieved it. I contacted the owner who seems to have dropped out of caching, but they were surprised and very pleased that the TB had resurfaced after all this time. TBGPX9

Now that you mention it, I haven't been getting the long distance notifications I thought I was. The couple I was thinking about were forwarded to me by someone else. I have 300 kim in the titles of the notifications so I just assumed they were working but higher distances just default back to 80 km without a warning. Sorry to bring up this non issue.

I had several notifications set up to alert me to new caches within 300 km of home. Now however, if I edit them or set up a new notification, the maximum distance seems to be 80 km. Has this changed or am I missing something?

I worked for 40 years in the software industry, and I don't think I've ever seen a software package more fit for purpose.

I've noticed that if you display a list of caches, such as by clicking on the Find Nearby Caches link on a cache listing page and then tick the checkbox on some (or all) and then click on <Download>, then they don't download and you get taken to a summary page.

I would like the relevant rule to be restated to not allow caches to be placed within 50m of - and type of preschool, kindergarten, or school - military bases - establishments employing security guards or camera surveillance. As well as making cachers feel uncomfortable, making parents and children feel uncomfortable, and running the risk of confrontations with security staff, there is also a potential for geocaching to get bad publicity as a result of these issues, which will most likely have other restrictive consequences on where we can operate. It's not enough to say caches can't be placed on school etc property, as lurking around fence lines and perimeters is just as bad. In my experience, caches hidden in playgrounds are VERY ordinary caches, and don't show much imagination or give the finder a lot of pleasure anyway. If a cache doesn't take you somewhere interesting, employ a clever hide, or otherwise prove to be a pleasurable experience, why place it?

I tend to put interesting caches on my watchlist, and follow their history fairly closely. Recently, while in Rome, I found The Spanish Steps cache "GC21M19". It has been in place for nearly 11 months and has been found about 800 times which is about 2.4 times per day. Sometimes brand new caches exceed this rate for a few days, but this one is putting in a very solid performance over the long haul. Are there any other contenders anyone would like to put forward?

If you are getting 400 caches returned and you have set a limit of 400, then - almost certainly the query is finding more than 400 and culling - you can't assume that you will get the nearest 400 - you might be getting the newest 400, the oldest 400, the most easterly 400, who knows ... - you could run several queries, (you can run up to 5 per day) and vary the placement dates etc to ensure you get the ones you want, then let GSAK get you the nearest ones? Use a 500 limit too.

There is also a forum section for each state.

Edit: Removed my original response. So I think what you're saying is I should get the RAM holder, then order this adapter: Is that right? Wish I would've just bought a RAM mount, I guess. I have a ram mount for my 60 CSx and I'm pretty happy with it in use BUT it is soooo hard to get the unit out of the mount. It takes both hands and considerable force. I have been thinking about a little grinding down of the little plastic lug that locks into the groove in the belt clip ferrrule thing but maybe it will loosen up a bit with use. No issues with the power cord however, and the windscreen suction cup holds like superglue.