brendan714

If you look in the right place there actually are little pointers. Here's a snapshot of the preview box in the lower right on one of my cache pages. Notice how nicely contrasted the icons are from one another (and from the background)? And how easy they are to see and identify? Wow, that's one good lookin' map style right there!

Well, I'll add on my two cents. I've got to say, I don't really like it. Here are a few reasons why: - The same shape for every cache (regardless of cache type, found caches or owned caches) really hurts my eyes. I don't like how colour is now the only distinguishing feature. Traditionals and unknowns are very hard to distinguish unless you're up close. - I feel really bad for colourblind folk. - The colour of traditionals and owned caches are too similar, and both are very similar to the colour of parks in the Geocaching map layer (and other map layers too). - Disabled caches are almost invisible on many map layers, including the Geocaching layer. The grey circle blends in to the grey background to the point where I can barely see it at all. - On some layers, without distinguishing shapes, multis blend in to roads and unknown caches blend in to water features. - All caches types are difficult to distinguish between various features and locations on Google Map, as Google Maps also uses circles of roughly the same size (depending on zoom level). - The white star in the owned cache icon isn't visible at zoom levels 13 and 12. It's just a white dot? At these higher zooms, owned caches are practically indistinguishable from traditional caches. - Premium member caches are indistinguishable. - At far zoom levels the cache icons appear really small (and it's hard to see cache types with only differences in colour), and at closer zoom levels the cache icons seem very large? There's a definite change in icon size between zoom levels 13 and 14. It's kinda weird? - The whole style looks cartoonish and juvenile. I really liked the previous map layout; I don't think it was broken or needed fixing at all. And in my mind the map is probably the most important feature for geocaching.com. This new update seems to remove information and make map readability more difficult.

When does false hope turn into none at all? It's been nearly 5 years! I imagine a team of professionals could hammer this idea out in a couple days. Okay, maybe it's more work than I imagine, but it's not like they're reinventing the wheel or anything. It's just an attribute, but it would be a major help both to those looking for powertrails and those looking to avoid powertrails. Ditto. It's been 5 years. I would think the framework for this would already be in place from mystery caches, and the implementation would be straight-forward. I don't think anyone would argue that either of these requests are "unrealistic". In fact, they seem rather logical and would be helpful to many.

+1 Hans +1 +1 +1

I don't have a lot of data to draw from, but here's my closest guess as to how the algorithm is coded: If last log = DNF OR if last log = Needs Maintenance; And if last found > 2 years (maybe less); And if no recent user maintenance; Then flag for maintenance. It does not seem that there is any weight given to the experience of the DNFer, the contents of the DNF log, or the potential difficulty or local conditions during the DNF. Of course, this would be much too difficult to program, and that's where the reviewer steps in. It seems that the reviewer is automatically alerted when the note is sent. Unfortunately the reviewer also did not seem to consider the inexperience of the DNFers in my case - it only mattered that there were DNFs. It turns out that the inexperience of the DNFers meant they were not able to find caches that I (relatively speaking, a much more experienced cacher), found with ease. However, as seen with a cache like GC2XY1B, even a single DNF from a very experienced cacher does not necessarily mean there is cause for concern.

Apparently the Land Managers to the North are much more forgiving. Down my way there's no meaning to the word "grandfathered". The only word they understand is Archive I guess we should feel lucky then... Although the last few months have been major steps backwards

A bit dramatic. It's not like someone else can't place a cache at the same location at some point. Incorrect. The land managers (Alberta Parks) are refusing new geocache hides in locations such as these. Existing caches are adopted in. Ergo, if it gets archived, it's gone forever. No second chance or new cache. That was my motive for adopting in the first place. The reviewer is very aware of this issue, which is why I'm surprised a more reasonable approach wasn't taken rather than "do something in 30 days or it gets archived" (there's also the issue of why they were disabled in the first place). Maybe your information is not up to date: Link for reference: https://wiki.Groundspeak.com/display/GEO/Alberta I'm assuming that if the cache were in one of these sensitive areas of concern to the Park Management, it would already be Archived without much ceremony. I'm not sure if you're a reviewer or what, but unfortunately your information is out of date. There is a contact who works for Alberta Parks who is responsible for geocache placements. Caches off established trails (like these two) will now be rejected. This is a new development as of about a few months ago. The documents (like the one you linked to) haven't been updated yet to reflect this. I've already had several cache placements rejected myself, and several other online requests rejected. Existing caches, however, are grandfathered in.

A bit dramatic. It's not like someone else can't place a cache at the same location at some point. Incorrect. The land managers (Alberta Parks) are refusing new geocache hides in locations such as these. Existing caches are adopted in. Ergo, if it gets archived, it's gone forever. No second chance or new cache. That was my motive for adopting in the first place. The reviewer is very aware of this issue, which is why I'm surprised a more reasonable approach wasn't taken rather than "do something in 30 days or it gets archived" (there's also the issue of why they were disabled in the first place).

Just a quick note to say that the two caches in question, GCH0T7 and GC1DRKG, were both found in perfect condition all along. After a chat with the reviewer, I gather the disabling was due to the DNFs. My argument is that one or two DNFs should not be the cause of a disabling (and eventual archival), especially when the DNFers had fewer than 20 finds. The reviewer also said that s/he was alerted to these caches because of the automated message from HQ that I neglected to respond to (because I figured the caches were fine - they were). I'm disappointed because had I not adopted these caches, they would have been archived, never to return (the land manager is not allowing new caches in these locations). Fortunately, they are alive and in great shape with a caring owner for others to find!

Really? Why not save the effort for when there is an actual problem? My Zephyr Creek cache was hidden eight years ago and gets found less than twice per year. It's an ammocan in a fairly remote location with a big enough logbook to last a century at this pace of finds. The cache very likely will outlive me. Checking in it every year "just because" isn't really worth it if you weigh the cost vs benefit. If someone reports a problem with it, THEN I'll invest the gas, the energy, and the time to do maintenance, but the once per year minimum you promote doesn't make sense in this case. Exactly.

If this is true, then why is it that the bot targets bad caches and not bad cache owners? It doesn't appear that cacher/owner experience or maintenance track record has any impact on the bot (or the reviewer for that matter). If there are indeed a few bugs or quirks with the bot, then I'd hope the reviewer would catch this before disabling. This didn't appear to happen and the result is a mandatory physical visit. Here's my interpretation of the coding of the bot with the limited data that I have: If last log = DNF OR if last log = Needs Maintenance; And if last found > 2 years (maybe less); And if no recent user maintenance; Then flag for maintenance. Lonely geocaches hidden in rocks in the mountains don't NEED to be checked every 5 years or even every decade just to 'make sure' they're okay. I once found an old summit register from the early 1900s - which dates back long before the days of geocaching and hard plastic containers. But of course it goes on a case-by-case basis depending on the cache, the location and the cache owner. I happen to think the reviewer could have scrutinized the bot's suggestion a little more closely in this case.

I was hoping that by ignoring the bot email that the reviewer would take one look at the cache and agree with me. Guess not? I think there needs to be a little more scrutiny on the part of the reviewer. Bots are sometimes wrong. But a human should be able to realize the mistake.

I wouldn't be surprised if more of them get notes, especially after the topic was brought to the forefront here. That's fine, but it STILL doesn't answer why the good caches were disabled.

I agree, I hastily sent a note while on my phone in the car (riding shotgun, not driving ). But why was is disabled in the first place? Are other caches in good shape going to find the same fate?

Let's analyze GC1DRKG. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1DRKG_mount-chester-summit Found once since it was found. DNFed once by a cacher who (at the time) had 12 finds. Does this really require an email from GS? Do you think the reviewer looked hard enough to realize this? If there wasn't a DNF, I guarantee 100% that the cache would not be disabled right now. So why does one single DNF by a cacher with 12 finds complaining of signal bounce result in a disabling of the cache? The cache hasn't been found in eight years. Regardless of how remote it is, it's not unreasonable to expect a minimal level of cache maintenance within eight years. Write a detailed log about your recent visit to it, problem solved. Agreed. I just have to catch up on my hundreds of logs.... But why was it disabled in the first place? That's my main concern here.

You've got it.

So you know there are problems (or not even there) and you didn't disable/fix them and are mad that the reviewer saw there were problems and disabled them? You just answered your own question. No. There are two caches in question. GC1DRKG and GCH0T7. They are likely in good shape. Both were DNFed by cachers with fewer than 20 finds. This was enough to prompt the reviewer to disable the caches. There are other caches I adopted that I realize are in rough shape. If anything, they are the ones that should be disabled, not the ones that actually ARE disabled. I would not be complaining if the ones that actually do require maintenance were disabled. There's something wrong with this process. I think it stems back to the automated cache maintenance bot. The caches it identified that "might" need maintenance actually don't require maintenance.

...which is exactly what I did for the ones that are in rough shape?

Let's analyze GC1DRKG. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1DRKG_mount-chester-summit Found once since it was found. DNFed once by a cacher who (at the time) had 12 finds. Does this really require an email from GS? Do you think the reviewer looked hard enough to realize this? If there wasn't a DNF, I guarantee 100% that the cache would not be disabled right now. So why does one single DNF by a cacher with 12 finds complaining of signal bounce result in a disabling of the cache?

No, unlikely, and I'm not deleting DNFs. I don't think there's any additional info. The bots saw that the most recent logs were DNFs (by very inexperienced cachers, but the bots probably don't know that) and the last find was years ago. But the cache If there isn't a need to check a cache, why check it? Sure, if you're in the area, give 'er, but climb a mountain just to make sure that the container you placed under a rock is still in good shape under the same rock? Nope, that's silly. I already addressed this but I will repeat. The land managers are tightening down geocaching regulations in many of these areas. If the caches are archived and I go to seek permission for a new cache, I might not get it. So if I didn't step up and adopt the caches, they'd be lost forever. In my mind, that sucks for future cachers. So I stepped up to the plate and did something about it. I really don't have to justify this but I will. I just finished up writing my Master's thesis and am preparing for my defence. I recently got engaged. I am currently on vacation. I don't really have the time right now to do one of my good ol' 4000+ character logs with lots of pictures that I love to do. Maybe in a few months when things cool down. I visited the cache. It's fine. Nuf said. The cache should have never been disabled. I have seriously thought about this, believe me. Unfortunately our reviewer doesn't have a lot of patience. S/He gives 30 days and expects some action. Saying "I haven't gotten to it yet" doesn't usually yield a good response. So instead I'm letting them sit even though they probably should be disabled. If the weather is poor this year in September like it was last year, I might not get to these caches until next summer. It will take some time, but I will get to them all ASAP.

Sorry, I laughed out loud. The vast majority of these caches are a 2-5 hour drive from home. The roads aren't great. There is off-trail hiking, sometimes difficult scrambling for up to 8-10 hours. These caches aren't a walk in the park. It will take months to visit them all and get them up to speed. It can't happen overnight.

I did get an email from Geocaching HQ a few weeks ago but ignored it. I'm sure the reviewer also got the email and figured it needed to be disabled ASAP. There's more than meets the eye... all of the DNFers had fewer than 20 finds. The reviewer seems to be DEMANDING a physical check. This is irrelevant to the topic. I know these caches need maintenance, and if I can find the time this year after I hand in my thesis I will go. The areas are far from home with poor road access and difficult hikes. It isn't down the block. It might take me a few months, but I'll get there. The real question is, why did the reviewer disable the other two caches with the sole basis being one or two DNFs from inexperienced cachers? These caches are so remote that checking up on them regularly (unless there's a very valid reason to do so) is nearly impossible. I'm not prepared to scramble up a challenging mountain for 10 hours (plus a 2 hour drive each way) just to confirm that a cache I placed is right where I left it in good condition. I am prepared to do this if a few experienced cachers DNF or indicate that it needs a new container, etc. (But most experienced backcountry cachers in my area know to bring containers to help with the maintenance on such caches) See above. If it ain't broke (or recently reported to be broke), why fix it (or even check)? Wow, it's people like this that make me glad I don't visit these forums more often. Makes my blood boil. First point - the land managers in many of these areas are not permitting new geocaches, hence if they aren't adopted they are archived and lost forever. Many of the caches I adopted are missing, broken or in otherwise not great shape. How can I find them beforehand? Also, why would I waste my time going to find, then go ahead and adopt, then return and replace? Why not adopt then visit and replace if needed? I have time set aside to visit the caches that need maintenance. But that's not the topic we're discussing. Why were those two caches disabled by the reviewer based on DNFs by newbie cachers? I had ONE opportunity to adopt several caches from two different COs. They were very difficult to find and communicate with. I'm not going to say "oh wait, I have to go out and find them all first". I will remind you that these are all in the deep backcountry. The Glacier Trail cache was NOT a "crap replacement", thank you very much. There was a forest fire and the area was trashed. I replaced the container with a waterproof cache above the seasonal flooding area. A larger cache would not survive in that area given that there's a river beside the cache site that floods. Irrelevant to the topic. See above. I realize these caches are in bad shape and will hopefully be visiting soon. This isn't addressing the question I'm asking. I agree, thank you. Thank you Dan, I agree. It's the one-DNF-disable thing that troubles me. Thank you Ringrat.

Feel free to creep my account and find the caches to confirm my case. Just remember that the number of finds users have now doesn't represent the number of finds they had then. I have to kind of agree by saying that this sort of action seems to disincentivize the hiding of lonely or rarely found caches. It might also incentivize the practice of COs deleting DNFs. I've had more than a few of my DNFs deleted by various COs. Maybe this was the reason (I never asked / cared)?

(Disclaimer: I am not a noob - I have 100+ hides and 5000+ finds) The other day the reviewer disabled two geocaches I own. Both are in the deep backcountry of the Canadian Rockies, are found very infrequently and are challenging hides. Cache #1 was found once in July 2008. It was DNFed in September 2009 by a cacher with 12 finds (at the time) complaining of signal bounce. No recent activity until it was disabled by the reviewer this week. Cache #2 was last found in October 2010. It was DNFed by a cacher with 8 finds in October 2010, and again by a cacher with 19 finds in July 2015. Most recent activity was the disabling by the reviewer this week. The reviewer said that since it's been so long without a find on both caches that I must check on their condition, hence the disabling. Let me remind you again that these are in the backcountry and are rarely visited geocaches. I did visit one of the caches, which was in good shape. My question - since when are one or two DNFs cause for alarm bells, especially when the DNFs are from beginners? In my opinion, the extended time period without any activity or DNFs should not matter. If there are any reviewers in the crowd, what's your opinion? I'm all for proper cache maintenance from owners, etc, but this seems a little ridiculous to me.

OpenStreetMap data is becoming so good that, to be honest, I don't even use Google Maps at all while searching for geocaches anymore. I really liked the Mapbox Outdoors map for the city. Thunderforest Landscape remains my favourite for trails and hikes outside of town. I was a little sad to see Mapbox Outdoors exchanged back for MapQuest the other day!