thomfre

Awesome! Thanks

Writing this worked, I'm able to sign in again

I am unable to sign in on geocaching.com. I've tried logging in with both my own and my wife's account. My account works fine in the forums... Anyone else got this problem?

Thanks Sorry for posting in the wrong forum

NO. I read: Størelse: Liten and Størelse: L (which stands for Liten NOT for Large) What's wrong with that? Hans You have to look at the first picture, that's what you see before you start digging into the details. Size indicator = the green ring around the L, it is supposed to show a lot less green for small caches...

Look at the size indicator, the green bar. It displays full size.

"Liten" is small, but is indicated as large. When posting this, I realize that I'm not sure if this is a problem in the Android app, the iOS app or both. I'm just posting here since a lot of Norwegian cachers complain about this on Facebook.

When using Norwegian language in the app, the cache size changes. In Norwegian, "Small" is "Liten". The app reads this as "L" for "Large", and indicates that the size is large. I don't think this is the way you intended it to work

It started working again for me in Chrome after switching from http to https. I guess https should be forced

Rock Chalk, you rock! Thank you for joining the discussion, providing some answers and a good laugh. I see that a lot of the negativity towards the checkers and the info that is not available to them is based on lack of knowledge of Project-GC. Project-GC already have access to a lot of the data mentioned here, like old logs, elevation data etc (how do you think all the stats about elevation, logs etc. are made?). Project-GC just have to find a way to make it available to the challenge checkers. I guess that's going to happen rather quickly now. Here in Norway, several challenge caches have been denied because they were too difficult to verify without using PGC (not necessarily because it was complicated, but because PGC have a lot of information available). This change will limit some challenges, yes, but it will also create new possibilities for challenges we've never seen before. You just have to think outside the box. That can be your challenge as a challenge cache creator. Personally, I see this as a start on what I hope will result in updates to the API. Maybe we next year have lab cache finds in PGC? The game is evolving, let's evolve together with it!

Just an example to explain what I mean: Actually, the danger with difficult caches with a rating D=4.5* for example is that you will get lots of logs from people who have not solved the puzzle/visited the stages and their logs are demotivating for owners of such caches. by changing the rating to 4* or 5* (much more common) it will be much easier to avoid that such cachers visit your cache. That's a "danger" with all non-traditional caches. People play this game differently, and as long as they all follow the guidelines, there's not much you can do about it. Setting the wrong D/T to avoid having the cache used for challenges is in my opinion not any better than setting it wrong to have it used for challenges. D/T should be set to what is right. Logs received on my easy traditional hides are far more demotivating than any of the logs I've received on my harder caches. I don't see how this change is suddenly going to change that. But anyway, as a cache hider I have to accept that not all cachers cache like I do. Not visiting all stages are their loss, not your. If you don't want people to find your caches, either make them harder, make them PMO or hide them far far away from any roads...

I would start by searching, and then try a few. You could also ask in the community support forum.

Why would you care? If somebody bothers you to add an attribute or something, feel free to ignore them. I can't imagine the number of people emailing cache owners to add something to their cache page will be significant. It's not only about adding/removing attributes. For example, if one owns a cache with a D/T combination that is rare but does not want the cache to be overrun by people not interested into the cache the only other option is not change to D/T rating but that then also inconvenience cachers with a real interest into the cache. Does it really matter if someone finds your cache because he/she want to use it to qualify for a challenge? Why are their motivation for finding caches any more wrong then your motivation for finding caches? I don't see how this change will cause any more emails to COs than before. I've never gotten any questions to add or change something in my caches to help someone qualify for a challenge, and I don't think that's gonna start happen now because of this change. If for som strange reason it does happen now, I believe the amount of new cachers are the cause, not this new requirement.

In Norway we have several existing challenges requiring various numbers of caches related to churches. And they all have checkers, like this one: http://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC5CRAC/907 I made that checker, and the way it works is that it simply checks for words like "kirke" (Norwegian for church), "church" etc in the cache name. To get new caches like this published, it's as easy as just requiring xx number of finds of caches containing the word "church" in the name. My checker is generic, and the same checker is already used for other caches, like xx number of bridges, xx number of TB-hotels etc. I am more concerned about anything related to total find count and milestones, as lab caches counts towards both officially. But PGC have no knowledge of lab caches... Will challenges like that only be available to those that doesn't have any lab cache finds?

The same block is also in place in Instagram, and I would guess in WhatsApp as well (all Facebook-products). My guess is that the massive amounts of links posted related to the CITO-week, combined with coord.info being a redirect service combined with recent issues on geocaching.com (I would guess that if Facebook detects that a redirect service is "hiding" something from them, a red flag is raised immediately) caused Facebook's "anti virus" to mark coord.info as malicious.

I see all posts including coord.info links have simply been deleted by FB. What happened that caused them to block coord.info? Too many posts linking to CITO-events maybe?

Why not? It's not unusual for businesses to subcontract work. It's not unreasonable that when looking at challenge checkers GS considered whether they should write it themselves, or use another organisation that already has the skillset to do it for them. Looking at the comments on Project-GC's challenge checker page it sounds like they've been properly engaged by Groundspeak to do this, and it wouldn't surprise me if GS were paying them to do it, and if Project-GC were switched on in their negotiations they could have got a deal giving them better access to the GC dataset as part of the deal. I suspect this is a good deal for Project-GC. It's not much different to you buying an HP PC and finding out that HP didn't make the disk drives. I'm not sure I think it's a good idea to require a challenge checker. But I do think it's a good idea to let third parties like Project-GC handle things they do good, instead of having Groundspeak programmers having to do everything themselves. Using Project-GC let Groundspeak focus on other issues, which is a good thing for all of us. There are many great apps built around the API, and it is nice to see Groundspeak giving them the attention they deserve.

I hope this change will include some mechanism for Project-GC to get more up-to-date data. There is a function for forcing Project-GC to update your finds already. Click on the big "Support" button, then on "Self-support" and from there you can refresh find count, update finds etc.

Checkers can have optional parameters already. I have made some myself, which others have used to tag their own challenge caches with adjusted parameters. Becoming a challenge checker creator is not very hard, you only need to have basic knowledge of LUA (same scripting language that is used in Wherigo) and ask for permission from Project-GC.

According to the banner on the site, maintenance were supposed to be done yesterday. But the banner is still there, and I'm experiencing issues with both the site and the API now. Did you postpone it, and start it now instead? Or are there something else wrong?

Where did you get that information from? Project-GC uses the Live API, and does not need any pocket query to work.

Not a great plan to alter content either. Especially not content of older logs.

Yes, I'm reading my logs on geocaching.com, not on Project-GC. If it was fixed, it's broken again now :/

After testing Project-GC's tool for identifying logs that need conversion (http://project-gc.com/Tools/MarkdownIncompatibleLogs), I see that I have 5469 logs (~50% of my logs) that needs conversion. That's a lot for me to convert! But even worse, I saw that a lot of my logs on various challenge cahces now have been destroyed by markdown - like listing of dates, they are now numbered as a ordered list. We don't write dates differently here in Norway, so 23. mars is perfectly normal for us to write, and we don't want that to suddenly turn into 1. Mmrs when we save... I cannot understand how this can be interpreted as something else than a bug. You're not only changing the formatting, but you're changing the content itself. I don't mind you formatting it as a list, but please don't change the value.

Thank you for listening to us, Groundspeak! Just a few more things now, and at least I'll be happy My wishlist: Stop treating old logs as Markdown, as they may be wrongly formatted (though this has gotten a lot better with the newest changes) Let us run the new conversion tool in batch, I have 900+ logs from this summer with BBCode-links in them, plus a few thousand from the years before