KC

I've noticed that the map view on some cache pages is not working. The image is a solid grey color; the cache icon is displayed, along with any waypoints, but the zoom buttons don't work, and panning does nothing.

Yes, this is a real problem!!! I've noticed it for a long time; I've also noticed that when the OpenStreetMaps are selected, some cache icons on the maps will not do anything when you click on them. I have had to switch back to Mapquest or adjust the map zoom to return the functionality to where I can navigate to a cache page using the icons on the map. Today, it's really bad - no icons on the map will respond, at all! I am running Google Chrome on Windows 7 64 bit.

It appears to be a person - an actual hacker. They hacked into my Facebook, Gmail, and Geocaching - all caches have now been archived.

A bot seems to have hacked into my account and is archiving all my caches!! I have emailed the reviewers to request that that the account be shut down temporarily, but they are probably all asleep. HELP!!!!!

When you change the given coordinates for a puzzle cache using the new feature, they are updated on the small map on the cache page, but not on the large map.

A couple problems still with the recent website update: It is very hard or impossible to tell which of your owned caches under 'Geocaches (Yours)' are archived or just disabled...they look the same. Also, the visual layout of waypoints is very confusing; each waypoint should be isolated visually with lines around it or something so you can tell which waypoint the coords and description belong to. Also, why does there need to be a huge space between the cache writeup and the hints/logs area? I've also noticed for a year or so that sometimes huge bits of corrupted text apparently from an outside source appears in my cache page writeups, often containing foreign characters, and sometimes even legible text!!? It's definitely not something I added to the cache page; it's not even in my cache page writeup, but still displays. This problem seems to come and go, and was there before the recent updates. Anyone else notice this?

I agree...it's disturbing. The new look for waypoints is extremely stretched out and you can't even tell which text description belongs to which waypoint. The new thinner lines around the logs area makes it very confusing visually. It's just all wrong...please, for the love of god change it back.

You can; you just go to your log and click on "View / Edit Logs / Images" below your log, click on the image you want to delete, click "Edit Image", click on the trash can on the top right of the image, and then select yes when prompted to delete.

I happened to find this site which seems to mirror 'geocaching.com', but didn't let me log in when I accidentally tried to. Did it just steal my password info? []

You go to the 'hide & seek a cache' page and enter the GC code under 'by gc code'. This will take you to the cache page.

I'm hoping for the $80-$120 range... I need it ASAP (already have one on the way from New Hampshire, but 7-10 days is a heck of a time to wait)

Anyone in the Victoria, B.C. area with a Magellan eXplorist 400/500/XL they want to sell? I dropped my 210 on the pavement from 6 feet...it's toast.

Ref: mtn-man's post. I apologize if I implied that my frustration was somehow directed at you; it wasn't at all! You do a fantastic job and I appreciate that. My frustration was directed at what I see as a unfortunate loophole in the geocaching.com reviewer process in general. Perhaps these caches that ended up blocking mine from being published were actually in conflict with other caches and therefore never got published as well, who knows. I still think that a cache in the queue should only be able to be in conflict with caches that are farther ahead in the queue and are visible to reviewers (i.e. fully ready to be published). Unchecking that box should cause a cache to drop to the end the of the queue, allowing cachers who are ready to publish their cache in the same location to not have to worry about a lengthy process of imaginary conflicts. If there is some way to change this policy, I think it would be great.

Yeah me too... I keep my coords out in the ocean somewhere until I'm ready to finalize the page, then change them to the actual coords and check the box. But I'm getting the distinct impressions that some cachers in my local caching area are using this feature to stake out cool-looking areas and then place caches months later when they feel like it. [] There should be a limit on the amount of time that one can stake out an area this way - currently, one has to wait till there is a proximity conflict with the non-existent cache, and then go through a lengthy process with a reviewer to communicate with the other cacher to see if he/she actually plans to place a cache. This process can be fairly slow because the reviewer has to be the intermediary person since the cachers involved remain anonymous.

Yeah, I agree it's pretty unlikely that someone would 'take over' the city. But I don't think there is a 'limited time period' for inactive cache pages unless someone complains that the inactive cache page coords are blocking their own hide attempt. (I have some unfinished cache pages that have sat there for months.) I cache mainly in Victoria, B.C. and the city is getting very full of caches! The check box says... "Yes, this cache is currently active (Reviewers will not see this listing unless box is checked)" Reviewers may not see this listing (i.e. it won't be in the queue), so then I guess the two caches that were blocking mine were actually in the queue, but never made it to publication? I guess my question is, when you uncheck that box, can your coords still stop someone else from publishing a cache within 528 ft, presumably for a unlimited time period (unless someone complains)?

I'm getting annoyed by this geocaching policy that allows people to basically stake out territory for an unlimited amount of time by putting up a cache page and then listing it as inactive. Someone could potentially take over an entire city, grabbing all the hot-spots and making inactive cache pages and then take their time about actually placing caches there while the territory is now only available to them. I think the policy MUST be changed so that you can only hold onto a geographic position when you've listed your cache as being visible to reviewers. Otherwise, it should fall back to the end of the queue after a certain amount of time so that this abuse of the feature doesn't happen. With one of my other caches, the same thing happened...I got the email saying it was too close to TWO new caches..BOTH OF WHICH have never gotten published months and months later. Any ideas?

I personally only log DNFs if I think my extensive searching showed that the cache is not there, or there's some other problem. Logging a DNF after spending only 15 minutes looking is a little lame I think.

This issue of shared FTFs has also come up for me recently. Here's how I see it: FTF means the first solo cacher or caching team to find the physical cache, and the cacher(s) must prove it by signing the first place in the logbook. When you are caching alone, there is no issue. When caching with others, the collective resources of the team are put either into traveling to the cache site, and/or finding the cache. Therefore, it's not really fair for one person in a team to say they were first to find if, for example, they only got to the cache site by having their caching partner drive them there or help them search. When one member of a team has found the cache, all the other members of the team can't find it (it's already been found and is in plain sight), so no other members of the team can call themselves STF, third to find, etc. Some caches have prizes for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th to find. I don't think it would be fair for the 4 members of a team to grab all those prizes - the cache was only 'FOUND' once. And if you can't take the prizes you can't call yourself the STF, third to find, etc. So it's up to the individual cachers whether to just say they found the cache 'with so-and-so' or that they shared the FTF. This is my convoluted way of explaining why, when a team of cachers shares resources to solve puzzle requirements, get to the cache, or find stages or the main cache, they must all share the FTF. I made a program that adds a column to the 'FTF' section of my GSAK stats called 'Shared With'. In this column I list the cachers who contributed to 'my' first to find. If I found it alone, that column is blank. Ultimately it comes down to the geocaching spirit, which I feel is honesty, and respect, and having fun.