baer2006

(Emphasis by me) This is not my experience at all. I've seen hundreds of water-proof paper logs, which had got wet in the past, and where all stamp logs were a hopeless, but most pen signatures were in a more or less readable state.

At least in my area, "water-proof" micro logbooks are a thing (like "rite-in-the-rain" or whatever it's called). Such logbooks and (most) stamps don't go together well at all. If people are stamping into such a log, you end up with a mess of colored blobs, and the next finders of the cache may find some of the ink on their fingers after logging. In discussion about this problem, CO's who use such logbooks usually say "Don't use you d*** stamps!", while cachers with stamps reply "Use a proper dry container, then you don't need those d*** 'water-proof' logs!" TBH, I think that's an unsolvable conflict .

I'm very sure, that this (location visit info is in the app's cache on the phone) is indeed true: When you have "opened" a location while playing with account A, you can log out of the app, re-login with account B, and the location is still open. Quite a while ago, my AL app acted very weirdly, and I decided to clear the app's cache to give it a fresh start. It worked (I could log in, and play normally), but I had to re-open the last location. That this information is stored locally on the phone is absolutely vital, if you play an AL in areas with spotty or missing mobile data connection. Then you can visit the location, "open" the questions, and answer them later.

Not sure, what you mean by "completed, but not logged yet". If you have really completed the AL (i.e. entered all 5 answers), and just haven't written a log or given a rating, you should be able to open the completed AL from the map, and then add your log. If you have only visited all locations to "open" the question, and noted down the answers, you have to revisit the locations.

Note to self: Put a möbius log strip into my next cache. SCNR

I've been on Tenerife this year, and it's definitely worth a visit. As a geocacher, it helps if you like Earth Caches (which I don't) - in some areas, it felt like there is one at every second rock .

Many years ago, we had a comparatively easy version of this concept here in Munich. The cache description said, that somewhere in a certain part of the city (area about 10 km² or so) you will find a clue to the cache location (of the kind "When you see it, you know it's the one"). It gave same vague hints, the most useful of which was that you could pass by the clue using public transport. So you effectively had to search every street where a bus was running, which amounted to many, many kms worth of city street. In the end, it was much easier than it looked (once you happened to walk through the right street): The CO had mounted a very visible sign (ca. 30cm x 30cm) to an "abandoned" sign post on the walkway (only the post had been there, but no actual sign), showing the GC code in big letters. On the backside, you found the coordinates of the cache in small print.

The link to the deleted log used to be included in the deletion notification mail. Therefore the lack of the link is a regression bug, and I reported it already a month ago: https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/394556-bug-no-link-to-log-in-log-deletion-mail/

It's not just you.

I can confirm this bug, and it's quite annoying. The whole point of the preview window is to see, if your formatting really does, what you think it does - especially in situations, where punctuation might get in the way of "markdown" symbols.

If you know the GC code (GCxxxxx), you can easily get to the listing of any cache, incl. archived ones, with the URL https://coord.info/GCxxxxx .

I reported this bug on 19 October:

This is a minor display glitch, which only happens, when you do continuous scrolling, while new logs are added at the same time. There are no actual double logs, which you can verify by reloading the entire listing after things have quieted down. My guess is that the scrolling display just counts the number of logs already loaded. So e.g. you have 100 logs already loaded, and the next scroll down loads 10 more, from #101 to #110. But in the meantime, e.g. 3 more logs have been posted - then the former #98 will be the current #101, gets loaded again, and in the end you see three logs "doubled". No big deal, and not worth the effort to fix it .

This strange behavior of the the Delete functionality must be a bug. The listing, on which I'm working, has three Reviewer Notes: - One form 6 Dec 2022, with only the text "Work in progress" - can be deleted - One from 22 Oct 2023, with the first draft of the actual notes for the reviewer - can not be deleted - One from 12 Nov 2023, with the updated draft of the actual notes - can be deleted I cannot think of any intentional UX design, where the oldest and newest Rev Notes can be deleted, but a random one in the middle cannot.

It gets even weirder ... I deleted my "Test" reviewer note from yesterday, which I had posted to illustrate my point. Then I copied my "real" draft Rev Note to create a new, amended one, in my listing. That worked. Then I wanted to delete the older, incomplete and now obsolete Rev Note - but I cannot delete it! The "Delete" button is missing on that one. The "Delete" button existed on the "Test! note, and it also exists on the new one I just posted. Sorry, but ... WTF?!? Now I have an old, incomplete and potentially misleading Rev Note in my listing, which I cannot delete. So to make sure, that the Reviewer doesn't think I'm totally confused, I have to post yet another Rev Note before submitting, telling the Reviewer that they should please ignore any Rev Notes before a certain date. Please don't tell me that this is the intended workflow.

Hi, when preparing a new cache listing, I also write a Reviewer Note, which will in the end, before I submit the listing, include any information about the cache, which I think is helpful for the reviewer. E.g., details about the cache hide, a detailed description of the solution of puzzle caches, etc. This Reviewer Note is an evolving thing, which I update every time I think there is a new aspect worth mentioning. I also want to correct the occasional type every now and then . Unfortunately, with the "new logging"; I cannot edit my Reviewer Note! When I go to "View / Edit Log" -> "Edit Log", everything is greyed out, like this: Please re-enable the functionality to edit the pre-publish Reviewer Notes!

Basically, this is a cheap insult of everyone, who likes to do puzzles and is not retired. I don't think, that was necessary .

The functionality has been removed. To quote from the OP: And TBH, the functionality didn't make a lot of sense anyway. Whoever was interested in spoilers, could decrypt an encrypted log with very little effort.

Sorry, but I don't see your problem. Of course, the FP % stat doesn't "count them all", because non-PM simply cannot give an FP. So if a cache has 15 finds, and 10 of these are currently(!) PM, and all those 10 current PMs have given an FP, then it should say "100%". Such a calculation scheme ignores FPs by former PMs, true. But in my view, only taking the current FP per PM percentage into account would be the most "stable" and reproducible method.

OMG, what's that?!? - someone really made the most out of their "Virtual Award" ! But the solution is trivial: Add 20 photos to your find log, and post two notes for the remaining photos. Seems that many finders of the cache have already done this anyway.

So your kids haven't yet discovered apps with offline maps?

Then you can be happy that you don't live in Germany.

... as long as you are privileged to actually get this upgrade. Which I am apparently not .

When I saw such a setup, I would immediately get my own telescopic pole, to get the magnet up to the cache in a controlled way . Tossing up a cord would most likely result in lots of misses, and possibly a cord entangled in branches.

I would never auto-exclude a cache just because the last two logs are DNF. Only if a cache needs a non-trivial walk (> 30 minutes) and I'd go there just because of the cache (i.e. the walk itself is likely dull), I check the last logs beforehand, and refrain from it if a DNF seems likely. Otherwise, I just give it a try. Also, I know that I am "blind" quite often and DNF caches, which are perfectly fine - so I usually don't assume "DNF = Cache is probably missing" .