fizzymagic

EDPM is better than stock rubber, yes. However UV and ozone will degrade it. Silicone is better for those things. But EDPM is probably better for something constantly submerged.

If it's coordinates, it has to be coordinates in a format Certitude can understand. I know it does DD MM.MMM and DD.DDDDD and it probably does UTM and DD MM SS.S as well because I know how good a programmer Christophe is. It if's a keyword, then it removes spaces and converts to uppercase before it checks.

Is there any way a premium feature could be added for "Not Recommended?"

None of mine that lasted have a terrain rating under 3.

I didn't make it to either 5 or 10. After the first two, I abandoned the whole thing, as the promised code never appeared. TEA: went back and did the 10. Meh. Upgrade grade to C from C-. Never did figure out how to get the first TB code.

No, you were doing the challenge seriously, and looking for the code. Had you been doing it casually, in a "what's this all about?" mode, you would have missed the final code sompletely. You made that clear in your own description.

What a disastrous promotion. The trackable code(s) were too easy to miss, and by then it was too late. The connection of the souvenir to the trackable code was unclear. The locations were not bad, but at least for some of them it was difficult to know where to start. Overall, I would give it a C-

I was just thinking about this topic as my oldest caches are now approaching 22 years without intervention. I celebrated the 22nd anniversary of my first find last week. All my longest-lived caches are ammo cans.

Me.

The image functionality of the geocaching site has declined in a never-reversing way since about 2015. It is likely never to get better, only worse. Sorry.

This "solution" has been proposed many times over the years, but it just won't work, for the reasons others have outlined. You are hardly the first. I will bring up a new consideration: Automating the process kind of completely goes against everything geocaching is about. We already have a big enough problem with cut-and-paste logs. Geocaching is about the experience of going out, finding something in the real world and then writing about it. It would surely be more efficient to automate the logging process, but why?

The main takeaway from this whole thread is that every time virtuals are given out, people find reasons to get all butthurt about it. You (not you, LimeCat, this is the generic you) didn't get one? I didn't get one either. Get over it.

So having a percentage based on an unknown distribution makes some kind of sense? There is no way to tell, based on total logs, what percentage of those people could have given it favorite points. So the proposed metric includes less information than the current one, uses hidden information, and is open to gaming. I think it is not a good idea.

Favorite point percentage is # of favorites divided by number of premium user logs. Non premium users can't leave favorite points even if they want to. If that bothers you a lot then make all your hides premium-only.

GSAK stores attribute data, including attribute definitions, etc.. GSAK uses the well-known and well-documented SQLite database for its storage. If you have any friends who know about databases, I recommend you talk to them. Attempting to do this with the GSAK macro language might be possible, but from my perspective using GSAK macros is like poking my eyes out with a hot needle.

Absolutely correct. You can use a dedicated GPS unit just as badly. And people did, back in the olden times. But the percentages are worse today. From my experience, about 40% take good coordinates. It's better in the desert and worse in cities. I have taken to using the satellite maps on the phone to guide my search when in urban areas. Frequently the location shown in the satellite image is the cache location, which may or may not be GZ. (Speaking of which, why is the zoom so limited in the Official App?) Not a criticism of anybody in particular; it's just how life is.

Good point. Geocachers who intend to place caches should use a device that gives good accuracy. That is ""valuable in this hobby." When I place a cache I always aim for 3 m or better accuracy.

The big advantage of the dedicated GPS is that you can make the compass page actually point in the direction of the cache. You do that by disabling the magnetic compass and using the movement of the GPS (which is quite accurate down to about 1 km/h)

Thanks for this. It is very helpful. I know all about loading gpx files of AL stages but that was not my main interest. And maybe I should give the app another try. I find the limitations on map zooming in both the geocaching app and the AL app infuriating. There is also no reason for the AL app to not show the geofencing, but it doesn't.

No I wrote that other api partners do not have access to al stages. I did not say that all others do not. I understand that English may not be your first language but please do not presume to lecture about misunderstanding. There exist api partners without al stage access. You were wrong. Is there a list of api partners apps that have al stages? I would be interested in something better than Locus Maps and since you seem to know all about it a list would be quite helpful.

Once again, so very sorry for daring to ask a question. You are now claiming that all api partners have access to al stages. I know for a fact you are wrong. Maybe working on reading comprehension would help. Locus Maps is a very strange mapping program with some geocaching capability pasted in what I experienced to be a poorly documented and unstable add on. I regret that I paid money for it. I believe that it is not a suitable solution to this problem for those not already deeply into the app. Did you contribute to the extension? Perhaps that could explain you defensiveness.

I just wanted to know, since other API partners do not have access to adlab stages. Sorry for asking.

You mean Locus Maps can show you the locations of AL stages? That would be nice if only Locus Maps didn't have such a horrible UI.

Yes, you are missing a poorly-documented feature. Four blanks at the start of each line. With a blank line above them, BTW.

I own this one, released 28 May 2002 and logged 12/06/2023 I believe it is older than any on your spreadsheet. I consider myself very lucky!