MAntunes

I think it should be English. If they cache around the world, they may understand the minimum of english to be able to deal with the site. And if this is truth, they have an opportunity to improve their english. I'm not saying that they should or must learn english but that they have the opportunity. Of course the guidelines, or this suggestion for a change in the actual guidelines, will not always address all particular situations - and this is valid also for the previous post. And if a problem around this specific situations arise, my suggestion is on direction that Groundspeak should try to treat equally the cache owners and authors of the logs. Not allays giving credit to the authors as it seems nowadays. Local dialects are another strong reason to not use automatic translators but have the logs written in english, if not possible the language in which the cache listing was written, directly from the author of the log.

No, not the local language. The language in which the cache listing was written or english. I don't think it is expecting too much as english is the language in which gocaching.com is based when someone creates an account.

What I defend is the right of readability of the log by the cache owner, if he decides to understands it, specially if he decides to follow the actual guidelines. I'm not defending any kind of interpretation of the content. Neither my idea of what it is offtopic, etc...

The point is not what I regard as offtopic. The point is what a cache owner, receiving a log in a language he doesn't understand, might regard as appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate, in the situations that I already pointed in this topic and in the Feedback area. It is my opinion that an automatic/online translation is not enough for that task. I don't want to enter into ambiguos discussions about what is a off-topic log or what is the quality of a log. That responsibility was laid on the shoulders of the cache owners when the guidelines indicate that he must monitor the quality of the post to the cache listing. I learned from this topic that not all guidelines are being forced to be followed. The suggestion asks for an update of the guidelines. In this topic I found another reason to update them or, at least, to point which guidelines a cache owner, or if you prefer, a geocacher in the role of the cache owner, should follow and which ones he can ignore when he submits a new listing to be published. Not the finder but the author of a log posted in a foreign geocache. Any kind of log. Accordingly to what came to my knowledge and accordingly to what I learned from this topic, GS is favouring the authors of the logs. In my opinion this is unfair that a cache owner has all the responsibilities that he accepted and, if he decides to know exactly what the author of the log wrote, GS supports the author of the log that refuses to supply a translation. It happened and it may happen again. And that's why I think that the best thing to do is raise the problem in the Groundspeak foruns and not archiving all caches nor doing to the others what we didn't like the others did to us (generally speaking, because I don't want to point any special country, language, group of geocachers, individuals or past situations). I'm defending an opinion and a suggestion posted in the Feedback area because I think it is the right place to do it.

I don't want to point any specific examples that happened in the past. They are closed and no one should came to the foruns to try to change a decision taken. My concern is to the future. To try to equilibrate the treatment that is being given to cache owners when they have a dispute like this. As I said, I think it is unfair this situation. And I think cache owners deserve to get the logs directly from the authors, in a language they understand, specifically if they have the responsibilities that are presently in the guidelines. And, repeating it again, for that kind of responsibilities an automatic translator is not enough, in my opinion. In the last situation that came to my knowledge, the person that felt himself abandoned by GS in his role as a cache owner, wanted to archive all his caches - I hope he doesn't do that. Other person suggested that we should log all foreign caches in our language. Myself, and several other cachers, told that we shouldn't do in foreign caches what we didn't like they did to ours. And I added, that if we don't agree with what's happening, then Grounspeak foruns and Feedback area and are the best places to say it and to try to change things. That's what I'm doing. Trying. That's my concern. Not for the closed situations but for the new ones that will happen in the future. No matter what language or country, it will happen. The other specific question was already answered by Cezanne. Thanks.

I am not discussing any off topic log in particular. If a log is off topic or not, it was laid on the cache owners arbitrariness by the guidelines. That is why I feel that a totally accurate translation is essential and that is why I think that the an online/automatic translation is not reliable. I'm not willing that every cache owner should delete the logs that appear to be offtopic, etc... Only that the cache owners get the logs directly from the author in a language they can understand (already identified before several times).

I don't need to explain what I regard as being offtopic, counterfeit, etc.... That's not the point! That responsibility was laid over the cache owners when the guidelines refers that the owner should monitor posts in the cache page for quality control, and that they should delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate. My point, is that if the cache owner has that responsibilities, then he should have logs written directly from the author and not from an automatic translation. And that it is unfair that the cache owner has all the responsibilities, including seeking for translations if he wants to understand correctly the log, and that it is unfair that the author of the log is supported by Groundspeak when he refuses to supply an english version, or translates the log. I think that cache owners should be treated equally on this matter. Please, as I said, I can only repeat myself over and over. I I am sorry on that. I thought you were referring to some mistyping errors i'm doing or some less correct sentences in my posts - i'm not editing my posts, they came out as i write. About the risk that it would increase the "TFTC" logs, I think that who is capable of creating an account in the Groundpeak's sites is capable of writing something more than a "TFTC", if he wants.

No, I don't have any more detailed check in mind. It's only what's in this topic - and in the Feedback area - and I can only repeat myself over and over about what is my suggestion. I am sorry, again, because my english is not perfect. But, I never would argue that something written by me was misunderstood because of an automatic translation.

I am sorry but I don't want to enter in the discussion about the quality of the logs. The point is if the cache owner has means to completely understand the log, directly from the author, because he has the responsibility to monitor logs in some details that falls in the interpretation area - "off-topic and otherwise inappropriate". In my opinion, no, and that's why a made the suggestion to change the guidelines. It appears to me that the responsibility that cache owners has on their shoulders are not 100% possible.

I'm not trying to define quality of the logs. I'm not the one who asks cache owners to "monitor quality control of post to the cache page". I'm trying to fight for the readability of the logs by cache owners when they have that responsability. And for the right of the cache owner to ask for a human translation from the author of the log, and for the right to be treated equaly by Groundspeak when a conflict arises because of this particular situation. So, do I have your votes?

Please, I never meant 'local language'. I said, language in which the cache listing was written ...or english.

I'm sorry to know that. I think that every individual, every person counts. That's what I think is unfair. Cache owners and log authors should be treated equally. The suggestion in the Feedback is not asking any type of ALRs. It is asking for the readability of the logs by cache owners when they have to monitor the quality of the logs - accordingly to the actual guidelines. Please note that I already dropped the term 'rule' and accepted a suggestion to change it to a "recommendation" or guideline that the logs should be written in english.

Quoting myself. If the guidelines are outdated update them, so the cache owners knows exactly what to expect when submitting a listing for approval. Please note that, by the actual guidelines, the owner is also in charge of... Then it follows, How can a cache owner monitors the quality of the logs, and use his powers of deleting logs carefully, based in a log that he doesn't understand or based in its online/automatic translation? Isn't it safer that the log is written in a language he understands (*) or in a human translation supplied by the author of the log? But, I still think that cache owners should have the right to ask to the author of the log for a human translation and, in case of a conflict, GS should support the cache owner. Even for the sake of a reward of his effort of having created the cache and maintaining it. (*) the language in which the cache listing was written or english.

The idea posted in the Feedback area suggests to use the language in which the cache listing was written (not the local language!) or english. Completely agree! In my country the older cachers are consistently suggesting newer ones that every geocache should have an english version or at least the important instructions to find the cache and the hints translated to english. Some years back, when there was not this boom of newer caches every day, everywhere, we had a team that wrote human translations and sent them to the owners of caches listed only in our language. I was part of that team. We, defend that any cache in the world should be understandable to any visitor geocacher and english is the language for that task. In the suggestion posted in the Feedback area, it is defended that logs from any visitor should be understandable to the cache owner, especially when the cache owner has the responsibilities presented in the guidelines. If an online/automatic translator is enough for a visitor to understands the important part to find a cache written in a local language, I think that it is not enough for a cache owner to decide correctly if a log written by a foreign cacher can be considered as being "off-topic or otherwise inappropriate".

Of course, from the point of view that a owner deserves to know what the others write in their trackables, yes. But, as guidelines doesn't require that TB owners should check logs for "off-topic or otherwise inappropriate" content, I agree that translators are enough for the task - if the owner succeeds in identifying the language he doesn't understand. btw: I already said that in a PM to GermanyBert but now in public; no, I haven't used a translator to write all these posts. I am sorry if my english skills are not as good as they should be. But these words are mine and I assume all responsibilities for them.

Portuguese (Angola, Brasil, Cabo Verde, Guiné-Bissau, Moçambique, Portugal, São Tomé e Príncipe e Timor-Leste) : Muito obrigado pela cache!

Do you trust in an automatic translator to say to a geocache owner that a log, written in a language he/she doesn't understand, "appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate. " ? This is not merely a matter of cache maintenance because it is not needed that a log be "bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate". It is only needed that a log appear to be "bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate. " And, how do you check if a dnf is "bogus" or "counterfeit"? Any kind of log (found, dnf, note) specially if generated by an automatic translator, can be interpreted as being "off-topic or otherwise inappropriate"! Do you trust in an automatic translator for this task? Do you think it's fair that a geocache owner, that has all the responsabilities he/she accepted when submitting a listing to be published, still has to do the effort to translate a log written in a language he/she doesn't understand and, in some situations, he/she may not even recognize the language in order to pick the correct settings in the automatic translator for, at the minimum, to try to understand it? Do you think this is a fair situation? If the geocache owner decides to ask for the translation, directly to the author of the log, isn't fair that Groundspeak should support the geocacher that is being complying with the point 2.1 of the guidelines (Geocache maintenance/page upkeep) if the author of the log refuses to change it or, at least, to supply an english version to the cache owner? Have your say and, if you agree, give your votes here in this suggestion in the Feedback area: http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/2255734-logs-in-understandable-language (don't miss the clarification/aditional points I added yesterday as a result of the first comments and doubts that appeared). This is not a request for an alr. This is a request for a guideline change, promoting readability of all logs by geocache owners and, in case of a conflict, that Groundspeak supports the geocache owner and not the person who made the log and refuses to supply a translation or to change the log to a language that can be undoubtedly understood by the geocache owner. Even if you have English as mother language, you may, some day in the future, receive a log in one of your geocaches, written by a foreing geocacher, in a language you don't even know what it could be, and you may want to know what he exactly wrote, no matter if it is a found, dnf or note. Thank you. ps: I was authorized by two of the forum leaders/moderators, to make a post promoting a suggestion in the Feedback area.

Está feito! Acredito que tenha agora menos visitas mas, espero, melhores visitas porque agora só lá vai quem tem mesmo tempo para dispensar à cache. Aproveitei a deslocação e verifiquei também a minha outra cache da zona Oeste, e para trocar contentores por versões sem "saco preto". É um processo que tenho andado a fazer gradualmente.

Obrigado.

Receio que tenha deixado a ideia de que ia fazer um buraco na rocha. Se deixei essa ideia, não, não se tratava disso. Eu apenas pretendia aproveitar os buracos naturais da rocha calcária, erodida pela acção da água e do vento, que nalgumas zonas formam buracos e era num desses buracos que pretendia passar o cabo de nylon (nylon para danificar o menos possivel a rocha - se fosse aço já poderia danificar mais). Por outro lado, não pretendia, com este cabo de nylon, impedir a remoção voluntária da cache mas apenas o desviar inadvertido da mesma ou a sua recolocação noutro local que não o escolhido para a mesma. De qualquer forma, acatarei a decisão e não procederei com a ideia avançada. Irei apenas mudar a cache de local (dentro das distâncias aceitáveis), tentando encontrar um novo spot que seja mais óbvio no momento da cache ser guardada após o achamento e logação.

Boas. Esta pergunta poderá ser um pouco básica (a mim parece-me) mas, mesmo assim, achei melhor esclarecer-me no local próprio visto que não encontrei resposta à minha questão espcífica. Sei que não se pode enterrar caches, convém não colocar em muros, etc, etc, etc... mas, pode-se prender uma cache ao chão? Mais especificamente, a uma rocha, tipo lapiás? A situação é a seguinte; GCD03E, "Furna Que Sopra", esta cache não "pára quieta", e isto já foi por mim comprovado em mais que uma visita ao local, e depois torna-se difícil encontrá-la (até para mim!). Até já tornei a dica o mais genérica possível porque estava farto de "levar porrada" por causa da dica não corresponder à localização da cache. Agora, lembrei-me de prender a cache ao local onde a quero. Para isso já comprei um cabo de nylon de 3mm e dipositivo de amarração. O cabo terá ao comprimento suficiente para a cache ser logada num raio de 2 metros. Estarei a infringir alguma guideline se fizer esta alteração? Penso ir lá este Domingo escolher um nova localização dentro da mesma área e que me permita fixar a cache ao spot (os lapiases são porreiros para isto porque têm buracos) mas achei melhor perguntar antes de fazer. Obrigado antecipadamente pela ajuda.

Try this site http://www.maps-gps-info.com/free-gps-maps.html ...and have a nice trip to Madeira.

Tenho o " 2008 Google Maps Versão 2.3.0.9 http://mobile.google.pt "

No meu dispositivo (Symbian) faço o seguinte para aceder aos Google Maps e ver os landmarks (caches) no mapa e navegar até eles; <Menu> <Maps> <Google Maps> (está-se no Google Maps online no telemóvel/dispositivo) Depois, para escolher um landmark (cache); <Options> <Favorites> (acede-se ao écran dos landmarks e escolhe-se um) De seguida, define-se como destino, escolhendo-o usando a opção get directions e escolhe-se um ponto de partida (que pode ser um outro landmark - infelizmente não permite definir a localização actual como ponto de partida... ou não consegui encontrar isso). Quanto à segunda questão, não, o Google Maps é por definição um mapa online e, ao comum dos utilizadores não é possível aceder-lhes offline.

Is there a way to refuse souvenirs? I mean, to have the option not to show them at all in my profile, as i can choose not to discover trackables? For me, geocaching is to go out and enjoy nature and/or places that i wouldn't knew without a cache... How does the Souvenir tab change that? Not much, in fact. I just like to have the freedom to opt. I don't like the vanity fair that geocaching is turning into and i would like to keep it as much as possible as i found it for the first time... No problem. I think i can ignore that tab. ;-)