kanchan

Often? Really? I remember 2 or 3 recent instances where I didn't receive new event notifications and therefore wasn't able to add entries when the events were published. Given that at least several events are hosted every week lately, I never thought that was "often".Sorry, I didn't mean that to sound like it's your fault. It really comes down to my own calendar habits. It works better to remind me of upcoming events that I'm already aware of, than to notify me of upcoming events that I might be interested in. As far as I can tell, events are usually listed on the Geocachers Bay Area calendar well in advance. It's just that I don't check my personal calendar far enough in advance. Or when I check my calendar on my phone, it shows my primary calendar, but none of the secondary calendars. When I notice a geocaching event that I want to attend in advance, I copy it to my primary calendar, so I know it will show up. Or I create a placeholder on my primary calendar when Groundspeak announces some event-related promotion in advance. Okay. I actually thought of that possibility, but thought you wouldn't be "surprised" if that's the case. FWIW, I will not be the one who is going to be maintaining the GBA calendar after the end of this month. I'm done.

We have a local volunteer who maintains a Google Calendar for events in the region, so I have the advantage of seeing events when I view my personal calendar. But still, they are often a surprise, because often I first see them the day of the event, or maybe the day before. By that time, I've probably scheduled a conflicting commitment. The big event days promoted by Groundspeak are the exception, just because I get advance notice of the date, even if I don't know the specifics at the time. Often? Really? I remember 2 or 3 recent instances where I didn't receive new event notifications and therefore wasn't able to add entries when the events were published. Given that at least several events are hosted every week lately, I never thought that was "often".

I find it rude the a cache owner ask a visitor to remove legitimate information from their log, but after reading the actual message from the cache owner, they may just be ignorant. I would probably first point them to the guideline as suggested by J Grouchy above, and if they still insist to list bad coordinates, I might report them to a local reviewer. Geocaching is a game to find hidden containers using GPS coordinates. Hints are only supplementary.

(duplicate comment)

Well, I guess It's time to post a link to the other (more appropriate) thread.

Many volunteer reviewers certainly review disabled caches in their jurisdictions periodically to take appropriate actions, but that CANNOT justify that CO might just want to post a NM instead of a TDL. If the cache really needs to be disabled (e.g., the cache is know to have gone, the cache location is temporarily inaccessible, etc...), the owner should absolutely disable it instead of just flag it as "needs maintenance". NM can't be an alternative to "Temporarily Disable Listing".

I also think L0ne.R's use case is a bit weird. My original post is not about it. I still wonder what the logic behind the change was. I think it's very legitimate that the cache owner posts a NM log when they know the log is almost full and it may take a few days before they can add a piece of paper. Maybe TPTB thinks that the cache owner should just disable it, or just add a piece of paper if they have time to post a NM log? Either way, I'm disappointed.

Well, I always like it a lot when the implementation matches what's documented elsewhere. Don't ask why. That's just my personal preference.

Maybe. Being a software engineer, I don't expect it is going to take more than a couple of hours to code and test this -- just a single SQL query to see if the adopter has a find on the adopting cache, and popup a message if it doesn't. The translation takes some effort, but it's free and Groudspeak has more than sufficient volunteer translators (I know that as they cut me saying they have enough). But then, it appears that it's not important enough. I understand. Thanks! Edit to add: I used this sub-forum is because I wanted to see the community's opinion first. If it's common, I was to submit it in the feature request/bug report forum. But that will not happen.

Duplicate logs are annoying when one goes out for caching, reads logs, and realizes that one has loaded only limited number of logs (like five) in their GPS device and all of them are the TFTC log by the same person. I know you'd say that's rare and unimportant, but I'm answering to your question anyway. It's really annoying when that happens, and that happens. I do think it's rare that one adopts a cache that one hasn't found, especially when adoption by iteself is already rare. That's my initial expectation too. But since I heard other opinions I decided to run it here too, as I thought the other opinion was legitimate enough. I now know I'm talking about a rare situation and thanks to all the feedback I now agree it's unimportant to most of us including myself who had adopted a cache he hadn't found. I would still say that adoption and new hides are not same (I see your point), but I guess that's unimportant too.

You should post an NM. If you can't post an NM, you should complain about the missing feature. So I'm complaining about the feature to be missed in mid April... Ability for COs to flag their own hides as "needs maintenance". If one can't post a NM, they should provide another way for COs to be able to add the NM attribute.

Thanks for understanding my point, and I agree to the latter point too. Even the original cacher who adopted a cache before finding it didn't bother to comment here. As a player, I don't personally care. It's unimportant to me, and apparently, unimportant to everyone.

But the COs cannot do it through NMs after mid April, and that's my point. That's why I'm arguing against that change instead of suggesting a different change that's functionally inferior. I'm lost. What should I do if I would like to add a NM attribute to one of my hides without disabling it? Type of the maintenance: Just add a piece of paper as the log is almost full.

I don't know why you thought I'm against the change to remove the ability for the cache owners to post a "Found It" log. I actually like the change **a lot**. How could my suggestion to add a friendly confirmation dialog upon adoption make things possibly worse? I was just objecting to the basic line of thought without really thinking very hard about where it was leading you. You feel like you've established, through this thread, that almost nobody wants to adopt a cache before finding it, and I still say that that finding it unimportant. But perhaps you can help me see the light. The main reason it's so easy for me to make this point is that no specific justification for this change has been presented, just a general feeling that "everyone knows" owners posting finds is bad and should be prevented. So can you please expand on why you like this change a lot? Do these finds cause problems, or do you think the user interface needs to be simplified, or what? My problem is I see no advantage at all, so I'm kinda at a loss at how to respond to the various lines of reasoning suggesting it's OK to get rid of it because life isn't ruined without it. I like the change in the logging policy a lot as I've seen so many duplicate "Found It" logs being posted accidentally, by smartphone app users most probably. The advantage is far superior to the really small issue which I raised on behalf of people who don't mind adopting before finding. So again, I like the change, and that should totally remain. I've never argued that. I'm ONLY suggesting a friendly warning (or informational) message which appears upon adoption, only when the adopter hasn't found the cache, to make sure the adopter understands that they won't be able to claim a find once the cache is transferred, as that has always been possible after the adoption was implemented. I hope this makes my suggestion a bit clearer.

I don't know what you mean by the cache is busted, but that might warrant a disabling? That's what I do.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It seems that almost nobody here wants to adopt a cache before finding it. I don't, either (I have never adopted any caches). It was an old hide and the original owner was moving out of town, so one of the local cachers stepped in and adopted it to save the historic cache for the community, later to realize the cache is no longer loggable after mid April, so he will try to find it before that happens (he already has that year/month, so this is not for his Jasmer). I still think my suggestion would probably help to avoid this kind of situation in the future, but I guess Groundspeak is not interested in it.

Yeah, I don't really care about preventing the CO from posting an NA. NAs? I don't understand that either. If the cache owner thinks the cache needs to be archived, they should just archive it. That's not what I was talking about at all. I can, however, understand some cache owners want to add the NM flag (attribute) without temporarily disabling it, when a visitor says the log was almost full, for example. I think it's legitimate enough.

But the COs cannot do it through NMs after mid April, and that's my point.

I'm with this personally. I'm not interested in owning caches which I myself may not like. The "are you sure" message I've suggested could probably add this point as well.

I don't know why you thought I'm against the change to remove the ability for the cache owners to post a "Found It" log. I actually like the change **a lot**. How could my suggestion to add a friendly confirmation dialog upon adoption make things possibly worse?

Well, I haven't "crafted" anything myself. I saw at least two cachers who brought up this use case in other forums (one is from a cacher is your/our area and the other is from another country) and I thought they are reasonable. And if you thought I was requesting to reinstate the ability for the cache owners to post a "Need Maintenance" log, you read my post wrongly. Actually, I also think it is probably a bit too much that cache owners post a Need Maintenance log to tell everyone that the log is almost full. I think the best way to satisfy their requirement is just to bring back the "Need Maintenance" attribute in the "Edit Attributes" section of the cache listing. How could it be harmful and why did Groundspeak remove it from the "Edit Attributes" page? I can imagine they may not want to let the cache owners simply "remove" the NM attribute without posting an OM log or performing the actual maintenance task. But I don't see any strong reason why cache owners shouldn't be able to "add" the NM attribute in any way. Such capability doesn't compromise any part of the game as long as they post an OM log later to remove the attribute when the adequate maintenance is performed?

Oh, I forgot to mention one thing. Yes, they can still temporarily disable it, and that was my first reaction to those rely on the attribute, but their argument was they don't want to disable it when it's just a matter of adding a new log sheet and the cache is still totally findable. I totally understand. I'll edit the original post to add this now.

It doesn't make much sense to me to adopt a cache which one hasn't found yet (how is one able to maintain it when one doesn't know the exact hide?), but in the reality, some cachers do adopt a cache before finding it for various reasons, and I think it's going to be a legitimate find as the adopter doesn't really know the hide while she or he is the owner of the listing. Did Groundspeak ever give it a thought on this? Under the new logging policy, adopters will not be able to claim a smiley once the cache is transferred to them, They have to find the cache before the cache is transferred so they could claim a smiley. I think a warning message of some sort may help avoiding this situation. e.g., showing a message like "{adopter} hasn't found the cache yet. Are you sure to transfer the cache to {adopter}? Once the cache is transferred, {adopter} will not be able to claim a find."

I just learned and confirmed that "Need Maintenance" attribute cannot be edited from "Edit Attribute" section of the cache listing. I don't personally rely on this attribute to plan maintenance of my own hides, but I know lots of people do (e.g., by creating a PQ to list their own hides with the NM attribute set), and I think that is a very good idea. Now that you'll be disallowing cache owners to post "Need Maintenance" log type, there is no way for the CO to add that attribute themselves. Not all visitors use "Need Maintenance" log type for various reasons, so I think the COs need to have ability to set the NM attribute on their own hides somehow. [Edit to Add] Oh, I forgot to mention one thing. Yes, they can still temporarily disable it, and that was my first reaction to those rely on the attribute, but their argument was they don't want to disable it when it's just a matter of adding a new log sheet and the cache is still totally findable. I totally understand.

Have you noticed that there's a search box at the upper right corner of the forum? Type "Garmin Communicator" there and hit the search button. In short, most browsers do not longer support NPAPI, which Garmin Communicator relies on.