cezanne
-
Posts
6753 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by cezanne
-
-
I do not think that that's the reason. I rather think that recurring events are dying out. I have been a fan of recurring events for regular events at inns but with the addition that they are not logged multiple times as attended as I used to think about events as something special and not a cheap +1 which after all is what meanwhile almost all events in my area have come to be about (helped also by the no moving events change).
Side note: I tried to figure out what was the biggest geocaching event held so far recently and that turned out to be more difficult than expected due to lots of events with multiple logs for either recycled listings or faked finds for event caches. For this reason alone, I'd actually be happy to see one-event-one-log implemented retroactively. Not that it'll happen, but I fail to see the point of multi-logging like this.
For the recurring events: it isn't the same event. If I log the March one and my friend the April one but they are the same listing, we seem to have visited the same event unless you really read the log dates (and assume that people never accidentally log on the wrong date). Since there has never been any problems creating new events, this just creates unnecessary confusion.
For event caches: If they are worthy of being noted as finds, then they should have a real listing and be available for users on later days. By just making log-as-event-caches, the "cache" owner is dodging both the maintenance guidelines (caches should be placed for the long term) and the proximity guidelines (since these caches aren't ever reviewed) at the cost of messing up everyone else's statistics.
I do know that recurring events do not fit into modern geocaching. When I started with geocaching noone cared about what is the largest event, what is the most found cache, who is the winner of whatever and many of these questions. It was about offering special experiences regardless of whether for normal caches or for events. We intentionally organized locally the regular meetings of the community outside of geocaching and had a geocaching event once or twice a year and that event then was special and lasted several hours and most attendants were present during all this time and noone left for geocaching very early or came very late for these reasons.
It's so unfortunate that statistics based arguments have become so important. While some features of project-gc and similar tools are handy, I'm quite unhappy about the reinforced effect these tools had on how some cachers wish to enforce how others should enjoy geocaching. That also happened for challenge caches.
-
Groundspeak's mission statement: Our mission is to inspire and enable discovery, exploration and adventure.
No... you are taking GS's word out of context to support your argument to save a cache thats against GS's guideline.
It is probably off topic here but I need to admit that I feel that the bold statement does not fit to how Groundspeak has acted since years at least when it comes to the inspire part.
-
The first page of this thread includes a reference to traveling caches and to recurring monthly events that reuse the same listing. But yeah, most of the discussion has been focused on YOSM.Just shy of your percentages maybe, "cache logged more than once" also includes all of the moving /traveling caches, and all the "monthly, every other wednesday, etc" events that have kept the same GC#.Folks (for some odd reason) just haven't really started on those yet.
The recurring events can be solved just by creating new listings for each event. So I guess there's a lot less motivation for arguing about the change from the owners of those events.
I do not think that that's the reason. I rather think that recurring events are dying out. I have been a fan of recurring events for regular events at inns but with the addition that they are not logged multiple times as attended as I used to think about events as something special and not a cheap +1 which after all is what meanwhile almost all events in my area have come to be about (helped also by the no moving events change).
-
So...a quick google search brings me to this page: http://www.yosm.org.uk/
Looks like not only can you log the finds on that and get a full map of all the locations, you can use the "statpics" utility to post the count to your GC profile.
You still need to use a different site and posting a picture to your profile is something different than numbers included by Groundspeak.
I get that folks like to have their finds count in some way...same with benchmarks in the US. Just saying it doesn't necessarily have to be this loophole (or whatever we're calling it). Personally, I'd rather have a log for each distinct location, on a page for THAT particular monument, rather than 100 logs on the same page that just get buried among thousands of other logs on the same page for different monuments.
Of course it does not need to have this implementation but I understand why it is appreciated also by cachers who do not care about whether a log increases their counter on gc.com.
As to having a different page per object, that depends on the type of objects and one's personal preferences. The classical locationless cache concept collects all logs on one page and for many sorts of objects I preferred that to the Waymarking style where you have a separate one per object. I particularly like the all logs on one page concept for objects for which there are no preexisting maps and lists - I really like the way how a map of all visited locations is set up at the German opencaching site for their type of locationless caches (what I do not like there however is that those finds are garbled with one's find for classical cache types).
-
I think what she's trying to do is to load up a cache with a mess of waypoints, then get one collective GPX file to download. She'll probably open that in a text editor and compare all the waypoint coords to what she input on the website. Double-checking is easier if they're all in one download. Then, display them on whatever map resource she has (she mentioned a 'reasonable topo map') and see if they resolve reasonably well.
Yes, I want to download all the waypoints (including not only the stage waypoints but often also a lot of reference points).
I do the text double check already directly on the gc.com site or rather with a printout of the waypoint section.
However for the check with a good topographic map I use the downloaded waypoints. This also allows me to see if I missed out any auxiliary waypoints - whenever my map shows only one and not two points on the map to which I uploaded both all the coordinates I took for the cache and the ones from the cache page.
That's quite convenient if the number of waypoints is large.
Now, I'm a PM so I'm not sure, but isn't it currently limited? Can BMs get GPX files at all, or are they limited to LOC files?
BM cannot use the download gpx file from the cache page. That link would transfer the full gpx files including also the cache description, logs etc.
If BMs use send to gps however, a limited gpx file is sent to the gps which contains all additional waypoints but not the description and the logs. For PMs send to gps sends a full version of the gpx file.
It has been suggested by some people that Groundspeak could make available to BM the same limited version of gpx file send to gps sends. However I was told that they have no plans to do so. So it again boils down to what the replacement tool for send to gps will provide and to whom the tool will be available. Somehow I think that if the tool will be available to everyone it would be very easy to answer yes to my question.
-
It doesn't make much sense to me to adopt a cache which one hasn't found yet (how is one able to maintain it when one doesn't know the exact hide?),
Just a small remark: Not yet having filed a found it log does not necessarily mean that one does not yet have found a cache.
Some reasons could be: challenge cache for which one has not yet qualified, logging backlog, puzzle not yet solved (some cachers wait with their online log until they did - it's no rule of course), found final of long multi cache by chance coupled with the wish to first visit all stages (same comment as for the previous scenario).
The new change by Groundspeak will push cachers into creating other accounts and use shuffle around the caches. That's the same sort of approach which will be used for NM logs. The number of second accounts will for sure increase.
-
While I think that those two caches should be grandfathered, I have logged 857 benchmarks as found. I got one Geocaching find on a benchmark. It doesn't bother me. The benchmarks are not geocaching finds. It doesn't bother me. Why does it bother you?
But you got a counter on the profile of gc.com for the benchmarks and you can log them via the site.
Those logging notes for the YOSM cache cannot record the number of found ones via gc.com. Notes are garbled among all the other notes ones writes.
-
As said a few times now, Write Note is a record in your profile under All Geocaching Logs...
- And Past logs aren't even affected either.
"These changes are not retroactive. Past logs are not affected."
So, fess up, isn't the issue really just all about the smiley?
I'm not living in the Uk and I have not logged multiple finds on any cache. I do not agree however that a note serves the same purpose.
I write many notes for all sorts of reasons and about every third found it log ends up to be longer than 4000 characters forcing me to split it and to use notes.
My list of notes is a whole mess and I would not like at all to have to find something among my notes.
They could introduce a new log type "repeated visit" - that would help a little bit. In that manner one could count how many times one visited a cache and how often it has been completed.
-
The find count on geocaching.com is just the total number of Found logs you have, not the actual total number of distinct caches you have found. I hope they change this along with the changes in how logging works.
Why do you care about that? The find count on gc.com is not even close to the actual number of distinct caches I have found and never will be.
I found a number of caches on gc.com but have not logged them as finds and I have found a number of caches not listed at gc.com at all.
Everyone can adapt their logging behaviour to their own ethics.
I know cachers who logged two finds for caches which got moved by several 100m or even more and did not get relisted - the latter would have been regarded as crazy back then in many areas. I'm perfectly comfortable with both approaches: one group of cachers decided to log only one find and others logged two finds if they found the cache at the new position. Certainly those who logged twice did not do it for the smilie - nowadays every such cache would get relisted as new cache and those who complain about two found it logs on the same cache, would not have the slightest issue to visit the new edition of a cache, not even if the hideout and the container did not change at all.
-
You are both incorrect. The collection of survey markers posted within the YOSM and the Brass Cap cache pages are virtual caches, not locationless or moving caches.
The goal, in case you're not aware, is to visit a posted set of coordinates (ie the location of a particular survey marker) and read the data printed on the marker. You then email the data printed on the survey marker as proof of finding.
I'm fully aware of the goal. This does not change the fact that many locationless caches worked in the same manner. I'm familiar with them from the time when they still existed ion gc.com. I do not need to refer to web pages which only contain a very short and incomplete description.
Nowadays you will be able to obtain coordinates for almost everything. I do not have locationless caches in mind where the goal is to find a blue elephant and take a photo and send in the coordinates. There is no difference between going to brass caps with specific coordinates from a list or to going to say all sacral art buildings by a certain artist (for which you also find lists with coordinates).
A virtual cache leads to a fixed position and even if it were moving, it would not be the same as the brass cap concept.
Have a look at the concept of safari caches at the German opencaching site and you will see that this concept would fit the YOSM cache type the closest.
-
Waymarking is typically used by those who wish to collect waypoints and not so much by those who enjoy visiting them
People who are into Waymarking are motivated by collecting points rather than visiting the locations?
Not all, but many, yes. Many just list waymarks but never visit any waymarks. Their idea is to set up e.g. a list of all McDonalds restaurants in some area or a list of all dry stone walls under protection. These kind of waymarkers also typically do not care whether they get visit logs for their waymarks.
From the point of view of setting up such lists, it is also perfectly ok if the same object is listed in many categories as is the case in Waymarking. You do not log the visit to the location/object but log specific waymarks and the same object could be listed in 10 and more categories.
-
I'm not sure how the "Send to GPS" feature has *anything* to do with entering waypoint information on a new multicache being submitted....
Colour me utterly confused.
I use it for doublechecking for what I entered. After having uploaded all waypoints (could be more than 30 points) I download them by using send to the GPS and then check whether the points match with the original points on the map. It's just a further test for me.
You can see all the visible waypoints on the map on the cache page.
You can also click the map icon next to each waypoint to view each location individually, although admittedly this is useless because it brings up the geocaching.com map that shows other caches, but *not* your waypoint.
I know this all. It does not help me to do what I want to do namely to check on a reasonable topographic map whether the waypoints I saved on my GPS coincide with the waypoints I entered manually. On the gc.com map I can only see whether the point is somewhere in the correct area and sometimes not even that (if the cache spans a large distance). There are alternative platforms with better maps which show all waypoints on the large map however for this sort of doublechecking I still resort to the method I described (in addition to checking everything manually).
-
No, not moved to Waymarking. What Waymarking offers is something different which does not appeal to real fans of locationsless caches.
Can you explain the difference for us?
There are a number of differences apart from the obvious one that one needs to visit and register at a different site.
One key difference is that if there were a locationless cache for example for all Gothic churches in Southern England,
then all logs would be collected together in the listing of that very locationless cache which is nice for those who enjoy browsing through the logs.
Right now this is the case for the brass caps.
With Waymarking there are two concepts, the one is a the Waymarking category(with a special and in my opinion very complicated and tedious system how such categories can be opened) and the other are waymarks within a category
A category could be e.g. Gothic churches. Then everyone could register a new Gothic church as a waymark in that category (and also separately any other category where it could fit, e.g. if the church is in city X in the UK, there could be a category churches in the UK and another sights in city X, the same location could also be listed as waymark in these and other categories). Everyone listing a new waymark needs to comply with the rules announced by the officers of the waymark categories.
The visit logs are per waymark and not per waymark category and are thus spread over many different items.
Waymarking is typically used by those who wish to collect waypoints and not so much by those who enjoy visiting them and those who enjoy reading logs and looking at photos in a collective manner as it was possible for locationless caches.
For the brass cap example, one would need to look at all waymarks within the brass cap category (if it exists) which is quite inconvenient, I'd say.
Another aspect of many/most (not all) locationless caches was that everyone who logged a find needed to come up with a new location and could not use again a location someone else has used before which let an additional challenge enter the game.
I'd say that something like safari caches known at the German opencaching site is much better suited for the brass cap concept than Waymarking.
-
The cache description says "Any of the past posted trigs can be logged [...] There are over 700 past posted trig locations.". That sounds pretty much like a locationless cache to me. If it was a moving cache, it should only be possible to log it on it's current coordinates.
Fair point. But that makes it worse in my opinion. Locationless caches was archived and moved to Waymarking a long time ago...
No, not moved to Waymarking. What Waymarking offers is something different which does not appeal to real fans of locationsless caches.
-
And in my observation, Groundspeaks approach to edge cases is usually a big Meh! And rightly so, as otherwise there would be no progress possible. This Meh! approach to edge cases worked pretty well in the past.
You will have had something else in mind when writing the above but I do not agree at all that changes like forbidding DNF and NM logs for cache owners is any sort of progress. It's rather the opposite in my mind.
-
If I want to log a find on GC43F3 125 times (for 125 unique brass caps - virtuals, BTW, not locationless), what does anyone else care? Seriously?
I do not care how often someone logs such a cache however it is a locationless cache and not a virtual. Have you ever looked into the concept of locationless caches which existed in the early years of gc.com?
Actually, it's a moving cache...
Not really, moving caches normally have containers.
-
If I want to log a find on GC43F3 125 times (for 125 unique brass caps - virtuals, BTW, not locationless), what does anyone else care? Seriously?
I do not care how often someone logs such a cache however it is a locationless cache and not a virtual. Have you ever looked into the concept of locationless caches which existed in the early years of gc.com?
-
I'm not sure how the "Send to GPS" feature has *anything* to do with entering waypoint information on a new multicache being submitted....
Colour me utterly confused.
I use it for doublechecking for what I entered. After having uploaded all waypoints (could be more than 30 points) I download them by using send to the GPS and then check whether the points match with the original points on the map. It's just a further test for me.
-
The difference being that I log each of those only once. Even if I went out to find a 700 stage multi, I wouldn't log each stage as a find...I'd log one find, anything additional being a Note.
A multi cache with 700 stages is however not the same as a locationless cache. Every finder of the multi goes to the same locations. It's not up a task of the cacher to find a new suitable location to qualify for a find.
-
Personally, if I had climbed hundreds of hills to find a brass cap monument, I'd like to see an equivalent amount of Found logs in my profile. If those locations are so meaningful, why not get them their own cache ?
Have you understood what locationless caches were about? Their main attraction comes from something which neither can be cast in the number of found it logs nor can it be implemented by hiding physical caches at all such locations.
-
Why would that make any difference at all?
Wouldn't you have them all set and verified before publication?
Yes, but I have not sent it for publication as I still have to do quite some work on it. The container is out there and I have collected all waypoints but the description is far from finished and I have not yet uploaded all waypoints (that's quite tedious and time consuming as it needs to be done one by one).
-
Please please save the YOSM cache, I understand why you'd implement this for a traditional but for a virtual location less cache, with lots of meaning and pleasure, why ruin it for those that love the YOSM?
What's to stop you from continuing to find these landmarks? Post notes instead of 'found it' logs. Or are you willing to admit you only do it for the +1 ?
With found it logs it is certainly easier to keep track of the newly visited locations which noone has logged before.
-
I've never logged one of these brass caps or the YOSM in the UK and I'm not bothered if they stay or go.
It does strike me though that the above log with brass cap replaced by geocache would read just as well and be equally valid and valuable.
I have never been into locationless caches. However it seems to me that you miss an important aspect.
I guess one of the features that attracted people in locationless caches is that everyone had to come up with new locations noone else has used for logging so far. That's quite different to visiting virtuals or waymarks (it's a bit like creating new waymarks within a category but this requires using another site and one is then in charge of the waymark and the logs gets split over all the waymarks in the category and moreover the same location can typically listed in different categories- it's not the same effect as having the chance to read through all the logs of a locationless cache). The German opencaching site offers a type of locationless cache and they are quite popular there and the map that can be created is very nice and it's quite different than to having physical caches at all these locations (apart from the fact that it's pretty unrealistic for many reasons to have caches at all these locations).
Maybe the UK version could take over this cache type.
Save yourself the effort - I'm not the slightest bit interested.
Not you but maybe others. The last sentence was not specifically addressed to you but did not warrant a post of its own. The rest should explain that what you wrote above "just as well and equally valid and valuable" is not true in its generality for the reasons I provided.
-
I've never logged one of these brass caps or the YOSM in the UK and I'm not bothered if they stay or go.
It does strike me though that the above log with brass cap replaced by geocache would read just as well and be equally valid and valuable.
I have never been into locationless caches. However it seems to me that you miss an important aspect.
I guess one of the features that attracted people in locationless caches is that everyone had to come up with new locations noone else has used for logging so far. That's quite different to visiting virtuals or waymarks (it's a bit like creating new waymarks within a category but this requires using another site and one is then in charge of the waymark and the logs gets split over all the waymarks in the category and moreover the same location can typically listed in different categories- it's not the same effect as having the chance to read through all the logs of a locationless cache). The German opencaching site offers a type of locationless cache and they are quite popular there and the map that can be created is very nice and it's quite different than to having physical caches at all these locations (apart from the fact that it's pretty unrealistic for many reasons to have caches at all these locations).
Maybe the UK version could take over this cache type.
Changes to logging, specifically stopping double logs
in General geocaching topics
Posted · Edited by cezanne
I do not regard a monthly event at the same inn at the same time as a geocaching event in its own right. As I said the role of the geocaching listing for me was just to alert the local community that there is a regular meeting. Personally I would prefer to count event attendance not as a geocaching find anyhow.
As the activities are regarded, the event guidelines outrule most almost all interesting types of activities as part of the official event which will in most cases end up as something boring.
A lot of the changes had nothing to do with the reviewing and with appeals. Some changed were caused by complaining cachers that did not like certain types of challenge caches or who did not want to invest the work to see whether they qualified while it was exactly this sort of task that others enjoyed very much.