MAntunes

Bem vindos ao Geocaching! Sobre a vossa questão, penso que podem começar por ler este post (ou o tópico todo) que poderá ajudar-vos. Basicamente, aconselho o SmartGPX para carregar os ficheiros das caches no vosso telemóvel e assim, terem toda a informação disponível, incluindo os 5 últimos logs. Aliás, ao falarem de marcos no vosso post, penso que já terão algum dos componentes do mesmo mas aconselho a instalação completa. Também aconselho, se ainda não o fizeram, a carregar os Nokia Maps para terem navegação turn-by-turn até perto da cache. Os Nokia Maps para o vosso aparelho estão disponíveis aqui. Com estas ferramentas instaladas e a funcionar ficarão minimamente autónomos na procura das geocaches. Boa sorte!

I'm glad I was wrong. Really, I thought this was the kind of issues that could only be solved by direct contact to GS.

Despite the actual image formats include jpg, gif, bmp and png, there was a time qhere only .jpg was allowed, I think. Maybe your .gif file were removed then. I also have caches since 2003 (and prior) and recall these changes in types of image files allowed. However, I allways make backup of all the stuff I place in the listings (html pages, links, photos, etc...). If you really can't find that material in your hard disk, maybe you should contact GS through their support contact. If they can assist you, they won't do it in the forums but maybe sending the photos personaly to your mail.

I think that maintenance of a geocache includes maintenance of the listing. This includes control of the logs posted (off-topic, bogus found logs, counterfeit, off-topic, etc... - there is a discussion about these cache owner's responsibilities in the foruns that lead to nowhere). So, for this specific situation, I think you can post a owner's maintenance log saying that it is to clear a NM log posted by mistake. edit: typing mistake.

Yes, it works. I just took the chance to change mine right know. The trick is to sign out and in again, to see the new signature.

I aggree. Clean up the code first, instead of adding new features that add new bugs.

+1 for the "Notify Reviewer" version, with an obligatory explanation issued by the log author and that log protected from being deleted by cache owner.

Ok, with all this information I wouldn't make my attempt to help you. Maybe you should ask the reviewer who disabled your cache.

ngrrfan, that note is a reminder so you don't forget to enable your new cache when it is ready to be published. Consider that note a new feature.

There is a wap acces to basic services in this url http://wap.geocaching.com/ About mobile version , hope this helps http://www.geocaching.com/mobile/

I agree with this suggestion. Good point.

Excellent contribuition, NiraD! Allowing all of those logs, of the archived caches in an area someone wishes to create a new one, despite means more development work to Groundspeak, would, undoubtedly, help present cache owners to avoid past mistakes and keeps Groundspeak's philosophy. Thank you!

Thank you for the answer. I just want to underline that we don't wish to address that particular situation here in the foruns - it only warned us to other similar situation that may be occurring in other places. That specific situation is already being addressed by contacting the local Archaelogical authorities - those who requested the archival of the original cache in 2002. As soon as we receive an answer from them, we'll move on accordingly. About the access and tools Reviewers have at their disposal, seems that in this situation something has failed - and may fail in other situations. Maybe it is the number of submitted caches they have to analyse per month - one of our local Reviewers referred a number of 500 and growing, and we are a small country -, thus, leading to a situation where even if they want to do a good job (and I am sure they want!), maybe they have no time for a more detailed analysis per cache. If, by other hand, as we suggest, this feature is developed, the owner of a submitting cache could, by his own initiative, check the reasons that led other caches in the past to an archival and take some measures to adapt his new cache or even give up of it, avoiding, this way, repeating the problems that forced the previous caches to be archived. But, as a decision was already issued we hope that, in the future, a change in philosophy will take place.

We would like to suggest a new feature that will popup a list of archived caches near the coordinates of a newly submitted cache so the owner can check the archived caches and acknowledge the history and reasons of the archival of those caches and evaluate his cache based on the information he gets from the former ones. This is because geocaching has been generating caches everywhere, during the last 11 years, and some of the caches were placed in locations that were not proper for this hobby - sites classified as archaeologically relevant, geological monuments, private properties, having specific security issues and many other motifs. The original caches at those sites were archived because of that. For some reason (sometimes, lack of proper information at location), this might not be obvious at the time being and, thus, there is the risk that someone might place new caches at these locations – where, lets recall, other caches, in the past, were not allowed to remain. These situations might jeopardise reputation of the game with local authorities and risk caches that were hidden at other locations with their consent. We, as a community that plays a game and practices a hobby mostly based on the Nature, have the responsibility to have a correct conscience regarding natural, archaeological and cultural patrimony and we think that this new feature would help avoid the placement of caches in places where, as said, others caches were not allowed to remain due to the situations referred above. This suggestion is based on a specific actual situation that we are dealing with in Portugal (when we realised what happened, we contacted both the cache owner and Archaeological authorities, to minimize possible risks). It must be said that the previous cache in that location was archived 9 years ago under a request from the area archaeological society, and both the owner of the new cache and the current reviewers didn't knew about it. Hence, we would like to drive forward and propose this extra tool (the popup showing previously archived caches in the area), to prevent the occurrence of such situations in the future (by actually making it easier for the owner to know of such problems before actual publication). We also think it mitigates the risk of future disputes with local authorities / land owners, and thus helps to protect geocaching reputation. We think it is necessary to build a bridge between our past and our present and, thus, to help avoiding to repeat past mistakes. This suggestion has born in Geocaching-pt.net, one of our local foruns, and I am only the guy who volunteered to present it and defend it here in Groundspeak Foruns - the place where most decisions starts.

It works fine in this side of the globe. When I clicked the link you supply, it shows this log http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=cfc6258a-6c94-43b0-9f3d-a75dc723c4ed and, after, when i click the cache link (the cache name), it shows the cache page http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=06b6e2b9-5ade-4a0b-8b5d-45081bef4dbf Maybe it is a temporary problem or problem with your web browser or your wb session. Clearing the wb cache and/or restart it maybe will solve that problem.

As said before, in this topic and in other topics, quality of a geocache and number of caches found before a geocacher can became a hider are issues where the community will never reach an agreement. In my country, and I think in others too (in their own language), we use to say "cada cabeça, sua sentença" which, roughly translated, means "each head, his sentence". So, if one wants to seek for quality caches, then he should read carefully the listings, the last logs the geocache received (the number he thinks is enough to feel himself informed), the attributes and then decide what caches to visit based on his own quality criteria. If one seeks for every cache that is on an area or in his route, then forget about quality. Number of caches found and quality of caches found are two goals that don't walk together anymore.

I'm inclined to support this idea but I suspect that this feature would be used as a weapon to be thrown against others. But trying to add something that may help; I like the idea that a reporter must explain in detail the reason of the report. I Like the option that the CO will receive a copy of the report - without the Reporter's identification - but I would add a limit to the number of total reports one can issue per month. This would force Reporters to prioritize their reports - and save Reviewers from dealing with many reports.

I'm having problems here. I also received notifications about some topics that has changed its status. After reading your answer, I tried to adjust my account settings in UV, so I won't receive any more notifications from them. But, the password didn't work and when I tried to reset the password I was directed to http://www.geocaching.com/feedback/ Anyone else has this problem or its just me because I may have forgot my password in UV site?

why bother with "ctrl"? see above As the OP referred "clicking both mouse buttons simultaneously", maybe his mouse has no scroll button.

Try holding shift button when you click the mouse button - it would open a new window. Try holding ctrl button when you click the mouse button - it would open a new tab.

In the screen, after an email has been sent, there is a notice saying "E-Mail Has Been Sent". I'm asking to have the user id included in this sentence. It is not a very important feature, I know, but it already existed and I think it was useful.

No. Not your email address but your username.

When we need to send several mails to other geocachers, the feature we had in the past that identifies the destination of the email just sent through GS mail system is helpful. Since 2002, we had this feature. Then we lost it. Then we had it back, and now it seems to have been gone again. I think this small information "Email sent to xxxxxxxxx" is useful and I'd like to have it back again, if possible. Thank you.

Was searching for feature requests about emails and saw this one. Good suggestion. I support it too.

Com o anuncio da inclusão do GeoStats Premium, do Geocaching@PT, no programa Geocaching Live, julgo que se justifica uma actualização do post inicial para uma melhor informação a quem visita esta secção dos Foruns da Groundspeak. Aqui fica a sugestão.