jholly
-
Posts
8330 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by jholly
-
-
I have also written other neat checker scripts such as the "Generic map script" used for validating for example DeLorme challenges, and other map-based challenges (with visualization of areas and qualifying caches on a map).
Are there any Thomas Guide scripts available? I haven't been able to find one. Thomas Guides are maps of smaller areas than Delorme, many times counties or cities.
-
That presumes the checkers are infallible. As noted before, I've seen several instances where they were not...
It's up to the CO to ensure that the checker is infallible. If it's not, then the cache is subject to archival. The CO certainly has a vested interest, then, in infallibility of the checker.
Ouch. So a non-programming CO has one of the PGC script writers write a script for his cache. Then discovers that after a few logs there is a logic error in the script and he gets his cache archived? That seems a bit harsh,especially since the CO did not introduce the error. If your going with the checker being the end all then seems your going to need to work out a way to recover from programming errors.
-
And then there's the question of who actually decides if my challenge cache gets published - is it the volunteer reviewer? Is it Groundspeak? Is it Project GC?
I wonder if with so many hoops to jump through people might give up trying to publish challenge caches at all.
It's starting to sound like unless you have a link to the challenge checker on your cache page it is an automatic rejection. If you have the link and other things check out it is a go.
But I wonder what happens if the volunteer script writer blows the logic and after being published the CO starts to delete non-compliant logs? I'm sure it will be the CO's responsibility to get PGC to fix the bad logic, but what about the logs that never should have happened? Does the CO get to delete them or do they have to stay?
And how does the CO know the log is from a valid find? Do we have a second ALR, the one to complete the challenge and the che3cker generated log message?
-
I would just hate to have to keep bugging CO's with messages like "can you please add this attribute" or conversely "can you please remove this attribute"
I guess in many cases such requests will not help at all anyway. On the contrary the new system also provides a nice way for cache owners of certain cache types to opt out so that their caches are not useful for qualifying for certain challenges they do not appreciate.
How would a CO who doesn't want their cache used to qualify for a challenge, opt out?
They archive their cache.
-
In the original announcement it was said
However, there are many aspects of challenge caches that can make them frustrating for the community. They are neither a separate cache type nor do they have a specific attribute, so the logging requirements are easily misunderstood. Challenge caches can also be very difficult to publish due to the large amount of subjectivity involved relative to other geocaches. While they account for only ~1% of all geocache submissions, challenge caches comprise the bulk of appeals made to Geocaching HQ.
Okay, the checkers help with the first part, but how is that enforced? It seemed the big problem was the appeals to get them listed. How does the checker help with that problem? The only answer seems to be that if a checker does not exist no listing. So basically the Groundspeak problem will now become a project-gc problem. It's getting to the point that without third party apps, third party software and third party sites you can't use the site anymore.
-
The final of mystery caches must obey proximity rules. The listed coordinates need to be within two miles of the final. The listed coordinates do not have to obey proximity rules.
-
Hmm, this is second or third hand info, but I was chatting with a cacher today (at a CITO event) and challenge caches came up. He'd had a talk with the lackey who set up the moritoriam. At the time, they were looking at having new CC's include a checker (partnering with Project-GC I think it was). New idea's for CC's would be slower to impliment as a new checker would have to be developed.
If the checher doesn't give the final co-ords until you qualify, this may halp the "I can't log a cache I know is there because I don't qualify" problem some have with CC's. Would this limit CC power trails? And would that be a good thing or not? (I think the answer(s) to that will as numerous as the cachers who have an opinion!)
It would be nice if they would also give them their own icon so they'd be easy to sort out for those that flat out don't like them, but we'll see. At least an attribute which could be also used.
I may be wrong, but I don't think the moratorium was because the I know it's there but can't log it issue, but rather the long intricate rules to log the cache and the very limited audience that could qualify resulting in high review and appeals workload to get it listed. Namely the listing side was the issue, not the finding and logging side, although some perverted the discussions to that end. It was the review and appeals workload that caused the problem. Most of the threads have dwelled on logging issues and the real estate taken up by what some consider useless caches or caches devoted to the numbers runners.
To quote from the announcement
However, there are many aspects of challenge caches that can make them frustrating for the community. They are neither a separate cache type nor do they have a specific attribute, so the logging requirements are easily misunderstood. Challenge caches can also be very difficult to publish due to the large amount of subjectivity involved relative to other geocaches. While they account for only ~1% of all geocache submissions, challenge caches comprise the bulk of appeals made to Geocaching HQ.
Bolding is mine.
-
I never heard of anyone doing anything like that. Wonder why they would do something like that?
-
As someone sagely noticed, the joke was on YOU. Hah.
I don't believe their database has any way of telling the difference between April 1 souvenirs and any other souvenirs. It's just a simple set-and-forget bit for each souvenir.
That's why they added a feature to optionally hide souvenirs. A feature I appreciate.
Unfortunately that feature is only partially implemented. You can hide them on Groundspeak but they are proudly there for all the world to see on Project-GC. Seems the API really doesn't care if you hide the souvenir or not.
-
What an embarrassment to the company. They play a joke, but are unable to write the code necessary to undo the damage done to those who fell for the joke.
How is it an embarrassment to the company? If they fully intended to scam the members and they succeeded how is that an embarrassment? The fact that the caches are not archived, or locked, and can still be logged says to me they fully expected the members to log the caches and they fully intend for the members to clean up after themselves the best they can. I think it is the members that should feel embarrassed.
Its either that or they are still working on better mistakes tomorrow, in which case they have made great strides.
I am really surprised that Groundspeak hasn't spoken up about this yet.
They did, in the blog. Miss Jenn pointed out how you can hide the souvenirs on Groundspeak, but your out of luck on Project-GC. If you don't want the find counts, delete your logs.
-
What an embarrassment to the company. They play a joke, but are unable to write the code necessary to undo the damage done to those who fell for the joke.
How is it an embarrassment to the company? If they fully intended to scam the members and they succeeded how is that an embarrassment? The fact that the caches are not archived, or locked, and can still be logged says to me they fully expected the members to log the caches and they fully intend for the members to clean up after themselves the best they can. I think it is the members that should feel embarrassed.
Its either that or they are still working on better mistakes tomorrow, in which case they have made great strides.
-
I really don't know what my find count was before I logged that one April Fools cache, but I just deleted my find on the one bogus cache that I logged on the 1st, and my find count did NOT go down. I then logged a find on the black hole earth cache, and my find did NOT go up. Are we certain that they have been adding to our Found It stats?
Now, it did add the Mississippi souvenir, and one other thing that I don't know if anyone has mentioned, but it added to my available favorite point count, as well.
I logged one and my count definitely went up by one. There is a lag between logging and reflecting the change on your stats, try logging out and back in to clear the cache.
I see folks are still logging the caches.
-
When you deleted your logs did the souvenirs disappear too?
I didnt think about that. I just had a look and they are still there. Will look again later to see if they are gone.
Deleting the log will not delete the souvenir. That takes a HQ lackey intervention.
-
So if you log one of these does your new souvenir and D/T combo stand or will this all be deleted tomorrow? Anyone know?
Generally when they've done things like this in the past, they clean up all evidence of it after the fact. I'm not sure how they'll deal with people improperly getting the Washington souvenir, though. The souvenir system isn't robust enough for them to clean those up easily.
They are quite a ways off shore Perhaps the Washington polygon does not include that area, hence no souvenir.
Edit: After a bit of checking it is Nevada you get, not Washington. One would hope that the lackeys had enough foresight, bur I'm not placing a bet with Jimmy the Greek.
-
Is there a way of opting out of landing on the stupid search page by default? some times I really want to be on the main page and navigate from there. Being on the search page, which hardly ever use is a pain on the lower side.
-
I assume that this behaviour happens because my Premium Membership has lapsed.
So I guess the forum shouldn't still show me in the "Premium Members" group either...
It doesn't.
Regarding the favorite points, you earned them as a premium member and you still have them, you just can't award them because that is a premium member feature. If you again become a premium member you will have 114 points you can award. Yes, in an ideal world you would get an error message when trying to award a FP as a regular member. But some times things are not always ideal.
-
A user with a smartphone was exporting a gpx file for use with GCDroid and wanted leading zeroes on the numbers so the list would sort in correct alphabetic sequence. So with another macro we can get that. I'vew added PhonePrefix.gsk to the website (cachemachine.hollenback.org/). In the gpx export dialog in the cache description add mtag="PhonePrefix.gsk" to whatever your using for the export.
-
Hmmm, Gsak mesak, what about mac users Mr J? 
:laughing:Well you just run parallels and Bob's your uncle.
-
The final bookmark is posted. The datafile on http://cachemachine.hollenback.org/ has been updated.
-
Is there an easy, or difficult, way to list all caches placed during July and August of 2000? I have tried repeatly on pocket query without any luck. Thank you.
Pocket queries is the easiest. Mine work fine, you must have something set up wrong. July 2000
-
This problem was reported years ago but has not been fixed and remains a nuisance.
If I set a number of pocket queries to run that day, each with "Uncheck the day of the week after the query runs" set, they all including the last one duly arrive, normally within a few minutes, but then, usually the last one and only the last one is not unchecked.
If I notice I can of course uncheck it myself. If I don't notice then that query runs again a week later.
In general this is of no consequence except a slight waste of resources. It becomes a problem if a week later you want to run the maximum number of different queries and the spurious query puts you over the limit which has happened to me.
If you open each individual PQ and check the day and submit then it works as expected. If you check them on the summary page it works as you describe. For some reason GS is unable to reproduce the problem and fix it. I brought it to their attention years ago and Moun10bike did look at it but said he was unable to reproduce the problem.
-
One simple reason, the UN does not recognize Kosovo as a country.
-
Bookmark updated, data file updated.
#8 - GC1869N - Two years from last find to the first of several DNF's. 2/13 a NM was entered to check the cache for flood damage. CO has not been around for a while. I'm guessing it is gone.
#19 - GC3DV5H - CO requested cache be removed from the route.
#56 - GC4VYQV - 3 DNF's in a row.
#73 - GC4VYQV - 3 DNF's in a row.
Regarding the 2014 geocoins, be aware that 4 of the 10 caches for Kennewick are archived, therefore you will not be able to get the required 8 caches. I emailed and asked if the rules would be bent and so far the sound of crickets is deafening.
-
It is not about the daily limits or what you can find. It is about getting more in one PQ. Keep the daily limits in place and increase the PQ limit. Let's say you want to visit a large city and are not sure where you will go and want to load up the whole city. A 1000 PQ does not do it and you need to setup complex time based PQs taking a lot of time and effort. Really it would just be so handy to be able to grab a whole state. Just set daily, weekly or monthly limits to prevent abuse.
We use to have raging battles over the number of PQ's per day and the number of caches in a PQ. Since the advent of smartphone caching those battles are long gone. Perhaps the op should consider a smartphone instead of an offline database that is never current. If your caching in areas where there is no cell coverage then the current limits are more than adequate except for maybe a few power trails or geo-art and in that case a couple days worth is enough and they generally won't be out of date and the logs, for the most part, are useless.
The other problem with increasing the PQ size limit, you then would have to also increase the bookmark cache limit to match the PQ size.
For the stated problem of a city with lots of caches and not knowing where your going a smartphone is the answer, not gigabytes of offline database.
Hmmm, Gsak mesak, what about mac users Mr J? 
:laughing:
Moratorium update
in General geocaching topics
Posted
Perhaps this will be addressed in the full frame work, but the bolded statement is what bothers me. What was the work needed to get them in shape and how is it that the PGC script writers can do this more efficiently than the GC volunteers and appeals desk? It seems if the volunteers had to put a lot of work into making the challenge cache acceptable we just moved that over to the PGC volunteers. I'm missing something I'm afraid.