NLBokkie

A little more than two: I will miss our local g.S.F.R?T. Moving Cache and had hoped to do a few more along those lines when I have more time to travel. But, yes, a few handfuls out of 3 million. Although I am not sure that 3 million is a good thing (leaving that discussion for another day), I am sure that preserving some of the things that are quirky about this game is important to many of us. Having a few things that don't necessarily follow the rules, rather than the rush for the common denominator, touches upon the spirit that brought many of us into the game. So I am sad to see them go, and disappointed by the way it has handled. Although I am more familiar with the cache above, I looked at the YOSM cache age and could not see that either require "programmatic exceptions." So a few out of 3 million seems like more of a matter of policy rather than one of resources. And it's that policy that I think is unfortunate. +1. Exactly how I feel. The discussion here seems to focus mainly on the Brass Cap and YOSM caches, but there really are plenty more. Just see this list of 19 traveling caches, all within the Benelux. Only 2 of them are virtuals that could be put in the same category as Brass Cap / YOSM, but all 19 are affected . . . As far as I can see, none of these would need any form of "programmatic exception". They've been working just fine for years.

Exactly, that was what I meant. Maybe I should have pointed that out. Thanks for thinking with me, hzoi.

I think there are more geocachers interested in Benchmarking than the moving caches, and from what I gather it was mostly geocachers in the UK. I list Benchmarks on the Waymarking site, but if Benchmark data goes away from geocaching.com, I'll just use the NGS site. Eh, isn't Benchmarking a US-only thing? The world is a bit larger than just the US. Here, there are no Benchmarks to begin with. And hunting hitchhikers was very popular. Especially as there were quite a few still around here in the European mainland.

Sadly this duplicity can be expected from Groundspeak, a company that has proven time and time again that customer satisfaction is not of any interest to them whatsoever. They didn't even have the sense to avoid putting their lies in writing. So, from this, do I understand it correctly that GCHQ has archived all the hitchhikers / traveling caches because some of their staff doesn't know their history and misunderstood what locationless caches were?

The latest log you left on the trackable is displayed in the upper right corner now. It was added a couple weeks ago. You're totally right, Thomfre! I had missed that.

Desperately needed: an innovation to remove the pain of trying to follow up on a TB you once crossed paths with. Wading through pages of took-it-to, took-it-to, took-it-to is NO fun and has sucked the pleasure out of that little side-game. Did I drop it off in Hong Kong on Page 24, or Page 60, aah I don't care anymore. +1 +1 I've always wondered why the trackable pages are not the same like the cache pages: showing a smiley and the date when you found it (and where in the case of trackables) in the upper right corner. That would make things so much easier for a start.

Sorry, but I so don't agree with that. We apparently live in an area with plenty of these artefacts - still 15 to 20 of them around in the Benelux. And there are a lot of geocachers around here that are trying to "collect" all those within our borders. Except now they can't do that anymore. And the feeling is really not the same between hunting for traveling caches, complete with interesting / fun history and its own logbook or finding just another trackable. And yes, some really are artefacts. Just take a look at Don & John Juan for example. Finding hitchhikers is was extremely popular over here. They are were in a class of their own.

Might be better to address this question in the earthcache forum, but my experience has been very different from yours. Our first attempt at an earthcache didn't get published because it was based on a glacial lagoon that was only a few miles from Jokulsarlon and wasn't different enough for the reviewer's liking. We appealed that and were denied. But other than that, I've not had to use appeals to get any of our 27 earthcaches published. I think pretty much all of our earthcaches were published after the guidelines got stricter. I'll let you decide whether they're dull. Those who log them seem to enjoy them; all but one have multiple favorite points, and that one's in a pretty remote park in Texas and just may not be getting the love. Not sure what the issue here is. The last few regular events we've attended or hosted have been in an Irish pub, a sports bar, a greasy spoon, a brewery, a pizza place, a sushi/hibachi buffet, a bakery, a Chinese buffet, a family restaurant... It's OK to mention the place in the cache description; in fact, it's pretty much recommended. I've heard of reviewers asking event hosts to scale back event descriptions, usually because they were going overboard and it read too much like an ad. I know. I've read and concluded many times already that the situation is quite different in the US than what we experience here in The Netherlands. But on earth caches, almost nothing gets through. And if you happen to mention the name of the cafe, it's immediately considered "commercial" here. And reason to deny publishing the event. And I'm just not sure why we have these over-strict interpretations on the guidelines here, but I do think that many reviewers here have very different ideas about what constitutes what than they have in the US. Unfortunately. It gets us in a lot of discussions and different guideline interpretations that shouldn't be issues at all. It's frustrating. It's all about rules and more rules, plenty of which are not that clear or can not be found on the Internet.

Not what I meant. Take webcam caches as an example - I think someone hinted they too might be for the chop but when I think of webcam caches nowadays the first thing that comes to mind is fake logging of dead webcam caches and the background angst that goes with it. That isn't what geocaching is about, regardless of Groundspeak's involvement - so what's the point of perpetuating them? Well, if new webcam caches were allowed to be placed, no one would bother about trying to log that particular webcam cache that doesn't work anymore. It's their current oddity, which is a direct result of them being grandfathered and dwindling numbers, that makes them attractive to so many cachers. It's hard to find the type of cache, to get it logged. If there were plenty (new ones) around, we probably wouldn't see so many fake logs . . . And the same holds true for virtual caches. For both of these cache types, there's no alternative. So this is what you can expect as a result: many fake logs to at least get a couple of that type down. If GS is going to apply the same kind of logic as they just did to hitchhikers to these kind of caches, these indeed could be next to go. I só hope they will see the light before that happens . . . People have been fake-logging these things for years and then raising merry hell with any CO who dared delete their fake logs. And then there's the CO's who dragged along the carcasses of their long-dead webcam caches long after it was obvious that there was never again going to be anything there to log but hey - smartphones have cameras so... I am not suggesting that new webcams should or shouldn't be allowed. But the part that irks the heck out of me is that they're all locked (from a cache owner perspective). From what I've been told, which could be untrue, is that Webcam cache owners are not allowed to make any changes to their cache listing.. which accelerates their demise. I think that any owner of a webcam should be allowed to make changes to keep their webcam cache viable and functional. Even if they are moving their webcam cache from a defunct webcam to a webcam miles away from the original location? Yes, that's actually a reason to immediately archive the cache. You may get away with replacing the existing webcam and the software needed to access that when you can update the webcam cache in-place. But a move is an immediate reason to archive AFAIK. Nor can these caches be moved to another owner - trying so will also immediately result in archiving the cache.

Not what I meant. Take webcam caches as an example - I think someone hinted they too might be for the chop but when I think of webcam caches nowadays the first thing that comes to mind is fake logging of dead webcam caches and the background angst that goes with it. That isn't what geocaching is about, regardless of Groundspeak's involvement - so what's the point of perpetuating them? Well, if new webcam caches were allowed to be placed, no one would bother about trying to log that particular webcam cache that doesn't work anymore. It's their current oddity, which is a direct result of them being grandfathered and dwindling numbers, that makes them attractive to so many cachers. It's hard to find the type of cache, to get it logged. If there were plenty (new ones) around, we probably wouldn't see so many fake logs . . . And the same holds true for virtual caches. For both of these cache types, there's no alternative. So this is what you can expect as a result: many fake logs to at least get a couple of that type down. If GS is going to apply the same kind of logic as they just did to hitchhikers to these kind of caches, these indeed could be next to go. I só hope they will see the light before that happens . . .

No, it's far better to waste developer time supporting and developing an app that nobody wants to use ...

I feel very much like Geocaching.com has forgotten they are supporting a game. Instead they seem to think they are running a multinational business. The vast amounts of "rules" to stop each and every oddity, novelty or eccentricity dead in their tracks is causing the game to lose colour and flavour in my opinion. Just to name a few from my experience: - Killing webcam caches and move them to Waymarking, which is neither the same kind of game nor is being played by the numbers that play geocache. I'd love to see them return to geocaching. - Killing virtual caches that allow to put caches in places where a physical cache can't be put. Personally I really love to hunt them down, as the ones that still exist are usually in very interesting spots. Please bring them back. - Only allowing for earth caches that are totally and only about geology. Before the 2011/2012 stricter rules for earth caches, this cache type was also used to get cachers to interesting places in nature and to show them about other stuff in nature and nature sciences than just geology. Most of the new earth caches are extremely dull, totally geology-centric with no leeway for anything else that is making the spot interesting. And they are an enormous pain to get published anyway, with reviewers being so over-over strict on their take on the rules that getting them published without a couple of appeals to GCHQ is by now almost impossible. While the old ones just remain interesting and fun to do. - Killing hitchhikers and (if you're lucky) make them into trackables. First caches are really not the same as trackables and they don't bring the same game value to me. Second, I really like oddities. By killing the few hitchhikers that were still alive, I feel that geocaching.com is killing a very interesting part of their own history. There is a reason why so many people thought that hunting hitchhikers was fun - it's their eccentric character. And that is what was making them popular. People will moan only about popular stuff or stuff that is interesting to them or that they care about, not about the dull uninteresting stuff. - Producing a new app that doesn't do what most cachers want, and in the mean time (or actually a bit earlier) killing an existing app that is working great and answers most of the wishes of cachers. - Limiting new cachers exploring the game to max D/T=1.5/1.5 caches. How can you explore what more is there to enjoy if it's being held back from you? - In many appeal cases blindly following the reviewer and their decision, without actually reviewing the appeal and asking for explanations and point of view from both sides to begin with. - Coming up with stuff like mentioned above and just push it on the players without asking for an opinion about it upfront. No discussions, but instead a "we know what's good for you" stance. This arrogance is not helping in any way. The one exception here being the recent discussion about the possible return of the APE cache near Seattle - I'd like to see all kinds of decisions that actually hits us players, being discussed upfront and decided about in a bit more democratic way. - Challenges that now have to be checked against checkers to see if players comply. - Proximity rules for event caches that are enforced in ways the proximity rules were never meant to be used for to begin with. AFAIK these rules were meant to prevent endless satellite events popping up around megas and gigas. Now they are used to prevent too many events to be organised for the GCHQ-sponsored "Where in the world is Signal" events. Plus, they are enforced by the reviewers, but there is no way for players to find out about what these rules actually and exactly are, because they are not published so can't be looked up anywhere on the net. So as organisers we're always caught after sending the event caches in for review on "rules" we can't and don't know ... Please kill these stupid rules, or otherwise publish them in full detail. - Killing any event that happens to be in a cafe, bar, pub or restaurant in their tracks because they are supposed to be "commercial". I won't start another rant here on how not commercial these events are, but please allow this kind of events and instruct your reviewers about them, or make it extremely clear in your rules what you consider commercial and what not. I'm so fed up with the constant discussion about this with the reviewers. - No new cache types at all during the last 10 years. Just more rules, rules and even more stupid rules. I can go on with this for a while, but I think it's clear where I'm coming from. Where is the fun in all this? I really feel that GCHQ is forgetting that they are really supporting a game that is supposed to be fun for their players. But instead we're seeing more and more politicised rules being pushed on us. I'm a firm believer that we need less rules instead of more. But it looks like GCHQ too has fallen in the fear-fed trap of making more rules to allow no interesting or fun diversions from what they consider to be good for us, and pushing that on us without discussion or even warning upfront. And all this in a "we're a business" style of way, while you are really not or are not supposed to be a business. If you call this a business, it's one with really bad management, forgetting all about your clients and their wishes ..

These words could be mine! ++++++++

I would say: Why bother? I listed one benchmark on Whymarking.com, as part of the State Center of Population benchmarks. It was found once! I listed it in July 2008. It was last found in March 2009. Why is there a discussion on Waymarking here in a topic about Moving caches / Hitchhikers?

It's the last sentence: "By 2017 fewer than 100 traveling caches remained active. Because the number of complaints and disagreements over these few caches were disproportionate to their number, Geocaching HQ decided to archive them."

Well, we have plenty of them circling around here (The Netherlands). With the majority not being kept as pocket caches at all, but regularly showing up in other caches and at events.

And doing so acutely, Without warning upfront, Without discussion, Without any kind of communication upfront? Just because they can? How can you do that? Killing the little that was left of geocaching old days in one go . . . ? I'm speechless! See here, section 2.17 and possible mails in jour inbox if you have hitchhikers on your watchlist (or are the owner of one).

Thanks Touchstone. But how near is "near"? It seems there are distances and time frames in use with this rule that are not published or clear. And on top of that they seem to be different for each country. The reason I'm asking about this is that with the current "where in the world is Signal" series of events, which are all organised for the same reason, for the same audience and mostly in the same timeframe (which is a direct result of Geocaching.com asking geocachers to organise events during a short time frame), allowing one event to be published almost automatically means that others a mere 10 miles away are not allowed to be published. And that is perceived as an issue - by me but many more geocachers here in densely populated Netherlands, where 10 miles distance usually means being in a different city with a different geocaching community. We're now told that these proximity rules won't allow for an event per city, while these same rules have never ever been mentioned before or enforced before. But they are an acute nuisance for event organisers trying to get a fun event organised as requested by Geocaching.com, only to be denied having them because of rules that are not clear to the non-reviewers. From what I read about these rules on the forum here, it seems that different countries or even different reviewers use different measures for this. So I'm trying to get a clear view on what measures are supposed to apply here. Like what range and what time difference are prohibitive. The quote from the guidelines you mention looks to me like applying to very different circumstances, like preventing endless amounts of satellite events to go with megas and gigas . . . ?

Een verzoek aan de Nederlandse reviewers: zouden jullie alsjeblieft de Nederlandse proximity rules voor events willen publiceren? Ik ben nu al twee keer tegen deze nieuwe beperking opgelopen, maar kan er nergens iets over terug vinden. Noch over de afstand, noch over het tijdsverschil. Dankjewel.

You have it, I can see it on your profile. Acquired on 09 Apr 14 Ah yes, I see it now. But I needed to refresh my souvenirs tab page first before I got to see it. It looks exactly like the Bundesländer souvenirs, except with no state name mentioned . . .

I'm still confused about the mentioned Deutschland souvenir. I visited all german Bundesländer ( finished that in 2015 already) and organised and visited a Dönerstag event. While I did get the souvenirfor the event, the Deutschland souvenir is a no show. Why is that?

Just speaking for myself, I have dropped and picked up trackables using virtual caches. I've actually just exchanged the trackables with other geocachers by hand, but we decided to use the virtual caches as exchange medium instead of just grab them from each other. Simply because we can, it's allowed and is fun. Of course the trackables never were in the virtual cache to begin with. Now if the receiver in such an exchange forgets to pick up the trackable from the virtual cache, they will remain there. That could be one explanation why you might see trackables in virtual caches.

Since noone has mentioned this before here: the script issue crashes FireFox on OS X too. I'm going to try Arisoft's solution to see if that works on a Mac too.

In my case, on Mac OS X 10.11.6, with Firefox 48.0.1, independent of the type of map selected, I get frequent hangs and a warning message after a while (see below). The issue is severe though, as the apparent not-running of the script makes the browser hang completely, so I can't use it in the mean time. I usually end up having to force quit the app and start Firefox again. It's very annoying. Ihe beach ball keeps spinning all the time until the warning comes up after a minute or two or zo. I've had this issue intermittently for weeks now, and apparently it's not solved as I'm having it again now.

At least I see some more updates in individual forum topics now. That certainly helps. Thanks for that.