brendan714

That link seems to be information for a logger disputing a CO. Is the process the same if I'm a CO disputing a logger?

Thanks for the kind words and your opinion on the logging. Yes, you got it. Thanks for your opinion. Well, partly based on the responses I received here I deleted a few logs. One already responded (their 2nd deleted log now) and said they will re-calculate the math and send it again (which is interesting because they've never sent me any calculations at all). Let's see what happens. If they log an illegitimate find again I suppose I'll have to go to the reviewer. Since this EC is in quite literally one of the most popular tourist locations in our country I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by the variety of cachers and their caching habits.

I'm not interested in doing away with the math equation. As I mentioned above I think the math section makes this EC unique from others in the area. I'm also not necessarily interested in having "everyone get through to the end". The majority of my caches are intended to be a unique physical or mental challenge. That in turn means that not everyone will be able to do them. The issue here is moreso having geocachers who log finds who do not answer / refuse to answer all the required questions. LOL

Yes, exactly. There's something about saying "I am incapable of answering" that leads me to think they need to try again. Give it a shot, get it wildly wrong, and you will likely receive an "ok!" message from me followed by the appropriate corrections.

I typically do exactly that Most who respond seem to be insistent that they are incapable of doing the math. The responses I sometimes get from deleting logs and "stealing their smiley" can sometimes be quite hostile. All I can think is "you never earned your smiley"... Honestly I don't care at all if they get it exactly right, I'd just like to see them give it an honest attempt!

I think the math is interesting and very relevant to the EC so I'd rather not remove it. I think this math piece actually gives this EC a very unique feel from many other ECs in the area. Many cachers enjoy those 2 questions very much. (I thought the math would be doable by everyone but clearly this is not the case)

Same problem, the browse map is literally unusable and useless at present.

Looking for opinions... I have several ECs that are in areas frequented by tourists from all over the globe. One requires what I thought was some easy math: https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC6271J_why-is-lake-louise-colourful A good number of cachers simply refuse to answer questions 6 and 7, usually with the response "I am not good at math" or similar. I recently deleted such a pair of logs and said they should at least TRY to answer all the questions as part of the EC. They messaged back saying they are "incapable" of answering the questions as they are "very bad at physics" and they re-posted their finds. Would you re-delete? Or just shrug it off?

Same problem

My comments after what has now been a couple months of using the search map: 1) My most important observation about the search map is that I don't usually use the search map. I use the browse map way more often. Probably 99 times out of 100 I will use the browse map over the search map. It's pretty simple really: I need to browse to an area before I can search in more detail. The browse map really should be the default map. I think it's about time I invest the time to investigate those browser scripts that can force the browse map to the default as it seems HQ isn't going to change it back. 2) The search map is really laggy. When I zoom, the map takes a good while to catch up. Panning is slow and laggy. Clicking on caches takes some lag before the info pops up. In general, there's just a lot of lag. Somewhat ironically, the "old" browse map is WAY faster. 3) Let's say I want to search all the T5s in a town. I zoom out, choose T5s only in the filters, click done and the T5s appear. Perfect! When I zoom or pan the map at all, the "search this area" tab appears. I thought I just searched this area? Okay, anyway, I can zoom in and look around. Problem is, if I go outside of my initial search area, I don't even know it! There's no warning that I'm outside my initial search area. If I click "search this area" to check if there are any caches my initial search missed, now I've just searched a zoomed in portion. I have to zoom back out if I want to capture the whole area again. Very tedious and not very user friendly. In my opinion, a checkbox to "re-search automatically" would make this map way better. Or maybe a big red line showing my search area so I know when I'm browsing outside of it? 4) I really wish there was a way to search attributes using the search map (other than making a unique PQ). 5) A little off topic, but I also really wish I could separate out power trail caches and challenge caches. The way it is now, the search map is a somewhat useful tool. I like that I can actively search, say, T5 caches on the map. That's awesome! But the lagginess of the map and how tedious it is to zoom, re-search, etc, really takes away from it. It just doesn't feel refined.

Hi Brendan. My name is Brendan too. That's cool! You know what's not cool? Having to email my local reviewer for a coordinate check every time I want to hide an urban cache because I can't remember the location of all the unknown caches I've found. What would make everyone's life easier? Having a simple checkbox on the map "show all caches at corrected coordinates". Make it sticky too, please, because I can tell you for a fact I would leave that option on forever. The "fix" you made was an "unfix" for me. Just my opinion. And a few other miscellaneous comments re the search map while I'm at it: 1) The browse map should be the default map (I've mentioned this before in this thread but I feel it needs to be repeated) 2) When I scroll, pan, zoom, whatever, the search map should automatically re-search for me. I shouldn't have to tell it every single time. It is so inefficient. 3) When my search returns more than the maximum limit, why am I not alerted in any way? It's pretty important so I know I'm not seeing everything I should be. 4) When I click "View Larger Map" on my new cache pages the link to the map breaks. (Sorry, we couldn’t find "GCXXXX") 5) In general the search map seems slow and clunky. It certainly isn't ready for its grand 'default map debut' that it has already received.

My 2 cents: Please make the default map the browse map. I appreciate the improvements to the search map, but please, the browse map needs to always be the default. Thanks.

Not sure whether it helps the tech team or not, but when I submit a found it log on a cache and mark it as a favourite, the page never loads. But oddly enough, when I go back to the map and click on the cache it shows everything like the log submitted properly. A found it log without a favourite would submit and go to the "log submitted" page perfectly fine.

Came here to see if I was the only one... been happening for a few days now... the website is so slow that it is practically unusable right now.

Ohhhh.... I didn't realize there was a distinction between the "search map" and the "browse map". I thought this was meant to be a replacement of the browse map! I now understand the difference! All of the comments from my previous post still apply, but knowing this new map is a SEARCH map, I'd like to reiterate the need for the following features: Search by attributes Search by hidden date range The ability to directly take a GPX file from search results With these features the new search map would be a very powerful tool - easier and quicker than Pocket Queries too!

I interact with the map more than anything else on the Geocaching website, so I was immediately drawn to try the new map. While I think it has the potential to be quite good, I've noticed a few things that in my mind could use improvement: It runs slow on my computer and every time I move the map or adjust the zoom, all the caches re-load from a center point outwards. It happens quickly, but that said when I load the old map it doesn't do this. Overall the old map seems much faster to me. No 'date hidden' or 'cache owner' info immediately available? I have to click on the page to get details like that. These are very important pieces of information that should be shown up front, IMO. Only 3 map layers? What about my favourite layer, the Thunderforest Landscape with its lovely topo lines and OpenStreetMap hiking trails? The Geocaching layer is not a suitable replacement for some of the Open maps; it really needs a lot of work to get to the same quality. As for the 2 Google layers, to be honest I never use the Google maps while perusing the geocaching map. I also find the Google satellite imagery ranges from bad to practically non-existent in some areas where I live and play (Canada). The Esri World Imagery is much better. Selecting "More Info" on the left hand side should open the cache page in a separate tab/window. The colour of owned caches (bright yellow with a star) looks an awful lot like the colour of found caches. They are hard to differentiate. I assume pressing "search this area" every time I want to move the map is simply an intended limitation on this new map feature. If not, yikes, that's very poor functionality. When I zoom out far and hit "search this area" it misses caches. I'm still not a fan of grey text on a white background. The difficulty, terrain and size icons are hard to read quickly. I liked how in the old map the unfilled stars were clearly shown. On the new map the unfilled icons are a very light grey and are very hard to see. The size icon is especially hard to read (all the sizes look pretty much the same). I'd rather just the text than the text and the icons. I like how when I clicked on a cache with the old map, the info popped up right above where I was looking. With the new map, and especially on a big screen, it feels more cumbersome to click on a cache on the far right of the page, then move my eyes and the mouse to the far left of the page to get the info I'm looking for. I would prefer an icon showing the cache type rather than grey text on a white background above the cache name showing the cache type. It's easier to read a coloured icon. Instead of selecting several caches and putting them on a list, is there a way to immediately put the selection into a downloadable GPX? That would be swift and easy! I like how I can pick out an individual cache from many when I'm zoomed out and there are a lot of caches around. Couldn't do that well with the old map. I like the filters. It's by far the best feature of the new map. Honestly without the filters I'd say this map is a big step backwards. I'd like to see attribute filters too, that'd be fantastic. And if there was only a way to filter out power trails...?

For some reason when I go to upload a photo I get the error: Something went wrong with the image upload, please try again later. But the image still uploads properly. There's also an error message when I delete photos.

If this is 2018's major summer geocaching promotion it gets a big ol' "yawn" from me. Find 100 caches, get 13 souvenirs. There are a lot of ideas going through my mind, but I'll keep this post simple and just say that I expected something more.

This page is always my go-to if I am having trouble figuring out difficulty/terrain ratings: http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/

The new edit page is less efficient for uploading photos. First, I have to click edit. Then, scroll down past everything to add images. Then, I'm forwarded to the separate image uploading page where I can upload my photos as usual. That's one extra click, a fair bit of scrolling down, and then I have to find the one line that says "add images".

I think it would be VERY helpful if this map showed my corrected coordinates of mystery caches I've solved.

1. Go to space. 2. Watch the entire Earth for a while so you can say you visited everywhere. 3. Make a new virtual "Take a picture of yourself on Earth." 4. Profit and build a mansion with all your FPs. But seriously, it's going to take me a while to adjust to the "fact" that it is now possible in some cases for a single geocache to be loggable from multiple spots with different information. If indeed true, I need to get to the drawing board on some new Earthcaches....!

In that case, pri0n must have visited all ~70 possible places that his virtual cache could be logged from within the last 2 months.

It's exactly those 2 points where I still think the rules are bent. What if the "location" is extended to all of Earth? How can you log the same cache from different places? "Take a photo of your GPSr with one of the 7 new Wonders of the World in the background." So according to the rules and all the discussion here, this would be a valid new virtual cache that could be completed from 7 different corners of our planet. I am astounded that such a cache would indeed follow the guidelines!

If pri0n's virtual cache is really that much different than the brass cap cache, then following that logic it would be possible to make a ridiculous fictional virtual as follows: The posted coordinates are my house. The requirements are: (a) Find any house in the legal boundaries of this city and email the address numbers on the house and the name of the street it's on; (b) Post a picture of your GPSr next to the house you chose; (c) Try to choose a different house than everybody else. So every house in the city could be used to log the cache. You could get the coordinates for each of the thousands of houses and post them on the cache page if you really wanted to. Everyone's log info that they send to fulfill the requirements could be different so long as there are more houses than loggers. Or maybe everyone just uses my house at the posted coordinates and everyone's logging info is the same. If it is true that such a virtual cache is legal and publishable, then I stand 100% corrected and flabbergasted.