Over21uk

We have the request already in the backlog. It would be helpful for reviewers, too. Nice 1. Be nice sooner rather than later though.

So there is no way of picking up all recently published caches within the last 7 days through a pocket query. This being the case, the implementation of published date needs to be added to the database then the pocket query can use it as a reference.

I have a pocket query that runs twice a week and under the "Placed During" section I have it on "the last week" I've noticed that when the query runs I keep getting the same event caches week after week. Now I'm assuming that is because event caches are placed in the future. I'm now wondering if someone places a cache and takes more than a week to get it published will it show up in my query ? Would that section be better being "published during" rather than "placed during"

Huh? As a premium member, the OP wants to have the audit log on all of the caches that he owns regardless of their PMO/Basic status. No where did he state that he wanted basic members to have audit logs on their caches. Thanks Don_J, someone who understands what the point of the thread was. I'm uneasy with all of our cache hides having audit logs, just because we pay for premium membership. Some PM cachers don't want to be on someone's audit list so they avoid PMO caches. That would mean some PMs would avoid all of our caches whether they were PMO or not. Honestly, I find that very strange that they wouldn't want to be on an audit log. I'm open an honest as the day is long. I've nothing to hide (except my caches) so being on an audit list at least tells the CO that I'm showing an interest in his cache.

Huh? As a premium member, the OP wants to have the audit log on all of the caches that he owns regardless of their PMO/Basic status. No where did he state that he wanted basic members to have audit logs on their caches. Thanks Don_J, someone who understands what the point of the thread was.

I think some people are missing the point I intended to make with this thread. When my caches go missing, and I have had a few go missing which were PMO ones I don't suddenly go to the audit log looking for someone to blame. I just replace them. The point was why aren't they available to none PMO caches ? I can understand the audit log not being available to none premium members, there has to be features available which are for the premium members. But to limit it to only PMO caches doesn't make any sense at all. As for the watch list, my opinion on that which I never intended this thread to be a part of would be to reveal who was watching it. If your not going to find out who is watching it, whats the point of it ? I watch every cache that I DNF. As soon as someone else finds it, or the CO disables/archives it I can decide on what I intend to do. Even the DNF's that I'm likely not to ever return to, like when I'm on holiday I watch just to see if it was me that couldn't find it or if it was actually missing. For people who use the audit log as a source of blame when something goes wrong then I say don't hide any. That way you'll never have to use the audit log. When I put my caches out, I know there subject to going missing either by some unscrupulous geocachers or by a muggles unexpected find. But I also know that my cache may give lots of other geocachers the pleasure of finding it.

That's confusing. You pay for Premium Membership. You don't "pay extra" for audit logs. Those are perks of Premium Members hiding caches and making them available to Premium Members Only (PMO). You can be a PM and hide caches that are not PMO, and those caches won't have audit logs. I still say it's silly as heck to claim "privacy issues" prevent knowing the names of folks who have caches on watchlists, but display that info on audit logs. B. I agree. Go the whole hog or scrap the lot.

I think it is called marketing. Like buying a car, if you want XM radio you pay extra, If you a convertible you pay extra, So with geocaching if you want to read audit logs you pay extra. That's not true. I've paid the extra but my choice was to make my cache available to everyone but no audit log.

I've just had a cache published and its good to see who has seen it and who might be coming for a FTF. I cannot see what point only having the audit log for PMO caches is. It cannot be classed as a premium only feature because I'm a premium member and I'm not getting it. Now I have caches out there that are PMO and they will stay PMO for my own reasons but I also have none premium too. I'm sure I'm not the only one who likes to read them. They should be there for them all. If you choose not to read them that's fine but is it forcing me to make caches PMO just so I can read the log.

Why are audit logs only for premium member only caches ? Just because I chose to make my cache open to everyone, it doesn't mean I don't want to know who has been looking at it

I totally agree with you. The success or failure will ultimately depend on how much publicity it gets. If no one knows its there, it might as well not be.

Thanks for the comments guys. Thing is, I could spend thousand of pounds have it written professionally but would that change the fact its a simple site for adopting caches. I'm already paying for the hosting of it but that cost isn't solely for this website. I'm a great believer in the saying " if its not broke, don't fix it" and as long as it does the job I'm happy. Now on the other hand, if it was a business where I intended to make lots of money out of it then I'd certainly consider spending money on it.

Don't buy the premium app. The PQ's don't work and your gonna need these when your out caching. You'll be ok if you can continually access the site but I often find when I'm in the middle of nowhere, I've no signal. This is where PQ's are needed.

Why ?

Bumped up due to needing permission from Groundspeak before this post could go live.

If your considering putting your caches up for adoption, please consider using my new website. www.adoptacache.guilduk.com You can also "watch an area(s)" for when caches become available for adoption in that area. I'm hoping to make the website the home for adoption requests in the U.K. Thanks, Alex.

I ran 6 PQ's over 2 days. I know its not server problems as I asked my friends if they were experiencing the same problems, using the same devices and it worked fine for them. This has happened twice now, and both times it was when I was downloading the PQ's to mobile devices. I have now been told that there is actually a limit of 6000 full descriptions and 10000 lite descriptions when down loading using the api. If this is the case, then this would fit with the error I'm getting. The day after its always fine until I start getting up to the limit again.

What I have done is a PQ of a 25 mile radius if my home. This resulted in just over 5000 caches. I have 3 mobile devices that I am trying to download these to thus resulting in around 15600 caches to download. I am using wifi which does take around an hour per 1000, so I can download about 3000 per hour. Only I think I must have hit a limit as its not letting me access the server. Hence the question about limits.

Is there a limit on the amount of views / downloads to a MOBILE DEVICE through the official app in a given time frame ie 24 hours. I keep getting a problem when downloading PQ's to my iPhone, iPod and iPad to save to an offline list. I keep getting :- Connection Problem Uh-oh. There was a problem connecting to the Geocaching servers. Please try again. When I try again the following day it seems ok again then goes back o the error later on (after more downloads) Hence the question regarding limits.

Is it possible to have 2 premium members share an amount of caches. What we are trying to do is set up a series of caches that we both can see and edit the cache pages. That way, either of us can do maintenance on the caches and the pages. Thanks.

That's a good way to explain it. The difference is that the third example is based on a geocaching accomplishment. The first two simply exclude people based on characteristics they have unrelated to geocaching. The distinction seems quite clear to me, and I find it a perfectly reasonable division between acceptable and unacceptable ALRs. I can understand arguing against the 3rd example because some cachers will never meet the geocaching requirement, even though I don't agree with that position, but I don't think it's valid to argue that there's no logical difference between the three examples. I understand what you mean but ALR's now have to optional. You shouldn't have to do something to find and log a cache. It may be an accomplishment to find 100 caches in a single day but its also an accomplishment to have found 5000 but that would stop all the new cachers and a good amount of long term cahers from being able to complete it too. There should be nothing to stop you logging a cache once you have found it. But with the challenges, there is. This is why they stopped ALR's. Was the entire point of this thread simply that you believe that the current Challenge Caches are exclusionary in nature? The point of the thread was to see I other geocachers felt the same way as I do. I asked for their opinions on this and from what I have read, I'm not alone.

That's a good way to explain it. The difference is that the third example is based on a geocaching accomplishment. The first two simply exclude people based on characteristics they have unrelated to geocaching. The distinction seems quite clear to me, and I find it a perfectly reasonable division between acceptable and unacceptable ALRs. I can understand arguing against the 3rd example because some cachers will never meet the geocaching requirement, even though I don't agree with that position, but I don't think it's valid to argue that there's no logical difference between the three examples. I understand what you mean but ALR's now have to optional. You shouldn't have to do something to find and log a cache. It may be an accomplishment to find 100 caches in a single day but its also an accomplishment to have found 5000 but that would stop all the new cachers and a good amount of long term cahers from being able to complete it too. There should be nothing to stop you logging a cache once you have found it. But with the challenges, there is. This is why they stopped ALR's.

To find and log this cache you must be anyone but Over21uk. Something about that just doesn't sound right. Geocaches listed on the site are open to anyone that has the ability to go and find them. Hey Don-J did you read all of my post ? Is says "I'm interested in what others think about selective caching." What it doesn't say is let's be rude to Over21uk and let's put something quite the opposite and make him feel stupid. I'm sorry if you though I was being rude. It was the furthest thing from my intention. I wanted to prove a point, and apparently I did. How would you feel if you were not allowed to find a cache because of some exclusion that was set by the cache owner? You call it selective, I call it exclusionary. If allowed, what would be an acceptable exclusion? Your first two examples make it sound like you don't want young people from out of town looking for your caches. I am fairly certain that this is not what you meant, but that is the way that it looks. I gave these examples purely as examples of what selective caching could be based on. The 3rd example is a true cache that I believe is no different to the 1st 2. Like I have said, its not that I cannot complete this but its s back door way of putting in an ALR. I think I have manged to get my point across and I'm not alone in my thinking. You last statement hits the nail right on the head. There will be a lot of people who can complete a challenge set by a cache owner but let's not forget all the ones that connot. There will always be a cache similar to these which when set it will be in the thinking of the owner "we'll I've managed it" but not realising that this is a game/hobby for everyone.

I'm sure that Groundspeak could come up with a 25 x 25 grid or any other number they wanted to for a grid that would award an icon / badge. Then you could submit a cache that would qualify towards one of the icons / badges. This way, anybody could go out and find a cache and if they chose to, could carry on with the challenge to receive the award. If they chose not to carry on and get rewarded with the challenge, then the cache would just be logged as another 😄found it.

I guess I am. After reading your posts again, I think you're saying the Challenge caches should be eliminated because they contain ALRs. Is this a correct interpretation of your mindset? If so, you're not alone. I think I'm in the same camp as niraD, in that Challenge caches could go away and be replaced with an official badge or other accomplishment-recognition system. Now we're both as they say "singing from the same hymn sheet"