Jump to content

thomfre

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    570
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by thomfre

  1. Do you take pictures of all logs you sign? PS: he was never asked to send it.
  2. Doesn't matter what you think. This is what the guidelines (that you linked to) say. But I fully agree that you have to check the log book before deleting anything...
  3. He said that he described the log book, including the order of the logs in it (which did not match the order online). How is that not additional evidence?
  4. I do what the guideline tell me to, I monitor the online cache page. The text before the guideline quote is: "To keep the online cache page up-to-date, the cache owner must"
  5. Long time since you read that link, Rikitan? The text is now saying: "Monitor logs for reported problems." and "Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate." Nowhere does it say that the CO have to check the physical log book to verify all finds. If we look here: https://www.geocaching.com/help//index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=204 You will also see that it says: "Email the log owner", which was not done at all here... The confusion caused here is from this CO, who regularly have discussions like this. He won't accept team signatures, even after Groundspeak have verified that it's perfectly OK. He won't even accept two signatures that appear to be written in the same handwriting. Maybe someone needs to take a chill pill...
  6. I would never sign a log with a UV pen myself, but why is it so strange when someone does it? How is that any different from signing with mud, blood, grass whatever? The only thing that is required, is to sign the log. Korsgat did exactly that. Why use so much time and energy on someone that actually signed, when there's so many that don't sign?
  7. You cannot verify because you don't have a UV light, or because you can't find the signature with a UV light? Have you given the loggers a chance to send you additional proof? Did you care to ask any of them before you deleted?
  8. Yes! He just waited until now to start deleting logs. Without asking the logger first. No, I'm not one of the loggers. But let's just say someone in this thread have made himself famous in Norway for making his own interpretations of the guidelines +1
  9. thomfre

    Error 500

    The link was there You simply had to click the Twitter-text in the error message.
  10. thomfre

    Error 500

    No Twitter account needed to check. There's still nothing there (HQ probably sleeping now): https://twitter.com/GoGeocaching The problem is also intermittent for me. I used direct links to dashboard and cache pages when I got this error.
  11. thomfre

    Error 500

    Something is wrong
  12. thomfre

    Error 500

    I see a lot of Error 500 (Your request resulted in an error. Please check Geocaching on Twitter for updates. We apologize for the inconvenience.) when browsing through geocaching.com now (dashboard, cache pages etc). No information on Twitter.
  13. The map itself isn't that bad (but your comment suggests that the Google Maps layer doesn't use vector tiles). The issue I have is with the caches, and they load just as slow on the Google Maps layer, as they do on the Geocaching layer. Edit: Google Maps doesn't use vector tiles. I don't think switching to vector tiles was a good move.
  14. It's not. It requires a lot more mouse movement than the old did to accomplish the same. And that's not a good thing.
  15. I thought you asked if you could get directly to the *new* map, like you could with the old. Sorry for misunderstanding. I fully agree. If the old map is lost, I see no reason to use geocaching.com anymore (just hope the Project-GC map is better than the new map here). It's where I spend most of my time on the site. And the new map is nowhere close to being able to replace the old map for me. It's too slow, and hard to use on high resolutions.
  16. It appears that too many of the input fields in the cache submission process is accepted without sanitizing the input properly. The cache page for this cache looks really ugly, probably because of a missing end tag: https://coord.info/GC6AHXY I've recently also seen issues where open tags in the "Hidden by" field caused all links on the page to go to the owner profile. Fields that have no reason to accept HTML, should not accept HTML...
  17. As more people start to edit their events, more and more events get default times added. Edit: I've been manually adding times to events for large parts of the world for 2+ years, so it's easy for me to see how this issue is spreading.
  18. Yes, new map: https://www.geocaching.com/play/map and old map: https://www.geocaching.com/map
  19. I really hope the old map get to continue to live. It's much smoother and faster to use, specially when moving around the map. Even with my auto-refresh-script, the new map is considerably slower use than the old map.
  20. The new map is a lot more resource intensive (on the client side, but probably also on the server side). My browsers are by far the most resource intensive applications I have on my computers. Not even debugging a large application in Visual Studio can come close to a Chrome window with Facebook and a couple other tabs. This seems to be the way geocaching.com is taking too.
  21. There are lots of events published/updated with default times and a different time in the description. Please remove the default time value.
  22. Look at the description. Two different times, making it very confusing. Which one is correct?
×
×
  • Create New...