ChrissySkyking + Blaze

Ok, that works fairly well, except that if you live/work in two states (e.g. at the border, or frequently travel between two points in two states, as we do), you might have caches in two states. That uses up two of the precious 40 pocket query slots. As a result, we did find 8 of our caches out of about 70 that had Needs Maintenance logs, and of those 8, three of them were fine but we had never posted an Owner Maintenance log because we didn't realize how important it was, or more likely, simply forgot to. We had no idea, further, that it was keeping those caches off of other people's pocket queries! So, the pocket query method does work, but I think a normal premium member would have to be really conscientious to go to the trouble. A simple link or list or icon on the My Account page or My Hides page would bring this issue right to the attention of every single cacher who owns caches that need maintenance. And, if a cacher does have such a list, there should be an extra link to an explanation page that tells the cacher how the Needs Maintenance log works so they fully understand the implications. There may already be such a page in the FAQ or somewhere else. Therefore, to reiterate, GC.com programmers, please add this feature! I don't think it's adequately handled anywhere else.

Wow, we didn't even think of that!! Good idea, which we'll try now! However I'm sure many non-premium members (who can't do pocket queries) could use the suggested new feature as well.

Yes, it's not their responsibility, but Groundspeak does desire to publicly list caches that are maintained. Yes, we could save emails, or we could make logs, etc. But for some people with lots of caches, emails get lost, and if it takes longer than 30 days to get to a cache (for whatever reason), it slips off the Last 30 days log page. More to the point, Groundspeak already does pretty much the same thing for Travel Bugs. If you have a travel bug in your inventory for too long, you get a reminder that you need to move it to a new cache. Well, a similar reminder link that says "You have XX caches which need maintenance" that takes you to a page which just lists those caches which have a maintenance log on them would be simple, and, I believe easy for Groundspeak. Or, at the top of the Last 30 Days log page there could be a section listing all caches that need maintenance so it's in your face (so to speak) every time you visit your home page. It's in their interest to provide a simple service such as this to make the game more current and up to date. Of course it's the cache owner's responsibility, and the suggestions made are valid. But, emails aren't the perfect answer and logs to yourself are a bit redundant and just add more "junk" logs to the database. Anyway, it's just an idea. One that would help cache owners who have lots of caches and are busy with normal life.

Hey GC.com programming crew, We just thought of a very cool and, from my experience in programming, pretty easy upgrade you could make to the GC.com website to help cache owners out. On the Caches Owned page (http://www.geocaching.com/my/owned.aspx), each cache owner sees a list of all their caches, sorted by the date of the last find. When going out to maintain caches, a cache owner usually cannot remember the status of each cache (i.e. which caches on their list needs maintenance). It would be extremely helpful for any of the owner's caches that currently have a "Needs Maintenance" log pending on the cache to show the maintain cache "red cross" icon next to the name of the cache on that specific webpage. This will save lots and lots of time (and gc.com server resources) that would otherwise be spent in clicking on each and every active cache that they own to see which ones have the Needs Maintenance tag. If the page already queries and sorts by date of last find, then a quick tweak to the database sql query should allow you to bring up caches that need to be maintained. Right? This would especially be useful to any cache owner with a large number of active caches. Otherwise, it's like a needle in a haystack in finding out which caches need maintenance. Thanks so much for making such a user-friendly website. ChrissySkyking + Blaze

Thanks! Oh... I see. Certain forums aren't listed until you actually log into the forums. Tricky.

Hi, Can anyone point me to the correct forum/topic to make suggestions for changes to the Geocaching.com website? ChrissySkyking + Blaze

I really like the new format. Especially being able to see, at a glance, who the cache owner/hider is of the new caches listed in the email. I used to always have to click the link for each cache to find out who's been hiding the caches. Plus, the separate of event/regular caches is so much better. Thanks for all your hard work!!

This question doesn't seem to have been asked in this thread: Someone posted a Need Maintenance log on one of our caches today (wet logsheet... heh, most are wet at this time of year for some reason... ) Anyhoo, the NM icon completely got rid of all the other 10 attributes we'd selected for the cache. Do our old attribute icons come back from the grave when we post an Owner Maintenance log? We can't change the log sheet for a couple of weeks, so can't do an "Owner Maintenance" immediately. If we have to manually reset the attribute icons each time someone posts a NM log (which, to be honest, sometimes they're wrong about what needs maintenance), then this is a very dumb system. It takes a lot of time to figure out the attributes of each cache. If we have to reset them again, we'll just stop using them altogether.

I'm another one of those using GSAK to get my pocket queries, and was a bit upset when my pocket queries kept being turned off. I looked all over the pocket query page and didn't see a single notice or reference to this new policy there, on the very page which is affected. Why in the world didn't they post something there with instructions that you're to keep an eye on your PQ emails and click links every time? Of all the places on the website or in PQ emails, surely that would have made the most sense! But, forgetting that huge oversight, can't everyone agree that dead PQs are NOW FLUSHED from the system? Shouldn't the new policy be something like: "Every January 1st and July 1st, all PQ schedules will be turned off. This will remove the server overload from unused PQs. Resetting your PQs on those days will allow them to run for another six months." Is there any problem with using this as a method for controlling the servers' resources? Why in the name of all that's holy do ALL ACTIVE PQs have to be renewed EVERY week? That's just crazy. The dead ones are now cleaned out. Let's ask TPTB to come up with a new policy that periodically DOES THE JOB of cleaning out old PQs while not forcing extra work on everyone who uses them. Honestly, does anyone LIKE having to constantly reconfirm their PQs? Can't the above procedure work just as well? Besides, every time someone has to click a link in their PQ email, that's causing YET ANOTHER burden on the web server AND the PQ database!!! Seems like such a simple change to me, one that maybe could have been worked out a little better.

I'm running into a problem with the new Email feature. I'm using a registered version of GSAK and a normal POP3 email account. When GSAK checks for a PQ in my email account, it clearly downloads the data (I see the % meter going) and then, when it's done, it always closes the Mail dialog box and brings me back to GSAK. The problem is that every single time, GSAK returns with an empty cache list and the message "Nothing to display!" in the Logs window of the split screen. EDIT: Ok, I found the problem. In case anyone else runs into this, here was my problem: I use Zone Alarm as a software firewall. Apparently Zone Alarm was treating the ZIP files as possible virus infected files, and renaming the downloaded PQ ZIP files when they were saved on the hard drive, after retrieved from the POP3 mail server. Once they got renamed, GSAK couldn't find anything to open. If you have this problem with Zone Alarm, open ZA, click on the E-mail protection category, click on the Attachments tab, scroll down to ZIP, and right click it to set it to "Allow". Gotta LOVE GSAK!!!

We're a little confused about the rules of placing multi caches... Don't the stages of multi's block other regular caches from being hidden within (approx) 528' of each stage? So, if a trail is 1 mile, and a multi has 10 stages, each stage being 0.1 miles apart, does that mean that no other cacher can hide a real regular cache anywhere on the trail? If so, isn't that trail just as saturated? Thanks. This might help us understand the admin's desire to convert power trails to multi caches.

It seems that some people are more worried about future impact/response from power trails, and not from whether cachers who don't like them should just ignore them. This IS a valid issue... and maybe the only solution is to get permission from the land managers before saturating their park/land area with too many caches? Clearly this is a case-by-case thing... some land managers are happy with geocachers... some fear them! The hard part in some cases is finding the persons in charge of land. I.e. an exercise trail along a creek... is that the parks and recs dept? I really don't know. But, as responsible geocachers, maybe we have a duty to check it out, especially when we're going to create such an impact on their territory.

So, at this point, there've been a lot of ideas thrown in and lots of opinions on Power Trails, both for and against. Clearly they would be illegal in some places (because of the park rules) and perfectly fine in others. Obviously the approvers can't approve power trails where they are illegal. ‘Nuff said there. However, for other situations where a power trail is not in violation of any rules of the park, that still leaves us in limbo. Lots of people have posted here saying they love them. Many have posted saying they don't. Obviously the people who don't like power trails can just avoid them and be done with it. However, they seem to be trying to force their tastes on those of us who do like a power trail once in a while. Geocaching is a voluntary sport, and a power trail that's not in violation of rules is not harming anyone. Some people have mentioned that "you COULD place these caches, but SHOULD you?" That's a valid point, considering the fact that some power trails have caused extremism in land managers which has closed the trail in the future. This is something that should be factored into power trail placements before they are approved. In this situation, permission should be obtained from the managers. None of the admins have thrown in a solution here. Power trails are still not defined clearly. Neither is the definition of a "trail"! In some cases, a "trail" is merely a long exercise path that might be adjacent to a lot of homes. Can anyone say that this is a better or worse place for high density cache placements? How does this type of "trail" compare to something actually out in a forest or other totally natural place? So, there's obviously a need to modify the vague policy set forth by tptb. As it is, an approver has discretion to turn down a power trail without looking into it any more. We were turned down without any discussion of whether or not we contacted whomever manages the walking/exercise path we placed our caches on. We were turned down without any discussion of the quality of the caches we placed, or even the goal we had in placing this number of caches in one place (our goal was to make a haven of sorts for trickier caches without the cacher having to hike miles and miles to get the thrill of solving the hides). This is probably because this new "guideline" does not offer the approver the tools s/he needs to further determine whether a power trail SHOULD be allowed depending on the facts of the case. The guideline is TOO vague, and should allow for the cache hider to enter into a good discussion with the approver, one which brings out the facts of the case at hand. Our biggest peeve is that the current policy lets (forces?) the approver to turn us down flat without considering that a power trail might be a neat thing in this instance! Can some admins respond and maybe suggest a way for power trails to exist, based on a more stringent criteria? I.e. quality of cache hides, general theme of the caches along a path? I'm not trying to flame the approver who shot us down, because I think s/he wasn't able to interpret the new rules any better than any of us are. But, it wasn't fair for him/her to just say power trails are outlawed altogether, because they aren't! It's up to the approver, but an approver who doesn't like power trails isn't going to be objective to cachers who want to place a power trail. Plus, an approver who doesn't have the time or authority to gather the salient details of the proposed trail will categorically deny them. That's not fair at all to the sport of Geocaching. Should there be a "power-trail review board" that looks at all upcoming power trails in the queue to see if it's a worthwhile series? Is there some sort of appeal process members can take when they think they've been unfairly judged on a rule of Geocaching that is not even clear to anyone? We'd love to hear how to solve this problem. There's got to be a way to make it work, without denying them all outright. We’re STILL not sure what make a high density area! Where in the world did the 600' figure come from, when it's always been 528'? If we hide the caches 600' apart, is that NOW not a dense trail? Isn't it ALWAYS going to be subjective? Until these questions are answered, placing caches is a huge risk to people who work very hard on good caches. Any time you place a decent cache within 1 mile of another, you have to sweat it out that it's suddenly fallen into someone's arbitrary definition of high density. Let's get some clear rules and procedures. Finally, and I’m sorry this is soooo long, but we have to chime in and say that the whole idea of converting a power trail series to a multi is just ridiculous. Most multi-caches involve grabbing numbers somehow and moving on to the next stage of the cache to get more number, etc., until you’ve built the coordinates to the final cache. We would never want to waste each hide container of our series on a multi cache because each hide is worth its own credit. If we’re making a “clever” hide series, we think each find should be counted separately. That the cacher can also log each one separately and let us (and the future finders) know what they thought about that type of hide. If we want a multi cache, we’ll have the finders get numbers off poles, count trees, look at dates on gravestones, or some other method that doesn’t make it feel like they found a bunch of real caches but don’t get credit for more than one. We like multi’s plenty, but sometimes that’s NOT the purpose of a series of caches in a dense area. And basically that just goes to show, again, that everyone has their own opinions on these issues, and we can’t/won’t/shouldn’t all have to agree in order to set forth a clear policy. It's going to be on a case-by-case basis, but let's let the approvers know that some power trails CAN be approved. Please remove the blanket guideline that is incredibly vague.

We're in the process of placing a power trail cache in Oregon, and were just denied because of the new rules. It was suggested that we read this topic, which has been interesting. There's no doubt that the main problem here is the incredible ambiguity of the current rules. PLEASE, geocaching admins, define the rule and don't let it be so vague. 0.10 miles but NOT sometimes ("I before E except after C, but not always and sometimes Y" comes to mind here)??? What is with that? How are we ever supposed to be comfortable in putting out a cache series if, after two weeks of hard work (as we just did) we find out that our series is going to be thrown out? One of the issues that has been barely touched on with Power Trails is the quality of the caches. We just spent a lot of time creating very clever caches (we THINK they're clever... we'll see when the logs roll in... if ever approved). These caches required us to go down the trail a number of times to see how we could create very clever camo jobs OR create very clever cover for the caches that will stump finders! Sometimes hiders of a series of caches aren't just "throwing decon containers every 528 feet" as is so casually tossed out by some previous posters to this thread. Sometimes there is very serious thought put into it. It sounds like the OP had some good qualities to his cache series, and maybe some bad ones too. But, if he and his friends put out GOOD caches, then it shouldn't matter if they're exactly 528' feet apart, because they're GOOD! Any geocacher wants to go out and find QUALITY caches that make his day fun! If he doesn't want quality, he looks for parking lot micros and stops there. On another subject, sometimes a trail is the only good place to put a series of caches. Not all trails are about looking at trees and rocks and water EVERY second of the walk. Many trails are just that... a trail that people can walk down. If there's houses next to a trail, it can't be compared with a mountain climb to a waterfall. On trails in urban areas, a series of CLEVER caches will liven it up! Many urban greenways fall into this category perfectly. Finally, stating the opinions of cachers out to get the numbers vs. cachers who don't care about numbers is totally dumb... everyone has a different idea of why they geocache. Sometimes people change week to week. We don't normally power cache, but sometimes when we come across a high density area, it's quite exciting to suddenly find AND LOG AND GET CREDIT FOR a bunch of caches. Then we drop back to our lull of finding one per week. No cacher can say that living by the numbers is good or bad... we're all different and we all find fun in this sport in completely different ways that other cachers can't comprehend. STOP saying that getting a lot of finds in one day is bad. IT'S DIFFERENT FOR EVERYONE! So, back to the point... if the GC.com admins can't explain their reasoning process on this new cache density issue, which is CLEAR they still haven't explained in this thread, then there is no objective standard a cache hider can use. We suggest they instead look at the quality of the caches and their difficulty. We know of many cachers who would perfer quantity AND quality if they could get it!! We're now in limbo with a lot of neat caches sitting along a trail because they fall into an arbitrary high density, though they're far enough apart according to the old definition of cache placement. If people come to these caches, enjoy the hunt, and log them, isn't that a vote in favor of them appreciating the cache density?!? If they don't like high density areas, THEY GO SOMEWHERE ELSE! Why should someone who doesn't ever come and see the cache series get to take away the fun for other people who might just love this sort of thing? Well, anyway, this sounds like a rant, but we really want to get an objective guideline for power trails or other high density areas. Remember, not all trails are about the trails... some are instead about geocaching! If the finder wants to look at the birdies and duckies, that's totally up to them! We're just asking them to have fun finding our tricky caches.

Clyde, Just wanted to thank you for this great new major release! Once before I became a registered user, and once afterwards, I requested the ability to override icons for special caches, such as micros and those with travel bugs, like GPX Spinner does. Thanks so much for finding the time to add it to this release! It works so amazingly, I almost cried! (Almost. ) You mention in the help section that you wondered if there were any other special override situations. I can't think of any, but sure appreciate what you came up with. Also, no bugs at all for me, so far. By far and away, this is the single best geocaching software that exists on the market, and I'm proud to be a registered user. It has more features than I can dream of, and the new "send waypoints to GPSr via serial cable" just adds even better functionality. I hope it is supporting you for all your time and efforts. Take care, Chris D. ChrissySkyking

Yup, we've also moved from California to Nurse Dave Land (formerly Oregon, from what I understand!!). We live outside Medford, which is about 25 minutes south of Grants Pass. This area is fairly dead for Geocaching (at least between Medford and Ashland), but, surprisingly, the Grants Pass area is always hopping. We're planning a cache weekend up there sometime so we can nab 40 or 50 caches. We're trying to place a bunch of caches between Medford and Ashland, particularly puzzle caches (which many of the locals shun). If we borrow one of your puzzle ideas from the Bay Area, we'll ask your permission first. Have some ideas for some new twists on puzzles too (i.e. our 1 Ringy Dingy cache in Ashland). Anyway, since we're often back in the Bay Area, we always appreciate the pleothera of new caches available to us each time! Fresh meat!! Thanks!! ChrissySkyking & Blaze (CS&

Thanks Rat and WalruZ for chiming in... I think my unparser is ok, because I have the same problems opening the GPX file using GSAK, GPSSpinner, EasyGPS, and even Internet Explorer (when I change the extension to .XML). When I look at the XML code, there are simply lots and lots of places where the text has been garbled, usually in an XML tag, so I have to fix it up. Well, that takes hours, which is way too much time. I'm wondering what is corrupting the text files in different little places. It's as if there is no error checking or CRC's being done between transmission and reception of these files. I have tried receiving both the plain text GPX and also the Zipped version but that doesn't work either because the ZIP files says it's corrupted, so I can't even open it up to extract the GPX from inside the ZIP. I suppose I will have to get an e-mail account on a different e-mail server and see if the attachments come through clean from that. Or, maybe my McAfee anti-virus software is messing it up, as GPX files are CLEARLY a virus that makes us go out and find geocaches before during, and after work, and twisting our social lives!! If anyone else has any ideas on this, I'd love to hear them! I'll try the Rat's idea of getting smaller pocket queries to see if there's some threshold that's causing the problems. Thanks!

I've been having a lot of problems opening Pocket Queries lately. Either the GPX file has lots of glitches, or the ZIP file is corrupted and won't open. Is anyone else having this problem? If not, I guess it must be something related to my e-mail. Thanks!

Hey, some of you guys mentioned event caches close to the South Bay... Just to let everyone know, the next BADGES dinner (#4) is on the schedule and set for August 15th in Redwood City (middle of the Peninsula). This one is more of a order-your-own-food dinner rather than a pre-prepared buffet meal. Lots of choices for meat and non-meat eaters. Just follow the link on the BADGES #4 page to get to the menu. You can visit the page here. Hope to see you all there!

Hasn't been a lot of activity in this forum for a while, so I'll go ahead and throw out this reminder: The 3rd BADGES (Bay Area Dining and Geocaching Society) Dinner will be held on June 6th in Novato, CA. Visit the page here: BADGES #3 If you are planning on going, and haven't yet signed up, please do so now so the organizers can plan on the correct amount of food.

Yeah, that's also been one of the best things we've discovered about geocaching... new friends!

I'd have to agree with Jif here... I just love seeing new places that I NEVER would have seen but for some cache that brings you through/to the area. Finding cache containers can be rewarding, but just getting there is amazing... especially because it constantly makes me realize how I live in such a little world (my own little world, from work to home and back, mostly) and experience the same places daily without "wandering from the path" much. There's nothing I appreciate more than a cache that makes me think, "Wow, who knew this street would be so pretty", or "is THAT what this city looks like... neat!" I've never been into visiting graveyards before, but now I can say I've seen several that are incredibly interesting, and fascinating too. We've seen views I know we never would have found on our own, tromped through beautiful forests, fields, and parks that have gone unnoticed in our lives until now, some just a mile or two away! We eaten at restaurants that would never have gotten our business, all because some cache was nearby. I've never been to so many cool pieces of art or interesting buildings and sculptures, either! Certainly Jif hit a chord with me... I'm all about the experience of getting to the cache location. Finding the cache is fun, but even if all caches were virtual, this is still a sport I would be devoted to. In all my life, nothing has gotten me out into my local area more than geocaching. And for that, I thank all the cachers who hide the caches that bring me to someplace new. It's a big world out there... and sometimes we need a reason to explore it! ChrissySkyking (and I probably speak for Blaze, too)

We were having dinner with Marky and Joani a couple of weeks ago when he showed us an e-mail he received from this East Bay Regional Park supervisor saying that all caches in the East Bay Regional Parks will be immediately removed (by the park personnel, apparently...they KNOW where to find them! ) because of supposed harm to the envirnment caused by cachers, which is a real joke. Anyway, maybe Marky can post, as I'm sure he knows much more about it. Has anyone reported a cache missing yet? And who can we take this up with? Marky suggested that they wouldn't find puzzle caches, but, you never know. Maybe they've got a whole new "Cache Abatement Team" out there solving all puzzle caches to make sure none end up in their park system.

Anyone seen the new PocketQuery pages that showed up tonight? Now you can store up to 20 separate queries, although you are still limited to 5 running per day. I think this feature is really spiffy! Plus, you can easily modify the days a query is running by clicking its checkbox right on the summary page. They've also modified the Query editing page, which, seems to me, to be better too. One thing I'd LOVE to see, which Watcher can do for you, is a way to limit Pocket queries by a set of bounding coordinates to eliminate caches that are outside your target square. If the website could do that, it wouldn't have to send out such big queries sometimes. Anyways, kudos to gc.com for this nice improvement.

We're glad you enjoyed it! And also glad so many people showed up. The next one will be in the East Bay in March, so keep your eyes open for that event cache. I think I heard Woof! and maybe BPSnake or Squints talking about a Picnic in San Francisco sometime this year... anything more concrete on that? Maybe a April or May timeframe?