hzoi

Bump. I did some periodic maintenance today on the list to clear out archived caches. Some of them I was able to replace with new hides, including a few Virtual Reward 3.0 hides. If you know of a cache in or near an airport, and you don't see it on our list (they're sorted by ICAO codes), please feel free to post the GC code here or message us.

Just a quibble: That poster said he posted a DNF log when he found the container and signed the log, but wasn't allowed to log a Find because he hadn't completed the challenge requirements. You're right, and that's even worse.

Both the search page and the search map return some odd results when I try searching by city, even though the search bar on both of those claims I can search by "City, state, coordinates, GC code..." It appears the main issue is that the search does not recognize full state names. I was looking for caches in San Antonio, Texas. It's a decent sized town; you'd think it would be pretty easy to find. Search page: 0 results. Search map: puts me near a highway exit for San Andrés, Mexico. The coordinates are N 16.6190 W 93.6101, according to the URL in my browser. Mapping the results I get from the old seek page also puts me here. Searching San Antonio, TX, at least gets me in the ballpark, though the coordinates are centered on Kelly Field, not the middle of town. Still - closer than southern Mexico. Searching for other cities seemed to work relatively well, both with the full state name and abbreviations, so I don't know what the issue is here.

That'd be a neat trick if cross-country skis were required all year round. But since I've done nice summer walks on trails that require skis in the winter, I'd just wait until it was nice out and then take a walk. If any of these did get published, you'd start to see abuse of attributes, where other folks would throw inapplicable attributes onto challenge caches just so they'd qualify. These ideas are not as bad of an idea as, say, logging DNF on a challenge cache you haven't even looked for, because that's just a supremely terrible idea. But I don't think they're practicable.

I missed that bit. Thanks for the update! I also notice that the search map actually includes airports, and not just the green space in between runways, so that's also a welcome improvement.

Can be true, clearly, since it is not fixed. But since the development team is aware of the issue and working on it, then unless you have a solution in mind, we wait. Whether you wait patiently or otherwise is up to you, but it will not change the outcome.

At the bottom of every page on geocaching.com, you should see a "Contact Us" link. Click that, at the bottom of that screen, you should see "Can’t find what you need? Contact us." Click that and send it in.

I have wanted this since (checks date I started geocaching) February 2007. Very glad to see, thanks!!! Edit: hmm, @nykkole, while this is working on the search map, it's not working for me on the browse map. Example: when I open up the geocaching.com map for GC1D197, there should be a county line going right by the itty bitty island the cache is on. The dashed boundary line is visible on the search map but not on the browse map. Search map screen shot Browse map screen shot Same issue for German counties, looking at the different maps for GC1M9PQ, which should have the Landkreis (county) line running right through its symbol on the map: it's there on search map, not on browse map.

I can see that happening. When explained to law enforcement, geocaching basically sounds like you're visiting a dead drop. I use one word: "Tourism." You can never go wrong with this; it has the benefit of being both true and something that CBP understands. I drove back and forth to Niagara Falls on this with no incidents. Same for when I drove to the Amistad dam, then rode a bike across the Mexican border and back for this one.

OK. Build me a time machine, and send me back to 2013, and I'll counsel myself appropriately. Once the image changes, we'll know it was a success!

Well, that's part of it, too. If you don't set a list as shareable (or public), the link isn''t going to work for others.

I'd be fine with adding the ability to request friends through the message center. I don't think it's a high priority feature request, but it'd be nice to have. Meanwhile, there might be a slight possibility that the name "El Fartero" is what's cutting the cheese your chances for friendship.

Today's secret word! And the duck comes down and gives you $100.

That's my meme, from my cache (in Cache, Oklahoma, out behind the police station) and for the record, I'm relatively confident it was a reaction against people posting NM/NA who had never searched for the cache in question and had no idea what was at the coordinates. Most certainly not against anyone posting NM or NA on a cache they'd searched for and found (or didn't find, if it appeared to be missing).

For what it's worth, I'm not seeing this and have been using the message center for the past hour or so. If it was a cookie issue, I'd expect to see it, too, as my work browser aggressively eats cookies like it's a certain blue Sesame Street resident.

Yes, I'm seeing something similar using those links from cache pages. It seems to be returning caches within 16km of the specified cache but now sorts them by distance from my home location. I hadn't noticed this until today, but, same. If it helps the engineers, here's a specific example of what I am seeing and how I saw it: I wanted to find all earthcaches nearby GC9BC35, including ones I'd found. So I clicked that link on the cache page. The search page result lists distances from my home location, not from GC9BC35, and sorts by those distances. This gives the rather confusing result of listing GC9BC35 as only being the fourth closest, when it should of course be the closest to itself, by a distance of 0.0 feet/meters.

I've seen several like both of these. Also, just a big one nestled in the spacious fork of a very accommodating tree. I also added a mailbox (the kind you see attached to a house, not to a post) to the side of a tree. I used a daisy chain of large zip ties so I didn't have to use any nails. Edit to add: keep in mind, if it's not your tree, you're likely going to need permission to do anything more than just stick a cache between some branches.

They should probably go through the steps of creating their own account before you gift them with premium membership. But it's your $30 to spend.

Once again, metal pipes do not make for good geocaches, because they make for good bombs. Additional bonus reason besides that, is that they leak. Yes, pipes that are tightened down properly do not leak, but ones that can be undone by hand will likely leak. Just look at the photo Keystone posted above - it apparently needed a bison tube to keep the log dry,

It's an easy way for me to filter out caches that are potentially problematic from a pocket query. If I'm on a cache run in an unfamiliar area - say, on a county/DeLorme run - I don't want to waste time on caches that even potentially might have issues. If'n it has a red wrench, then I'll usually avoid it. It also shows up as a red flag on the cache search, like this: (Yes, I know one of those is my adopted cache. Hopefully my uncle will fly me back down there next month so I can take care of it. But for now, it helps me illustrate my next point.) For cache owners, it's a nice visible reminder on the cache page - which also, helpfully, populates in other places, like the search page above, but also the dashboard page and the cache owner dashboard - that, hey, all is not well here, please check on it. I can assure you that at least one reviewer does (me). Cachers don't typically log a DNF on earthcaches, perhaps because mountains and geysers and such are notoriously difficult to muggle. Which means the health score is not a good indicator of actual earthcache health. But cachers may leave a NM log if images are missing, or areas are closed, etc. So instead of waiting for the health score to ping (or not), I regularly run a pocket query for all earthcaches in the states I cover with the needs maintenance attribute, and shazam, that's how I find out about problems.

I wish I had known about that one, I would have hunted it the second time we lived in Germany. Alas. My three favorite Lost Place multis (all, sadly, archived) are still Alcatraz (a tour of an abandoned immigration detention facility), Freddy Kruegers Grab (a tour of an abandoned US installation), and of course Fort Apokalypse (Mandatory Suicide) (a tour of abandoned Westwall fortifications, including a 1 km long tunnel). (At least two of those are on topic, as they featured physical stages. Though it looks like the physical stages I found for Fort Apokalypse were stolen and gradually edited out.)

Whether it is my home browser purging cookies, or my work browser, or swapping profiles, or just the expiration of cookies on geocaching.com, I frequently discover I have been logged out from geocaching.com and need to log back in. Once I have done so, I am immediately redirected...not to the content I originally wanted to view, but invariably to the search page. Convenient, if I was originally trying to view the search page. Not so much for any other time I visit the site. When I am logged out of Project-GC and need to log back in, that website first takes me to a separate login screen, then takes me to a geocaching.com page to authorize a new API key - but then I am redirected back to whatever I was trying to see in the first place. It would be most convenient if geocaching.com behaved similarly. Apologies if this has been suggested already, but a forum search did not turn anything up that appeared to be on point

Well, except it wasn't cool to be a nerd back in 2000. Only people that already accepted that they were nerds were willing to act like nerds. But, actually, for the first 10 years or so, I think it was mostly outdoor enthusiasts that did geocaching, so that wasn't your traditional nerds. Added irony, I was an outdoorsy nerd at the time. I spent a lot of my spare time hiking and/or looking for Southwest ghost towns and other abandoned historical spots to photograph. What the Germans would call "lost places." I know, I was just being silly. And in full disclosure: of the 250 or so caches we have hidden, only 8 have been multis, the last of which was hidden in 2014. 6 of those had virtual stages. The other two had 4 or 5 stages total, but they were both less than a 3 km walk. So, it seems I don't have much reason to make long multis with physical stages.

LOL. Not really. I linked my caching profile on my reviewer/moderator profile a couple months after I started reviewing, for the sake of transparency. But I'd like to think that the main reason people look at that profile is my pretty color map of geoaware responsibility in the US. (It's the only reason I go to it, because even I forget.)

This statement, of course, makes zero sense. If you truly believe that's a viable argument, perhaps you should archive all your active caches, as after all, they are unfairly only available to geocachers in California. (I've at least tried to spread out my active hides over several states and a couple countries. I try to give the people what they want.) As an aside, it's nice of you to think of the Latvians, but despite your concern, I can assure you based on my personal experience from my visit to Riga that geocaching there is doing quite nicely. Latvia is only slightly larger than West Virginia but has over 1,600 more active geocaches. (And that doesn't even get into the hundreds of geocaches in the West Virginia back country that haven't been logged in 5+ years. Compare to Latvia, where currently the loneliest cache in Latvia is only 4 years and change lonely. So, Latvia might have at least 2,000 more truly active caches) Plus - a special bonus!! - Latvia even has its own benchmark category on Waymarking. (Which you were perhaps referencing in irony in your post. But if not, it's especially apropos that your concern for Latvian benchmark hunters is unwarranted.) Again, funny you should ask, but as of today, 812 have found the Southern Bowl A.P.E. cache, plus 3 DNFs. In fact, one of the more recent sets of logs is from a group of geocachers who traveled from Germany and Switzerland to, among other things, find the A.P.E. cache; the set of logs before that is from a group that traveled from the USA and Canada. So, as it happens, it appears that hundreds of people have traveled to it.