HoochDog

99% of all caches in my area aren’t “not available in winter”. But if one wasn’t available in winter, I’d sure like to see that attribute so I don’t waste my time. Most caches aren’t gadget caches or complex containers, but for the ones that are, a negative attribute could be useful.

I just had a great idea that would promote better logs in a positive fashion. Log entries need... a “Like ?” button. Similar to Facebook, this forum, and other places. had some great logs on my caches today and I’d love to be able to “like” good log entries. It would be a nice way to repay finders for taking the time to write a good log. Anyone reading the log entry could hit the like button, not just the CO. this would encourage better log entries in a meaningful way other than word length. then make log likes some type of statistic. Quantity or percentage, etc. Thanks.

If it means getting rid of Adventure Labs as part of geocache stats... then yes, but let's be real. People keep bringing these up as an excuse to have this adventure lab abomination be part of geocaching statistics, so let's look at each in turn. 1) Virtual caches aren't allowed anymore, so it's a moot point. The reason they aren't allowed is because they aren't geocaches. Just like Adventure Labs aren't geocaches. 2) Earth caches are generally rare and most take some effort or research. Also, 1 Earth Cache here and there is much more preferable than 1 AL equaling 5 or 6 geocaches. So it isn't the statistical aberration that adventure labs are. 3) Event's build community and are good for geocaching. Also, they just aren't overly common. If you go to 1/month you're looking at 12 finds. Something that you can knock out in a couple of hours doing just 2 adventure labs. Lastly, all 3 of these caches types are actually integrated into geocaching.com, show up on the map etc. They aren't this other app that just dumps its statistics into my geocaching account for no reason. If you like Adventure Labs, fine. But adventure labs are not geocaches and their stats and history should not be inter-mingled with our geocaching stats.

That's semantics, but it's hard to argue that averaging is not beneficial to improving accuracy. Let's run a simulation as an example. Take a random number. Say 57 value = 57 We have a hypothetical GPS device that isn't very accurate. In fact, that device can only tell you the coordinates to value within 50 places. It will return a value randomly anywhere between 7 and 107. Not very accurate at all. Now, let's take 200 random readings of "value" where the results can wildly range from 7 to 107 and average them together. If we run this simulation multiple times (just for fun!)... 57.020301980532984 56.60828961934022 58.36645537356805 Now, let's take a "precision" device. that gives us coordinates to within 15 feet and grab a single value that we think looks accurate. 70 66 52 My personal experience shows GPS averaging gives more accurate coordinates than trying to pick out a single reading. Is it possible that a single reading can be more accurate than the average? Yes, it can, but most of the time, it probably won't be as good as an average of many samples taken.

adding photos to drafts isn’t the issue. As noted in the steps and screenshots. When you come back later and post your log, it results in an uploaded image that is broken and not viewable.

Agree with original poster. Lab caches feel like a completely separate game and I think the main gripe is that lab cache statistics are mixed in with geocaching statistics for some unknown reason. One of the forum threads that was linked to earlier was moved by the moderator out of the geocaching forum and into the lab cache forum because it did not belong in the geocaching forum. If a discussion about lab caches doesn't belong in the geocaching forum, that should be a tell-tale sign that they are a different thing than geocaching. Either lab cache stats shouldn't be intermixed and tied to your geocaching account or lab caches should be integrated with the geocaching website. If they must be tied to the geocaching account for some reason, just make it a different total. User X: 137 Finds. 15 Adventures.

It's been a couple of days. Can anyone confirm this behavior or is it just me? This one won't crash the app , so feel free to test.

Mentioned this in another thread, but needs more of an official page with written steps. I've reproduced this error 3 times now. 1) Access geocache GC3YD3T 2) Access Trackables section 3) Click "Log" on the trackable "Never Give Up" 4) Click "Write Note" 5) Type something in and click "Post" This has repeatedly caused the app to fatally crash. Subsequent restarts crash. Forces a re-install.

I did not lose custom waypoints by re-installing. I had the same thing happen this past weekend. For me, it was reproduce-able. I accessed a trackable that was in a cache and went to write a note on the trackable page that it was no longer in the cache. When I did that, the app crashed and subsequent launches and phone restarts did not fix it. I had to delete the app and re-install it. Once again, I tried making a comment on the trackable and the app crashed on me. Had to re-install a second time.

Steps to recreate... in the official iPhone app... 1) create new log entry 2) select draft 3) attach image 4) save draft 5) come back later to the draft, turn off draft and officially post log entry result... log entry image is not visible in official iOS app (black image appears) log entry is not visible in a web browser. here is a link to a log that had an image uploaded using these steps https://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=dbe3755b-af54-4d9f-aea9-8f76045ab631 this bug is very annoying. I like to attach images in draft mode so I don’t have to remember which image went with which cache, but want to type in my full log later. Thank you.

I think a lot more DNF's would get posted to caches if DNF logs could be made anonymously. The DNF log would show up, but the username and icon would just be Anonymous. Gut feeling tells me that for a lot of people, DNF-ing a cache is a matter of pride.

Here's an idea, that's all this is, from someone who has spent a great deal of time designing applications and systems that need to satisfy seemingly conflicting use cases. For Mystery caches or multi's, you can store 2 coordinates in the database. 1 is the actual location. The other is called the Display Offset, or "O" in the diagram. This offset is a random distance and bearing away from the actual cache location. This offset perimeter can be used to display a circle that is twice the size (or even larger) of the normal circle for traditional caches. This creates a nice big area where a mystery or multi could be, so it would limit someone's ability to "battleship" the final coordinates to a puzzle. These larger circles would appear on the map for hiders, and when they choose to place a cache within one of these purple circles, they are given a "warning" not a yes/no. Something to the affect of... "This final location may not be available for your cache, but you can attempt to submit it anyway." So somebody like Cali can choose to take the chance, or decide... no it's not worth it, i think i'll just place it outside that giant purple circle to be on the safe side. There are engineering solutions that can be brainstormed here that would be beneficial to everyone. A diagram is attached. Just food for thought.

Yes and no. I’ve encountered puzzles where the CO has put the puzzle information on his/her own website and the cache page contains a link to that website with a warning that you are navigating to a site not hosted by Groundspeak. So... does the cache listing have everything you need to solve the mystery? Yes... a link to the puzzle. Does the cache page itself contain the puzzle? No. Side note, I strongly recommend following Lynx advice. Why not find a few mystery caches first. This will help you better understand them and the experience and knowledge will improve your hide.

I see more and more COs outright asking that you award their caches favorite points in their cache descriptions and I just find it tacky and needy and it makes me far less likely to do so.

Everyone can do what they want with their fav points but... “for me”... this is the WRONG reason to give out fav points. I give out fav points to caches because... they are my favorites. CrAzy right? Now if caches that are finger painted pickle jars by a 6 year old hidden in a bush in someone’s front yard is “your” favorite type of cache.. then great! Award that puppy. But... as others have said, I give out fav points to caches, not cachers. MY favorite caches are not influenced by whether a cache is archived or placed by a cacher I don’t particularly like (I’d gladly give a GoldenWattle cache a fav point) (joke) (kind of). I’m awarding the cache and telling other cachers this one IS cool to me (or was cool). All in all, I think the law of averages is in play here, which means we can all use our best judgement to use our points as we see fit and the system should all balance out.

Just an update. After more playing around with the list, the issue seems to have gone away and now my lists that appear when sorting by "Geocache Name" and my lists that appear by sorting by "Placed On" look the same. I'm not sure if there was some kind of errant browser caching going on, but it was very confusing.

Even more perplexing... I found 2 geocaches on my jasmer list today. 11/2002 and 05/2008 After reporting this bug trying to delete the caches from 11/2002... I just went into this list and selected all of the caches from 05/2008 and was able to successfully delete them, bringing my list total down to 44. However, I still cannot seem to delete any of the caches off of the list from 11/2002

I just noticed things are more strange with the lists. If you sort the caches by "Geocache name", the list contains different entries than if you sort the list by "Placed on" date. If you sort by Geocache Name, Yellow River does not show up in the results. If you sort by "Place On", then Yellow River shows up in the results.

I have a list of Jasmer caches that I can not delete from. Steps: 1) Sort list by "Placed On" 1) Select cache or caches (I've tried 1 and multiple) 2) Click "Delete From List" 3) Click "Yes, Delete Geocaches" from confirmation dialog 4) Dialog disappears and the cache(s) are not removed from the list Browser's tried Chrome OS, Chrome Windows 10, Chrome, Edge Select this geocache Click Delete from List The geocache is still present and I still have 52 caches in the list.

You’re responding to a point I did not make. It may be easier to do it as you log caches, but the fact that you can’t do it from the trackable page can seem confusing to new users. A valid point made by the original poster that you dismissed.

It Is weird not to have the option on the trackable page. When it comes to user interfaces, you perform ACTIONS on THINGS. If I want to CANCEL an ORDER, I would expect to do that on the order page. If I want to UPDATE my ACCOUT DETAILS, I’d do that on my account details page. If I want to DROP-OFF a TRACKABLE, I’d have an -option- to do that from the trackable page. Once you understand to do it from the cache page, it’s not hard, but he has a valid opinion.

On a side note. My experience with fav points is that around 100-200 caches, where you are now, I felt starved for favorite points. I was finding all these cool caches that I liked and wanted to tag them as my favorites. As time went on, 2 things happen. 1) You're finding more caches and gathering more favorite points to use. 2) Your personal standards go up for what you consider a favorite, or you may fine-tune the types of caches you like finding most. Now, around 700 finds, I've got about 6 or 7 in reserve and I almost have to remind myself to give them out. I think the problem goes away over time. And if you take away a fav point from an archived cache, you can always go back and re-add it later once you get more.

Sorry, I didn’t realize they were separate codes.

You (or a moderator?) might want to edit this post and remove the TB number now that your issue is resolved.

A counterpoint to a side fact does not forgive your baseless accusation about what my motivations are.