jholly

Yes the general rule is no nails or screws in trees. But you can cut a deal with your reviewer and then it is okay. I suppose if you cut a deal you can even bury a cache.

But the real question is would it have earned another type of log from your alter ego caching partner?

High contrast? Certainly you jest. Any other HTML email I get is bright and high contrast with readable fonts. Lots of white on blue, black on white, white on read and other bright color combinations. Groundspeak email is very muted, pastel and over all dim and hard to read. There is no snap to the email. It is just plain hard to read.

Why should it concern Groundspeak what we think? When you enjoy a 99.9%+ market share you can afford not to have the slightest concerns about your service or how your users perceive you. The reason why your company is concerned is there are probably six or seven others that would like your customers business and would like the opportunity to please your customers. Until some alternate site gains traction and until Groundspeak understands they might lose their position nothing is going to change. Until Teddy Roosevelt had a conversation with J.D. Rockefeller he was not concerned about his business practices or what the folks that wanted to buy kerosene thought.

Agreed, if you're an aeroplane flying above ground level. For us mere mortals dipping in and out of valleys etc where getting an EGNOS lock is nigh impossible I find no benefit in it whatsoever. But for those mere mortals traveling on the desert or large plains it makes perfect sense to have it on. Actually it makes perfect sense to have it on all the time. It certainly does not degrade the performance.

I fail to see how Groundspeak could be taken by surprise by the changes to the emails. When Groundspeak changed the weekly newsletter from text to HTML there was a large response asking for the text only version to come back or at least a text only option. I don't recall any discussions where people were asking for HTML notifications, unless it was the folks that never use the website or pay attention to the email that Jayme interviewed and those folks thought HTML would be cool. And if the folks making changes to the subject lines and such never thought that some users might, just maybe, might be filtering they emails and separating them out then they certainly did not do any design reviews or spent more than a second or two thinking about what impact those changes might have on the users.

I haven't, but the real question is why does Groundspeak depend on third party apps and scripts to make their site useable? Seems like they would have enough pride to provide a useful product that their users and customers like. But apparently I have missed an important memo somewhere along the line.

Some how I don't quite believe you really appreciate the feedback since you have no plans to provide a form of communication that is useable and readable. Really, pastel text on a pastel background, are you serious? And I'm sure once our concerns bubble up the bubble will break.

It strikes me that the recent changes to the Email notifications, which caused such a firestorm of complaints across numerous forums, would have been the perfect topic to have been discussed on the User Insights forum; you would have been able to gather requirements and opinions before making any changes, and although it's unlikely you would have received a unanimous concensus at least you would have been able to avoid the furore that was unleashed following the ill-advised changes. You went to the trouble of setting up that forum, and yet it's hardly been used, please consider using it more in future... signed, A. Wellwisher You totally missed the point of the User Insight forum. It is a forum where GS proposes an idea and the users give praise and thanks for such a wonderful idea. It is not a forum where users give feedback on their thoughts on changes made without the users suggestion.

One would hope the silence is due to ongoing internal discussions regarding how to resolve the situation. ...but then, silence from the Lilypad isn't exactly uncommon... Silence is due to the planning of yet more HTML. The first little bit of HTML to hit the general public a couple months ago was met with the same response this batch of HTML is getting. The message is loud and clear, HTML sucks. Does Groundspeak care? Nope they have totally impressed themselves and want to continue impressing themselves. Oh, the users don't like it? Well in a week or two it will quite down and then we can say the Great HTML campaign was a rousing success.

My waypoint finder seems to be broken. Is this because of the last update?

Okay, I won't.

What that means is that you did not type the security word correctly. Some times it takes a couple tries.

Or not worry about it because consumer grade GPSr are not all that accurate and to many things, like tree cover, walls, hills, Satellite configuration, etc affect accuracy.

They outsell them, and most events I've attended or view images of...Jeep WAY more common. Remember the whole Jeep Travel Bug thing!!!! Sorry...but this time, you are just wrong. Wait...I forget, you are in Canada aren't you. They are popular in the Northwest.

I agree that "shortcuts" like the three cache monte or leapfrogging are not really geocaching. (Likewise, cache vandalism and armchair logging aren't really geocaching either.) But that applies to the "shortcuts" used by the finders, not to the geocaches themselves. But geocaching is more than just the geocaches themselves. It's how people play the game, the site technical infrastructure and how we interact with it, the interaction between members of the geocaching community (which, to me, includes finder/hiders *and* landmanagers). As I see it, the answer to "what is geocaching" has broadened. Yes, one can still play the game as it was played 10 years ago, but today there are many methods employed that would not have been considered acceptable, but those that employ them still want to say that they are geocaching. I think that one of the reasons that people will suggest that doing power trails is not geocaching, is that many people that do them have created a variety of practices that they themselves would likely not consider doing if the caches they were finding were not part of a power trail. If people don't want to be characterized as playing a different game when they're doing power trails then perhaps they shouldn't be making up a different set of acceptable practices for power trails that are not considered acceptable for caches that are not part of a power trail. In the American league there is a designated hitter, in the national league there is no designated hitter. What is strange both leagues claim they play baseball. Clearly one of them are playing a different game and the game they play is not baseball. Perhaps one league should not be making a different set of rules of acceptable baseball if it is not acceptable for baseball in a different part. But in both leagues you must touch all the bases to score a run I'd view it a little differently. Since the online logs are really only a adjunct to the basic idea of finding geocaches, it should be expected that there will be differences as to when it is appropriate to post the find (or WIGAS) log. In addition, as this is an internet base activity, one should expect some people will use the online system is ways that have nothing to do with finding caches. Jeremy has said that he views some of the logging that goes on an abuse of the system. However, Groundspeak does not want to police the logs, nor could they. Instead cache owners have been given the responsibility for quality control of the posts to their cache pages. What I think NYPaddleCacher is saying is that some owners of power trails are clearly allowing finds to be posted in situation he feels are not appropriate to count as finds. To him this is using the online logging system for something other than geocaching. My point of view is that what someone else does with online logs doesn't effect me, and I only care that a cache owner doesn't use their power to delete logs to delete my legitimate find. I'd be more upset if I DNF'd a cache on a power trail, and the cache owner deleted my DNF because "There are no DNFs on power trails". So what your saying is you think my use of a designated log is not geocaching?

I agree that "shortcuts" like the three cache monte or leapfrogging are not really geocaching. (Likewise, cache vandalism and armchair logging aren't really geocaching either.) But that applies to the "shortcuts" used by the finders, not to the geocaches themselves. But geocaching is more than just the geocaches themselves. It's how people play the game, the site technical infrastructure and how we interact with it, the interaction between members of the geocaching community (which, to me, includes finder/hiders *and* landmanagers). As I see it, the answer to "what is geocaching" has broadened. Yes, one can still play the game as it was played 10 years ago, but today there are many methods employed that would not have been considered acceptable, but those that employ them still want to say that they are geocaching. I think that one of the reasons that people will suggest that doing power trails is not geocaching, is that many people that do them have created a variety of practices that they themselves would likely not consider doing if the caches they were finding were not part of a power trail. If people don't want to be characterized as playing a different game when they're doing power trails then perhaps they shouldn't be making up a different set of acceptable practices for power trails that are not considered acceptable for caches that are not part of a power trail. In the American league there is a designated hitter, in the national league there is no designated hitter. What is strange both leagues claim they play baseball. Clearly one of them are playing a different game and the game they play is not baseball. Perhaps one league should not be making a different set of rules of acceptable baseball if it is not acceptable for baseball in a different part.

With GSAK why do you worry about email attachments? Just download the PQ's directly into GSAK. A one line macro should do the job. What could be simpler? The six day storage limit has been around ever since PQ's were invented, hardly anything new and certainly nothing to get upset over. Actually I wish they would get rid of those pesky notification emails, they serve no other purpose other than filling up my email trash bin.

Yet, as a direct consequence of the prior forum thread, volunteer work and lackey work made an exception happen. Quietly, yes, but it was the forum discussion that led to the result. Volunteers and lackeys make lots of little geocaching miracles happen every day -- from working with the family of a deceased geocacher about what to do with their active caches, to smoothing things over with a land manager whose feathers were ruffled. You don't see forum threads about these things. I am aware of a virtual where the object got moved about two miles. There was a plaque that was associated with the virtual but it did not get moved. It was a really neat virtual. A local would log the new coordinates every few logs, but alas, a lackey did the virtual. Not only did the lackey log the cache but also updated the cache listings. I was neat to see an old virtual stay alive since it was a neat thing and did tie into our countries history. A traditional was eventually activated on the same site and at that point the virtual was archived. Had nothing to do with forum discussions but was something nice that happened.

Some expert you are. They both have the same receiver.

eTrex 30 owner here. Living in small, remote town called Toronto, Canada.... Only 5 million or so residents here so likely not a good sample for "City" use.My GPSr doesn't seem to have any issues when I visit the "downtown". Suggest updating or switching maps, the one you are using likely has some bad data. I use City Navigator on mine. No, most of us that own eTrex 20/30s are quite happy with them. The smelly one, that does not geocache, apparently has a beef with Garmin and takes delite in basing their products, especially the eTrexs. He probably bought one and found out it was not suitable to navigate a plane with.

Since you have no experience geocaching I'm wondering if you even own a GPS. I have noticed you always like to post contrarian points of view. Is that to engage folks in discussions or just to disparage the unit currently under discussion.

That's what I thought. Looks like it's started for one individual only. But since it's brought up... I was kinda hoping that taking the "personality quiz" would show who wants to participate. Taking the quiz, you're playing. The way it is now, like last year, you get 'em whether you want to play or not. "Greying out" a souvi on my profile isn't the same. Actuslly not. If you go to your personal profile(Your Profile -> souvenirs) and go to the souvenirs page you will see each souvenir has a ___ |x| Hide This --- shown below each souvenir. Every user with a souvenir has this option shown. If your click it it changes to Show this but over on your public profile that souvenir is not displayed, not greyed, just not there. The request is to have the API also honor this flag and not provide souvenir information for the user that has chosen to hide a given souvenir. I understand now, I guess. Your opening post said "my profile", so I assumed it was your profile, not the one seen by the public and was gonna email how you managed to really "Hide it". Works for hiding from others (the public profile), but "Hide This" on your personal profile simply greys or faints it a bit. Since it doesn't really "Hide" it, I'd like to see it completely removed. We didn't cache the entire month last year when my other 2/3rds saw she couldn't delete 'em. I'm really not concerned about my personal profile since I'm the only one that can see it and you never know, maybe some time in the future I might really want them on my public profile. So being on my personal profile with a way to re-instate them on my public profile is just fine. I figure my request to have the API honor the flag stands a better chance than asking to have them complete removed.

That's what I thought. Looks like it's started for one individual only. But since it's brought up... I was kinda hoping that taking the "personality quiz" would show who wants to participate. Taking the quiz, you're playing. The way it is now, like last year, you get 'em whether you want to play or not. "Greying out" a souvi on my profile isn't the same. Actuslly not. If you go to your personal profile(Your Profile -> souvenirs) and go to the souvenirs page you will see each souvenir has a ___ |x| Hide This --- shown below each souvenir. Every user with a souvenir has this option shown. If your click it it changes to Show this but over on your public profile that souvenir is not displayed, not greyed, just not there. The request is to have the API also honor this flag and not provide souvenir information for the user that has chosen to hide a given souvenir.

Go for it Now back on topic, Please API devs please honor the flag. Who knows, I might bring a gift to the block party.