Jump to content

fizzymagic

+Charter Members
  • Posts

    5138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by fizzymagic

  1. There are no actual guidelines. There is the normal "don't do anything illegal" that has to be there but in reality no quality control at all seems to be employed. There's an AL at a national park in the US where the name of the park is misspelled every single time.
  2. Well, I tested the two sites and I can confidently say that Geocaching Toolbox is incorrect. By a surprising amount. The Dutch site agrees exactly with my calculations. Interestingly, the Geocaching Toolbox result is not the spherical-Earth approximation. It is just wrong. Data Line 1: N 37 50.000 W 122 00.000 - N 37 00.000 W 121 00.000 Line 2: N 37 00.000 W 122 00.000 - N 37 50.000 W 121 00.000 High-accuracy Intersection = N 37 25.203 W 121 30.000 (37.42004708, -121.50000000) Residual = 2.85e-24 it=68 From N 37 50.000 W 122 00.000: Fwd = 316.255086 Rev = 135.949825 From N 37 00.000 W 122 00.000: Fwd = 223.744914 Rev = 43.442542 Spherical Intersection = N 37 25.203 W 121 30.127 (37.42005687, -121.50211660) Residual = 1.79e-23 it=68 From N 37 50.000 W 122 00.000: Fwd = 316.375194 Rev = 136.071226 From N 37 00.000 W 122 00.000: Fwd = 223.622234 Rev = 43.321141 Geocaching Toolbox answer: N37° 25.307' W121° 30.000' (off by almost 200 m!)
  3. How much did they differ? Since there is a quick-and-dirty method that uses a spherical approximation, I expect that one of the sites is using that. If so, then that site is wrong. If you send me an example of the results I will be able to tell you which is correct, as I have written my own.
  4. Isn't that supposed to be the standard for all caches? I freely admit that not all my hides are as robust, but it's what I try for with every hide.
  5. Just curious how many of the commenters in this thread actually own a cache whose original container has lasted over 15 years? I do. I have two that reached their 20th birthdays this year, and another one that will hit that age this October. All three are ammo cans. I have never had to perform maintenance on the oldest two, while the one with the birthday in October I had to move from its initial hide right in the middle of poison oak, but has never needed anything else. Using a good (metal, not plastic of any kind) container and a difficult-to-reach hiding spot is quite effective. All the nonsense about frequent visits is only required if you don't do both of those things.
  6. I had advance warning that the challenge was coming, so I hid a true 4.5 / 5 cache to help people qualify. I keep it active for that very purpose.
  7. I have asked the hider of the original Fizzy Challenge to move the date requirement several times. He has said no. I respect that. It's his cache and, since it's grandfathered, he gets to set the rules. Me, I kinda like the "fizzy" branding on all 9x9 challenges!
  8. I have developed a couple of puzzle caches where the finder can (optionally) prove that they solved the puzzle. I did it mainly for the fun of it, as I don't particularly care whether finders have solved the puzzle or not, but it was an interesting exercise. The technique I used was to generate a cryptographic token that can verified that shows that your username has solved the puzzle. Everyone can send the token to the server, which will decrypt it. The caches for which I have implemented this scheme are GCPNXY (based on mastermind) and GC85149 (based on hashing). I emphasize that including the token in a log is optional, not required. However, it allows people who have actually solved the puzzle prove it to everyone else.
  9. Hints are made to be hints, not as the place where you can stick puzzles or solutions or other material. If the hint length is a problem, you are doing it wrong.
  10. I have only seen them two places: Near Yuba City, CA, where one particular hider became quite enamored with them, and in a geo-art thingie in Texas. I agree with your point that the attributes, properly used, can identify these hides unambiguously.
  11. Not practical for 10,000+ solved caches. This should not be rocket science: if a CO changes the final coords for a puzzle cache, the new coordinates are supposed to be reviewed for the change. At that point, all people that have marked the cache as solved (or any corrected coords) can be notified. No need for a watchlist. By the way, owners using notes or OM logs to report changes drive me nuts. The logs fall off the page and disappear. A note mentioning the coord change should be added to the cache description.
  12. This behavior is par for the course. It may get fixed in a year or two. I have tampermonkey that works.
  13. Who said it did? Not I. I have no idea why you brought that into the conversation. My claim is that the CHS nastygram, as written, reads as thinly veiled contempt. All the other factors I cited support the hypothesis that this interpretation is likely, or at least plausible.
  14. Right. If the CHS does not change the reviewer is required to review the cache and decide on further action. Your post says exactly that: "A reviewer will assess the reason for low score and decide how to address it." That's why I addressed the CHS nastygram immediately; I don't want to cause my reviewers more work. That was my point: the reviewer is required to deal with an unaddressed CHS. I am sorry that I was unclear that the reviewer has the option to not immediately engage the owner. In practice, reviewers automatically post notes to the pages, though, so yours is a distinction that makes not practical difference.
  15. Sorry, but the CHS forces the reviewer to "make the call" and reviewers are required to address the CHS nastygrams. So the distinction is one without a difference. But, more substantively, the CHS is only one small part of my overall disgust. Other factors, all of which indicate contempt for hiders, include: Different review standards for "regular" hiders and powertrail/geoart hiders. Condescending blog posts apparently intended for 8-year olds Challenge cache rules interpreted in maximally-constrained way New reviewers unfamiliar with (and unwilling to learn) the local geocaching culture Complete refusal to address long-standing website and app bugs (i.e. broken map searches) Introduction of new "features" that make site navigation and usage unpleasant and break existing caches (e.g. image transcoding) Wildly inconsistent standards for puzzle caches (did you know that you are no longer allowed to use your own checker for your own cache?) The list could go on, but you get the general drift.
  16. Apparently your respect for other hiders matches that of HQ quite closely. The CHS was not the main issue here. It was the last straw, the culmination of a theme: the company treats those who hide caches with an attitude of condescension bordering on contempt. I have been surprised to discover that the whole "year of the hide" thing happening this year has only reinforced that perception. I had hoped it would be otherwise. But clearly the messaging has been effective, given that you seem to endorse it wholeheartedly.
  17. Why do we keep having posts about the execrable Geocaching blog posts? Do you think that there are people here who enjoy being talked down to as if they were five years old? Or do you believe that these blog posts have some kind of content that everyone on the forums has not heard a thousand times? I am truly curious.
  18. Then archival makes sense. It did not meet the guidelines when published. My point being that considering fees for new caches is important but complaining about them for grandfathered caches is not helpful. And that hiding fees from the reviewer during cache submission is a big no-no.
  19. Remember grandfathered caches, such as virtuals at Disneyland, would not longer be allowed. Earthcaches in National Parks are allowed despite what can be a hefty entrance fee. Generally park entrance fees for government-owned parks are accepted. Private entrance fees not so much.
  20. I have done 6 ALs, I think. 5 of them were truly horrible, and didn't even deserve a half star. But the sixth was quite good, actually. So I know good ALs exist. They seem to be quite rare in my area, though. Sadly, those poorly-designed and poorly-implemented ALs tend to get many stars when they are rated, making the rating system pretty useless. IMO, this is a natural evolution of the "say only nice things in cache logs" convention that started in geocaching. I frequently do not say what I think about a lousy cache, figuring that it's not worth the effort. I would expect that the same thing goes for ALs.
  21. IMO, Jeff, Geocaching's blog posts aimed at the level of kindergarten students are unlikely to make geocaching better, but maybe that's just me. Taking them at face value is not going to make you happy, so do like I do and ignore them.
  22. OK, good. I don't like the change. And I believe that the one missing the point here is Groundspeak, not its customers, who, in your eyes, are apparently Never Right. One more thing: just because something makes the site more difficult to use does not make it a "security improvement." In this case, there is no additional security whatsoever. What there is, instead, is a plausible way for Groundspeak to avoid any hint of liability. Calling that a "security improvement" is pretty much insulting the intelligence of your audience, so don't do that, OK? Just call it what it is and don't blow smoke.
×
×
  • Create New...