lingbeek

I am very disappointed in this decision by geocaching.com I have many creative caches which rely on images being real time generated by PHP scripts... They simple are not possible this way.. Series like "international geocaching" And time related items for example... Not being able to use an external site for puzzles makes creating creative puzzles very very hard... Well I could almost say impossible in many cases. I really hope we can still use a link to an external site in any way... With consent of the cacher to leave the official website... I would love to make more creative puzzle caches but this kind of decisions makes it very very hard.... I would like to know how geocachers want those scaled down photos which are rendered almost useless. Without being able to hide info in them... And how many of us like the creativity in puzzles like mine... I am quite sure many people do not want this to be changed... A move in the wrong direction.

I also own mysteries that send a cookie with the coordinates... Nothing tracking... But simply coordinates are sent... Using an intermediate proxy makes this also more complicated.. Rendering a few puzzles insolvable...

Geocaching HQ please think before acting. This change renders a lot of puzzle ideas useless and makes quite a few existing caches insolvable... Please revert this change that does not help the community. A geocacher who has placed hundreds of mysteries.... To tell you the truth, I do not know which of my mysteries can no longer be solved.... You caused the problem... You fix it. I am not disabling anything now.

NIce to see how people are different. I would add a child waypoint with the parking coords... And change the cache coords.. Sometimes however I also use the Child waypoint with final.. But rarely..

Due to the many inputs required to "Brute Force" a mystery that problem hardly arises. Only when one digit or a maximum of two digits in a coordinate is uncertain you will see people abusing the geochecker. It is perfectly fine in my opinion if the CO of a multicache would use a geochecker to facilitate geocachers. But just like for mysteries. Having a checker on the listing should be optional and not required. There are many mysteries which when solved will unambiguously give the coordinates (for example in a QR-code) A checker on these mysteries would only facilitate those who get their final coordinate from another source (Like a database or a friend or whatever) but it is in no way good for someone who really solved it. A geochecker should not be there as an aid for cheaters. So it should be optional and only the CO should decide if he wants a checker or not. And if he wants one, he should decide which one..

Het gaat met niet eens zozeer om mezelf. Waar het mij om gaat zijn de vage selectiecriteria en de scheiding en twee groepen die dit voor velen oproept. Een cacheteam als de Bosmannetjes verdient bv in mijn ogen veel meer dan ikzelf een virtual reward. En ook meer dan enkelen die wel een reward hebben gekregen. Waaarbij ik het niemand misgun. Maar een scheiding op basis van vage criteria en de manier waarop de top 1% word beschreven maakt dat ik het heel erg jammer vind hoe GS hiermee is omgegaan. Ik had liever gezien dat alleen reviewers er één mochten plaatsen of dat een ieder een idee zou mogen leveren waarbij de beste ideeën door de reviewers worden gepubliceerd. De keuze die nu is gemaakt lijkt me gewoon geen wijsheid. In België zijn er al grote events afgeblazen wegens niet toekennen van een reward omdat men als tweederangs word gezien. En ja ik vertegenwoordig hier een groep cachers die samen meer dan tweeduizend caches hebben geplaatst. Mensen voor wie geocaching lifestyle is. Die deze scheiding in groepen niet kunnen waarderen.

Ik heb vandaag het volgende bericht gestuurd naar HQ. Uit onvrede op de manier waarop de nieuwe virtual rewards de groep geocachers aan het splijten is. Er zijn al events geannnuleerd in België wegens gebrek aan waardering. Caches in Nederland offline gehaald en er volgen er wellicht nog veel meer. Ik denk dat het heel onverstandig van HQ is geweest om een bepaalde groep cachers als top 1% aan te merken op basis van bepaalde kenmerken terwijl er andere cachers zijn die daar in mijn ogen zeker toe behoren niet toe lijken te behoren (b.v. de Bosmannetjes) Een scheiding in WEL of NIET virtual reward, To BE or NOT TO BE according HQ.... Onverstandig om deze scheiding zo te maken.. Een random verdeling was nog beter geweest met een lot uit de loterij... --------- Verstuurd: QUOTE On August 24 Geocaching HQ announced: Geocaching HQ is thrilled to announce the release of Virtual Rewards, a project to reward some of geocaching’s great contributors, also introducing a limited number of new Virtual Caches for the enjoyment of the entire geocaching community. Starting today, approximately 4,000 geocachers in 63 countries around the world will receive emails with information about their Virtual Reward. This group is made up largely of the top 1% of quality cache hiders from countries with at least 100 hiders. --- With this statement HQ decided to reward those who in their opinion are among the top 1 percent of cache hiders. Thereby drawing a line between three groups of cache hiders. 1. Those who get a virtual reward 2. Those who do not get a virtual reward. 3. Community Volunteers 1. Those who will receive a reward: Thank you for the geocaches you placed. They are probably of a good quality and as a geocacher I would love to go out and find them! 2. In this group there are many people for whom geocaching is a lifestyle. People who spend almost all of their time on geoaching and placing geocaches. The biggest contributors in the Netherlands and probably in the world have not received a virtual reward. This hurts. Because when you have the feeling you are contributing a huge amount to the website with hundreds of placed geocaches and someone with just a few will get a reward for being a top quality hider it feels unfair. 3.Regarding the Community Volunteers most of the geocachers will agree that they will receive something special. But placing these people between the top quality hiders sometimes would draw some question marks. I believe it is not a wise decision to draw lines like this based on an unknown algorithm. Some people may feel flattered but other people who are under the impression they are among the top 1% are simply humiliated by HQ in this way. That is why as a geocache owner I want to say I do not like the release of Virtual Rewards based on a vague algorithm. If it would be based on a clear project-gc list I could understand it but even then... Why draw lines in a group that is normally so nicely united! There is no need at all to do something like this. A random allocation to 4000 geocachers would therefore already have been a smarter decision. A lottery... ----- The Netherlands should have about 80 Virtual Rewards according to Project GC: Now just a few strange numbers. Looking at at the amount of favorite points received you will see at Project-GC (Netherlands) at place #2 18329 favorite points awarded: De Duintoppers ----> No Virtual reward at place #3 7650 favorite points awarded: De Bosmannetjes ----> No Virtual reward at place #5 6975 favorite points awarded: Ed&Pluis ----> No Virtual reward .... at place #29 2825 favorite points awarded: WoSyHi ---> No Virtual reward at place #54 2060 favorite points awarded: Lingbeek ---> No Virtual reward ------ Looking at at the amount of logs received you will see at Project-GC (Netherlands) at place #1 341893 logs received: De Duintoppers ---> No Virtual reward at place #7 153301 logs received: WoSyHi ---> No Virtual reward at place #54 38287 logs received: De bosmannetjes ---> No Virtual reward At place #89 28430 logs received: Lingbeek ---> No Virtual reward ------ Looking simply at the number of geocaches (Some of them might be difficult so will not have that many logs or favorites): At place #1 WoSyHi 536 hides ---> No Virtual reward At place #3 De duintoppers 475 hides ---> No Virtual reward At place #13 Lingbeek 197 hides ---> No Virtual reward ---- Quality for sure is something very subjective and the amount of DNF on a cache does not say anything regarding cache health. Caches can simply be difficult to find. But based on "Quality??" HQ decided to reward just a few geocachers while others might have done a lot more for the community while not being rewarded. I believe this is not wise. Right now HQ has decided who they think are the top 1% of cache hiders. Are they correct or are they wrong. Anyway that is totally not the point. It is not wise to draw lines between groups of geocachers. We should all be united! --- As one of the bigger cache hiders in the country who has spent a huge amount of time in hiding quality caches I would like to say I do not agree with the choices HQ made. I have spoken to several geocachers with over 10.000 finds and they all agree on this. We are thinking about disabling a large amount of caches as a group of cache owners. Please think wisely about actions before splitting a group of geocachers in a way that nobody wants it to be split. Adding new virtuals is seen as a bonnus for many. Many geocachers would love to have all cache types as a hider as well. Splitting a group in two was for sure the worst action I have seen from HQ. I would love to hear about the reasoning before taking this action. Regards, On behalf of several named and unnamed geocachers with many founds and many hides

On August 24 Geocaching HQ announced: Geocaching HQ is thrilled to announce the release of Virtual Rewards, a project to reward some of geocaching’s great contributors, also introducing a limited number of new Virtual Caches for the enjoyment of the entire geocaching community. Starting today, approximately 4,000 geocachers in 63 countries around the world will receive emails with information about their Virtual Reward. This group is made up largely of the top 1% of quality cache hiders from countries with at least 100 hiders. --- With this statement HQ decided to reward those who in their opinion are among the top 1 percent of cache hiders. Thereby drawing a line between three groups of cache hiders. 1. Those who get a virtual reward 2. Those who do not get a virtual reward. 3. Community Volunteers 1. Those who will receive a reward: Thank you for the geocaches you placed. They are probably of a good quality and as a geocacher I would love to go out and find them! 2. In this group there are many people for whom geocaching is a lifestyle. People who spend almost all of their time on geoaching and placing geocaches. The biggest contributors in the Netherlands and probably in the world have not received a virtual reward. This hurts. Because when you have the feeling you are contributing a huge amount to the website with hundreds of placed geocaches and someone with just a few will get a reward for being a top quality hider it feels unfair. 3.Regarding the Community Volunteers most of the geocachers will agree that they will receive something special. But placing these people between the top quality hiders sometimes would draw some question marks. I believe it is not a wise decision to draw lines like this based on an unknown algorithm. Some people may feel flattered but other people who are under the impression they are among the top 1% are simply humiliated by HQ in this way. That is why as a geocache owner I want to say I do not like the release of Virtual Rewards based on a vague algorithm. If it would be based on a clear project-gc list I could understand it but even then... Why draw lines in a group that is normally so nicely united! There is no need at all to do something like this. A random allocation to 4000 geocachers would therefore already have been a smarter decision. A lottery... ----- The Netherlands should have about 80 Virtual Rewards according to Project GC: Now just a few strange numbers. Looking at at the amount of favorite points received you will see at Project-GC (Netherlands) at place #2 18329 favorite points awarded: De Duintoppers ----> No Virtual reward at place #3 7650 favorite points awarded: De Bosmannetjes ----> No Virtual reward at place #5 6975 favorite points awarded: Ed&Pluis ----> No Virtual reward .... at place #29 2825 favorite points awarded: WoSyHi ---> No Virtual reward at place #54 2060 favorite points awarded: Lingbeek ---> No Virtual reward ------ Looking at at the amount of logs received you will see at Project-GC (Netherlands) at place #1 341893 logs received: De Duintoppers ---> No Virtual reward at place #7 153301 logs received: WoSyHi ---> No Virtual reward at place #54 38287 logs received: De bosmannetjes ---> No Virtual reward At place #89 28430 logs received: Lingbeek ---> No Virtual reward ------ Looking simply at the number of geocaches (Some of them might be difficult so will not have that many logs or favorites): At place #1 WoSyHi 536 hides ---> No Virtual reward At place #3 De duintoppers 475 hides ---> No Virtual reward At place #13 Lingbeek 197 hides ---> No Virtual reward ---- Quality for sure is something very subjective and the amount of DNF on a cache does not say anything regarding cache health. Caches can simply be difficult to find. But based on "Quality??" HQ decided to reward just a few geocachers while others might have done a lot more for the community while not being rewarded. I believe this is not wise. Right now HQ has decided who they think are the top 1% of cache hiders. Are they correct or are they wrong. Anyway that is totally not the point. It is not wise to draw lines between groups of geocachers. We should all be united! --- As one of the bigger cache hiders in the country who has spent a huge amount of time in hiding quality caches I would like to say I do not agree with the choices HQ made. I have spoken to several geocachers with over 10.000 finds and they all agree on this. We are thinking about disabling a large amount of caches as a group of cache owners. Please think wisely about actions before splitting a group of geocachers in a way that nobody wants it to be split. Adding new virtuals is seen as a bonnus for many. Many geocachers would love to have all cache types as a hider as well. Splitting a group in two was for sure the worst action I have seen from HQ. I would love to hear about the reasoning before taking this action. Regards, On behalf of several named and unnamed geocachers with many founds and many hides

For me the results of the Project-GC incompatible logs tool...... A total of 1299 log entries found that have BBCode or HTML in them. Of those log entries, there are 11 that may be incompatible with the conversion tool. Well.... I am not rewriting almost 1300 logs..... How difficult would it be to simply make some automatic converts for the colors/bold/italics in UBB...?? Why this change... And the 3.5 percent is for sure not valid in the Netherland... A simple look at a few cache pages and you can see that about 20-25% of the people use UBB..... AAARGH... All of my cachelistings I own are now ugly!

I DO care about old logs too and want to have back the old way of formatting with HTML and UBB! MarkDown is insufficient and the implementation of that junk was the biggest foolishness GS ever did. At least GS could have started a survey and asking their members what they want - GS is living by its members, don't forget that issue. I am Someone who has written over 15000 logs with the majority of them using UBB... Someone who has created many caches... Some of them even required the use of HTML in logs (Yes I archived a cache because of Markdown) I think the way the site is now is a nightmare... Everywhere you see bold text.... It looks so silly... And groundspeaks makes alll of it''s serious cachers look silly because there logs look like a piece of shot now... Sorry... But that''s how I feel aout this change... It is not one for the better... All efoort previously made to place certain text in bold or italics or quotes.... Everying.... gone... UBB is so much better then Markdown... And all 3rd party programs understand UBB.... Markdown is not understood....

I think this change is quite annoying....

Challenge caches should in my opinion have their own icon. As challenge cache are a specific cache type normally placed at the published coordinates it would be great to let challenges have their own icon. This way you can see how many challenges someone has performed in their statistics. But even more important. The need to set all challenge caches manually to corrected coordinates in programs like GSAK disappears. You would immediately be able to see it is a cache at the specified coords and that it is a cache with logging restrictions. So, I think it would be a good thing to give challenge caches their a distinctive icon.

gebruik width en height in het img src gedeelte: <img src="http://blabla.com/bla.jpg" height="50" width="200"> dan is alles even groot...

Zeker bij terrein caches is mijn mening dat je een wezenlijke bijdrage moet hebben gedaan om je naam in het logboek te zien verschijnen. Op de grond een klimmer zekeren is in mijn ogen ook zo'n bijdrage. Maar Ik stond er bij en ik keek er naar is dat zeker niet.. Als je niet wilt klimmen, log deze cache en alle andere klimcaches dan vooral niet. Hetzelfde geld natuurlijk ook voor caches waarbij je midden in de sloot moet staan of iets dergelijks..