fizzymagic

Ah, good. I absolutely refuse to spoof my location for anything, so I had never seen that second thing. The first one seems a little too subtle. Either way, I am aware of multiple instances of people spoofing location to do ALs. I heard there was an AL (I don't know if it still exists or not) at the location of the Titanic in the North Atlantic that was claimed by some Germans within a day of being published. How pathetic is that? Anyway, offline mode would open up a whole Pandora's box of trouble. Sort of like an automated proximity thing for regular geocaches would. I anticipate that the request that started this thread will recur on a regular basis.

What warning would that be? Whatever it is, it's certainly not prominent.

See, that's the thing with the "make up a perfect rule and everything will be fixed" position. There will be a question about it, and people will find a way around it. People will put out QR codes and claim "it's legal because it was not a geocache" or something to that effect. Turning guidelines, which specify intent, into rules, where definitions and exact wording matter, has been a disaster for geocaching and will be for ALs as well. I suppose, given human nature, that the clamor for just-so rules will increase and eventually the guidelines will devolve into rules, but putting that moment off as long as possible seems like a good idea.

One of the saddest things I have experienced in geocaching over the years has been the inevitable descent of the guidelines into rules. Looking back, the game has changed its flavor greatly. It started out as a "let me bring you to this great spot!" activity and has devolved into "let's see how many stars we can get" competition. ALs had a chance to be a "let me give you a tour of neat stuff where you can learn something" activity, but is devolving in a similar direction. Additionally, ALs were designed from the start to not require reviewers; ALs are assumed to be good until somebody complains. Your request for "rules clarification" works against the intent of ALs in both respects. Doesn't really matter much to me because I intensely dislike most ALs, but I am still sad for those that enjoy them as an activity apart from geocaching.

ALs were not designed to be another "complete this pointless challenge to get a star" activity, even though they are rapidly turning into that. Your attempted AL you described above is in the same vein. If your (generic you in this case) goal is to further degrade whatever reputation ALs have for being interesting and educational, then by all means keep on pushing this way. But at least be honest about what you are doing.

I've resorted to rotating the images locally and then uploading the rotated image with a rotation that undoes the one done locally. When these problems first appeared I figured that it was just minor bugs in the new code, because surely they had tested the code before releasing it, right? It's now been about a month. And the problems have not been fixed. It must be beyond embarrassing to HQ to have such low-quality code on the public face.

If a log in one of my caches gets wet, then that's on me. I do not send threatening emails for faded signatures like you apparently do.

Please read the thread to familiarize yourself with the subject material.

Incorrect. National Geographic Waterproof Inkjet paper will retain water-based inks quite well. "Rite in the rain" paper does not work for this purpose, however. No, I have not threatened to delete logs from people whose signatures have faded or otherwise become unreadable. That is what we were talking about here.

Not the finder's problem. The CO is responsible for providing a log that will retain signatures. And using a container that will keep the log dry.

I use it all the time. The macro language is amazingly bad so I just access it directly through SQLite, its database format. But it does a great job of reading/writing GPX files and putting the data into a nice schema.

Your example demonstrates that there are bad multicaches out there, not the need for an HQ-endorsed checker. I love math, but requiring that to be done in the field makes it bad. I don't want HQ encouraging that kind of behavior. Certitude works just fine for multicache stages.

It is a matter of ongoing astonishment that this code was put on a production server with so many big bugs. However, there is still a hack to get the full-sized picture. When you click on the picture to view it in a new window, you get a long URL ending with either "_l.jpg" or "_s.jpg". Remove the "_l" or "_s" (but leave the ".jpg" at the end) and reload the page and you should get your full-sized picture. Use that URL to embed your picture into the cache page if needed. I think that may require that you use the <souce> version of the cache page editor. Yes, it is a ridiculously complicated workaround. No, there is no excuse for why it's necessary. But at least it is possible.

If the QR code was placed by the owner, then the AL is not in compliance with the guidelines and should be reported and archived. If the QR code was a pre-existing one at the location, and the owner does not respond to prompts, the AL should be reported and archived. Looks like the choice either way is pretty clear.

I spent a good half-hour last weekend trying to upload a picture for use on a cache page. That error message, shown above, is completely unacceptable for a production system. I finally solved mine by renaming the file on my system. I have been having these errors for the last week on multiple new cache pages.

I understand the frustration and pain of having finds not being guaranteed when you go to all the trouble to go out caching. I mean, you're the customer, and the customer is always right! It's Groundspeak's job to make sure that any cache you go for is 100% there and findable. The very idea of going for something that might not be there is intolerable. /s

Not only that, but a single geocacher was able to manipulate the system to get the cache archived. A single geocacher posted multiple logs complaining about the cache; it looks like the reviewer just disabled it and archived it on autopilot as a result of owner non-response,. Now, ultimately, it is the owner's fault that they did not respond. Perhaps they thought that the next glowing log would absolve them. But it didn't, because once that reviewer disabled the cache an automatic system cut in (the one people keep claiming does not exist) and the die was cast. Should the owner have written an OM log highlighting the positive report on the cache? Yes, they should have. But don't tell me that reviewers look at the whole picture when archiving a cache using this method. They clearly look at it at some point, and I know they are very busy, but the description of careful consideration does not seem to apply in this case. What is shown here is a very clear example of abuse of the system by the poster of the OAR and RA logs.

Wow. Harsh. As if everyone who stops geocaching does so on purpose to "give a finger" to the community. Like, for example, people who have the temerity to die before adopting out all their caches. I think you have perfectly expressed the contempt and entitlement inherent in your position. I don't think I could put it any better.

While I agree that the thread is not particularly clear, I believe you understand the issue. The problem is that there are many excellent caches out there (usually in hard to reach places) for which the owner is not "active and engaged." Removing those caches when a significant problem has not been reported is not in the best interests of geocaching. The "active owner or else" crowd is mainly representative of newer cachers who demand guaranteed finds and consider themselves privileged consumers. That was not the original spirit of geocaching, and I, for one, miss it.

Ha! You think once a day is enough? How do you know your cache is still OK in the last hour? The best cache owners check on their caches hourly and post OM logs daily (at least0!

I bought it and I tried it. I really did. Its geocaching interface is terrible. It's hard to believe that there is a commercial application with a worse interface than the Official App, but there it is.

As has been hashed over here about a thousand times (do a search): it depends. Most often, one of those three things. But not always. This thread is not the place to rehash all this yet again.

Were it not for the statement that these three are the only options, I would have no problem with the CHS. But because they are, I have a big problem with the CHS. It infuriates me. For the life of me, I cannot understand why treating your customers as recalcitrant 3-year-olds is considered a good business strategy.

A false OM log always gets a Needs Reviewer Attention log from me, in which I point it out. But only if I happen upon one. I don't go looking for them.

Also reddit. Good puzzle help groups give you nudges and won't spoil things.