GO Geiger

I've seen this intermittently in Chrome on PC going back several months.

The NASA page is also not working for me, but could also be due to firewall issues. The site I used was by Xavier Jubier - it uses Google maps and, as you click on the map, it pops up info, including how far from the predicted path of totality that point is.

I wish the news media were as clear on the frequency of total eclipses. Sometimes it seemed they were expecting something rarer than a mermaid riding a tap-dancing unicorn, instead of something that happens every 12-24 months. But, that being said... I live exactly 1 mile off the exact path of totality for 2024's eclipse and I am an acquaintance of someone whose front porch is directly along the path of totality. (Really, like 0' away.) Woohoo! (But I agree - no need for a souvenir. Put down the GPSr and go watch the eclipse!) Hopefully the crowds will stick to Buffalo and Rochester and Batavia, although I could probably make a little cash renting out the back yard as an eclipse viewing site... if the snow melts by then.

We've had intermittent problems in the past, but they generally cleared up in a day or two. Nothing like this time, though. When looking for new caches, we sort by placed date and have to look across several pages, since at times there can be 10-15 events within 50 miles of us. (Yes, we could set up a PQ that doesn't include events, but why should we have to?) Of course, if there's a better way to do it where we can filter the results to only include NY caches and requires a minimal number of mouse clicks, then I'm open to trying it out.

For me, I enjoy writing longer logs when the cache experience has been particularly memorable or when it is based on a subject that lends itself to longer logs. For example, recently I did a Monty Python & the Holy Grail themed Multi - the log was written from the POV of Arthur, King of the Britons. An Invasion of the Body Snatchers themed Multi got an in-theme log, as well. I will be the first to admit that I have run the gamut from TFTC to several hundred words. I even had 1 log that was just a '.' (because the CO requested logs as simple as possible to reduce the use of extraneous electrons). I then proceeded to add a picture of a 1000 word document to my log - because a picture is worth a 1000 words, and sometimes 1000 words is worth a picture.

Over the weekend I also tried on a Win8.1 tablet using Chrome and a Win10 desktop with Chrome and had the exact same issue.

If it helps, I was able to navigate from the first page of the 'Placed' sort to the second successfully by using the 'Next' arrow this morning. Then I used the link for page 3 to go directly there and the sorting stopped working again. Event the 'Next' arrow fails as before.

I've posted about this in one of the Release Notes pages, but I'll post it here, too. Since at least yesterday, the "Placed" link on the pocket query preview page has not been working correctly. Steps to reproduce: Preview a pocket query - I've got one set up for a 50 mile radius from home in NY state, excluding Canada, as we don't normally cache there The results appear sorted by distance Click on the "Placed" link at the top of the appropriate column The results appear sorted by placed date (in this case, newest to oldest) Click on the link for page 2 (or the "Next" link, either one) The results for page 2 appear, but they are the results for page 2 by distance (i.e. as if I had left the original results sorted by distance and just advanced to page 2) This worked correctly on Monday. Not sure about Tuesday. I verified the same behavior on Google Chrome and IE11.

I've got a problem with pocket queries. When I preview one, the caches come up sorted by distance. I click on the 'placed' hyperlink to sort them by placed date. This works for the first page. However, when I click to go to page 2, even though "sort=placed" is still in the URL, it reverts to sorting by distance. I have not been able to figure out how to continue viewing caches sorted by placed date via the PQ interface. I know for a fact that this worked Monday morning, but by yesterday (Wednesday) it was working as I described here. Given the time frame, I'm guessing this is related to the changes that were recently made? Maybe?

We named our car GPS "Ms. Direction."

We just recently had 2 people log one of our trackables that has been activated, but had not actually left the house since we bought it about 2 years ago. The log was something along the lines of "saw this trackable in a cache, on the road, or at an event." I think each of the loggers had been in the game for only a few years and each had over 5000 trackable finds/discoveries. Needless to say, since they were either guessing at numbers or had entered our house and rummaged through the not-so-easy-to-find "big book of trackables that don't actually travel" the logs were quickly deleted. I have not had the chance to go back and audit the rest of our trackable logs. But I will... some rainy day when I have nothing better to do.

Not sure what you mean. What removal? Far as I know, it's still an option. Only problem is you can't update the coordinates to anything further than 0.1 mile from the previous posted coordinates...so updating for the traveling caches essentially requires a reviewer. That has always been the case (well at least since 2009 when I started), a CO can only move a cache 0.1 miles. But the moving caches were an exception, the CO could do it. I never saw anything saying the COs of these moving caches couldn't update the coordinates anymore. Though that is moot now. I was under the impression that the Update Coordinates functionality was removed from the new logging experience.

Not that anyone foresaw this, but in hindsight the removal of the "update coordinates" functionality sort of telegraphed this, didn't it? I sense a disturbance in the Force that moving caches won't be the only casualty to come. Since so many virtuals are derelict, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a mass archival or shift of all of them to Waymarking. (I would not be pleased about it, as they are one of my favorite types of caches to do.) Perhaps webcams and wherigos will also fall victim (too much abuse, too many complaints, whatever). For the record, I think we've only done 1 moving cache and that was archived in October 2016, so it's not like we have a huge vested interest in them, but they were a neat part of the game and now they're gone. What other "neat part of the game" will be next?

Sorry, but blaming this on "old code" doesn't hold water. Code is written to create features. Features can be recreated with different, newer, better code. What has been delivered is different and missing features. For some unimaginable reason you have chosen to completely change a set of features that worked well, in the name of "fixing old code". Come on. Admit to yourselves that this didn't work. Pull this feature. Put it back the way it was, LISTEN to your USERS! Then come back and try it again. In my job, when changes are made, existing functionality is maintained in almost all cases. You seem to have the opposite philosophy so it shouldn't be a great surprise when people get very unhappy. Count me in as a software professional that just can't get his mind around the need for this change. Having worked in software development at the same company for over 20 years, we follow some important rules: 1. Never let your entire customer base be your beta-testers 2. Never (and I mean NEVER) remove functionality (somebody, somewhere is going to be using it and find they can't get along without it) 3. Always obey rule 2 4. Make sure there is a pressing need for changes and that they're not being made on a whim (that just wastes your developers' time as well as your customers') 5. Change for change's sake is never a good idea (which is just a restatement of rule #4) 6. Always respond openly and honestly to customer concerns about the changes (what kind of good will does ignoring your customers build?) Pertinent to the thread: I still don't like the "new logging experience." It is slow, it is ugly, and it removes too many features. And the canned text for NM logs is pretty much useless.

I agree about the adventure (both physical and mental) - we don't own smart phones, much less use one for caching. A Magellan 310 and 2 Magellan GC's are how we roll. (So the continuing app-ification of the website is a bit grating to us.) We've been caching for almost exactly 6 years (in fact, the anniversary of our membership at GC.COM is April 23 - we just didn't find our first cache until a few weeks later). We haven't been at it as long as a lot of others. Growing up, I used to explore old cemeteries with my mother. Living in WNY there are plenty of them. Geocaching has allowed me to find even more abandoned old cemeteries. It's made me aware of often overlooked monuments to past wars and mostly ignored roadside history signs. Occasionally (but not as often as I'd like) I take the time to CITO out some trash. I always take the time to fix fallen flags at military graves. When out in the field, I often end up making my own adventure (sometimes by choice). A straight line across a series of ravines may not be faster than going around, but it sure is more fun! And usually muddier. As far as the comparison of old caches to new ones: I agree that I'd rather take a long walk in the woods to find an ammo can than spend the same amount of time finding a few dozen film canisters in trees or LPCs. However, there are plenty of newer caches that I feel are as good or better than some of the early caches. For example, there is a local cacher who puts out involved multis (5-8 stages) in some of the parks around here. These are creek-walking, back-tracking, bush whacking, take-all-day multis. I can think of at least 4 of them that I enjoyed much more than "The Spot". This isn't to say that "The Spot" isn't a good cache, just that (subjectively) I think some recent caches are as good as or better than a lot of the older ones. To be fair, a lot of the newer caches aren't that great. This may be due to the cache hider, it may be due to cache saturation, or it may be due to something else. (But then, I think GC7F6 is by far the best 2000-2001 cache that we've ever done. Great location, nice long hike, and an unexpected twist or two.)

So you are saying that someone who cannot log from the field is not allowed to find a cache as first one? I do not even own a smartphone - so whether data coverage is available or not does not change anything for me. I'm not an FTF hunter but always being in need of nice hiking caches to go for it could happen that I go for an unfound cache. In case of a cache that requires a hike of a few hours it will not help you anyway if someone logs a find as you will have started anyway. Do you really think that you can dictate cachers that are much longer into geocaching than yourself that they need to buy new equipment just to please you or to leave geocaching? Without some of these people geocaching would not exist today. We also do not own smartphones, but we do go after the occasional FTF. A few years ago, half of us were going on a trip. We saw an FTF opportunity come up while getting ready to leave. Even though the cache was a fair distance from home, the cache was found with a blank log, signed, replaced, and eventually (3 or 4 days later as there was no way for us to log the cache on the trip) logged online. The fall-out of the entire affair - congratulations on the FTF from the STF, more or less because of the distance involved. No rancor or bad feelings.

Yep - for the entirety of the two storms, we got about 18" total. The lake effect band extended SE of us - north of us was almost snow-free (by WNY standards, anyway). The city of Buffalo was shut down for almost a week, if I remember correctly. Just 3 miles south of us got 8'. Two miles north of us got less than 6". Even further north and the snow didn't even cover the grass. Community shovel brigades in West Seneca digging out neighbors, but people along Lake Ontario left scratching their heads wondering what all the fuss was about. Lake effect snow makes life interesting around here.

Also from WNY, just a little further down the I90. For me (as the rest of the family doesn't care for winter caching), I put on my leather jacket, jeans, hiking boots, gloves, and hat. Sometimes I take a hiking stick. Snowshoes are too much of a liability for me when on a forest trail. The cold doesn't really bother me as long as there's no wind. But then, we haven't really seen any snow in our area to speak of this year. Or the year before. And maybe the year before that, either. (The joys of lake effect snow - Buffalo can get 9" and Rochester can get 12", but in between it can be sunny and 40 degrees.)

Agreed. Mainly, I think, because it's misleading. Listing attributes should be accurate to what the properties' definitions imply. Other values are essentially a misuse if intentional. I'd also prefer those to be accurate where possible I used to have a Doctor Who themed traditional that had a placed date of November 23, 1963 (it was placed to more or less coincide with the show's 50th anniversary). I can't find anything in the guidelines or knowledge base that specifically prohibits bogus placed dates (but then I don't find anything that encourages it, either). If there is an official stance on this (since there are already puzzles that depend on the 'date placed' field as part of their solution and there's no reason to think there won't be in the future), maybe some one could weigh in on that?

Is it fun if the Jasmer achievement is based on falsified or incorrect information? Is it meaningful? I imagine if it means they can claim one of their few remaining open months, then yes...to them it is "meaningful". We went after the Jasmer challenge (finally completing it by finding Tarryall in July). I think the majority of cachers don't know about the date controversy with Ancient Lake, so as such, they were more than a bit surprised by the sudden change. I can also see, if they spent time and money just to fill the grid square, how they could be upset. There was also a lot of over-reaction in my opinion. It's a box in the woods, albeit a particularly long-lived one. However... when I first came upon this thread, I alerted my wife to the date change. After a quick PQ (well, not so quick, as we had to choose EVERY state individually), we found 3 or 4 1/2001 caches within a day's drive. Ultimate outcome - we decided we needed a Spring Break road trip with the kids to re-fill the square (and see SE NY and parts of New England again and maybe complete the Doctor Who series at Vassar College). We may still go, even though technically we don't "need" that square any more. (Now, this all could have been avoided had the kids wanted to make the hike to "Log Cabin" when we were in the Rockies over the summer...) So, I agree that since it was something people felt a sense of accomplishment about (with or without knowing about the date controversy - after all, they have no control over what the CO chooses to list on the page), then to them it is meaningful. Somewhat tangential question - since "Date Placed" is something the CO has control over, it is something that can easily be used as an element in a puzzle cache. What is stopping anyone from setting up a bogus Jasmer-filler date if it is legitimately part of the puzzle? (Or an older date, for example 12/6/1941 if it is a WW II-related puzzle.) I haven't seen any obviously bogus dates on puzzle caches which use the "date hidden" field that fall within the last 16 years, but perhaps I haven't looked hard enough.

Actually, in this area (Buffalo, NY) we have it both ways - Scajaquada Creek is a natural creek that was paved and roofed-over in the 1920's because people were offended by the pollution (people were using it as a sewer/trash disposal). It is navigable on foot, so long as you watch out for several drains that occur along its length. The main tunnel opens into Forest Lawn Cemetery, where the creek bed is once again rock. (And, yes, there is a cache inside - GC1C79N.)

I was quite surprised by the change to the map this morning, as well. I can't say I'm particularly thrilled with the change - having the old icons be more responsive would have been the best of both worlds. For me, at least. Please note that I do not cache with a smartphone, use a smartphone on a regular basis, or even own a smartphone. I have no intention to do any of the aforementioned things at any time in the foreseeable future and am frankly getting pretty tired of the "appification" of user interfaces. Perfectly good user interfaces are being dumbed-down or made overly cartoony for no good reason that I can see. And another thing - you durn kids stay offa my lawn! End of "cranky old man" rant. Count me in as one of the "slightly color-blind" that is having trouble with the new look. I have also noticed that at zoom levels of 2km and above I can get a view containing both the old icons and the new icons - it seems to be based on map tiles and changing to a different zoom level (5km, say) causes different tiles to display the icons differently.

Sorry I missed your post ryukyupyx. Things were a bit hectic at the last minute getting ready for the trip. I can, with all honesty, say I made the hike successfully. It took about 90 minutes to go up and slightly less to come down the Barr trail. I was a little winded around the bailout point, but a couple of guys from Chicago, a family from Boston, and a local hiker all sort of goaded me into continuing to the top. And I'm really glad that I let them goad me - the view was spectacular! I'm only sorry I didn't stop to find a cache while up there - the cache at the top of the Incline requires you to go down hill and then back uphill and I wasn't ready for that once I had made it to the top. There are a couple on the Barr trail, but one I completely forgot about and the other I passed without realizing it and didn't have the energy to go back for it. Oh well, maybe next time I'm in Colorado (I mean, it only took me 44 years to get out here for the first time... how long could it be before my next visit?)

Thanks for the advice. I think I must have misremembered some other advice I had gotten - the drive out should gradually acclimate us to the altitude so that altitude sickness is not as much of a factor as if we had flown in. Unfortunately due to packing limitations, water bottles is the best I'll be able to do. I'll have one of those drawstring backpacks that seem to be all the rage as giveaways these days. I am taking my hike up the Incline seriously - if conditions warrant not going, I guess I'll have to give it a pass this trip. I'd really like to give it a go, but safety has to come first. Again, thanks for the advice.

I plan on hiking The Incline in Manitou Springs, CO on July 1. I won't be able to start until 12:30 or 12:45 (I know it'll probably be hot, but unfortunately that's the only time available to me). I hope to get at least one of the caches along The Incline or the Barr Trail, as well as taking some pictures along the way. A couple of things: 1. I come from relatively low altitude (700' above sea level) and am fairly active (I average at least 1 5K or longer each month, go for a 5-10 mile hike once or twice a month). I don't expect to set any speed records on the Incline, just to take my time and enjoy myself. (Already planning on at least 3 bottles of water, some bananas, and some granola bars for along the way.) 2. We'll be gradually increasing our altitude for the week prior, so I hope to be relatively acclimated to the elevation. 3. I think I'm in decent shape for my age (44) - not a marathoner, but not a couch potato, either. So... 1. Any tips from anyone that's already climbed The Incline? 2. Is there anyone that will be fool enough to join me on my quest? The start time of 12:30-12:45 is pretty well set in stone. Any advice is welcome (except "don't do it!" - I've talked this up so much that I pretty much have to do it now )