Wet Pancake Touring Club

I agree, the forum is a bubble. And, the majority of the respondents on this thread may be skewed to unhappy customers. It is quite conceivable that 95% of users are happy with the new tool. I would like to take the point, "We don't know.", one step further, and say, based on what I have seen, neither does GS. I have not seen or heard of any surveys put out by GS regarding the website. To me, the specific features are the symptom, and more communications is the solution. As for the new map, it works for me. I'm neither happy or unhappy with it. It has good points and bad. But, I'm know I'm skewed on this, as I use GSAK for most of my planning. I use GSAK because it does things that I would rather do on geocaching.com. I hate having to maintain a shadow database. I've been stung a few times because my shadow database was out of date.

As Michaelcycle points out, an NM on the missing and multiple DNF's seems warranted. I would do that regardless. As for approaching them, that is where things can go sideways in a hurry. E-mail is OK, but you really need to be careful with the wording. (I wrote what I thought was a glowing review for one of my staff, and they read it completely opposite. It all hinged on one word.) If possible, meeting at a local event would be my preferred choice. That way, you get the benefit of the non-verbal communications. It's also a neutral, public place, so there is less of a chance of people saying something that makes the situation nonredeemable. Back to the content, I would leave 'quality' out of any discussion. Everyone's definition is different. It's all about the location, and the maintenance. "Hey, I put a couple of NM's on your caches along such-and-such trail. I'm interested in finding them. Do you know when you will have a chance to go and look at them?". Hopefully, they will let you know their plans. If they plan on archiving the caches, and placing new ones, you could consider asking if they want to partner on some of the replacements. You have some ideas for caches that would work well. Anyhow, leave quality out of the discussion.

I'm addressing this to Groundspeak/Geocaching.com, I included a portion of what The A-Team stated because I want to expand on it. To me, communications is the biggest issue. And, I think that a little effort in this direction would go a long way. To me, collaboration does not mean including everyone on the forums in on your internal discussions. Collaboration can mean some simple (at least to me) changes. A survey on how important various new features are to the geocaching community is a form of collaboration. Doing that, once a year or so, would give us an idea of your direction, and allow the community to feel they are part of the direction of geocaching. We understand that some are more difficult to implement that others, just include a general idea of how complex a feature is. This allows us to balance our answers. Let me let you know if I would I rather you work on a number of lower priority issues of mine, or one higher priority one that will take the same amount of time as all of the lower ones. There are lots of feature requests made through the forums. For a large number of them, the community will vote them down. But, for those that keep re-occurring or there is a lot of discussion regarding them, for those it would be nice to get some kind of acknowledgement that you have at least taken note of it. Maybe invite select forum users to a more detailed, controlled discussion on a topic. Let the forum know that you are exploring this off-line. And, acknowledge ALL bugs. Maybe it isn't a bug (its a feature). But, acknowledge all of them, and let us know if you agree or not. I submitted a great circle distance bug, turned out that it wasn't a bug, but instead a design choice on how the map is presented, and I mis-interpreted it as a bug. I never got an explanation, so I went around for a couple of years erroneously assuming (and telling others) there was a bug. Similar to what The A-Team stated, this is not meant to be bashing. I'm trying to be constructive, and I am here to help. Thanks, Skye Hagen (Wet Pancake Touring Club) Northern Idaho, USA

I don't know if there are events in your area or not, but if there are, invite them to come. Meeting face to face allows for non-verbal communications. "Hey, I really liked the location of such-and-such cache, but I had a hard time finding parking. Have you considered adding a parking location to your cache?" Via e-mail, or a log, my message might be interpreted differently than if I said this out loud, in front of them, when they are at an event related to geocaching.

You might be able to approach this from a different angle. While the company that made the machines is still in business, the tech may have historical or cultural significance. For example, a Corliss Steam Engine. (While most operational units are in museums, there are a few that are still being used for their original purpose.) This particular steam engine was important because it made steam power more economical than water power. It was 30% more efficient than previous steam engines. This allowed industrial development away from streams or millponds. I believe that company names, brand names and/or trademarks can be used in cache description if there is a cultural or historical significance. Another example is where a company name becomes part of the language. Take Xerox for example, it got turned into a verb. I'm going to Xerox this page. The context of the usage of a company name might be important. A second point is that you are illustrating the use of a product, not the company that made it. I know of several caches with 'Deere' in the title. In all cases I know of, the cache is located near or on a John Deere piece of equipment. The CO is not promoting the company, but giving the cacher a clue to where the cache is located. I don't know if any of this would apply in your case. I hope you are successful in getting your cache developed and published.

Here's a cache that relied on an anomaly in Google Maps. That issue did not last long and the cache had to be archived. The key was that Google had placed a business in the wrong place. No mention of the business name in the cache description. And, a non-local would not have be able to determine it, it really required local knowledge. Two points: First, this cache illustrates how you might construct a cache description that relies on a business name, but does not mention a business name. Second, it also points out an issue with using online mapping services to help find caches, and this is, those services may be corrected, or the nature of the service changes. You mention exactly 2.5 miles away. Is that straight line distance, driving distance, walking distance or taking the bus distance? A number of online mapping services allow one to pick the method of transport when showing distance. And, will a variety of these kinds of services give you the same results? Last, your cache maintenance would need to include making sure that changes within those services haven't altered anything (like what happened to the cache above). I'm not saying don't do it, just think through all of the particulars on this.

I'm not serious about removing multi-caches. I just wanted to point out that in addition to adding new cache types, we could also eliminate some, by adding enough attributes. The majority of multi-cache's I have done are what I would call traditionals with multiple waypoints. Go to these coordinates, to get more coordinates to follow. If there is a puzzle, or math, or character substitution involved, they could be mystery/puzzle caches, with a multiple waypoints attribute.

A quick and dirty fix is to change your home location. Not elegant, and it could mess up some old challenge caches. The better solution is for GS to allow for multiple locations. This would be handy for a couple of reasons. So it wouldn't be abused, maybe only allow a primary and secondary location, or cap it at 4 locations max. For placing caches, no warning if you are within xxx distance from ANY location. For searching, specify xxx kilometers from a specific location (much like GSAK allows you to do), or maybe allow searching from ALL locations combined. I too have multiple residences. They happen to be 100 miles apart, and I commute almost every weekend. While I haven't placed any caches, having multiple locations for searching would be nice.

With the exception of Challenge Caches, I don't believe we need any new cache types. In fact, with the appropriate attribute (something like 'has multiple waypoints'), Multi-Cache could be eliminated. However, IMO there are several problems with attributes. Attributes used for searching should be relevant for how a large number of people want to search. For example, the often discussed 'Part of a Power Trail' attribute. Lots of people want that, but we don't have it. So, attributes are not as relevant as they could be for searching. Attributes are also used for information. 'Watch for Livestock' may be a good example. It informs people that there may be livestock. I have a hard time envisioning why someone would want to search for a cache with this attribute (outside of a challenge cache). Are there other informational attributes that people want? Some attributes are overlapping with others, and the definitions are ambiguous. There needs to be well defined definitions. The discussion about dangerous area shows that. And what the heck is 'Truck Driver/RV'? New caches are being published without any attributes. Old caches don't have attributes. There is no way to crowd source attributes on caches.

Your reviewer will be the authority on this. The forum will give you lots of opinions, but none of them authoritative. Speaking of opinions, mine would be no, because it has been archived for more than 3 months.

For me, I love using Google Earth. Not for geocaching, but for exploring around. If I find an interesting area, I might use the cache viewer to get an idea how many caches are in that area. As for navigation, it is worthless because of the random offset that gets added. That has put me on the wrong island, the wrong side of a river or small lake, and the wrong side of an escarpment. If the feature never comes back, I won't miss it.

Back in the day, one could log a cache multiple times. I also discovered that some of the cachers mentioned in this topic have done just that. So, I take all claims of the total number of caches found with a grain of salt. I'm not saying that anyone did this deliberately, it could easily have been an accidental mistake. Especially if they used automated logging tools. I know that I have double logged caches, and spent some time finding and deleting duplicate logs. But others might not want to take the time to clean up clerical errors. While I understand that some like to look at "leaderboards" to speculate, extrapolate, and compare, to me the most important "score" is how enjoyable is the activity to me. Right now, it is not as enjoyable as participating in another GPS based, highly popular, augmented reality game that has me chasing around for looking for certain patterns of pixels on my phone, executing some finger based patterns on the touch screen, and hopefully getting to store a few meaningless bits on a server someplace. If the weather gets better, if I ever finish the diesel swap on my 4x4, if there is another GeoTour nearby that is located in State Parks, if someone publishes an Adventure Lab nearby, if..., then my enjoyability score may change, and I may become a more active geocacher.

There is no concise way to find just gadget caches. As mentioned above, some have the word Gadget in the name. Some will have the Field Puzzle attribute. Others may be defined some other way. Crowd sourcing a list is another, albeit slow, way to get such as list. Doing a list will require a list maintainer. You can post (and re-post) on the forums that you are trying to maintain such as list, post a link to the list, and ask people to help you keep it up to date. You would probably also want people to e-mail you their contributions, rather than post them to the forum (I'm going to break my rule, and send you three below.) However, trying to publish that list directly on the forum is counter productive, as you cannot see the status, direction and distance of the cache like you can on a bookmark list. There are other advantages to using a bookmark list. Here are some in WA state, USA, created by MrGadget2: https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4BE6R_wastatepks100-squilchuck https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4BE6E_wastatepks100-wenatchee-confluence https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4BE63_wastatepks100-potholes

Taking some situations to the extreme can point out issues with an idea. For example, assume that the CO is the final authority. That would mean there is no process to appeal any arbitrary policy that the CO decided to make up. I could easily make my own personal policy that no one with a username that begins with a vowel is allowed to log one of my adventure caches. No user would be able to appeal my arbitrary policy, because the CO is the final authority. Even if I had to agree to a set of rules for when deleting logs is appropriate when I placed the adventure cache, if no one knows about my personal policy, then no one can appeal my decision. To me, that just seems wrong. I think the CO should be allowed to delete bogus finds, and the finder should have the right to appeal that.

I do see distance and direction, although the direction appears to be limited to N E W S. Going to an 8 or 16 point system would be better.

Or at least a distance and bearing. I suggested that to GS in their feedback form in the app.

As an aside, one of the recently archived power trails in Nevada used 3D printed containers. I know nothing about the containers, but did notice a comment that most of the containers had to be replaced. They did not mention if it was because of container failure, or the container went missing. I think the two most common 3D printing materials, PLA and ABS, have issues. PLA is bio-degradable, and probably won't last unprotected outdoors. ABS should be sturdier, but may breakdown in UV light. Making a container waterproof may require adding gaskets. I've got a 3D printer, and have made a cryptext. If I was going to use 3D printed parts as part of a geocache, I think I would enclose it in some other kind of container, or make sure that is was placed in a location well out of the weather.

I stand corrected. The plane gets lost when you zoom out on the map. Thanks!

I consider most of the League of Idaho Cachers caches as not being in the 'power trail' category. Their geoart caches (which will take a number of days to complete) are at the actual location, and most of caches that do follow a trail are on seasonal gravel roads. They do appear to be a highly organized group, I've seen a list of all the cachers that help out with maintenance. They have changed out the geo-art at least once. It used to be an airplane, currently it is a locomotive.

Owners will still be needed, they will just have a more limited set of responsibilities. A number of the current set of Adventure Labs Caches appear to be in museum's (or something similar, like an arboreturm). Museum's have a habit of changing signage and displays. The owner will be needed to keep up on any such changes that affect the cache.

So, what do you call the archiving of 24,000 power trail caches? A good start! Sorry, couldn't resist. There's only one trail (and it is not really a power trail) that I might consider doing. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3JQ03_001-owyhee-uplands-byway This trail is well maintained by a group of cachers. Looking at the map, the there are some gaps in the 'every 528 feet' trail. These are generally private property. Still, 826 caches over a 106 mile seasonal road. This same group does real geo-art, no mysteries with all the caches along a road. These caches are at their coordinates. And, they change up the geo-art every couple of years. It used to be a Thunderbird, now it is a locomotive. My main complaint with power trails is the one mentioned by lots of people. We need a way to include/exclude them from pocket queries.

Is the wheel chair accessible attribute locked to T1? Can there be a T1.5 or a T2 with the wheel chair accessible attribute? The reason I ask is that IMO not all wheelchair accessible caches are equal. Here is one wheel chair accessible cache that I would put at more than a T1. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3QFYD_wastatepks100-rockport The park has made it a point to have a really nice wheel chair accessible trail. From the parking lot, the cache is about a kilometer and a half distance, one way. And, when you get to the main part of the trail, there is a map that shows the elevation changes, marked green, yellow and red. The complete loop has about a 50 meter elevation change overall, it is hard packed gravel, and there is one red zone shown on the map. You have to go through at least two yellow sections to get to the cache. I don't recall the breakdown of colors to rate of change.

I see adventure labs as a series of mostly virtual-like caches that take you to a set of related locations. In that respect, they are more like a multi-cache, except you can log each intermediate location. They can be CO directed (have to do them in sequence, like a tour guide), or self-directed. As for needing to receive a link, that link could be posted locally. For example, I work at a university that has a couple of arboretum's. The university may want to create an adventure lab in one of them. (We do offer a geocaching/orienteering class.) The link to the adventure lab could be printed on the literature available at the parking area, posted on the signage at the kiosk, and added to the class syllabus. Now that I think about it, I could see adventure labs being used as part of a number of classes on campus. We have areas that have restricted access, and are used as part of various classes. Hydrology, forest management, fish and wildlife management, and others. The professor could create an adventure lab for the class, and hand out the URL in class. Because the areas are restricted access, the professor can't make the adventure lab public. Just because the adventure lab is not public doesn't mean that it is temporary.

Would I like to log a traditional or an Earthcache? Why yes, yes I would. It's certainly better than working!!!

Adventure Lab does not appear to access the GPS directly or exclusively. It appears to be using the OSes Location Services, which can use the GPS, or wifi triangulation, or some other means of detecting your location. I just loaded Adventure Lab on my iPod Touch, which does not have a built-in GPS, and it knows where I am.