Boomshanka

Here are some numbers from project-gc (I'm not sure if this is a premium feature so if anyone at project-gc wants me to remove the pic I will of course do so). For me, the issue is the lack of churn rate of local caches... exacerbated by some caches put up for adoption rather than archived. Fair enough to adopt out if it's a high FP cache, old or unique in some way - otherwise, just archive it. It's now a good 30 minutes or more each way from home before I get in to any new caches (and travel is expensive now). Maybe time to think of refreshing some existing caches with new placements would help? Maybe GCHQ could release a batch of old cache types again (similar to the virtual scheme), like webcams or think of new Apecache type caches ... would incentivise new placements. Anyway, just my two cents.

This is what I see..

If you go to a Lab that you've already finished and look at your review, you should now see that you can edit it and also add a photo.

It's nice to see photos now being uploadable into reviews... but that means it's more important as a Lab owner to check reviews to be sure that spoilers are not uploaded (there is a self-disclaimer on the app before a photo is uploaded)... so two features that I'm sure would have been raised before are: 1) Have a notification of a new review sent to the Lab owner (as per a new log on a CO's cache) 2) Have links to the message centre within the Lab for a) the Lab owner and b) the cacher who has left a review Whilst here... When I click an AdLab icon on the main geocaching app map, my phone takes me to the Google Play store to download the AdLab app... which is already loaded. Is that just my setup or the same for everyone? It should obviously open the AdLab app and go to the first page for that Lab.

No doubt banging a well-beaten drum here... but would it be that difficult to have a notification alert for when a new review is added to your AL (like a log notification on a cache that's owned)? Not only because it's nice to receive feedback, but also it could alert you of any problems (without having to frequently check manually). Many thanks

I originally set one of my ALs to sequential as it followed a story but then just changed each stage name to start with 1. 2. 3. etc and took sequential off. That way, those that want to follow the intended order can, those that don't want to (or want to pick up other caches along the way) can decide their own order. One lab in Lille that I attempted today was a 10 stage lab, set sequentially but it zig-zagged all over town, sometimes a Km between stages and then back and back again! Absolutely no logic or point to being sequential. I gave up after 5 stages as being a tourist, time is short! Perhaps as an interim measure, there should be a pop-up window that appears if the lab owner sets it to sequential to double check they really need to and know the consequences of doing so.

I'm sure this has been raised before... but... I've tried 1 AL and 3 ALs in a short trip to France and Belgium this week so far, they have been set to 'Play locations in sequential order'. This is so frustrating a) because in a city with numerous ALs, you have to backtrack and b) I was visiting with family and I just wanted to do a couple of the stages close to where we were heading rather than driving to the start. I also had another where the first stage was cordoned off, which meant I couldn't progress to the other stages. None of these had any logic (to my mind) that needed to be sequential. Can Groundspeak just switch that option off? Thanks for listening/reading.

I've scrolled down a bit to see if this has already been raised (I'm surprised it not)... Would it be possible/desirable for Ad Labs to be rated for D/T along the same basis as other cache types? It would seem then that Ad Labs could be fully integrated into a cacher's stats. Just pondering the pros and cons.

Yep, the PQ syncs via Geocaching Live (as per kunarion's link). Apologies if my terminology was confusing things between PQ and GPX.

Many thanks for the answers... I've tried this and it works, both via Bluetooth and wifi... so that will be fine for a PQ update in the field over Bluetooth (although the data transfer is quite slow, so I'd probably nip into the PQ and reduce the cache number before syncing). Thanks again.

After a weird GPX failure yesterday, I tried to upload a GPX file from my phone to my Garmin 66s, using the Garmin Connect and Garmin Explore apps, but nothing would work. I've since managed to get 'Live Geocaching' to work, which kind of does the job... but it would still be nice to be able to upload a .GPX file from the phone to the Garmin 66s and then switch off Bluetooth. Has anyone managed to do it (via wifi or Bluetooth - without having to connect the 66s to a laptop via the cable)?

The webpage says "If more requests are received than trackables available, we will randomly select people from the United States only." ... but you have to enter a State and only United States comes up... leaving these blank (I'm from the UK) won't work... so looks like this is only a US promotion?

Excellent, this is exactly how I'd like things to stay!

Before this change, I found the following menu options very useful: Geocaches > Have found ... and that used to list all the caches I've found by date order (with the most recent first) and also when the cache was last found (so I could see if any recent caches I've found have had more recent visits... nosey, yes, but interesting. Now that menu option just lists all caches I've found seemingly by distance from my home. Please reverse this change and bring back the old way of showing the list of caches found.

It's on lots of them... time for a 'needs maintenance' log

Looks like there's a fleck of dust on Watson's camera (on numerous recent pictures)

+1 for toggling all corrected co-ordinates (not just mysteries) so that when setting caches, a CO can see where there's a space for the cache and also so that the posted co-ords don't overlap existing caches (and also for geoart).

Apologies if this has been raised before. Could a future upgrade please include the possibility to toggle the 'corrected co-ordinates' on/off on the map? It would really help when setting a new cache to be able to see where existing puzzle/multi/LB/WiG etc physical caches are for proximity and where the posted icon will be, especially involving geoart.

Bit of a wasted trip this afternoon (I'm in the UK)... had planned to do 2 new ALs but the app kept on stalling, searching for lab caches on the map, heavy use of phone battery... after 45 minutes, I managed to get through two stages of the 1st lab, but gave up as it kept on stalling. No problem with mobile data. When I got home, the two 'finds' were on my cache total finds stats, but now I go back into the app and the two finds are not recognised... the AL starts from the beginning again. Anyway, mini-rant over... what I'm saying is that there appears to have been some issues this afternoon!

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before... but some COs are partial to BadgeGen... and there are two badges relating to FPs (Favorited Owner and Favorite Cacher)... so they could be miffed if they had to archive a cache (for whatever reason) and then FPs start to be retracted which impacts their FO BadgeGen, or caches they have found with FPs start to lose their FPs. Project-gc premium members get notifications when FPs are added *and removed* from their caches, so it doesn't go unnoticed! Anyway, that's my two cents worth.

That's an interesting point about real-time location 'tracking' with the current system, I'd not considered that. I think the delayed update to the completion stats spreadsheet would overcome the issue and can't be that difficult to do, say a midnight rollover. Edit: but then anyone logging real-time via the app on a 'normal' cache would have the same issue.

It would be the first 10 logs on a cache... and then the find counter just going up after that with no details of who or what... well, maybe... if the finder decided to add a log voluntarily. It does seem a little strange... and a bit frustrating after going to the effort of setting the AL.

The privacy aspects (presumably GDPR) doesn't make sense... whilst you could argue that cacher's nicknames are Pseudonymous data, there is an inconsistency here to have the first 10 cachers' nicknames identified, but none after that. All cacher's who log a find on a conventional cache are identified, so there's another inconsistency with the AL situation. I'd be really interested to hear specific case law as to why the cacher ID drops off on ALs after the first 10 due to privacy concerns, something doesn't stack up.

This might have been raised before... but could GCHQ please add the cacher name to the completion stats so that we can see who has completed the AL (beyond the 10 named cachers on the Leadership board)?

Can any GCHQ staff confirm if this change is going to be rolled back (like it was the first time it was implemented) or is it permanent now? It's broken one of my puzzles and I'd like to know whether to archive it or try to rejig it.