Corfman Clan

Actually, they can require photos. This type of requirement was taken away but has since been brought back.

Geocaching HQ has asked their API partners, multiple times, for both their staging and production redirect URIs. The production redirect URI has to be secure, i.e., use https.

I hosted one of the 10 years events and have been planning on hosting a 20 year event at essentially the same time and place. This whole application process seems to throw that out the door. Well I suppose the stars could align. I'll wait and see.

I've marked 432 caches as favorites. I have 775 favorite points not yet doled out. Frankly, I don't consider 1 out of 10 caches favorite worthy and that's why I have a lot available. I'll give a favorite point when I consider a cache special, whether that be the location, the journey to the location, or the cache itself. Some caches are in poor condition, so they disqualify themselves even though the location and journey were fun and special. Sometimes I just forget to give a favorite point. Sometimes I go back and reward them later on when I have time to reflect and realize that that cache really is a favorite. Interestingly enough, a lot of the caches I see with a high number of favorite points are past their prime and are now trash and should be archived.

Ok, my mistake. I looked through the logs and didn't see anything there and neglected to read all of the listing. I was most concerned with whether the container was replaced after the Cave Creek Complex fire and saw it didn't need to be. I should have known though, as I was honored to adopt this cache after GCB0B passed. The smaller metal can is actually an ammo can.

Yes, yes I have. Most are from caches that were archived and then relisted from the Great Arizona State Land Trust Geocache Purge of 2014. Here's one from Twenty Fifth Surprise "Back Packer THE VIEW 2": Though I messed up with the date, signed the second time on 1/11/19, not 1/11/18. The original listing: Twenty Fifth Surprise "The Back Packer Trail" VIEW

Well, GC7B - T824 Table Mesa, hidden the same day as Labrynth Canyon but with the earlier GC number (so considered Arizona's 2nd geocache) has the original container, log book, location, and some swag. It's hidden at the confluence of N 34° W 112°.

TPTB do recognize the FTF game, it's often mentioned in their blog and other communications, they just don't track it on their website and apps.

Of course, I can't see the surrounding area and don't know the scale of the picture, but it seems pretty basic to move the rock away to get to the cache.

Some caches had a finger print or footprint or shadow, or a gem, or whatever from MATM.

What penalty? Favorite points are a part of premium membership. If you're not a premium member you don't have access to premium member features. Did you get upset about not having access to other premium features such as better search facilities, lists, and pocket queries?

I agree, the range of finds seems silly especially since anyone that completed MATM would probably have at least 50 cache finds by now.

Perhaps what the hidden name used to be can be determined, but now there isn't a name. If the owner's name is needed for a challenge, this cache should no longer be used. Likewise, if a cache owner changes his/her geocaching name, it may very well impact that same challenge. That's why I brought up that scenario. At any rate, I've said as much as I feel the need to here.

But the name no longer exists. On those same lines, are you going to change the name back for every cache owner that has changed his/her caching name?

In this case, what would you add? The hider has had his/her account deleted. The name and Id for that user no longer exist and have no useful value. Frankly, the checker needs to be updated to properly handle this case.

I absolutely 100% agree with this. I've had no problems working with the HQ API team. They have always been supportive, helpful, responsive, and considerate of my suggestions.

I gave up. If the send button doesn't work, then I save the message in the cache's notes section and forget about it. If I ever get contacted by the CO, then I'll try to send it again. Basically, most CO's don't seem to care whether they get the answers from me or not so I'm not going to stress out over the message not being sent.

Actually, it seems it is more a problem with the GDAK developer/administrator not complying with the API usage agreement. They certainly could have complied and kept GDAK going if they were so inclined. It seems they weren't.

You might want to check out https://cachetur.no/innlogging. Though I haven't used it, I've heard really good things about it for planning you geocaching trips.

I guess I don't understand what you're getting at here. To direct users to web pages on geocaching.com, you just use the https://coord.info/XXXXX. That's been the proper way to do so for years. Also, only premium members should be allowed to go to any of those pages on geocaching.com, while non premium members should be directed to upgrade to premium. I haven't verified, but I don't think partner apps should be using the email tool either. You may want to verify that with Groundspeak HQ.

You don't. There is no guid anymore, at least as far as the API is concerned. There really is no reason for it either as you're supposed to use the API and not scrape the website. The API has everything you should need that Groundspeak HQ wants/allows you to get. Also, that, "new Base31 user ID code" is not new, it's been around since day 1 of the API (both old and new). You can easily convert from the code to the number and back. How to do so is documented at https://api.Groundspeak.com/documentation (Look in Overview, Reference Codes).

One other thing, you're checking for a status code = 200. It probably won't be 200, but 201 or even 204. Good luck.

Yes, it appears the documentation is messed up in the user waypoints section. I rarely look at that and mostly use the Swagger as that is based on the actual API declaration. I consider the Swagger a key part of the documentation and it wins over any difference between it and that in https://api.Groundspeak.com/documentation. However, with that said, there may be implementation errors so those things certainly may be questioned with Geocaching HQ. On that line, it wouldn't hurt to let the API team know there are errors with the documentation so they can make corrections. Concerning adding a user waypoint with the Swagger. With the userWaypoint text box empty, click on the example value and it will populate the text box with that. Next, edit the values as you see fit, then click on, Try it out! You'll be able to see what was sent and the response.

First, reference code is more than just a geocache code. There are reference codes for geocaches, geocachers, geocache logs, user waypoints, user lists, etc. The way you included it is not correct. I suggest you play with the swagger and you can see exactly what works and what the response is. I just created and then deleted a user waypoint using the swagger interface. You'll need to enter a valid access token in the upper right of the page: https://api.Groundspeak.com/api-docs/index#!/UserWaypoints/UserWaypoints_CreateUserWaypoint https://staging.api.Groundspeak.com/api-docs/index#!/UserWaypoints/UserWaypoints_CreateUserWaypoint

Well, the topic is time from hiding to FTF, so I'm not sure talking about hides yet to be found are pertinent here This cache was recently first found after about 12 years, 7 months: GMT II -- It's All Phil's Fault