MAntunes

Seems a good suggestion. Good luck!

Sorry but, for me, the change should be in the opposite direction: limit the cache saturation issue by raising the distance between caches and by other means. In my opinion there are too many caches, sometimes more than one to show the same thing/place.

I agree with this suggestion. And, maybe, it could be implemented a kind of "needs maintenance" log for geocachers or, in other words, a "this email address may need validation" in which, someone who has difficulties to contact another cacher, or suspects it has a fake or non validated emails address, could issue a signal to the database that the email address needs to be validated. Of course, the system would catch only the first email address validation request and issue a "email validation request already registered" for the others. And, of course, stop to give away database information to whom has not a geocaching account as it seems to be the case in the "Quasi Cachers" post.

Maybe I got it wrong. The OP will use the information that's most usefull for him.

In the pocket query setup form You can select the option "That... I haven't found" or, You can select an area where You haven't found any cache yet. With one of this ways, You have a fresh new PQ where all caches are unfound. Hope this helps.

Thank you very much. I tested it and works. I wonder why Groundspeak has never combined Waymarking stats with Geocaching stats or, at least, add a 'Waymarking' tab right next to 'Statisctics' in the public profile. I think, this could satisfy some of those that misses virtuals and asks for the returning of them.

It is very sad to know that you gave up of geocaching because of situations that has no direct relation with the way you practiced and enjoyed the activity. Maybe you could comment your thoughts and concerns before archiving and removing some of your caches. However, since you did that (remove containers and archive listings) you can ask Groundspeak to block your geocache listings in this situation and, thus, prevent any other logs. Just be aware that some late logs may appear from people that found your caches before you removed and archived them. You, i suppose, have the logbooks to check if someone asking for the ability to issue a late log has, in fact, found your caches?

Sorry for the off topic. This is about the returning of webcam caches, but maybe ECs visitors can/should use the NM log, or even the NA log, on these earthcaches that fail to be as quality driven as seems to be the overall direction that GSA and Groundspeak wants to enforce. Here, in my country, Portugal, some years ago, several earthcaches had to be changed so the logging requirements were more strict in order to improve the overall quality of the ECs. As a result of that, or just by coincidence, my country has two ECs between the 10 better ECs published until then. Thus, it is a surprise to me to read the testemonial above about new earthcaches being approved with so poor logging quality.

If the answer to requests boils down to "Jeremy said no six years ago and that's the end of it" this thread, and several others, might as well be locked. I am not a fan of webcam's. I tried one, once, just to know what is it. I am fan of virtual caches in situations/spots where a physical cache doesn't apply. I (think) understand the reasons why all types of virtual caches were vanished from Geocaching.com. I, also, realize that like Challenges, Waymarking is a failure - just not yet recognized by the TPTB. But, I have to agree that, if the answer from TPTB is "He said NO, six years ago", then there's no use to discuss anything in this foruns. Anymore.

Even with the archival of the cache listing it is not possible to prevent visitors to go to the site and to log the find, if the container is still in the place. I think that the best to do, without giving up of the cache, is to add visible information in the cache listing, and in owner's maintenance logs, that the site should not be visited at specific times of the year. And warn local authorities/land managers that some less civilized persons - geocachers or not - may not completely follow the site access restrictions. If this is not a solution, then archive the cache and remove the container. A cache is not more important than the respect for Nature or other type of site constraints - religious, cultural, historic , etc...

It seems a very good feature. Thanks for sharing! "It would be great if geocaching.com would get something like this, so the whole world can enjoy it." This means that only european geocachers can use it? Or, only from neederland / globalcaching.eu?

It's something like "incremental backup" concept. I think yes, it seems useful. It will save bandwidth but use more compute time - to filter those caches with the attribute "changed since last pocket query" on. Weighing these two resources - bandwidth and compute power - I think your suggestion has chances.

It does perfectly sense this suggestion. With so many events happening every week, it will be much easier to choose if they are ordered by distance. Yes, it should be possible as new caches are already ordered by distance - I just checked the last weekly email from GS.

1) In the real world I think it will happen as I described if visitors follows your suggestion to signal "bad" caches - please note that You used the term "bad", instead of bad. I have no problem identifying a bad cache: it is a cache that doesn't comply with the guidelines. But, what is a "bad" cache? 2) I understood what you wrote, "Reviewers should respond quickly, timely, and clearly every time". So, if you change what you wrote, and it is perfectly normal that You clarify it, please don't attach my words to the new version of your sentence. I wouldn't raise my concerns, about the extra work to the Reviewers, if you wrote your sentence in the new way right from the beginning. Sorry if I take too much attention on the details of the writing but when I don't know the person in the other side, I can only know what it is written and not what it was meant to be written. Unless my english skills have betrayed me.

That one I agree! I know local reviewers have lots of work and lots of trouble to do their work and sure they deserve a small compensation. For heaven's sake, don't. That would be an incentive to publish everything and anything. They have to concentrate on the guidelines, not in the dollar or two. Have you already calculate how much would yield a Powertrail? Can you imagine the dispute would not be among them to catch the powertrail in his review queue? Do Not ... You may be right! Let's keep them Groundspeak's slaves, away of those minor worries...

I don't agree with this two ideas, because; 1) if someone doesn't like one cache, or one type of caches or has issues with one cache owner, posting NMs or NAs could be a gun to be used in situation that has nothing to do with the quality of the cache or its adherence to the guidelines. 2) isn't it to ask to much to the Reviewers? They are geocachers like us - I think they like to have time to search for caches and enjoy geocaching as a hobby and not as an obligation.

That one I agree! I know local reviewers have lots of work and lots of trouble to do their work and sure they deserve a small compensation.

I think that a map view showing a little 0.1 mile radius discs around each cache would be a killer spoiler for the mystery and multi caches. Don't forget that also the physical intermediate points are under the restriction of 0.1 distance. This suggestion, would be worse that the other already posted in this foruns and in the feedback site under the tittle "is this area free?", when creating a new cache. In the other hand, is it geocaching supposed to completely occupy every "nice park, that isn't 100% saturated."? If a nice park has already some caches to draw geocachers attention on it, is it really necessary to saturated it until it has no more space available for more caches? Just my opinion and concerns.

Groundspeak is not a democracy. It is a company that seeks profit. But, as reviewers are volunteers that serves the community, yes, it would be great if the community has a word to say on the subject. If reviewers were GS employees, then I think nobody could interfere in their hiring.

Just a note to say that I received an email from Groundspeak with the new names for all my missing images and that I recovered all of my cache listings that were affected.

Excellent post! 100% agree. I'm one of the "dying breed" specimens , but it only means to me that i'm enjoying this activity for some more time than the majority. Nothing more. If a lifetime membership appears, it should be an option available for everyone.

Thanks for the solution to solve this issue. The email was sent with the links for the missing images.

I can confirm that there are problems with images in older caches. I have several of them, and found that the images seems to be lost in the following: http://coord.info/GC88D3 http://coord.info/GCA14F http://coord.info/GCA16D http://coord.info/GC9E71 http://coord.info/GCGE98 http://coord.info/GCGEN1 http://coord.info/GCGGC1 (and I'm referring only the active ones) I really would like to have this problem solved.

E mesmo que fosse identificado o perfil dele no geocaching.com, se fosse expulso, acabaria por criar outro perfil, e outro e outro. Além de ignorar as "façanhas" dele, eu aconselharia a desactivar as caches roubadas/vandalizadas e falar com os Revisores para permitirem um prazo maior para as caches ficarem no estado de desactivadas e não as arquivarem "no prazo médio/habitual" que permitem às outras caches ficarem nesta situação. Assim, com as caches desactivadas e não lhe ligando outra importância, como diz o Kelux, ele acabará por se desinteressar.

Hello Tom Dederen I'm glad that everything works now. About the .gpx file I think nobody can sent it to you because that would be against the Terms Of Use but, you can ask to your local reviewer (check the "publish" logs in the listings in your area) and ask him for a one month evaluation Premimum member subscription.