Blue Square Thing

Thank you for pointing those out. That'll help the time pass during the dark months.

It's the retention of identifying data by other users which is a long standing privacy issue - iirc it predates GDPR in UK law, for example, by many years.

Almost by definition an anonymised list would meet the requirements of anyone interested in their basic web privacy being protected. Assuming that the servers can be cleared of the actual data regarding cache page visits on request (or preferably by default after a period - which I assume will have to happen anyway). I'm not sure how useful any resulting data would be, but if it's essentially page views then I would think it would meet the requirements.

No. I didn't want to get all semantic about it in the response I posted (which I think is the first one you quoted). Particularly given the post I was replying to - the bold, larger font italics and emoji choice in particular. To me it's obvious here that should is suggesting that there is an obligation in place - given the context of the wording of the help article and the history of additional logging requirements and so on I don't see any other contextual interpretation of the phrase. Of course, people will argue the semantics of stuff like this until the cows come home.

And, of course, they're only guidelines... ;-)

I don't understand why you've asked this question in response to that (and I'm a native English speaker unlike, I think, the person you were responding to). In this context, the meaning of should is perfectly clear.

Its possible - at various times it's been possible to see the icons for PMO caches at different levels on the official map, so it's quite possible that's been applied to apps. At one time I remember it was possible to see every cache on the map if you weren't signed in.

Only when you zoom far enough out - which is pretty much useless for anything (although sometimes you can see a whole set of caches that are in a gap or anything). Logging in to the website means that I can see any non-PMO cache on the map and all caches will appear on lists, bit clicking on a PMO one brings up a page which just tells me I need a PM to see any more details. The app is where the extra restrictions appear to be.

The new map search must also pretty much nullify the audit log - anything other than the coordinates (which, frankly, can be approximately derived easily enough) can be seen in tha sidebar.

I think it's where someone has requested that their data be deleted. I think found logs etc... just disappear, but obviously the cache page doesn't so this happens with ownership of, presumably, archived caches.

Fwiw it's getting loads of traction across the UK - there have been several BBC stories and it was, apparently, featured on the very local radio station here yesterday as well - I think by the local ambulance trust. Of course, new gets manipulated here and there, but I think this is a very real trend by a whole set of emergency services to get people in a place where it's easier to find them quickly.

If you do go to that area then I'd say the drive to Niagara is worth it - but do go across the border and see it from the other side as well (and made even fly back from Toronto?)

I think there was something on the BBC website where some kids had basically been rescued from the middle of nowhere after the 999 (equivalent of 000/911 etc...) operator told them to download that app and use it. Ah, there it is: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49319760 - and other articles come up with the same type of story as well. Sounds like it might even be useful as a puzzle device...

Yes, this ^. My gut feeling is that you need it as one whole animated GIF, which is going to be a bit tricky and create a large file. The TV bit could be shortened, turned into cartoons etc... or just replaced with a large, pulsing "EARTHQUAKE!" text banner. I'm not sure you'll only be able to have the link active at the end of the animation however. I guess you could insist people type in a URL (tiny url?) that gets revealed if it's important people watch the whole thing.

I suspect the webkit aspect of that might get taken out - although it is worth a try at some point anyway. I can't remember if CSS needs to all be inline as well? Browser support makes me shudder slightly though...

When you write the page you can save ad view at various points. It doesn't become publicly available until it is published - and to do that you have to submit it for publication. The buttons to do that are fairly obvious iirc - just check what you press! Even if you do submit it for publication you can unsubmit it and continue to edit as much as you want. It doesn't have to be perfect first time out. Scrolling can, i think, still be done using a <marquee>Text here</marquee> tag. It's pretty old school stuff but I think it still works. Fading is much harder to do - I imagine it will have to be an animated GIF, which comes with all sorts of problems. Is there a specific reason you want to do these things? If it's just "because they're cool" then I'd suggest against doing that! If it's an integral part of, say, a puzzle then you'll need to explore the options.

As far as I know reviewers do click links in cache listings, so that's not really adding to work load - I had one rejected due to a linked website using ads. Flash is generally pretty obvious these days I'd say. Perhaps there needs to be a move towards gently discourage the use of flash in cache listings through guidelines. Chrome plans to stop supporting it at all next year and there's a strong possibility Adobe will stop updating it at the same time. It's dead technology but we're supposed to be placing caches with a long life expectancy. Time to move on from this technology.

I'm not sure that there is a specific criteria. Most of the ones I've found have been fairly adjacent I'd say. I agree that many stations might not be all that pleasant areas to be around - but plenty in the sort of area I live in are. And there's always https://coord.info/GCYTN2 (not a sidetracked cache of course).

Oh, I don't know: all the caches I've found in the last fortnight have been gotten to using public transport - a trip that would have been over 3,700 kilometres (2,300 miles) and taken 42 hours worth of driving. It's so much easier to sleep on public transport.

It depends on the area and the cache. Small children are often a good way to cloak any activity, but you obviously need to be with kids to do that. Some people would suggest a high-vis jacket and a clipboard are the best way to be anonymous, so litter picking might well work as well. It's also entirely reasonable to decide that you don't want to bother with that sort of cache very often.

I'd agree that the first three are really good caches, although Charlottetown Memories is quite a way from the city centre (iirc). The first two are lovely beach caches in a great location, but you do need to go at low tide and if the kids are small then they may not be that suitable - the wade around the headland is short but knee deep when we were there. The caches around https://coord.info/GC605ZF might also be worth a look - decent beach area and not too far from the Teapot - we did both the same morning. There are so many beach area on the island that you might be better off deciding on the type of beach you want and then looking for caches around them - it depends on how far you want to drive and where you're based (for example, on the eastern end of the island https://coord.info/GLF5H55F is OK and is a nice area. If the kids are younger and you're in Charlottetown then you might want to look at the archived https://coord.info/GC2K9E3 which is fab for little kids - you can just do the mouse hunt section and have an ice cream at Cows in the centre and they'll be happy enough I should think. There are other multis in the city centre which follow a similar route - https://coord.info/GC5Z6Z9 is decent enough (again, a little way out of the city centre).

Well, it's certainly easier for you, yes. But it's so commonplace that, if I'm honest, I assume that anyone who logs that is simply logging as quickly as possible and doing what they think is the right thing. If you want to just write that then, sure, go ahead: that's your prerogative. I'd much rather you told me something about your day, whether you enjoyed the place or the cache or something. It doesn't need to be much, but just something that's not generic is lovely to read. Sure, if you want to write something longer than that then great, but just show me you care enough to write something non-generic please.

That the person who put the image up is breaking copyright and ripping off the photographer. I agree that it also looks poor, but primarily it's a clear copyright violation - one that could be costly for either the cache owner or, I guess, Groundspeak.

That sounds like it would be possible, although I'd say be careful with street view as it changes at times. You'd need to specify a date, for example. I've used similar research ideas but they're probably a little simpler than this. This cache at Corfe Castle does something interesting with that sort of idea, although I've not tried to solve it. Might be worth a look and an attempt to solve the mystery parts at least - the GeoCheck is a good idea on this sort of thing imo.

Works fine for me - Safari, OSX.