Hynz

There exists for now a workaround using the old search but I strongly ask HQ to please reconsider this decision. I'm currently a BM but I would says the same as a PM which I was for a long time and probaly will become again in the future. I and I guess most BM agree that new and shiny features introduced and developed over the years might only be accessable for paying members. I was not around in the early years but I'm sure access to finds of other members was present from the beginning on and - frankly - it must have been a no-brainer for the then developers to provide this link. I consider having access to the found history of collegues and so to their recent logs as a vital part of Geocaching which (at least for those who appreciate the declining human aspect of logging) is not just an add-on convenience feature.

Terrible evolution and update I wish complaining about abundance of white space would be my major gripe..... At least https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx is (mostly) working and providing informative and clear results. But for how long? Seems even becoming PM again would not save me from the new drawbacks and applying necessary workarounds.

What exactly is the point of this thread?

Thanks. May I ask where such reports can be found?

I think this worrisome issue you already mentioned last year. Do you or gpsrchive keep track of devices/firmware updates regarding this IMHO significant degradation? It would be great if anybody could test if all OSM based maps are affected or only the OSM maps provided and delivered by Garmin itself.

This "official" blog post irks me: https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2021/03/i-thought-it-was-a-geocache/ Not a single word in the text from HQ (or one of the commenters) towards newbies that some (IMHO most) of that stories are showcases of thoughtless hiding and/or searching.

Interesting. I could swear this view at some time had all logs.

You can click "View Map" below the description and just above the first log entry. You get a map and below without pagination all logs of the TB.

I really dislike this 2020s trend of massive amounts of white space — it chews up screen realestate and usually goes hand-in-hand with more scrolling and hiding things under disclosure controls. So true! I never will understand this trend.

As it should be for a past time promoted as being "the language of location" and not "lets carpet bomb every available spot" <SCNR> So count me in to the minority who will not admire such records regardless how much "blood, sweat and tears" went into such endeavors.

I personally don't care much about gadget caches but out of interest: Strictly speaking even the slightest movement of a hiding place should be "noticed" (especially for somebody who recently found the cache) and would lead to a "yes" to this question but without necessarily changing "the experience". Even if it is an edge case: I once moved the final of my multi for more than a kilometer without changing the experience: It's is the final of a 4-day hiking cache

+1000 I wish this would be a verifiable attitude necessary to become a hider of geocaches.

Ja eben. Bei den Fake Logs aber nicht, insofern bringen sich die Faker nur selbst um ihre Erlebnisse und das ist doch in erster Linie deren Problem. Ich kann aber nicht erkennen welche Logs Fake sind und welche nicht. Somit spiegeln mir (etwas uebertrieben ausgedrueckt) die Fake Logs eine falsche Realitaet vor die (vereinzelt) Einfluss auf mein Erlebnis als Sucher aber vor allem als Owner haben kann.

Die als elektronisches Bitmuster auf einem Server in Seattle befindliche Fundzahl eines Mitspielers ist natuerlich irrelevant bzw. sollte es fuer jeden sein. Diese Fundzahl entsteht aber nur durch Logeintraege bei realen Caches. Und diese Logeintraege - voellig unabhaengig ob es sich um TFTCs oder um aussagekraeftige Beitraege handelt - beruhen von der Grundidee des Spiels auf *realen* Erlebnissen und Interaktionen im *Real Life*. Wenn man alle (oder zumindest die Mehrzahl der) Logeintraege fuer irrelevant und eigentlich unnoetig haelt kann man natuerlich behaupten, dass es einem nicht stoert wenn es Mitspieler gibt die solche virtuellen Logeintraege in grosser Zahl absetzen. Ich kann das (leider?) nicht. Weder als Owner noch als Besucher.

That could have been me. And yes, I expect that owners are interested in what I have to say in any kind of log I decide to leave for a cache. If I consider the issue as not urgent and when there is no need to flag the cache for the next searchers I may leave maintenance suggestions within my Found log. Frankly, no, what eventually makes the Health Score necessary is the unhealthy combination of finders who don't care about writing meaningful logs and owners who are not interested in monitoring their caches.

Was it ever revealed (or reverse engineered) how exactly this percentage is calculated? If and how are changes of PM memberships taken into account?

Plenty of room? If just one cache is placed between yours the maximum density according to the rules on this site is reached. I can't look at your listings (I'm currently no PM) but I doubt you were able to highlight 21 interesting locations along this trail so for my liking it is most probably a number trail and if I had hidden a traditional cache at a remarkable spot along this trail chances are high (at least in my area) that the upcoming logs would demonstrate that many don't care about the location I was about to highlight. And on topic: I like to think that this and basically all blog posts are directed to the "masses" and there I like to think that it might improve the overall experience when they are encouraged to archive their most mundane caches. I hope no considerate cache owner feels forced to archive any of their caches just because of few visits and favorite points. At least I'm not.

Thanks for pointing out some links I was not recognizing previously on that page. I don't care so much about improving the accuracy from some meters to sub-meter but to keep at least a rough position even when the general reception is getting worse. I believe whenever a GPS-only device is losing its position - and that still happens to me in (street-)canyons or otherwise heavily restricted surroundings - it is because the number of (useful) Satellites drops below 3. It's remarkable to me that you never encounter such situations.

I have a general interest in this topic but from your link I only found Pages>Setup>System>Multi-GNSS (no deep link possible) which only explains what it is but no demonstration of the effects or improvements. Am I missing something? What I would like to understand is eg if such receiver has contact to say 2 Sats from GPS, 2 Sats from Galileio and 2 Sats from Baidou can a position be calculated or is any improvement dependent on getting the necessary number of Sats (3 or 4) for each system independently.

I guess not a hickup but you probably looked at our own profile. There everybody only sees "View Forum Posts" ...and since I'm already here: The new look is (as with most new looks on GC) not an improvement for me. Mainly because of the white space.

Without further details this could be a perfectly fine OM log to cancel the NM flag. But as the author I would most probably provide a reason and would add a hint when I will again visit this cache.

I agree. Disappointing to see what GS considers an improvement worth of putting resources at just for the sake of making it easier to follow statistical determinated behavior.

Confirmed. Thanx. Not exactly intuitive......

I must admit this thought also crossed my mind before sending my reply..... Any other BM here to verify? Her's my search result:

Actually no. Archived caches can no longer be found using: https://www.geocaching.com/play/search Fortunately the old search page still works also with archived caches: https://www.geocaching.com/seek