cezanne

Adopting a cache means that you assume responsibility for maintaining it. It's OK to have found logs on caches that you have adopted, but I'd say that assumes that you find them before adopting them. After that it's just logging your own cache. But what about a challenge cache someone has physically found but did not qualify at that time? There has been no rule that owners need to qualify until the recent rule change. Of course adopting out the cache to a second account will do the job but on the other hand others want to restrict adoptions ............. More and more rules are upcoming and I do not see anything that really warrants that much the caused restrictions.

Just wait and then test it. I guess you know that I have been aware of this option before you suggested it. Knowing the answer in advance would however be helpful for me to know whether I should hurry up with entering and doublechecking all waypoints for my newest cache.

When you as a finder look for a cache, the result is either "Found it" or "Did not find it". Since a CO won't be able to log "Found it", it makes perfect sense to remove the ability to post "Did not find" as well, since those two are the result of a search by the finder. The owner has "Owner Maintenance" or "Temporarily Disable Listing". No, it does not make perfect sense as it indeed can happen that COs do not find their own caches. The other log types can follow in subsequent logs. It's simply not logical to disallow DNF logs by COs. Personally, I do not use NM logs for my own caches (actually I hardly use them at all and usually mention things in my normal logs or in mails). However there is no reason to forbid NM logs by COs. Why should COs be forced to use a second account or a piece of paper or whatever other method? Who profits? This is just my thoughts, but I don't think they're going to make that change. But if you've found the cache before, and know where it is, why not post a NM instead? Caches move around, one can make mistakes one did not make years before, one could not recall where a cache had been hidden etc I ended up with DNFs when I came along with friends for caches that I have found before and that still turned out to be fine at the time of my DNF. I care about my own find count. And bugs in the API, and on the site itself, have caused double logs to appear. This change will prevent that from happening, which I think is good for everyone. There are easier ways to deal with that. For example "Are you sure?" However you still do not seem to have understood my point above which is not about disallowing multiple finds but about the role of find logs in general. For me they are a message and not a way to add to a counter.

Because if the CO can't find the cache, maintenance is needed. The "Temporarily Disable Listing" log type is approprierte when this happens. If the CO doesn't want to disable, you still have the option to leave a note. There can be a sequence of logs and often there is (for example reenable and performed maintenance). For example, I could first log a DNF or a find and then a NM. With the same logic a CO can first log a DNF if he/she wants to. There is no reason to forbid that As I see it, NM logs are a message from the finder, to the cache owner. If the cache owner realize that the cache need maintenance, you have "Temporarily Disable Listing" and "Write note" to use. For keeping track of which caches that need maintenance, a bookmark list is much better anyway. A bookmark might be the better way for you. For others it is not (apart from the fact that basic members cannot use bookmarks). Why should COs be kept from using NM in the same manner than others? Temporarily disable only handles major cases and not minor ones like the log book only has 6 free entries. Some cachers argue how important NM logs are as they also alert other cachers and are that notes do not serve the same purpose. If a cache owner takes over what cache visitors are not doing, why should they be forced to use a second account? (Which is the obvious way out.) I don't see any reason for them to do this. Just like you can write several notes, you can probably write as many DNF as you want. If they do not allow a cache owner to write a DNF, they might argue that if I have previously found a cache (say in May 2015) I cannot write a DNF log for it in March 2017. It is this what I meant with regarding finds as "score counters". Then one might argue that once you received the award (the +1) why should you come up with a DNF log afterwards. This change is helping to keep the find count correct, I don't see how that can be bad... I do not care whether the find count of others is correct,. Apart from that what I regard as bad is the big role of finds as a score counter and not as the message that someone has successfully completed a cache.

But this was broke, and now they're fixing it +1 I do not agree that disallowing NM and DNF logs for cache owners is fixing something which was broken. Why shouldn't a CO log a DNF followed by some other log type if they could not find the cache? Or log a NM if they realized that a cache needs maintenance to be done later? Next time they disallow DNF logs once one has previously logged a find. (I have done that several times.) It seems that more and more Find is seen as a way to increase a score counter. If a newer community member cannot be expected to read logs and understand that it can happen that a CO logs a NM or a DNF, they rather should invest some time to read about geocaching than the COs should be forced to change their logging style.

Not that I care about these caches. However logging does not mean that something counts as a cache find on gc.com. The benchmarks can be logged via gc.com (no need to go elsewhere) and the number of logged benchmarks also is displayed on the gc.com profile and not somewhere else. Moreover, the users can make use of a preexisting list of benchmarks while for waymarks if a location is not yet on Waymarking someone would need to register it (and would need to comply with the rules of the waymark category). I never regarded Waymarking as replacement for those who are attached to how things work here.

It depends on the way it is implemented. For the FP algorithm one also would assume that 0.1 FP does not got lost by deleting a find and relogging it but it does.

That won't be the case after April or May. One GC#, one find. But I hope it will be implemented in a reasonable manner not as the handling of FPs. The system needs to allow a second find log if the first one got deleted.

If they were just concentrating on hosting cache listings, much less money and staff would be needed. Most of the effort goes meanwhile into something else. There has been a time when in my area about every third cache was crosslisted somewhere else. The situation changed considerably with the growing trend that find counts are scores and only a find on gc.com is valuable. It was not the worldwide character of gc.com that played the key role in this development. It is not so much about whether Groundspeak makes money, but rather that I think that geocaching is something not owned by a company and that most of the things Groundspeak promotes nowadays are things which I do not appreciate (power caching, app development, marketing et) including further growth into directions which I regard as very unhealthy and not sustainable in the long run.

Of course only they can know. That's why I asked a lackey. It could be, yes. The same happened also for the new search too. It would however be a rather mean way of dealing with the old promise of Jeremy back then. Essentially they could recast the site completely and then make the site unusable by basic members - but that's not a fair way to deal with the promise back then which goes in its importance much beyond money issues. For me it never has been about the amount of money the PM ship costs but always about the fact that I think geocaching belongs to the community and not to a company. The concerns back then raised when there have been threats of law suits, the copyright discussion etc have led to Jeremy's promise and without the latter many cachers would never have offered their caches to this site and it never would have grown into what it has grown into. I did not have any issues of this type at all. There have been some almost newcomers who got hooked by my caches and had much less difficulties with some of my hardest caches than experienced cachers with thousands of finds. Those who do not like to read long texts, do not visit my caches and in particular not alone. I could never ever see any difference in the behaviour just based on the membership status. That might be different in other areas. Actually the PMs support much more than the site and much more than what I want to use. I do not care about PQs, FPs (I would detest to have them available), paperless caching and many other things and I'm strictly against every sort of marketing initiative that goes towards growth of geocaching. Seeing how many multi caches you have in your area, I get why you see it this way. When basic members only see easy traditionals, and there's almost none of them, of course they enjoy it more when they get access to everything... There are enough easy traditionals in my opinion. What I'm saying is that none of them is interesting to a certain sort of cacher type. Why should they try out a PMship if everything they can see or reasonably access is boring in their eyes? The difference is that the gym offers the equipment. In case of caching the cache hiders offer the most essential part. I have no issue at all with gyms asking for fees. I have an issue however if cachers should pay a fee to get reasonable access to the caches I have hidden - I hide them for the local community and not for a company to make a living out of it. I do not agree when it comes to my personal interests which are niche interests. Groundspeak has never seemed to care much about the interests of this nice communities which are not interested into mass caching. Marketing is important for a business - not for geocaching with the growth it has already reached and which endagers its further existence in many cache dense areas.

I do not see it that way as in many urban areas the only interesting caches for those who are not interested into special containers are non traditionals. If people never will get to see/visit them, they will leave before they got started. I know cachers who are PMs meanwhile who got hooked only by more complex caches (e.g. a couple told me that without my caches they never would have stayed). For example, I would have a really hard time cannot to come up with recommendable traditionals in my home town (farther away of course such caches exist). Have a look at https://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx?lat=47.06687&lng=15.44468#?ll=47.06688,15.44472&z=14 (and then check the FPs for the green caches) That does not look like https://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx?lat=42.43137&lng=-76.46337#?ll=42.43134,-76.46338&z=14 Moreover, a lot of the money (I'd say that meanwhile the majority) does not go into the site itself (servers, programmers and the like) but into many other sources (layout, public relations, marketing, mega events, souvenirs, travelling of lackeys to events etc).

Why should it? The ones paying for all this, should get access to more than the ones not paying... They get more anyway, namely the description, the logs etc. My question is whether the new tool offers the same the old tool has offered all these years (of course restricted to caches available to all cachers, not PM-only caches) - so something on the premises of which cachers have decided to hide their caches on this site and contributed to its success. Basic members cannot click on this link, but they can use send to gps. My question is simply will the new tool provide the same service as the old one. It's not about any new bonus added. I'd say that from continuing to offer the same functionality as has been present all these years also many PMs will profit. The new app restricts new cachers to simpletraditionals - the more important it becomes to make more complex cache types (like multi caches with many waypoints) available to new cachers so that some of them could get hooked before they leave geocaching again due to being frustrated about the drive in caches which are boring for them.

Vielen geht es nicht um 30 Euro, sondern um etwas sehr viel Wichtigeres, das auf die Anfangszeiten von Geocaching zurueckgeht. gc.com haette nie zu dem werden koennen das es heute ist, wenn nicht die Cacheverstecker die zentrale Leistung erbracht haetten und noch heute erbringen. Geocaching gehoert keiner Firma, sondern der Community. Das seinerzeitige Versprechen von Jeremy Irish, dass das Basisspiel immer frei bleiben wird, wurde schlussendlich als Reaktion auf viele Bedenken gegeben, die angesichts von Copyright-Diskussionen, Klagedrohungen und anderen Unstimmigkeiten in diesem Umfeld, geaeussert wurden. Es ist das eine fuer eine Serviceleistung Geld zu verlangen, und etwas anderes aus einer Sache ein Geschaeft zu machen, die meiner Meinung nach kein Geschaeft sein sollte sondern von der Community getragen. Ich waere jederzeit bereit fuer eine community-getragene Cachingseite freiwillig mehr als 30 Euro im Jahr zu bezahlen. Geocaching ist nicht das Eigentum von Groundspeak und wurde nicht von Groundspeak erfunden und wird auch nicht zentral von Groundspeak getragen. Mit Computerfirmen, Fernsehgesellschaften etc laesst sich die Situation von Geocaching nicht vergleichen.

Let me ask again: Will the new tool have the same functionality, i.e. will it transfer all waypoints regardless of the membership status?

In der Gegend in der gegy cacht gibt es kaum PM-only Caches. Der Prozentsatz ist regional sehr unterschiedlich.

Allerdings wirst Du ein Problem mit Deinem Cache auf einer anderen Platform haben, welche auch immer Du Dir aussuchst. Das hat mit dem Cachetyp zu tun und dieser ist essentiell fuer Deine Cacheidee. Wenn jemand mit der geringen Intensitaet cacht wie Du, sollte eine andere App (third party) durchaus ein zufriedenstellendes Resultat liefern.

It depends on how old an EC is. In the first years English was required and so all these caches have an English version and often no local language version (the language rule is not applied to old ECs). Then the GSA made the terrible mistake to change the rles and deviate from the standard rules for every other type of cache.

Because banning accounts from adoptions does not make sense if it can be circumvented by using a different account. However by restricting adoptions, it would also hurt those who use a different account than their main player account for a different reason. A cache which needs to be fixed is not necessarily in bad condition. It can be just a minor issue to be fixed at one of the stages. As the "if a reviewer cannot be convinced ...." is true but I refer to cases where it is ususally not an issue to convince a reviewer (=a human being) but it would be an issue to convince an automatic algorithm. I have not forgotten your comments. I just think that this approach results in discouraging adoptions. For me it is hardly a difference when it comes to the result. Someone who takes over a cache which has an issue and which cannot be maintained further by its owner is a good cache owner, but still has to live with potential negative effects. Again. If it's in bad condition and no one is willing to maintain it, let alone adopt it, then it is properly headed for eventual review and potential archival. That somehow goes in circles. I know many cases where cache owners archived their caches if they could not find someone who took them over when they could not maintain them any longer. Reviewers are not necessarily involved at all. There are also responsible caches who offer some caches for adoptions. What I'm saying is that the proposed system is providing a further discouragement for adopting caches instead of providing positive encouragement. It's a trivial statement that a cache which has noone who looks after it will eventually be prone to get archived. We are not talking about the justification of archivals. If someone adopts a cache and does not maintain it, the situation is the same as if the original owner does not maintain it. I see no reason for adoptions bans on a large scale. Everyone can come in a situation where they cannot maintain a cache any longer. Of course every cache can end up having to be archived (by the owner or by a reviewer). I never said that it suffices to keep around a cache because it is special. It's quite a stupid idea however to ban someone from say taking over two caches of the same cacher who became ill. It suffices that one of the two if one of the two caches has an issue that can be fixed only when the weather allows it. Most reviewers (all?) would not have an issue with this scenario. Adoption will hardly ever be a strong desire but a kind of sacrifice to provide a service to the community. I really wonder why all these involved procedures were needed at all - either the process of dealing with caches that requiring maintenance works or it does not work. In the latter case this is not at all related to adoptions. Even if what you describe above would be possible how many would go through the extra trouble including communication with HQ which is a barrier for most cachers anyhow.

The point is there's no evidence of a problem and no evidence a procedure that blocks a certain class of adopters would help resolve the problem if there were one. The burden of proof is on the proposal to justify that any burden should be put on any CO regardless of whether you think the burden rises to the level of penalizing them. I don't disagree My point was people keep saying good owners will be penalized in the context of adopting caches. I still don't see any tangible penalization in this context, to the degree that good owners will effectively and incorrectly be "banned" from adopting, even if the automated system leaves room for false negative GHS. I disagree as in order to make sense any such system would have to disallow or restrict considerably adoptions from accounts which are not the player accounts of experienced cache hiders. If such a system were implemented, it would also discourage cachers to take over caches that cannot be fixed quickly. You can call it penalization or discouragement or whatever - it will in any case have a negative effect on the willingness of cachers to take over caches (which is already low anyhow in many regions) and rescue them from getting archived which apparently is something who do not seem to care about that much. From the perspective of someone who has caches in mind for which adequate or even better replacements are quite probable to pop up this is understandable. However that's not the scenario I'm concerned about. In my opinion, there is much more to lose than to win with adoption bans. Unmaintained caches can be a problem but regardless of by whom they are owned - there need's to be system for them anyhow.

Das ist nicht behebbar und bleibt so. Hast Du einen Fund Log fuer einen Cache geloescht und einen neuen geschrieben? Dadurch zB koennen FPs verlorengehen.

If even bans could happen or as suggested by someone one could filter to the CHS of cachers, then many adopters will feel forced into acting more quickly than is leading to the best results. This not only affects cases of the type I mentioned when an immediate maintenance is not possible but also cases where a quick and dirty fix is not the best in terms of the resulting quality. For example, put out a standard micro as replacement for a creatively crafted cache container for which one needs to wait for some replacement items to be delivered. And that's entirely subjective, because it would depend on how important the adopter's lowered CHS is to themselves. That's it. If they want to adopt a bad cache now but don't want to live with the lowered CHS because of that, that is entirely their own concern. No, that's much more a problem for the local community which loses precious caches if taking responsibility is discouraged by such a system. It won't if the adopter writes the sort of note I mentioned as the reviewer will then hopefully wait until the snow melted away. In such a case there is hardly any choice when to adopt the cache if one wants to rescue it. It's much more convincing if someone takes over a cache and promises to maintain it as soon as possible than if the person who is not able or willing to maintain the cache further writes a note that the cache will be adopted by someone. I did not have false positives in mind in my post above. But again in the system you describe as best, everyone would just do what is best for themselves - hardly anything which I regard as a community I wanted to be part of. BTW: I do have a problem with your term "bad cache" as not every cache that has a problem that needs to be fixed warrants to be referred to as bad cache. If for example there is a single minor problem for a very nice hiking cache which covers a distance of 300km, I'd hardly call this a bad cache and I would be very grateful to every cacher who were willing to contribute to rescue such a cache and keep it going. These are not the sort of caches which when they get archived get replaced by something comparable. Such caches are rare jewels and I think it is worth to fight for each of those.

What I meant is this: It's not a good thing to require from an adopter to fix a problem immediately regardless of whether the circumstances allow it or to let this person end up with a bad score for the time when no maintenance can be done. What counts is that caches are taken care of within a period of time that is reasonable in the setting of the cache. It's not a good thing to value "immediacy" more than other aspects that are at least as important.

Not necessarily a good thing. Suppose a cache in the mountains which is not reachable in winter has a problem and the original owner cannot or does not want to take care. A responsible cacher adopts the cache to rescue it and writes a note immediately that the cache will get fixed and reenabled in a few months when the snow has melted. The score will stay bad and the motivation to engage for a cache that cannot be fixed immediately will decrease even further. In such a case it might even block cache projects of the adopter in an unfair manner. Note the difference to the cache health score system used to support reviewers. They only get a list of caches that might need attention and look at the caches on the list. They would become aware of a note of the type mentioned above and act accordingly. An automatic system which blocks cache placements/adoptions cannot read and understand notes.

Dafür unterstellst Du das mir. Auch nicht pralle. War nicht meine Absicht - nur wie soll ich "Das ist kein Cachen" verstehen? Selbst virtuelle Caches und auch Cachen abseits von gc.com ist Cachen. Mir fiel daher keine andere Interpretation ein als dass Du eine individuelle Vorstellung davon hast was Cachen ist und was kein Cachen ist. Vielleicht habe ich es aber auch nur missverstanden. Siehe oben. Ferner: Dose und Behaelter ist nicht dasselbe - zB sind magnetische Tafeln mit einem Zettel in einer Huelle offiziell erlaubt. Es ist mitunter sehr subjektiv was als Behaelter zugelassen wird und was nicht und keineswegs durch die Regeln vorgegeben. Fussball hat klare Regeln - Geocaching nicht.

However there are many caches that get adopted out when being in good condition and it is a loss when due to changes noone can be found to take them over. I'd class that as a big loss. It is already difficult enough to find adopters for caches that are not easy to maintain. Typically this are not the caches where someone will jump in and hide a new cache of the same type. Junk caches will get archived after all anyway. It seems to me that your ideas are based by your personal caching experiences whicch do not seem to include caches that take several hours (or even multiple days not necessarily contiguous) and are not easy to get to. Of course the majority of caches does not belong to this category, but it would be a pity if these rare caches became even rarer out of an attempt to somehow deal with mass caches that already ruined enough for those who are not after mass caches. There is no doubt that geocaching means different things to different people. We need to find ways to live together in the best manner despite our very different preferences. So let's compare who is getting to lose/win what if your suggestions are implemented. Cachers like you end up with some junk caches being archived a bit earlier and potentially replaced by something you like more a bit earlier. Cachers like me will end up with more nice caches getting archived (and not rescued by someone) while nothing gets hidden as replacement. I wonder if it would not be worth to wait a little bit longer in some cases if it would help others who happen to suffer from a lack of appropriate caches anyhow.