NLBokkie

+1 for Cachly. I'm really happy using that app instead of the standard GC app.

T.D.M.22, I understand what your point of view is. But I happen to know exactly what I'm talking about. I've been in IT as both a hardcore technician (infrastructures, so networks, servers etc.) and project manager for more than 20 years. I cannot solve the problems I see from geocaching.com without knowing all the details. And I don't plan to solve these issues either, but am happy to leave them with geocaching.com staff to solve as they know how their IT landscape is set up. But: 1. Replacing an app that totally works by an app that doesn't (or is lacking in the functionality that the old app had), then redraw that old app and tell everybody to use the new one with all the issues is simply very bad judgement. The old app should only have been replaced with the new one after it was fully tested and at least would have all the functionality the old app had. Additional new functionality could then be applied later. 2. No changes to website or any systems functionality should have been made without intensive offline testing in a separate environment. I just have this hunch that that is something that isn't done properly due to new issues that seem to pop up all the time. These issues seem to surprise geocaching.com, as it takes them a lot of time to solve or are not solved at all. 3. As a standard measure, before any change is made, a full backup of the environment with all affected systems should be made in order to be able to "roll back" the situation in case issues are found after the change. Being able to roll back to the old situation doesn't usually solve the technical issue that was introduced with the change. But at least the system gets back to a known situation that was known to work, and it gives the IT team time to solve the issue, solve it and test it intensively offline before reapplying that change again. Now I can't tell how the landscape is set up with geocaching.com. But what I see happening now is usually the result of bad planning, no testing or not testing rigorously enough, not identifying what is needed to do a roll back, and possibly not made backups in order to be able to do a roll back. But I'm guessing here, as I don't know the specifics. On top of that, what I'm missing is communication on: 1. What changes geocaching.com is planning to do when, and what impact that could have for their users, upfront of a change. 2. If issues are found after applying a change, what issues are found, if they are indeed recognized as issues, what their impact is supposed to be, what is planned to be done about it (what is the position of the issue on the priority ladder) and when we can expect the issue to be solved. Simply put, as an end user I'm not recognizing the results of anything like change management, problem management, issue/incident management or any of the processes (like ITIL, MOF etc) that exist in professional IT business for a long time already. These processes exist to prevent from issues like we see now to pop up to begin with. But these processes also help in getting issues sorted once they pop up and keep the impact as low as possible for the end user. I'm really not talking rocket science here, just standard basic ICT management processes that are used all over the world. But I have to admit that Touchstone is correct in stating that the Release Notes section of this forum does indeed come up with some details on changes. However, I don't see any of the current website, notifications or message related issues mentioned there.

Sorry to have to write this, but I'm feeling geocaching.com is currently not providing the service they're supposed to deliver in many IT-related areas. Just to name a few: - The whole App issue. Withdrawing a perfectly well working app first, only to have it replaced with an app that doesn't work the way we play the game. It's still missing many of the promised features, many of which we had in the old app. And I'm not even getting started about the (in my eyes) wrong concept of only being able to find extremely simple caches for non-members. But there is no backup anymore now, and many cachers had to find alternatives outside of what geocaching.com is giving. I'm not starting another rave on the app here - the forum is full of them already. - Notifications are sent out on/off, with no indication for the users on which are sent and which not. They are totally in the dark about what they are missing as a result. This is an issue for almost a month now. - Message center is working on and off. Sometimes we see nothing after a refresh, sometimes just frames, sometimes we happen to see all we expect to see. This too has been an issue for quite some time. - On top of that are today's new Map issues. The icons of caches can be found, but none can be selected. As a result, the map is useless as we cannot select any caches on it. Many of the above issues are not new, but have been there for weeks or even months now. There is almost no or totally no communications about these issues from geocaching.com, not confirming that they have found this an issue too, not confirming that they're working on the issues, not providing any insight in how these issues are tackled or when they are supposed to be tackled, and not giving any time scale either on when we can expect to have issues sorted. Many of their users are getting very frustrated for this total lack of communication let alone proper expectation management. Thinking about many of these issues, I see lots of problems on geocaching.com side. They are not only IT related, but the lacking communication and apparent lack of planning leaves everybody in the dark with no light at the end of the tunnel to be seen. It feels like geocaching.com is not taking their users serious at this moment. I'm a paying member, from the very beginning of when I started geocaching 3 years ago. But I feel I can now no longer trust geocaching.com on being able to provide the services they promise to us. Please, get your act together asap, geocaching.com. Not being able to solve some issues that were not there before (why not rolling back to that situation?) is one thing. But nocommunication about what's going on and what we can expect is another, that can be easily dealt with! Thank you!

The Project-GC "Live Map" has a filter to "Exclude not found". I can't see how far that goes back though, to just the last log or the last 3 or 5 or so. Not sure if you will be able to filter for uncorrected mysteries - I never do that and wouldn't know where to start with this in the overload of options. Apart from the very specifics you mention for your queries, I've never felt the need to go back to GSAK once I started digging into my data with Project-GC. My use may be a bit different than yours though.

Provided it is set up properly, GSAK on Windows on a (VMware) VM on a Mac works perfectly well. The supposed issue mentioned with USB drivers and emulations doesn't exist - not in my experience anyway. It just works and recognizes all devices I tell the VM to show in Windows no problem. iCaching is an alternative on Mac, but while I have it installed, I've never really used it. So can't compare its functionality to what GSAK can do for you. But depending on what you use GSAK for, I find project-gc.com a better, cheaper and easier to use alternative than GSAK. It's completely web based, so independent from whatever OS you use. It draws its data right from the geocaching.com database, so there is no need for local database management (or any management for this application) either. As long as you have a recent Internet Browser and Internet connection, it works. Works fine on tablets too.

Voor de duidelijkheid: het genoemde voorbeeld is slechts een voorbeeld en meer niet. Het is absoluut niet mijn bedoeling om de CO van die specifieke cache of welke andere cache dan ook in discrediet te brengen. Ik had ook een andere letterbox hybrid kunnen nemen die niet aan de regels voldoet. Maar ik kom simpelweg héél veel letterbox hybrid caches tegen waarbij behalve het begincoördinaat geen enkel coördinaat berekend wordt of gegeven wordt. En strikt genomen voldoen die dus allemaal niet aan de regels die Geocaching.com nu blijkbaar hanteert. Overigens kwam ik in het Duitstalige deel van dit forum daar ook een hoop opmerkingen over tegen. Dus blijkbaar ben ik niet de enige die hier vraagtekens bij stelt.

Ik verbaas me hier eerlijk gezegd erg over. Letterboxing is een spel dat door Geocaching.com is "geaddopteerd". Het oorspronkelijke spel komt uit een tijd dat GPS nog niet eens bestond. Dat je dan voor het huidige Letterboxing een GPS coördinaat nodig hebt als startlocatie snap ik wel. Maar die extra eis van "nog een stap die met de GPS gemaakt moet worden" snap ik niet. Hoort voor mijn gevoel niet bij Letterboxing. En er zijn legio voorbeelden van caches die niet aan deze richtlijn voldoen (dat extra GPS punt bedoel ik dan) maar wél goedgekeurd zijn. Ook nog zo recent als 2014, want kijk maar eens naar de letterbox in het GeoGame Park bijvoorbeeld. Het tweede coördinaat wat daar genoemd staat heeft geen enkele relevantie voor de cachelocatie of de startlocatie. Een prima letterbox qua beleving, maar deze voldoet dus ook niet aan die regeltjes van significant GPS gebruik . . .

Well, reviewers here (the Netherlands) seem to have a different idea about that. I've seen a new Letterbox sent in recently returned by the reviewer with this comment: This translates to something like "for a Letterbox Hybrid to be accepted, significant GPS use has to be shown in the route to the cache. With this, we mean the following: a projection of a waypoint from a specified location, that is already defined by a coördinate. Or clear coördinates mentioned in the listing. ** The starting coördinates of the cache do not count for this. ** New rules? This doesn't help in getting a Letterbox accepted that is set up according to the fun, tried and tested "pictures with arrows" way . . .

Bij het insturen van een nieuwe Letterbox Hybrid, kreeg ik deze opmerking van de reviewer terug: "Voor een Letterbox hybride moet ergens gedurende de tocht significant GPSgebruik aantoonbaar zijn. Onder significant GPS gebruik verstaan we het volgende; Het projecteren van waypoints vanaf een specifieke locatie, die al gedefinieerd is door een set van coördinaten. Of duidelijke coördinaten in de cache beschrijving staan. **De start coördinaten tellen hierbij niet mee.**" De Letterbox die we probeerden in te sturen is er een van het type waarbij door middel van foto's en pijlen een speurtocht wordt gemaakt. Er zijn legio voorbeelden van Letterboxen die op dezelfde manier zijn opgezet, of die door middel van beschrijvingen, figuurtjes die richtingen aangeven etc. zijn opgezet. Maar die toevoeging dat "significant GPS gebruik aantoonbaar moet zijn" (dus blijkbaar een route opzetten op basis van GPS coördinaten in plaats van op andere wijzes) is helemaal nieuw voor mij. Is dit een nieuw regeltje? En vanaf wanneer geldt dit? Ik moet eerlijk zeggen dat ik hier niet blij mee ben, want iedere Letterbox verwordt hierdoor tot een gewone multi of mystery. Het zijn voor mij nou juist die alternatieve mogelijkheden voor het wijzen van de weg die een Letterbox zo interessant maken - samen met het gebruik van de stempel en de mogelijkheid om kaartjes te sturen dan. Iemand die hier meer over kan zeggen?

Probeer Cachly eens. Ik vind het een geweldige app, die alles gewoon doet wat de oude betaalde Geocaching.com app deed en wat er voor de nieuwe Geocaching.com app toegezegd is maar niet werkt . . .

. . . and not as either a list or a Pocket Query as well? The net result is that GeoTours are not supported by GC's own apps. I don't understand why it is like that.

Narcissa, I have this idea that your reality is very different from mine. I leave it at that for now.

@Geo Walker: I totally agree. The subjects you mention are very good examples of what could be used for Earth Caches up until a few years back. Your own EC's are perfect examples for that. But some time ago the rules for new Earth Caches have changed. Where older ones are not adhering to the new rules set, they are grandfathered (like yours). But new ones have to be "hardcore" geology bound, making EC's like the idea of the "Floating Houses of Amsterdam", the use of windmills for energy etc. no longer acceptable for the reviewers. I feel that in having to use these new rules, we're left with very little options to come up with something new around here. And the interesting stuff like you mention (and I'd like to use for making an EC), is no longer accepted. All in all these new rules basically give us an enormous handicap here and drag us down to having to set up a GC based on almost academic geology levels. I hope I did make a bit more clear what I was referring to in my earlier post.

Yes, but that's purely accidental. My nickname stems from the fact that I was born in late December, which makes me a Capricorn. Capricorn translates to steenbok in Dutch language, and together with all bucks they are commonly called bok or affectionally bokkie. Looking up that word on the Internet I found many references to the SA rugby team. But I did use the Bokkies cuddly toy for my avatar only as I thought it looks funny and there is this connection to my nickname. But I'm really not into rugby at all. Maybe I should change my avatar. Thanks!

Out of personal interest: why is it taking so very long before the location for IEE4 is published? I think organising this event is underway for a long time already. So how can the location still not be clear? Or maybe it is clear but there are other reasons beyond my comprehension on why this is not published yet?

My main issue with even trying to become an EarthCache Master is the sheer impossibility to get a new EarthCache started. And this is not just my experience, but I hear the same from many cachers in my area. Many people feel like getting an EC online is taking at least half a year of going back and forth with reviews, and most give up in the process because they cannot be bothered with the cumbersome process anymore. While I have no recollection of what the rules used to be to start a new EarthCache (as I've only started Geocaching about a year ago) some years back, I feel that the current rules that allow for new EarthCaches are prohibitively strong. I live in the Netherlands, a country that is almost totally flat. No mountains, no volcanoes, sometimes just a fault here or there, some sand swept in by rivers, but that's about it really. From a hardcore geological view, there is not much to be seen around here. But due to being so flat and low lying, we do have plenty of waterways, salt and sweet water lakes, interesting natural and man made water draining systems, flora and fauna that goes with that environment, etc. Many of these come with very interesting backgrounds and stories, which are great for creating fun EarthCaches, lessons about the earth and our environment etc. However, "the current rules" only allow for hardcore geological information to be used with a new EarthCache. Apart from being almost totally unable to start a new cache that adheres to these rules in this country, it's missing out completely on the interesting and fun lessons that could be had if the scope of EarthCaches was just a tad wider than it currently is. I very much feel that the rare new EC we see around here (according to the responsible reviewer only 5 in the last year) are now only using wording and are about subjects that are mostly only of interest to those that are deeply initiated, but cannot be followed by those that don't have a degree in the matter. This is partly due to apparently accepted technical writing styles and the almost exclusive use of technical terms to meet the rules. I know that somewhere in these new rules comes a mention that the text for ECs has to be readable and comprehensible for a 12 year (or so) old kid, but that part of the rules seems systematically overlooked. I do actually see lots of interesting and fun EarthCaches in my country and surrounding countries. But most of these are not (or not just) about hardcore geology. Don't get me wrong, geology certainly has its place in most of these caches, but they are generally not just about geology, but take the current landscape and what can be seen there into account as well. These EC's can't be started anymore, while these in my view exactly represent the more fun caches. And I'm a strong believer of the idea that without any fun in it, there is usually not much to be learned for most of the people. So I'm trying to say that I think that current rules for starting EC's are far too strict. And I feel very sorry about that. As there is so much to be learned and loved about our planet that goes just a little further than the pure geological side of things. I feel that both Geocaching.com and the GSA are missing out on many potential supporters as a result. As there is plenty of people who take an interest in this kind of thing (like I do) but don't feel the need to have to wade through pages of technical terms and hardcore geological lingo just to learn something of interest about our world. Geocaching is or should still primarily be a game, not a study. Which doesn't mean we can't learn something interesting and fun while playing the game. In itself I find the Master program interesting though and would be happy to join in - if only I felt able to do so, as the creation of an EC seems almost impossible here right now. Like others I'm not too sure that the way of becoming a master should be build on numbers alone. I'd rather see some kind of quality aspect built in. But I have no immediate ideas of how to do that. I don't want to rant too much, and hope it is not coming across like that either. Please take my 2 cents as a view from a geocacher that sees room for improvement. But I do hope that some of this is picked up by some of the people that have a say in it.

Ik denk ook dat je die gewoon alsnog achteraf krijgt. Vandaag zouden ze gepubliceerd worden. Vanwege het tijdsverschil met de VS zou dat wel eens morgenochtend voor ons kunnen worden. Ik ben erg benieuwd hoe ze er uit gaan zien, want ik kon nog geen voorbeelden online vinden.

En Griekenland als laatste.

En nummer vijf is Brazilië . . .

Tenminste, dat meen ik toch wel in de Geocaching Blog te lezen? Het zou om 6 landen gaan, waaronder België, Mexico, Croatië, Italië en twee nog onbekende.

Hoi Tovenaartje, Natuurlijk ben je altijd welkom in deze omgeving. Maar toevallig heb ik de twee Coins vandaag op reis gestuurd via het TB Hotel Leiden. Dus ze zijn al op weg. Bedankt voor je aanbod.

Inmiddels heb ik ook een TB die daar ook heen wil. Iemand die kan / wil helpen? Let me know!

Ah, right! So that's what I'm seeing here. Thanks for clearing that up, Palmetto!

Ik heb een munt opgepikt die naar de UK wil. Iemand die daar binnenkort heen gaat? Nu in de omgeving Leiden. Mail me even via mijn profiel. NLBokkie

Ik ben nog niet zo lang bezig met deze hobby, maar ik lees vaak wel uitvoerig de logs bij een cache vóórdat ik deze ga zoeken. Deels omdat ik nu al een paar caches ben tegengekomen die geript blijken te zijn (blijkt in mijn omgeving - rond Leiden - helaas nogal eens voor te komen), en me de moeite wil besparen om iets te gaan zoeken wat er niet is. Maar bij het doornemen van die logs viel me iets opmerkelijks op. Ik ben al een paar keer logs tegen gekomen van cachers met slechts één find, en als je hun profiel bekijkt dan zie je dat ze blijkbaar nooit hun inschrijving bevestigd hebben. Dus hoe hadden ze dan kunnen loggen? Bovendien valt me op dat in een aantal gevallen ook nog eens exact dezelfde logtekst wordt gebruikt. Voorbeeld: GC3GV61, stijn9 (1 find), 5 februari 2014: "That’s one more find for me! Thanks so much for hiding this geocache." GC49QD2, dehond (1 find), 23 januari 2014: "That’s one more find for me! Thanks so much for hiding this geocache." Dus, wordt het logsysteem vervuild door fake accounts ofzo of zie ik spoken? Ik ben benieuwd hoe jullie dit zien . . .