cezanne

Der Beitrag den Du zitiert hast, bezieht sich aber nicht auf automatisierte Logeintraege. Ich schrieb nur, wann ich das Argument der zitierten Art akzeptiere und wann nicht. Grundsaetzlich ist das Verweisen auf den eigenen Spass immer etwas problematisch bei Dingen, die mehr als eine Person involvieren. Eigentlich geht es hier uebrigens wenn man es schon genau nimmt um GClh.

Wenn sich solche Leute die dazupassenden Caches aussuchen ist nichts dagegen einzuwenden. Wenn sie hingegen sich die Endoordinaten von Caches besorgen die mehrere Stunden Wanderung involvieren und dann auf diese Art loggen und mit der Begruendung Zeitmangel oder zuviele Caches besucht, dann wird es unglaubwuerdig. Meines Caches zB sind definitiv nicht fuer zwischendurch erstellt und auch nicht mit Zielrichtung Spass und das erkennt man sofort. Zu frostengels Caches kann ich nichts sagen, weil ich sie nicht kenne. Hinter meinen Caches steckt immer sehr viel mehr als 2 Stunden an Aufwand - sowohl draussen in der Natur (selbst dann wenn ein einziger Besuch mal ausreichen sollte und ich die Anfahrten nicht einrechne) als auch zu Hause.

Mir ist es einerlei ob jemand manuell stets den exakt gleichen Log einfuegt oder ob durch ein Template halt Dinge wie ob ein FP gegeben wurde und Dank an ... (der Eintrag im Versteckfeld - zB kann sich das dann auch so lesen "Dank an XY adopted by RS") sowie die Fundzahl angefuegt werden. Ich kenne viele Cacher, die kopieren ein- und denselben Text in jeden Log und machen das manuell. Unterschied fuer mich als Logleser gibt es keinen. Diese Leute sehen sehr wohl die Groundspeak Bitte und abgesehen davon sieht man auch daran, dass ja viele schreiben "Es tut mir leid, dass ich bei der Vielzahl der besuchten Caches nicht auf die Caches eingehen kann" (und das auch bei 5 Caches am Tag) dass ihnen sehr wohl klar ist, dass es Verstecker gibt die individuelle Logs bevorzugen. Es gibt auch welche die schreiben rein "Ich bin lieber draussen als zu Hause Logs zu schreiben".

Genau das glaube ich nicht. Ich logge selbst meistens ausfuehrlich (viele wuerden sagen zu ausfuehrlich) aber mich stoert der Satz eher und ich habe, wie schon erwaehnt, keine Aenderungen in den Monaten erkannt seit der Satz im Logfenster steht. Den meisten, die mit Templates loggen und nicht mit Hallo von der Handyapp aus (das sind Anfaenger), ist das sehr wohl klar und der Grossteil besitzt auch selbst Caches. Diese Leute kuemmern die Logs nicht und sie sehen Log schreiben und Logs lesen als Zeitverschwendung an. Mir gefaellt dieses Verhalten weder noch unterstuetze ich es. Richtig und falsch ist hier jedoch wohl nicht der passende Begriff. Es gibt keine objektiven Regeln. Man kann Neulingen oder auch erfahrenen Cachern als betroffener Verstecker mitteilen, dass man sich ueber eine Art Log freuen wuerde - zB frage ich mitunter nach ob die Dose und die Stationen in Ordnung waren und erklaere warum diese Informationen fuer mich hilfreich sind. Die Copy&Paste Logs, die Du als Beispiel bringst, sind noch gar nichts gegen so manches was ich hier in meiner Gegend zu lesen bekomme. Da steht dann zB drinnen, dass Gegend X aufgeraeumt wurde und der Betreffende sehr froh ist nun einige Zeit nicht mehr in diese Gegend kommen zu muessen wo er gar nicht gerne hinkommt und dass zuviele Caches besucht wurden um auf diese eingehen zu koennen. Dafuer brauchst Du gar kein Template weil bis auf die Fundzahl und ggf Uhrzeit ist sowieso alles gleich. Ich kann auch nicht feststellen dass die Zahl jener die mit Tamplate loggen und solche Logs loggen signifikant hoeher ist als jene, die das manuell machen. Ausserdem ist GClh eines von vielen Tools mit dieser Funktionalitaet - man kann diese Entwicklung nicht mehr aufhalten. Es gibt viele andere Tools und es koennen jederzeit neue dazukommen. Ich bin schon froh, wenn sich die Leute nicht bei ECs oder virtuals fuer die Dose bedanken und schreiben diese gut gefunden zu haben aber letzlich ist es sowieso egal, weil das wird ja auch geschrieben wenn gar keine Dose vor Ort ist. Und Du glaubst wirklich dass der Satz etwas bewirkt bei denen Du etwas bewirken moechtest? Es sind nicht alle Verstecker so wie Du und auch ich. Wir lesen gerne Logs und ich gebe mit auch Muehe beim Schreiben meiner Logs. Ich kenne viele Cacher die weder am Lesen noch am Schreiben interessiert sind. Es ist auch nicht so, dass sie durch die Art der Logs oder durch nette Fotos zum Verstecken motiviert werden. Wenn Du Ihnen die Wahl laesst zwischen 10 Besuchen in 2 Jahren mit langen, sehr individuellen Logs und 100 Besuchen in einem Jahr mit Copy&Paste Logs und womoeglich noch vielen Favourite Points laesst, entscheiden sie sich fuer das 2. Logs interessieren diese Gruppe nicht.

Glaubst Du wirklich, dass dies etwas aendert? Seit einiger Zeit wird beim Loggen ueber die Webseite von gc.com ein Satz eingeblendet der in diese Richtung geht - ich merke keinen Unterschied im Logverhalten seit dieser Einfuehrung und das obwohl sich die Webseite von gc.com auch an Anfaenger richtet waehrend ein Tool wie GClh wohl nur von Cachern mit etwas Erfahrung verwendet wird die sich ohnedies genau bewusst sind was sie da machen und ganz bewusst so loggen wie sie nunmal loggen.

I agree. However also when the land is regarded, difficulty and danger is not the same. There are risks which come from conditions like slippery ground, avalanches etc - this is something which is not part of the T-rating. It's up to each cacher to decide whether the conditions on the day of the envisaged visit match the personal abilities and experience level as well as the risk one is willing to take.

Thanks for the information. Will be the replacement be accessible to basic members and do the same job as send to gps (i.e. transfer the additional waypoints)?

I edit a lot although I only log from PCs - often when restructuring to make my parts end up with at most 4000 characters each but also when I forgot something or want to add something etc I do not prepare the logs in an editor but work right on gc.com. Actually, there are quite a number of cachers here who first log found more later at all caches they find but later replace them by real logs, some of them being quite long. Those adding photos add them often with a further delay. I would need to check my caches pages each day for changes if I want to catch spoilers. I add photos typically weeks or months sometimes a year later and not all photos at the same time.

I didn't state that generality, that was another poster. Sorry, you are right in this thread it was someone else. Please excuse my oversight. I mixed something up. The somehow ironic thing is that apparently some staff at GS HQ are not aware of that basic members cannot download gpx files from the cache page as they suggest exactly this in reply to a mail sent to them by a basic member asking whether GS maybe could offer a gpx file version for basic members. BTW as my main top priority application of send2gps is regarded (namely for my own hidden caches before sending them to publish) I would not need this method to check my waypoints if there existed a tool where one can bulk upload a set of waypoints from one's GPS-r to a cache page. From that tool also the PMs would profit. I would like to see GS to work on such type of projects and not on apps, souvenirs, cache health scores and stuff like that but I know that this is an unrealistic wish. While it is certainly true that the latter might bring new cachers, GS then also need more staff and create higher costs and then they need more money which then enforces a need for growth which I do not regard as healthy.

I do not even own a smartphone and many others don't either. GSAK is available only on certain platforms too. However, it's not that relevant here anyway what I own or do not own. I replied not because it was about me but because your statement was simply wrong in its generality. I have no need for full GPX files and also not for PQs. I would not use them anyway. I also would not use the new search either. As to the membership fee, money is not the reason why I opt to be not a PM. First, I do not want to provide my personal data to Groundspeak. Second, I do not want to be a PM - for example, I'm very glad that I do not have available FPs so I cannot award them and noone expects me to do and could be annoyed if I don't. Third, I would never ever have listed caches at this site if Jeremy's promise to keep geocaching free had not been made (that promise was essential for me to use the site despite my ambivalent feelings with regard to some incidents that happened back then around the copyright and lawsuits). It was not about the money for me, but about the fact that in my opinion geocaching should be owned by the community and not become a business. Servers create costs of course but there is a difference between a business and just getting the money to offer some service. I would without any issue volunteer to pay much more than the annual Groundspeak fee to a community driven geocaching site. As an American you might perhaps not understand my main point which has nothing to do with the wish to be a freebie. I'm also willing to pay for a good open source software - what's important for me in that context is the open source spirit and the openness. I would not want them to do that either (for many reasons). They should not provide a new file sending system at all (though many of their paying customers who are not computer affine would very much profit from it). They do not need a file sending system to provide the data that are provided to send2gps for basic members. This routine already exists as otherwise send2gps would send the same data to the GPS for PMs and BMs which is not the case. If I'm not wrong send2gps is a plugin which has no knowledge about membership data. So everything what is needed is already available (or in any case would be trivial to provide and best as replacement of the loc files which noone needs anyhow).

Are you sure? Have you for example come across the thread where people pointed out that the link in the new newsletter listed for all caches regardless of where they live the caches in the Washington area? It seems to be that the most obvious cases of testing one could think of would catch such mistakes so it's seems to me that the way things are tested at gc.com seems to differ from what I'm used to from other areas (where still often a lot of bugs do not get discovered during the initial testing). In the case discussed here I also wonder whether the developpers are seasoned cachers who have been using these lists extensively over years so that they understand what is important to the users.

Yes, but it needs to be offered to everyone to work just as good.

I do not think that the OP confused something. First this weird sorting also occurs within the list of all found it, all did not find logs etc and not only in the history of the last 30 days and there it is really very painful. Second, even within the list of the last 30 days I would prefer to have backdated logs at the end of the list (which was the state of things until the change). It's simply annoying to have to search for a log for a visit in May 2014 that has been logged in October 2014 in the mids of the logs of October 2014. It gets even more annoying if one has had a backlog in logging only with regard to some caches and not all as then the order one ends up is pretty much chaotic. These lists of all logs are particularly important as they are the only way to list all logs of say type DNF or all notes or all NM logs as all these type of links are not creatable via the list you mentioned as alternative. Moreover the latter list is not searchable as one needs to page through.

Me too - it would create a real mess as I often log later than the day when I visited a cache and sometimes considerably later.

Systems like project-gc allow an unlimited number of people to mark their log with FTF and let them score for the FTF. project-gc scores and such type of things are more valuable for some cachers as cash ever would be. Moreover, the reality for many urban cache settings is that only one cacher can find the cache and the others in the group get it presented anyway as when e.g. one cacher finally takes the right action and has the fake bolt in his hands the others standing nearby will notice it anyway. Find in geocaching terms has a different meaning anyhow. I often end up with DNF even though I found the container but could not sign the log sheet.

Not true. It depends on how the applications monitors new caches and potential cachers can also let them notify. That works for found it logs just as well as for any log type. Last year when a cache of mine got published in the evening of April 1 a cacher made a joke and wrote a found it log that he later deleted. He just wanted to shock others. So a found it log does not mean "found it" anyhow.

Not for everyone but I guess that fixing the issue with FPs when found it logs are deleted and complete versions are uploaded later would be appreciated by many, including myself. I very often get logs "Found - more later" when it is not at all about FTFs. Actually this has become the most common log I get nowadays. I would not want to be notified for every small edit of a log and thus also what project-gc offers to paying members is not what I'm looking for. I'm aware however of the fact this procedure only helps those who either do not care about the order of their logs for a cache day or want to replace all logs by a more detailed one but still that's a considerable number of cachers anyway.

You wrote in another post that Groundspeak needs to adapt their rules to changing technology. This however would have an effect on those using old equipment. You cannot come up with any approach regarding logging FTFs which inconveniences noone. While you do not like FTF information via notes, others are angry about edited found it logs they are not notified about and others do not want to use the approach to log a short found it first and then delete it and relog a longer found it log later as they lose FPs in this manner. You cannot make everyone happy. With every approach you use you will make some cachers happy and some unhappy. That's it.

I've missed that. If you have feeling that I dictate, please except my deepest and truly apology. I did't write a single word for such conclusion. I respect all other geocachers, especially experienced. On other hand I don't except patronizing. My only intention is to exchange arguments and opinions. I only added my comment because you wrote about the requirement to adapt to changing technology.

No, that would be very unfair. Logging with note is like, I've done it for myself, others you can dig for a data after myself. That's a smaller resignation from sports spirit among us. So you are saying that someone who cannot log from the field is not allowed to find a cache as first one? I do not even own a smartphone - so whether data coverage is available or not does not change anything for me. I'm not an FTF hunter but always being in need of nice hiking caches to go for it could happen that I go for an unfound cache. In case of a cache that requires a hike of a few hours it will not help you anyway if someone logs a find as you will have started anyway. Do you really think that you can dictate cachers that are much longer into geocaching than yourself that they need to buy new equipment just to please you or to leave geocaching? Without some of these people geocaching would not exist today.

I never ever would replace a cache that has gone missing without permission. I do not have an issue with leaving an additional log sheet however. Of course I both mention what I did in my log and write a personal message to the cache owner. The more time is involved to get to the cache (drive and hike), the more I'm inclined to help out if possible. This does not mean that cache owners are not responsible for their caches. Often it's a temporary fix anyway and the owner will ultimately go and visit the cache. When it saves the owner a trip which can be used to hide a new cache, I would not mind either as long as it does not get a systematic thing and the owner is not relying on others as a maintenance plan. I have helped out others and other helped me out in about the same amount which is fine for me. Doing a cache that requires 7 hours of hiking round trip and at least 2 hours of driving to get to the starting point and then not leaving for example a new log book feels to me like telling an old lady who dropped something that she dropped something and not picking it up for her. In case of doubt I try whatever I can to improve the situation at such a cache. I have no possibility to contact the cache owner in such cases to ask. However I know that I have never encountered someone owning such a cache who was not grateful if someone helped them out and fixed a before unknown problem (not a missing cache container) without prior consent.

´Would you be more happy about a FTF found it log many hours or even days later?

My first log for a cache is a note also in the case when I drop off a trackable and also in the case when 4000 characters do not suffice for my log (then the first part which is posted last will become the find it log while the earlier part(s) end(s) up as note.)

In this case I meant the whole country and I think that wherever caches exist that involve remote long hikes they are more often than not old caches. Of course you could argue that due to the influx of power caches and drive ins every other cache type became extremely rare. Then whatever approach is used will mainly have those caches in mind that to a large extent created part of the problem the approach tries to take care of.

As a basic member I do not have FPs at all. I just thought that the FP issue should be mentioned here - people might otherwise be confused when they see how they lose FPs and do not understand why. Whether or not it affects someone depends on the specific situation of the cacher. A local cacher has 622 finds so far (he mainly cares about more complex caches and does not log series caches except the bonus) among which 179 are FTF logs. He is needing all his FPs and could not afford losing them that easily. Of course it should be possible to fix the FP issue, however like for many other bugs this seems to be one that stays forever.