ChriBli

Fixed now, it seems.

Works for me too. Thanks for fixing.

Funny, exactly the same problem as one year ago is back, and it is the same cacher that reports it again. Here's what I wrote in the other thread: Oh no, not again! I have exactly the same problem, and I've seen it before. Something with the cookie consent stuff. If I leave all the check boxes checked when I load the site, then message center works. Definitely not satisfactory, I routinely uncheck everything but necessary cookies and I have every intention to continue doing so.

Oh no, not again! I have exactly the same problem, and I've seen it before. Something with the cookie consent stuff. If I leave all the check boxes checked when I load the site, then message center works. Definitely not satisfactory, I routinely uncheck everything but necessary cookies and I have every intention to continue doing so.

It is not as painful to my Swedish ears. But isn't there a need for a short, snappy noun for this purpose? "I have hidden ten geocaches" - a bit too long "I have hidden ten" - but only five of them were geocaches "I have ten hidden" - and another five left out in the open Besides, "Year of the Hidden Geocache" would be a silly title for a blog post. Maybe hidee? As in employer/employee?

I suspect there are some armchair loggers out there that have a similar notification set up - athough not always that local. It is not unusual to see a few online logs pop up just when it appears that the logbook has gone missing. When a cache I went after proved to be missing - confirmed by the CO - there was suddenly an online log claiming that someone found it in 2015! Hard to check that now...

In Swedish it is sometimes called "gömma", which is kind of the same thing. "To hide" would be "att gömma" in Swedish. But this noun is not entirely exclusive to geocaching.

Hadn't read that blog post, and I must say I'm surprised. I think it somewhat goes against the hiding guidelines where it's said that "When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." and "Hide your cache to have a long life". I haven't seen a "2021 year in review" blog post yet, in last year's review it was stated that 434,439 caches were hidden during 2020. Maybe that figure went down in 2021? This new blog post may be an attempt to get better numbers in 2022... I have recently found a couple of caches from the early 2000s. In this case the orignal CO has passed away but the surviving caches have all been adopted by others. Many of these caches would probably not be permitted today, due to stricter placement and permission rules or new natural reserves and such. If they were archived, many interesting places would no longer host a geocache.

My Recently Viewed Caches list, as seen from the old dashboard, suddenly contains only one entry. That entry is for the only cache listing I have viewed yet in 2022. Is it expected that this list should reset with the new year? Not that this entirely ruins my day...

There was most certainly a reason to try to add the find to the group account, why would they otherwise have done it? Although the reasonable thing would have been to remove it from the wife's account at the same time. That was probably what the CO reacted to, a visit by a single person generating find logs on two different accounts. Logging finds on group accounts even though not the whole group has been present is otherwise very common, at least in my area. It is of course also impossible for the CO to check. I think there are a lot of family or couple accounts out there where all but one member have more or less quit geocaching. Groundspeak's reaction in this case seems unreasonable though, there most be circumstaces that are not mentioned here.

I strongly suspect the programmer is Swedish. About the button, I think it an imperative verb rather than a noun, as in "go filter geocaches according to the filters I have set up". It is also possible to set up a position and a radius, for instance the center of that park and 1 km, to limit the number of matches.

Looking at the previous gallery picture showing the logbook from a year ago, it does indeed seem to have a capacity of six logs per page, be written on both sides of the pages and close to the end already then. After that there's some 45 online logs, so if it is the same book it must be full now. And the most recent picture doesn't seem to show a logbook that has been replaced in the last year. Of course it is OK do post an NM for a full logbook, regardless how many finds you have or how long it took you to accrue them. I never do it if the CO seems inactive though, as that puts an otherwise working geocache at risk of archiving.

I'm pretty sure I've seen a thread where it was debated whether or not it actually matters to anyone else if someone is logging caches online without visiting them. Without offering an opinion on that, it is out of the question that COs should run out and check their physical logs every time someone writes and online log. Of course, when a CO actually does visit their own cache for some reason, they could compare the logs and delete any fake online entries.

Doesn't geocaching by definition cause needless driving and walking? I've only done one AL (together with others) since I have no device that supports the app, so I'm no expert. But that one was definitely walking between locations, and I would assume most are? Needless walking is just healthy and does not have to be avoided. In any event, couldn't an ordering of locations by the ALO serve as a guidance to the most efficient route? Hopefully most ALOs don't enforce an intentionally stupid sequence.

The good old "old logging experience" says "date logged" instead, which suits all types of logs. I'll keep opting out for as long as I am allowed to do so.

Not sure what I was expecting, but I was not expecting it to do a random selection of caches matching the search, or to think up an utterly unrelated position that probably just happened to be in the right country. And the text in the search box clearly mentions GC code as something to search for, so it is not entirely focused on locations.

I seldom search for caches (except when listing own or other's found or hidden caches, which I don't really consider to be searching), but sometimes I want to find a cache by name. For instance when I clean out waypoints from my GPSr and want to check if I have found the corresponding cache already. What I used to do was to go to "Advanced Search" from my profile page and do a keyword search. I decided to try how this works now. I chose a waypoint called "Kanelbullen 2013". There are a few caches with "Kanelbullen" in the name, as can be seen from this Project-gc search (not case sensitive, which is a good thing): So I click "Advanced Search", and that takes me to the general search page. The input box tells me I can search for "City, state, coordinates, GC code...", so I assume I can search for keyword as well. I start writing "Kanelbullen" and it looks like this: For some reason it lists a random couple out of the seven or eight caches that should match my search. I soon realize that the last one on the list does not refer to the cache "Kanelbullen", it just reflects exactly what I have written in the search box so far, whether or not there is a cache that matches that search. If I continue writing the full name I am searching for, "Kanelbullen 2013", I get this: If I click one of the two top ones on the list, I get a list of caches within a 16 km radius around the corresponding cache. If I click the third one, or just hit the search button, I get this: Now this is a list of caches, presumably within a radius of 16 km, centered around 600 km from the cache I was searching for. It is consistent, it happens every time. There is no place on the map nor any cache on the list called "Kanelbullen" or anything remotely similar. I do not understand why this happens or where it gets that strange location in the southern part of Sweden from. I'm on Win10, Firefox 86.0.1, in case that helps.

You wish...

So Groundspeak uses IE for their website testing? That would explain a lot...

Is this really the intended layout? I thought there was something wrong. Is the checkmark really supposed to cover the text, and the box to extend to the window edge and beyond? Strange...

One could also use the "Map Compare" tool in Project-GC, I just tried it and it works fine with graham&linda. The downside is that it only compares two user's finds at a time.

There is definitely something funny with specifically the ampersand, I just tried a username with space in it as well as the OP's username with apostrophes and they both work.

Me too, Firefox 86.0.1 on Win10, https://coord.info/GC7EPCP.

That doesn't explain why it doesn't work. These names are grandfathered, not disallowed. Everything should work for those already created. Actually I don't understand the benefits of grandfathering something that you will have to support perpetually anyway. Or could the idea be to gradually remove support for special characters until people just give up and change their usernames?

You wouldn't be using an old or unusual web browser, would you? I've been living with this problem on an old Firefox version ever since the "search map code refactor" last fall. There was some thread about it that dealed also with a bunch of other issues, but it was clear that this was happening also to Safari users. https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/359138-release-notes-website-progressive-release-search-map-code-refactor-october-26-2020/ It was said that the issue was looked into, but then the thread was just closed without resolution (to my issue at least).