m0bean

Have you tried using the Browse Map (Bottom of the Play menu), rather than the search map? I find that this one works a lot better on older or slower computers.

I don't really pay much attention to it when on my home turf, since I usually have used the website to select which caches I am targeting. However, when on a recent trip with some non-cachers, where I had not really known in advance where I might end up, it did help to look at the map in the app and have a few caches jump out at me as highly favorited ones that I could grab as we went about our other touring.

They say: "I want something simalar: an overview where I can read ALL logs (founds/not founds etc) that I made chronologically" (italics mine) (sic).

I guess it doesn't have the logtext or photos, but all the logs chronologically, and then you can just visit each page and see your log

On the left side of the dashboard there is a 'logs' button. Click on this Then select this on the next page:

I've found on iPhone that when I switch from the "Trail Maps" map type to the "Street Map" map type, I can zoom in more. Of course, making this switch may also cause you to lose other details on the map that may be relevant, but it has helped me from time to time.

The 'nearby' button was working for me yesterday, but seems to be broken again today.

My only work-around right now is to change my home coordinates to that of the target cache and then to look for the closest caches to home, which does seem to give me the desired list, but this is a very annoying way to have to handle this. If anyone has any better workarounds they have found, it would be good to know. Really hoping this problem gets fixed soon.

Is anyone else encountering issues the last couple of days with searches on the website? I notice in particular when I search using specific coordinates in the home page search bar that the issue arises. I also notice a problem when using the "find all nearby caches that I haven't found" button on all cache pages. The results sometimes seem to return caches closest to my home coordinates, but sometimes it returns other random results that I can't even guess what it's doing. I use these features quite regularly and am used to them returning all the closest caches to the coordinates I search or the closest caches to the cache whose page I've clicked the button on. As am example, if I hit the "find all nearby caches that I haven't found" button on GC90F0Z, the top result is GC2JJ9P, when the closest cache on the map is clearly GC90CVT.

Does anybody know if we at least had the second highest day on Saturday? Or I wonder where does 112k actually rank on the list of days with most active cachers, or if there is even a way to find out…

Thank you for this very very helpful response. I didn't even realize I could edit an existing waymark, and that the edit would be reviewed. Interesting to understand how all this works.

I have started to dip my toe into the Waymarking world, coming mostly from a Geocaching background. I am a little unclear on the etiquette surrounding missing waymarks. For example, if a historic plaque is no longer at the listed location. From what I understand, it is not as common to archive waymarks as geocaches. There also seems to be the idea that even if the waymark isn't there now, it was there, so the listing is still valid. So what would normally be done in that case: 1) Do nothing. Nothing to visit, nothing to log. 2) Add a note indicating that the waymark is no longer there 3) Take a picture at the current location to document the current situation and log a visit 4) Some other action??? Also, does it depend on the category? I would think that knowing that something was at a particular location before might be of greater or lesser interest depending on the category.

Kinda interesting that the ambiguity of determining FTF is as old as caching itself.

This is total speculation at this point, but, at least in theory, this is the kind of promotion that could be tweaked to accommodate varying caching environments. For example, a place with only 15 caches in the vicinity could have a different clue in each cache, whereas a place with 1500 could still have 95% with the same clue, with the other clues being more rare and requiring more planning to get to. That would level things out to some degree. I guess it all depends how the clues are assigned, but at least doing it this way you could, in theory, have a more even playing field between cache dense and cache sparse areas than you could by just requiring a particular cache type, or number of favorite points, or number of finds.

Will we be able to filter for clues ahead of the promotion starting or do we need to wait for July 11 before that feature is turned on? I have some trips planned that will overlap with this promo and would love to plan things in advance to make sure I get the clues I need. This looks like it could be a pretty fun promotion!!

I think it's an interesting question as to what a new user would expect from the geocaching map, and what assumptions a person would make regarding map behavior if they had only been exposed to maps outside of the geocaching world. When I look at the maps on both Yelp and Air Bnb's sites, for example, I find maps that behave just as the new geocaching search map does, compete with 'redo search map' and 'redo search here' buttons, respectively, as one zooms out or scrolls around the map. There is also filters for 'price range' and 'rating' and 'type'. It seems like this is actually pretty common behavior outside the caching world and it could be argued would be within a newbie's expectation of behavior. When I am searching for a restaurant review or an accommodation, to be able to search in this manner, is actually what I want. I generally don't just want to see 'everything'. After all, I'm only likely picking one (or maybe a small number) from the list. I want something specific. I think that part of the problem may be that an assumption has been made that people who search a map for geocaches do so in the same manner as people who would search a map for accommodations or restaurants, but that is not usually how it's done (or at least not how I do it). After all, I'm picking, not just one geocache, but a whole bunch. If I pick a restaurant from a map, I really don't care that it is 2 blocks away from another restaurant that didn't quite meet my search criteria, but if I choose a geocache from a map, I am really interested in what is in the immediate vicinity, even if it wasn't specifically what I was looking for to begin with.

I am somewhat relieved to properly understand now that the new map is not intended to replace 'browse map'. This whole time I was thinking that was what was being planned, so this is good news! I do see the new search map as a reasonable replacement for the old search map--perhaps even better in particular ways. I do agree with most of the comments in here saying that the browse map is my go-to about 90% of the time, so it would seem more intuitive that choosing 'view map' on the menu would take me right there. That said, the indication of a toggle to go between the maps seems like it will make this ok. It will be interesting to see how this toggle works. If it allows you to go back and forth between a search map and the browse map easily, this could be a nice feature. As it stands, I will often have 2 tabs open in my browser, one with my curated search map, and a 2nd with the browse map just to make sure I'm not missing something that will be right on the way. I guess I will hold my judgement in abeyance until I see the toggle.

I keep peeking in at the new map to see how it's progressing. I'm still not finding it very useful for the way I like to plan things, but I have seen enough times that that is how the new tools at Geocaching.com start, and eventually they become more useful, so I have faith. I haven't read through the whole forum to see everyone else's comments, but I thought I would point out what I consider to be the biggest deficiency. There is no way to specify a radius like in the old search. To me this is the most fundamental feature. I know I will be at a certain location, show me all the caches in a 2 km, 5 km or 50 km radius that meet my criteria. Am I missing it somewhere? You can sort of alter the search radius by zooming in and out of the map and hitting 'search here', but this seems to jump too dramatically between zoom levels to be useful. It would actually be even more useful if I could specify the number of search results I wanted (show me the closest 10, 20, or 30 caches to this centre point that meet my criteria), but I realize that goes beyond even the current search abilities.

I think the part that bothers me most about opening a door to 'cheating' through a cache placement map that reveals hidden waypoints is that it would work for every hidden waypoint. It's true that there are lots of different ways to 'cheat' (solve the puzzle in an unintended way), but the manner in which to do this varies from puzzle to puzzle, and one has to cobble together bits of information or clues to solve or partially solve the puzzle. If I knew there was a hidden backdoor that would hand me puzzle coordinates, I know I would not have the self-control to resist opening it after banging my head against a wall on a puzzle until 2 in the morning. That means I would also be deprived of the satisfaction of finally solving a puzzle. To me, one of the great things about Geocaching puzzles is that there are no answers at the back of the book.

One feature I particularly like about the official geocaching app is that it adds an exclamation point next to the heading 'Activity' when the last log is a DNF. The exclamation mark is easily visible at a glance as soon as you open up a cache, even if you don't open up the activity log. It usually prompts me to take a closer look at the logs right away, as opposed to before when I would be well into a search before I decided to look at the activity only to realize that this was most certainly a futile endeavor. Unfortunately, the exclamation mark does not appear if the last log was a note or NM, which has burned me sometimes. If I don't see an exclamation mark, I'm probably not going to look at the logs until I'm stuck, likely after the hint, attributes and description. I also have contemplated how my search is impacted by seeing a couple previous DNFs. I do try to put forth a solid search at times even when the presence of the cache is questionable. It has paid off sometimes. And the satisfaction of pulling out a find on a very lonely cache or one with a few DNFs makes it particularly worth it. There are other days where I'm really short on time or am trying to hit a certain quantity goal where I might just forgo anything with a DNF.

When I notice a challenge cache that I am qualified for, I like to enter the posted coords in the corrected coords field. On the map on the website, doing this shows these caches with the solved puzzle icon (light blue puzzle piece). This is great, because visually it looks just like any solved puzzle, and I treat the solved puzzles and the challenges I've qualified for in much the same way--as unknown caches that are ready to be found. It seems like the app does not function in the same way. It doesn't show the solved puzzle icon (light blue puzzle piece) when the adjusted cords and the posted cords are the same. It's a small thing, and maybe I am the only one bothered by it, but I thought I would point it out. Perhaps there is an even better way to accomplish what I am trying to do.

I wonder if there recent repeated logging of 'placed it' and 'retrieved it' are part of their attempt to rack up points for the new planetary pursuit promotion. I believe there are a certain number of 'points' that a person gets each time they drop a trackable. Did these types of log just start happening yesterday? I do wish there was a way to only see when a trackable truly transferred from one person to another or one cache to another in one concise list. The common habit of having all the 'took it to' logs makes following the trackable pages not very interesting.

I've noticed some of this before, and perhaps even a little bit more of this now. I think that when CO's use the OM log when it is clear that maintenance is needed and no actual maintenance has been performed it is an abuse of the system. If they log a OM for a cache that may mistakenly have been caught by the CHS, but reasonably does not require a check, this seems like an appropriate use. It would take the human reviewer to likely determine this distinction, in much the same way that they would determine the distinction between a legitimate NA posted by a cacher, and a mistaken one. As a side note, I don't think it makes sense to log a OM for this purpose or stating " I will check on this cache soon". I find the 'I will check on this cache soon' notes seem to be rarely followed up on. Better to state such intentions in a note.

I liked this trick of using the radio button for 'caches I found' to get all the archived ones included, and then mapping it. Problem is you can only map 1000 at a time, so at a bit over 2700 finds, I can't see everything. I did notice that if you choose the 'disabled' radio button, it does include archived caches, and excludes active caches. Since my total archived finds in 509, I am able to map this entire search currently. Kind of interesting to see a record of all those caches I have chased down that I am not reminded of since they are no longer represented on the map. I don't think it totally satisfies the OP's desire to see all of ones finds in one map view, whether active or archived, but at least it's something.

I too have become more and more satisfied with the official geocaching app on iPhone. Good job! My one reservation is a little different. I wish there was a summary of log types like on the webpage. This is very useful information to me. This helps me determine whether the last 3 logs being DNFs likely indicate a difficult cache or a missing cache? I also wish it listed the find count with each username. Were those last 3 DNFs from cachers with less than 10 finds each, or with many finds under their belt? Makes a difference. So, I still open the browser for this info. Ok, I guess that 2 remaining complaints. But, still, very nice app now, overall:)