Jump to content

reedkickball

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    86
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by reedkickball

  1. Hi,

     

    When I edit an existing notification currently. The Title resets to "New Notification", and the location resets to my home location. I had to continuously redo notifications, but I can't verify that that the notifications are correct, since everytime I edit the notification, it resets the two items to the default.

  2. What do you like most about challenge caches?

     

    Kind of like achievements in games or other things, it allows me to have goals to go for. It has added to my interest quite a bit, and it's probably one of the biggest reasons I came back to geocaching after trying other GPS based activities like munzee, and ingress.

     

    What do you not like about challenge caches?

     

    I don't like not being able to quickly find them on the map. A specific icon might be nice. I can't imagine an issue with them otherwise.

     

    What would you like to see changed about challenge caches?

     

    A specific icon for them.

     

    If you could describe your favorite challenge cache type, what would it be?

     

    I like the challenge caches that have a very simple requirement, not a lot of hoops to jump through. Although I did like the Black Belt Geocacher challenge in South Carolina (but there's a macro for that). My absolute favorite are the ones are counties, Delorme, ADC(which is a Delorme for the counties locally here).

     

    What types of challenge caches do you avoid?

     

    None. Unless I don't satisfy the requirements, and then I'll work towards the challenge.

  3. Works for me in Chrome, too.

     

    Do you see any errors in the console? (ctrl-shift-J)

     

    The errors I get in the console are:

     

    Viewport argument value "device-width;" for key "width" not recognized. Content ignored.

    Viewport argument value "1.0;" for key "initial-scale" was truncated to its numeric prefix.

    Viewport argument value "1.0;" for key "maximum-scale" was truncated to its numeric prefix.

    Viewport argument value "1.0;" for key "minimum-scale" was truncated to its numeric prefix.

    Viewport argument value "no;" for key "user-scalable" not recognized. Content ignored.

  4. I am not seeing this behavior. I am running Chrome on Windows 7 and the map pans as expected for me. Are you running any add-on?

     

    I have Windows 7 and the latest Chrome browser. I removed all the extensions. Nothing special. I can't drag to reposition either, or click on any caches. I have to bring up Firefox for this.

     

    I figured it out. I changed the Map Preferences to "Google" from "Leaflet".

    Click "Map Preferences" on the left side, click "select" under Google.

     

    I guess the "Leaflet" map preference doesn't work with Chrome.

  5. I am not seeing this behavior. I am running Chrome on Windows 7 and the map pans as expected for me. Are you running any add-on?

     

    I have Windows 7 and the latest Chrome browser. I removed all the extensions. Nothing special. I can't drag to reposition either, or click on any caches. I have to bring up Firefox for this.

  6. I wonder if the problem has been identified. I used to be logged in for days.

     

    I am now logging every time I come to the site, even if I have the browser open. I think the timeout is about an hour, but I haven't timed it.

  7. I'm having the same problem. I logon from multiple location, my android phone, my android tablet, work computer, home computer, etc. I am finding that I'm having to login much more often(even with the "Remember me" checked).

     

    I also cannot login from certain spots on the webpage at all(any other than the logon in the upper right hand corner), with any of the devices

     

    I use Android, and use the Chrome and Firefox browsers.

  8. They just can't leave something that works and that people like alone, can they?

     

    "It ain't broke, so let's fix it."

     

    This was posted by mygeocachingprofile on facebook:

     

    "Hi all, the site is currently down because of some issues we're having with our hosting provider. Don't worry, we're working with them to have it back up soon. Thanks!"

  9. But you've already stated that you will not log Challenges. Period. Didn't you? The reason you gave for refusing to log Challenges is because they count toward your finds, though they are not caches. The hypocritical aspect (Yeah, Doctroid, I know. You don't see it as hypocritical. I get that. But I, along with Daniel Webster, do see it as hypocritical) of that ideology is that you have logged other things which, according to your later definition, are also not caches, and you claim that you'd do so again.

     

    I never said that I wouldn't do or log a challenge(I haven't personally done one yet). I think that presumed assumption is the crux of the problem of your tired argument. It's applied to everyone regardless and without reading their post/response. My reasoning is I didn't want them to be lumped in with caches, so as to avoid confusion for park superintendents, and I would lose my leverage(and years of convincing) in trying to get real caches in parks like the NPS.

     

    Here's the feed we see from you, so far;

    Virtuals are not caches.

    Earthcaches are not caches.

    Challenges are not caches.

    (I'm with you so far...) B)

    I will log virtuals.

    I will log earthcaches.

    I will not log Challeges, because they aren't caches.

    (See where you lose me?) :blink:

     

    I wish they would be separated as well, but that ship has long past. I've complained about that in the past, but there's not enough community support for that idea. Oh by the way, I log moving caches(some of them up to 20 times) too, am I not allowed to complain if they add trackables into the cache section?

     

    I'm OK with you logging them or not logging them, as you see fit. It's entirely up to you. I simply take umbrage at you utilizing such a contradictory reason for not doing so, if that's the direction you choose to take. B)

     

    Still no contradictory reason that I see. Quite simply, I log everything, and I want caches with caches, virtuals with virtuals, and trackables with trackables. I can't control Groundspeak, but I can bitch and complain, and during the introduction of challenges, I get the biggest bang for my complaining buck.

  10. Use Google Earth to find your cache then grab the coords off Earth

     

    The guidelines state that a GPS must be used to hide (but not find) a geocache. Google Earth and other mapping software do not meet the guidelines.

     

    I've gotten many of most successfully accurate coordinates from this site, http://itouchmap.com/latlong.html

     

    Won't tell you which ones, but no one has complained about them, and a few are micros in the woods.

     

    That doesn't change the fact that the guidelines state that you must visit the site with a GPS to obtain the coordinates for a hide.

     

    http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=307#technical

     

    Listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates. You must visit the geocache site and obtain all the coordinates with a GPS device. GPS usage is an integral and essential element of both hiding and finding geocaches and must be demonstrated for all cache submissions.

     

    I'm know, I'm a rebel.

  11. Use Google Earth to find your cache then grab the coords off Earth

     

    The guidelines state that a GPS must be used to hide (but not find) a geocache. Google Earth and other mapping software do not meet the guidelines.

     

    I've gotten many of most successfully accurate coordinates from this site, http://itouchmap.com/latlong.html

     

    Won't tell you which ones, but no one has complained about them, and a few are micros in the woods.

  12. Did you sign a logbook when you did your 3 virtuals and 16 earthcaches?

    No?

    I assume you'll be deleting those finds, right?

    No?

    Looks a little hypocritical from here in the cheap seats. Just sayin'... :rolleyes:

     

     

    Don't see this as hypocritical at all. The person completed those activities, why shouldn't they log them, even if they want them separated from their geocaches? I think it's a tired argument (which I've seen repeated over and over when you don't even know the poster's complete intention for all the different type of virtual activities they've logged) against anyone that wants geocaching in one place, and other activities elsewhere. So I geocache, am I not allowed have an opinion on how things should be set up and recorded if I also do waymarks, challenges, virtuals, etc.?

     

    It is arguably inconsistent to say "I refuse to do challenges as long as they count as finds" when one willingly does virtuals which count as finds. But inconsistency is not hypocrisy, and to go around insulting other geocachers with the latter word is more than a little childish and offensive.

     

    Then you can say that I'm inconsistent. It still doesn't change the fact that I don't want my challenges (or my virtuals, webcams, etc) lumped in with my geocaches. Just like I don't want my trackables lumped in with my geocaches. It doesn't mean I'm not going to log every cache I find, challenge I complete, virtual I complete, or trackable I find. I find that the model of consistency, I log everything.

  13.  

    Did you sign a logbook when you did your 3 virtuals and 16 earthcaches?

    No?

    I assume you'll be deleting those finds, right?

    No?

    Looks a little hypocritical from here in the cheap seats. Just sayin'... :rolleyes:

     

     

    Don't see this as hypocritical at all. The person completed those activities, why shouldn't they log them, even if they want them separated from their geocaches? I think it's a tired argument (which I've seen repeated over and over when you don't even know the poster's complete intention for all the different type of virtual activities they've logged) against anyone that wants geocaching in one place, and other activities elsewhere. So I geocache, am I not allowed have an opinion on how things should be set up and recorded if I also do waymarks, challenges, virtuals, etc.?

  14. So .... 1489 cachers are up in arms and revolting in the feedback site. That's 0.00029 % of the customer base that are complaining. Meanwhile, the rest of us are either ignoring challenges, or participating in them.

     

    It is true 1489 votes aren't a lot percentage wise of the total number of cachers. However 1489 votes in about an hour is something of note. I don't think a single topic has risen that quickly and fast on the support page. As for the topic asking for virtuals to come back, there was 3780 votes, and that took months to get to that level of votes. If the topic to remove challenges was allowed to continue after an hour's time, it would of easily eclipsed the number of people asking for virtuals to be returned.

     

    And while I'm talking about the "return virtuals" topic, take a look at the most recent comments. They're mostly made by people that voted to return virtuals, and most of them are asking in their comments to remove challenges. http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1050805-bring-back-virtuals?ref=title

  15. However to belittle my explanation of why challenges should be removed by saying I log virtuals has nothing to do with my main point that Challenges will give park managers an "out" to ban physical geocaches.

    Other than the argument that challenges/virtuals/waymarks give park managers an out whey they want to ban physical caches, you have not made a particularly strong case as to why there shouldn't be challenges on Geocaching.com. The fact that you have logged virtuals and waymarks doesn't help.

    The fact that I've logged virtuals and waymarks indicates that I'm experienced in understanding that they're not geocaches. If I hadn't done any, you'd say I'd have no clue about virtuals. I believe that given the fact that I have logged virtuals and waymarks which essentially are the same thing, provides me a strong basis as to understanding the difference between geocaches and non-geocaches.

     

    Regarding the argument that park managers can ban physical caches by allowing challenges is weak. Sure there have been cases when the response to "can I hide a cache in your park" has been "Sure but only virtuals are allowed". From the park managers point of view there is a difference. A container left by a geocacher is a non-natural object in the park. If one of the park's purposes is to preserve nature, then rules limiting what visitor leave in a park is understandable. The difference with challenges, virtual caches, and waymarks is that nothing is left in the park.

    First, I have been personally told, "If there were virtual caches, all physical caches would be banned in the parks" from a local park superintendent that had complete control of whether geocaches would be allowed or not in the local county parks. In another instance, NPS also asked specifically about virtual caches, initially I was only able to create an earthcache. They wanted to do virtual history caches, and I said, "geocaching.com doesn't allow those."(I think I went on to say that geocaching.com would never allow new virtuals, except earth ones, but that appears to have changed) About a year later, after a routine meeting, the superintendent said that the Federal govt. was pressuring them to support the "No child left inside" Act. Geocaching fit the bill perfectly. If there were virtual caches available, that would of been the route taken. Instead they readily agreed to 8 physical caches highlighting historical spots in the park. I really don't how much stronger I could make the case that virtuals would result in less physical caches and getting existing ones banned, unless I had actual audio or video of the conversations.

    In addition as you stated in this quote, virutals, waymarks, and challenges are different than geocaches, and consequently should be segregated from geocaching.

     

    I remember when the National Parks had a slogan: "Take only pictures, leave only footprints" It seems natural that some parks will make the decision to ban physical caches while allowing GPS related games that don't involve leaving something in the park. If Groundspeak decided to not have any non-physical geolocation game, that would still leave Foursquare and many others. So perhaps it is reasonable to have challenges even if someone believes it makes it harder to get permission for physical caches.

     

    I agree, Groundspeak has decided that getting physical caches (on NPS land) like on the Appalachian Trail is less important than Challenges. I prefer to not have my effort thrown away. A year and a half of work getting physical caches put in National Parks, Nature Conservancy Lands, and other local park authority lands takes a lot of work and educating. The best way to ensure that my effort isn't thrown away is to break out challenges, if not on a separate website, at least on separate unrelated tab. I am voicing my concern in a clear and logical manner to try to explain the best way forward in my opinion for geocaching and for this website.

     

    Now, that said, there is another thread that expresses a different concern over how land managers might perceive challenges. Since challenges are not reviewed and you don't need permission for a challenge, that thread speculates that some challenges will eventually be placed in areas where land managers don't want people going (or don't want the extra traffic that challenges might bring). The concern here is that they might lump challenges together with geocaches which are reviewed and where adequate permission is required, including meeting any explicit permitting process the land manager has state. So places that now allow geocaches might find land managers banning them if challenges appear in locations where the land manager wants to control visitors.

     

    I agree NPS could get annoyed by challenges, but in the end Groundspeak will bend over backwards to make sure they're placated, but not before they've annoyed NPS. Whether it annoys them or gives them an "out", I don't see beneficial things happening in regards to park authorities over challenges.

     

    Just one more thing that's not a response to you, but on topic. I wish they would of called it something else other than a "Challenge". It creates confusion between that and "Challenge caches". I like the terms "Activity" or "Experience" better, and I think it better describes the activity.

  16.  

    You're preaching the choir with that argument. It's why I was against bringing virtuals back in any format. But now that they're here that's not the quarrel that most people have with them. They overwhelming majority are are complaining that they aren't geocaches and shouldn't be included in the find counts. Yet the very same people have logged dozens and sometimes hundreds of things that are not geocaches. Hypocrisy extraordinaire.

     

    If I could change the direction on virtuals, Waymarking and so on I would. It wouldn't be worth it to try complaining. People are worried about their counts. I wish they'd be separated out. At the moment, I think there's still a way to fix challenges before it gets lumped in with geocaching and muddies the waters further. At the very least they have to be separate tabs if not separate sites. I saw an idea that I thought would be great. Have a tab for geocaches, have a tab for trackables, have a tab for challenges, and have a tab for waymarks(yes, I think they should be one here, just separate), and don't combine the activities in any way so as to limit confusion. Bringing the earthcache concept here was a mistake, as was not removing all the virtual non-geocaches away from geocaches.

     

    However to belittle my explanation of why challenges should be removed by saying I log virtuals has nothing to do with my main point that Challenges will give park managers an "out" to ban physical geocaches.

  17. You can log a note instead of a find on the non geocaches you've found. That way you can still access them and keep the non geocaches out of your find count.

     

    How many of the challenge complainers are going to to back and do that so they're consistent?

     

    Should I log notes on my waymarks too? Finds allow others to figure if I've visited a spot. I really don't know if I could search for my noted activities, unless it was through GSAK or something. I was disappointed when a local geocacher didn't log a CITO event. I knew he was there, and was unable to show a park ranger a CITO event because of it.

     

    I don't understand the logic of your last statement. I find geocaches, I log them. I visit virtuals, I log them. I go to an event, I log them. I do a challenge, I log them. I do a waymark, I log them. I do a benchmark, I log them. Geocaches are very different than challenges, virtuals, and waymarks and should be treated differently. If counts are important, all the virtual non-geocaches(virtual, webcam, earthcaches, challenges, and waymarks) should be grouped together and counted, and all the geocaches should grouped together and counted. Because it's a different activity. I didn't say I hated them, I just want them separate so that when getting geocaches approved with parks, there's no confusion.

     

    Funny how everyone is sidestepping the issue of dealing with park managers, and focusing on counts.

  18. How are challenges remotely connected to geocaching?

    Discounting the whole worldwide challenge thing, as they more closely resemble locationless;

     

    Virtual: Go to a place. (used to log a picture) Log your experience.

    Challenges: Go to a place. Take a picture. Log your experience.

     

    It's not a geocache.

     

    Neither are virtuals.

     

    Correct, they aren't geocaches either.

     

    Interesting how that concept hasn't prevented you from logging finds on 127 virtuals, 51 events, 3 CTIOs, 3 mega events, 2 Lost and Found events, 1 GPS adventure exhibit, 3 webcams and the GS Lost and Found celebration. That makes 188 finds you have on things that are not geocaches, now all of a sudden you're concerned about challenges counting as finds?

     

    For the sake of consistency, I would think you would delete all of those non geocache logs.

     

    Yeah, I logged them, but they're not geocaches. Just because I don't agree that they're geocaches, does that prevent me from logging them? I also logged waymarks as well. Does logging these non-geocaches indicated that I believe that they're geocaches? Most of the virtuals I did with my wife, who doesn't like geocaching, but she likes Waymarking and visiting historical spots.

     

    I log them so I can reminiscence where I've been and what I've done. They need to be separated so that one cannot be mistaken for the other in the eyes of park managers. Or would you like to be the one Briansnat, trying to convince the people at the NPS that a Challenge isn't the same as a geocache when you're trying to get one approved? Without challenges I've been able to convince NPS to put many physical geocaches, and without challenges we may eventually get physical geocaches region wide in the middle Atlantic. With challenges this going to prove an impossible task on something that is already an uphill battle, but currently we have traction. Challenges appear to be a catalyst to set back all that success.

  19. How are challenges remotely connected to geocaching?

    Discounting the whole worldwide challenge thing, as they more closely resemble locationless;

     

    Virtual: Go to a place. (used to log a picture) Log your experience.

    Challenges: Go to a place. Take a picture. Log your experience.

     

    It's not a geocache.

    Actually, they are.

    For the purpose of this website, Jeremy gets to decide what is, and what is not, a geocache.

    You don't get to decide that. Neither do I.

     

    In my mind, when I envision a geocache, I see a hidden container at a set of coordinates.

    That's my own, highly biased definition.

    If we apply your, "It's not a geocache" logic across the board, we should point out that, according to my bias;

     

    Neither is a sinkhole. (Earthcache)

    Neither is a bunch of geeks picking up litter. (CITO)

    Neither is a web streaming camera. (Webcam cache)

    Neither is a bunch of nerds eating hotwings. (Event cache)

    Neither is a street sign bearing your last name. (Locationless Cache)

    Neither is a plaque along a highway. (Virtual Cache)

     

    Yet, most players are OK with the fact that Jeremy chooses to call them geocaches, including them in your total caches found tally. If these folks are able to make the logic leap required to call those things geocaches, it should be easy for them to call challenges geocaches.

     

     

    None of those activities are caches because they aren't physical. But that's all semantics based on the definition of a cache. But in the end none of those are geocaches.

     

    Let me tell you why, they are not geocaches, and why I have a problem with them.

     

    They provide an "out" for park managers and land managers to remove geocaching (i.e. physical containers). I had a local park superintendent (one that has 60-70 caches scattered among a lot of parks) tell me that if there were virtual geocaches allowed, all physical geocaches would be banned. And his reasoning. "Then I don't have to do anything". With the dozen or so geocaches that we've gotten published in NPS lands locally, there's a possibility of making physical placements accepted as the norm in NPS in our region. With challenges that can all change. How exactly can I convince a land manager that he's missing the boat on geocaching if virtual placements are allowed?

  20. I've been reading all the challenge topics for some time hoping to come across some thoughts on this question, but haven't seen any discussion on it. Sorry if I missed it somewhere...

     

    When you place a geocache, you are allowed to mark it as "found", but of course you don't mark your own caches as found because it doesn't make good sense and likely considered by most to be "bad form".

     

    As far as challenges go, in my mind the opposite would be true. You SHOULD almost complete a challenge before issuing it to others. Just an opinion question to be sure but, would you have a negative reaction to someone accepting and completing their own challenge?

     

    Since Challenges are essentially waymarks. It's all right that owners log their own waymarks, so why not allow owners to log their own challenges.

  21. How are challenges remotely connected to geocaching?

    Discounting the whole worldwide challenge thing, as they more closely resemble locationless;

     

    Virtual: Go to a place. (used to log a picture) Log your experience.

    Challenges: Go to a place. Take a picture. Log your experience.

     

    It's not a geocache.

     

    Neither are virtuals.

     

    Correct, they aren't geocaches either.

     

    Sounds like we should pull earth caches too. That would be truly sad.

     

    I would pull them and put them on another site(geochallenge.com). To indicate that they're "caches" is a misnomer.

     

    They can't pull it and put it on another site. Waymarking is too similar to challenges. Would be sort of dumb to have TWO web pages devoted to two similar concepts.

     

    And they realize that if they did that, it would be another utterly ignored failure. At least here, it is getting traffic and talk!

     

    Leverage the activity of geocaching, and try to shoehorn other activities in and classify it as geocaching as well. So the local parks can create these non-geocaching activities and claim they're supporting geocaching while banning real geocaching.

  22. I just don't see how those things that were broken could possibly have been fixed. Virtuals had a fundamental problem to them. Nobody could ever come up with a plausible proposal. All you ever heard was "bring them back as they were", but nobody could ever say how.

    I think that, by and large, Earthcaches work well. A model that borrows from that - an outside body like the GSA reviewing (say) History Virtuals - could work.

     

    I've seen it implied that no outside body would ever agree to be involved, but the Earthcache experiment still makes me think there's a plausible chance.

     

    I haven't been impressed by them, and don't think they work very well. Usually I go to places. The requirements tend to be vague. You email the owner with answers, you rarely get a confirmation. You log them thinking, "Maybe I completed it, Maybe not". Don't know. After every single one of them, I question what it has to do with geocaching, I didn't find or sign anything. I've even created one, but I'm not impressed with the creation process, logging process, or anything else with it. Naming it a cache or even considering it geocaching hurts the effort trying to get actual caches into places that don't currently allow them, like NPS parks.

  23. How are challenges remotely connected to geocaching?

    Discounting the whole worldwide challenge thing, as they more closely resemble locationless;

     

    Virtual: Go to a place. (used to log a picture) Log your experience.

    Challenges: Go to a place. Take a picture. Log your experience.

     

    It's not a geocache.

     

    Neither are virtuals.

     

    Correct, they aren't geocaches either.

     

    Sounds like we should pull earth caches too. That would be truly sad.

     

    I would pull them and put them on another site(geochallenge.com). To indicate that they're "caches" is a misnomer.

×
×
  • Create New...