Hynz
-
Posts
540 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Hynz
-
-
I applaud everybody taking action against log cheeting and I try to hunt down suspicius online entries.
But I must admit last time I wanted to check online logs with physical logs on one of my cache I gave up because I could not wrap my head around the inconsistent and out of chronological order of the signatures. Not to speak of often terrible handwriting.
So I wonder what physical procedure do you use for making the comparision.
Do you print out the photos of the logbook and the webpage and tick of on both sides?
When using a true and big "logbook", do you photograph *always* *all* pages of the logbook?
-
.png)
1
-
-
8 hours ago, EntropyEndeavor said:
the most important thing that stuck out to me was how the NGS (National Geodetic Survey) was using the information submitted by Geocachers to help update their database. To see this in action consider one of the benchmarks I found recently: HV0059. The originally imported datasheet on Geocaching list scaled coordinates of 38 46 29 (N) 076 04 35 (W). Scaled coordinates means before the days of GPS someone tried to line the description up with a map and made their best guess. Now compare that to the current datasheet. It has handheld coordinates of 38 46 29.00 (N) 076 04 36.54 (W) and look at who made the last recovery note. This is common when looking at the updated datasheets. Just like CITO this is a way Geocaching has given back to the community, and soon it will be gone. NGS still has their own program for citizen submission, but it is hard to imagine they will obtain the same amount of information without benchmark logging integrated into the Geocaching site. Perhaps it is an extreme long shot, but have you even contacted NGS for the potential for some amount of funding or at the very least for their comments on this decision?
Thanks for that information. I also would be interested what the NGS thnks about this decision.
I wonder if the update of that last recovery note in the current datashet was made by the NGS because of the GC-Log alone or because the logger *additionally* made a report to the NGS.
-
.png)
1
-
-
I would be interested to know how much of that information (logs, photos) produced here were accually helpfull for the NGS.
Have they been using this information somehow in the past?
Have they been asked if they are interested in getting the database?
-
2
-
2
-
-
When visiting the US I enjoyed looking for some benchmarks and if they would be a thing in my home country I probably would be an active benchmarker.
I have no idea about the necessary efford for GS to keep the database active but I somehow understand that benchmarking on the webpage is retired.
But I'm strongly opposing that previous logs and pictures were about to become inaccessible
-
3
-
-
14 hours ago, Fledermaus said:
However and due to security issues that may occur on various questionable websites,
I have started using the TOR Browser
Out of couriosity: Does using a TOR Browser ideed reduce *security* issues with websites? Or do you use it as synonym for *privacy* issues?
-
19 hours ago, mustakorppi said:20 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:
It was a location I wouldn't have found without geocaching and a location I want to share with others, but a container that was "meh" at best. So does it deserve a Favorite?
I don't always follow my own principle, but to me location is the main point and the cache and container are secondary. So surely FPs should also be given based on location, even if the container isn't great.
+1
As much as I dislike micros and as much as personal experience shows that statisticaly a micro delivers more offen a mundane experience than a small or regular, it is the experience *during* the hunt (which starts much earlier than immediately at GZ) which determines my enjoyment of a cache.
-
FWIW, a swift response of clicking that link is back again. Thanks.
-
15 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:
and then directly to Groundspeak
Good luck with that
In my experience GS do not interfere regarding TB-Logs.
-
1
-
-
On 8/23/2022 at 5:46 AM, niraD said:On 8/23/2022 at 1:35 AM, TriciaG said:
You'd have to delete all the logs on the TBs to "reset" them.
And those logs are part of the geocaching history of the people who have interacted with the original trackables.
So to spell it out crystal clear: Please Don't Do It!
-
2
-
2
-
-
On 8/27/2022 at 4:46 PM, kitt5 said:
What are your thoughts on cachers submitting a photo of the log as a find?
What irks me more and more is the fact that when browsing often found caches especially in touristic areas that about 2/3rd of gallery photos are either photos of the logsheet (without the signature of the finder) or photos of the cache (often in the hands of the finder).
The corresponding logtexts are short, generic and give rarely any hint about why such photo was attached.
So my probably pesimistic interpretation of that is the following: Those finder rarely make a physical signature. They don't even consider that making a photo is only a stopgap which should be an exception. I belive they honestly think that's a fully accepted alternative way to mark their find. And owners of such caches rarely care about it. To the contrary they are happy and and best are appreciating finders who replace logsheets (certainly by just throwing away the old ones).
More than an irk is it then for me when seldom found and remote caches (and god forbid my own caches
) are visited by cachers with that attitude.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:
In its current form, this is of limited value to me.
I absolutly agree to what you have written.
But looking to the development the trackable system has undergone in the last years (no so much actively by Groundspeak but simply by IMHO misuse of a significant number of users) I have no hope for any improvements. At least not in a direction I would like to see.......
-
3 hours ago, Kurise said:Quote
Und wenn man schon eine Finallocation für den Bonus hat, dann hätte man ja auch einfach einen 5-Stationen-Multi legen können, aber ich verstehe schon, dass der Lab + Bonus da deutlich attraktiver ist, wenn er gleich 6 Funde dazu bringt.
Hierbei muss ich tatsächlich ein wenig wiedersprechen, zumindest was den Mutli angeht. Viele Locations sind ja schon "leider" vergeben und da noch irgendwo einen Multi zu legen, gestaltet sich da schon äußerst schwierig, da reicht es ja auch schon in einer Mittelgroßen Stadt zu leben meistens. Da sind Lab Caches ja eigentlich eine Interessante Alternative für, wenn man auch zumindest etwas aufzuzeigen hat.
Verstehe ich nicht. Eine virtuelle Stage eines Multis hat genau die gleichen (naemlich fast gar keine) Einschraenkungen wie die fuer eine Lab-Station. Und wenn man zu den Labs noch einen physischen Bonus legen kann gibt es zu einem Multi de facto gar keinen Unterschied bezueglich der Schwierigkeit geeignete Stages und Platz fuer den Final zu finden.
-
12 hours ago, Bl4ckH4wkGER said:
With today's release we have added another layer of security to disabling and deleting your account.
Good.
I know I'm flogging a dead horse
but let me suggest exchanging "progress" to "contributions" in the message about deleting the account.
-
3
-
1
-
.png)
1
-
-
OK, apparently nobody is using this really useful feature.
Hope it will sort out along upcoming forum updates but I would appreciate if a moderator could have a look into it.
-
2
-
-
Thanks for continuing tweeking the list output. Compared to the first incarnation there are certainly improvements visible. So please don't stop.
Since malicious tongues might argue improvements are easily possible only because of the abysmal baseline
so just to visualize the difference of the old and currently new search list. The pictures are adapted to show the true screen real estate:
9 resulting caches taking 1015x734 pixel and even presents the date of my own find in an (certainly only IMHO) clean and compact view.
9 resulting caches taking 1831x893 pixel (219%, more than the doubble area). On my 27 inch monitor I need to go almost fullscreen with my browser to get the last column (and no way to eventually just scroll horizontal to see it).
I get it that nowadays web developer are somehow forced to use certain tools which are a bit unflexible but provide the possibility to produce nice outputs quickly and maybe even without much programming skills. But is the new list layout really the best what Groundspeak can do? Or are there really a significant number of people out there (even within the developers) who seriously consider the second picture as an "enhanced" version of the first?
QuoteMerriam-Webster: enhance
HEIGHTEN, INCREASE
especially : to increase or improve in value, quality, desirability, or attractiveness-
1
-
1
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, WoodlandAlliance said:
I'll happily make the drive when I need to do maintenance.
May I - in all humbleness - ask you if you are even *aware* that half of your caches have been archived because you apparently have refused doing maintainance
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
Is there a known issue with the "Following Areas" function on the forum?
Since a couple of days it takes "ages" for me to get the list after clicking on the link.
-
FWIW I just followed a link from my RSS-feed of the Geocaching-Blog to a new article in german
https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2022/07/auffrischung-der-geocaching-etikette-tipps-fur-cache-finder/
which further linked to an 2019 article also in german
https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2019/06/geocaching-etikette-201-finden-und-loggen/
It seems this articles were german only at least I couldn't find the corresponding english articles (the blog website is terrible IMHO)
Beside a major gripe I find the 2019 article extremly well written and I wished knowledge of this text would be a requirement for everybody before heading out finding caches.
But now to the on-topic gripe in that article:
Quote4. Wenn Du nichts finden konntest und daher ohne die Zustimmung des Owners einen neuen Container mit Logbuch versteckst, solltest Du trotzdem einen DNF-Log schreiben. Wenn Du sicher bist, dass der Cache wirklich nicht da war, solltest Du “Benötigt Wartung” loggen.
Translate:
Quote4. If you could not find anything and therefore hide a new container with a logbook without the consent of the owner, you should still write a DNF log. If you are sure that the cache was really not there, you should log “needs maintenance”.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 7/9/2022 at 12:22 AM, Harry Dolphin said:
What else would you hide here? 26% favorites! It was a fake bolt.
Sorry but I can't resist answering this question:
A virtual stage for a Multi
-
3
-
-
On 6/9/2022 at 10:25 PM, cerberus1 said:
...And hopefully they didn't make their profile completely private...
We'd often view other's caches/photos that play similar for ideas, but now that there's more buttons to push, we can see a few no longer visible.
^this
It's appalling that just a couple of weeks after enabling this setting by GS how many users make use of that.
-
2
-
-
On 6/15/2022 at 1:14 AM, Max and 99 said:
On a little side note: You can now search for caches that have TBs listed in their inventory, by using the search filter on the app. They may or may not actually be in the cache, but the filter is one way of doing what you wanted in the OP.
Acctually, no, this is not what the OP wanted.
He wanted to see within a list of caches if eventually there is a TB in one or another cache on that list.
I'm also missing this information in the new lists which was nicely shown in the old list together with other usefull information eg if a NM flag is set for a cache or on which date I eventually had already found that cache
All this is missing in the new list layout.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Bl4ckH4wkGER said:
this release doesn't change anything about what data is deleted.
Interesting, thanks for that information.
I think nobody here knows about the quantity of such deletion request from the past. I assume it was rather low.
So I'm suprised that it seems necessary to reduce staff time for it but regardless of the numbers from the past it's obvious that this numbers will increase now because it's possible to do it without any hassle for the user.
I imagine new users trying out geocaching, writing some logs and after finding out that they no longer enjoy the hobby decide to quit and since the button exist they (and maybe even longer paritipating members) will click it assuming that's even the prefered action in that situation.
Could you please add some text to make it clear that this is the least prefered option for the community of participants and should only be choosen in exeptional cases.
I see (to my disappointment) that the possibility to hide the found caches and the gallery is already used to an extent that is noteworthy. I wished also on that settings page it is made clear that (while possible to eventually comply with certain privacy laws) hiding this information are not the prefered settings in a community driven hobby/game.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
Quote
If you choose to delete your account:
- We will erase all of your logs, gallery photos, and profile information.
I don't want to believe that this is a necessary measure to comply with privacy laws but IANAL.
It reads as if the logs are completely removed without any remains.
Please, please leave at least the date and the logtype together with an "deleted_user" visible in the log history of all caches.
Every user should have the right to delete certain, specific information she or he no longer wants to be accessible on the internet.
But I disagree that deleting a big number of logs written with the explicit intention to be published and to be seen for all, just with the click of a button is in order.
-
4
-
1
-
2
-
11 hours ago, Fledermaus said:
I will let my geocache pages, to a small degree, speak for themselves.
My first random pick of one of your caches. Well.... <SCNR>
-
2
-
.png)
.png)
) are visited by cachers with that attitude.
but let me suggest exchanging "progress" to "contributions" in the message about deleting the account.
.png)
so just to visualize the difference of the old and currently new search list. The pictures are adapted to show the true screen real estate:
Reset Travel Bug
in Trackables
Posted
Please don't delete old but valid logs.
You are aware that even when you happen to have memorized the tracking code it's extremely cumbersome and a laborous task to recreate retrieved and dropped logs?
This unfortunately makes it much easier for the TB owner to win that battle.
Nevertheless, power to the few who would take up that task