Search the Community

THIS! I just had a couple big days of caching, with over a couple hundred finds. I uploaded all the drafts/fieldnotes, and then before posting any logs on any of them, I suffered some uncertainty about whether I had actually included everything. So because I wanted to make sure nothing was duplicated, I deleted everything and started over. NOW I CANNOT UPLOAD any of my 200+ drafts. Having to drag up each of those webpages manually to log them all is going to make me very, very frustrated. Groundspeak, this is not helpful! At the very least, there should be prominent warnings indicating that deleting a draft will result in never ever being able to use it again, even if you haven't followed through and posted a log from it! But seriously, how boneheaded is that?!

Unfortunately this does not do, what I want. If my search results in more than 500 hits, only the first 500 will be mapped. I see no chance to somehow map the rest. Is it really too much of a request to just be able to add all of them to the list and not only the first 200?

Yes this is what I meant: Moving ALL search results to a list and not only the first 200. Which is really tedious to do.

Everyone gets access to all non-premium caches right now for free for merely signing up on the website. Better start archiving your caches. At one time I was a new geocacher who didn't know what I was doing. I used the website instead of an app, because at the time there wasn't an app, and I found an inexpensive GPS receiver on a clearance rack, but I didn't go and destroy everyone's geocaches. I made mistakes and wrote stupid logs in the beginning but eventually I learned. App users aren't bad people bent on destroying a game we all love, they're trying out and then hopefully continuing in a game that you and I enjoy. Apps give easy access to people who already have smartphones, and help introduce people to this game, people who normally wouldn't go out and spend $200 on a GPS receiver just to try geocaching. And if they get into the game, they can purchase premium membership just like I eventually did. I don't want to see people who have have been geocaching for a while yelling at app users to "get off their lawn". Yes. The old app worked well. And then a new app replaced it that reduced functionality to basic members. I'm asking for the app to go back to that state, whether for free or possibly through an in-app purchase.

I think it's to encourage people who use The App to help pay for it. That's fair. "Apps" are not cheap, why not pay for something one enjoys, when many people who pay for PM are Geocaching just fine without "an App" -- people who would prefer IT work be directed at NOT an App. And show me popular game Apps that don't have "coins" or "gems" to buy (sure, everyone claims they never pay anything). Game Apps have the highest subscription, with no upper limit to what you could pay. Except for Geocaching. Watch out when using Google Maps. Although the pin is usually placed at GZ, if Google Maps can stick to streets, it will. Even if a cache is not in the street. Other than that, there are free "GPS Apps". But don't focus on "Apps". If one can afford a $1000 phone every couple of years, one can save up for a $200 handheld GPS. There's an entire web site of cache info to load on it for free.

If a challenge cache helps in fulfilling its own challenge, an interesting situation can arise, if you arrive there with exactly one less find than what's required for the challenge. Example: Challenge requires 50 Large finds, is itself a Large; and you arrive with 49 Large finds. You log a find, and as proof for the challenge you point to your public stats, which show 50 Large finds. Additionally, you present the output of the Challenge Checker, which also says "Challenge fulfilled", The CO thinks "What!?!", deletes your find, and as proof points to your public stats, which show only 49 Large finds, and adds the output of the Challenge Checker, which says "Nope". Repeat ... I actually had such a situation, when a challenge required (among other things) 200 D4,5 finds, and was itself listed as D4,5. When planning a trip, I noticed that I would be in the area of that cache and had found 199 D4,5 so far. I decided to log a find, mainly because I found the whole conundrum quite funny (I like self-referencing logical questions ). I indicated in my log, that I was aware of the inherent problems, and that the CO might be in a valid position to delete my find. He let it stand, though, and not much later, I had found another D4,5 anyway. That said, and coming back on topic: Of course it's preferable, if a challenge cache is "themed" to match the challenge. Definitely better than a non-descript micro "just for the smiley".

Schau mal hier, die Abstandsregeln gelten für alle "physischen" Stationen. https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=22&pgid=199 Wo hast du denn gesehen, dass die Abstände kleiner waren? Wenn du dem Reviewer Koordinaten schickst zur Überprüfung kannst du bitten, diese für eine gewisse Zeit zu reservieren. Ich meine, das passt solange es nicht um kommerzielle Angebote handelt die etwas verkaufen wollen. Aber auch hier würde ich kurz den Reviewer fragen, dann bist du auf der sichern Seite. Hier die Anweisungen wie du deinen lokalen Reviewer findest: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=97&pgid=200 Gruß, MB

On Feb 16th you listed these topics as being "in work". I can't speak for all of them, but for topic 3 there has been no change in the last 3 weeks. I am still not able to create lists with more than 200 search results with one click. I would appreciate some update of the status.

The new "ENHANCED" search sucks! I cannot do things easily like we used to be able to. It does not use my home coords....shows me things 200+ miles or more away when looking for local things....doesn't show both D & T. So many issues, NOT USER FRIENDLY....why change something that wasn't broke! I dislike this update very much!

Can't seem to get maps to work, and menu button doesn't work ? I'm pretty new at this. Unit powers up and I get to a curser , it tracks how far i go and that's it.

The new search result release seems to have solved this problem. (It did create a lot of other problems that have been or are being fixed.) I want to thank GS for fixing this issue. The new remaining difficulty, for me, is that now one can only add at most 200 caches at a time from a filtered search result to a list. I understand from another thread that this issue is being addressed. Of course, one can add additional caches from the search in batches of 200, so it is not a big problem.

barefootjeff - I think that your solution will work for me. I hope you will help me with sourcing and use of the light-dependent resistor you mentioned. So, the device I have and wish to hack is a Bunker Hill PIR Sensor coupled by RF to a receiver that sounds an alert and blinks an LED when the PIR detects proximity. I like the Transmitter/Receiver package as it is EZ and I can place the Receiver about 200 feet away from the Sensor and the whole shebang cost $12, Etc. I originally thought I could find an EZ way to hack the Receiver circuit board to act as a momentary switch to trigger the Sound Card I mentioned. Then it dawned on me that I would not have to do anything to the devices - just leave them as packaged except for silencing the speaker- by using your solution. The sound card is activated by a simple push of a momentary switch and then the sound device takes off with the recording. It seems that I could tape/mount a light-dependent resistor over the LED. I would connect the LDR leads and replace the momentary switch. Then when the LED lights up, I assume that the LDR would act as a switch and activate the sound card just like momentary switch does. What do you think and what LDR would you recommend ?

I can affirm that your work around does the trick, but I don't know how to get "The Old Search," which would still be preferable to me. Among other things, when I try to generate a list from the new search function, it seems to limit me to 200 caches. The old one allowed 1000. I wish it allowed even more. How can I get back to the old one.

The new layout only shows a maximum of 200 search results at one time. I use the search feature mainly to create lists of caches. This restriction makes working with list very tedious. Before the update I did a search, getting maybe 840 results and could export them to a list with two clicks. Now I have to export the first 200, then the next and so on. Very user-un-friendly!

I cannot see my own hides! Furthermore, when I click on "Filter," the entire browser window becomes overlaid with gray, and I cannot do anything. The gray overlay also takes over if I type a term in the search box and hit the magnifying glass icon. I can tell it to show me 200 results, and I still get zero. Chrome on Windows 10. This is from my profile.

When filtering by United Kingdom all caches with the name containing village hall series on a mobile this is the result I get. - The names are so truncated that the numbers and location are missing so they all have the same name. - They are not sorted by home location but some random point in UK (the first one in the list is 150 km from my home) - if I chose to change the column from favourites I can only pick one filter at a time and Difficulty and terrain are separate so no option to see D/T - no option to see date I found the cache. - glad that the search is now separated into tabs of 200 but there are 1200 caches in the series but I can still only see 1000 - why are there only 5 tabs available?. (Which 200 are missing as it is not the furthest from home - so is it a random selection that are not shown?) When I changed the search to from home location rather than United Kingdom with the same name search name contains it bought up a list which was headed ‘date found’ although they appear to be sorted as furthest from home as the first on the list which was actually 879km from home in northern Scotland (I am South coast England). I then chose to display by closest distance (via 3 dots) and the mileage displayed was in thousands of km. It still did not bring up closest to home and no idea where it sets the distance from (maybe America) I have been unable to find a way to sort the list by closest to home at all as it doesn’t seem to recognise my location although it is entered correctly in settings. I have also noticed when changing the filters via the three dots - if you are on for example distance, click the 3 dots for alternatives but decide you don’t want to change it, there is no option to either abort the search with an X or re choose the one you are already on ( In this example distance) therefore I had to choose another option and then go back again to revert to distance. please give us the option to use the old search until you can resolve the problems

(This information is repeated from a just-published Geocaching Blog post.) Get ready for Virtual Rewards 3.0! 2022 is the Year of the Hide. As part of this, Geocaching HQ is thrilled to reward cache owners who have given so much to the game with Virtual Rewards 3.0, a limited number of Virtual Caches for the geocaching community. An opt-in web page is now available for cachers to apply for a Virtual Reward. The page is open until February 26, 2022. Approximately 50,000 geocachers around the world meet the criteria to apply for a Virtual Reward. Those who previously received a Virtual Reward are not eligible to participate in Virtual Rewards 3.0. From all applicants, Geocaching HQ will randomly select up to 4,000 geocachers (with geographic distribution) on March 1, 2022 to receive one Virtual Cache. Approximately 30 new community volunteers are receiving a Virtual Reward, as a thanks for giving their time to support the geocaching community. Winners will have one year to create their Virtual Cache. The caches must comply with specific guidelines. The first two rounds of Virtual Rewards have resulted in more than 6,200 new Virtual Caches caches created between August 2017 and December 2021. Those new caches are very popular by several measures, including total Favorite points, Favorite point percentage, log length, and find frequency. In addition, the review process has not created any undue burden on community volunteer reviewers. One of the most exciting aspects of the new Virtuals is that they are now located in a wider range of countries. Prior to Virtual Rewards, most Virtual Caches were in the United States. In fact, 81% of old Virtual Caches (placed prior to 2006) are in the United States. With the launch of Virtual Rewards 1.0 and 2.0, only 15% of the new Virtuals are in the United States and Virtuals now exist in 155 countries. See the following pie charts for the differences. Global distribution of Virtual Caches before Virtual Rewards: Global distribution of Virtual Rewards Caches 1.0 and 2.0.: Here are answers to common questions: Does this mean Virtuals are back for good? Not exactly. Yes, we’re hoping to see up to 4,000 new Virtual Caches in the next year. But we want to make it clear that Virtuals remain a legacy cache type. Are Virtual Rewards distributed evenly among countries? No. Countries vary in land area and the number of active geocachers. We use an algorithm to help distribute Virtuals among countries, while favoring countries still growing in geocaching. We set the qualifying criteria for cache hiders as low as possible, in order to achieve better geographic distribution. The approximately 50,000 cache hiders who meet the Virtual Reward 3.0 criteria represent 88 countries. During the 2019 launch, they were from 89 countries, a significant increase from 63 countries during the 2017 launch. Can I apply with more than one account that I own? If you own more than one Geocaching account, please apply only with one account. If we discover abuse, we reserve the right to remove a Virtual Reward. Could an account receive more than one Virtual Reward from Geocaching HQ? No, Geocaching HQ will not be providing an account more than one Virtual Reward, from the 2017, 2019, or 2022 launches. How do I find out when new Virtual Rewards are published? Premium members can set up Instant notifications to be aware when new Virtual Rewards are published. All members can use filters to conduct a worldwide search for Virtuals. Will there be more Virtual Rewards in the future? Assuming Virtual Rewards 3.0 goes smoothly, we will consider launching a similar set of Virtuals in the future. We would likely continue to make adjustments to the selection process to encourage new participants. Combined with previous Virtual Reward launches, are there too many Virtual Caches now? There are currently around 10,600 Virtual Caches, which is 0.3% of the world’s 3,326,000 active caches. Even if this new launch adds 4,000 new Virtual Caches, they will still only account for 0.4% of all active caches. Why not just make Virtual Caches available for everyone to hide? Because today’s Virtual Caches are rare, and because the remaining Virtuals tend to be well-liked, people often forget (or maybe never knew) that many problems led to the Virtual becoming a legacy cache type in 2005. The Virtual Cache type was originally created so people could place hides where physical caches were not permitted, or where muggles were so heavy that a physical cache was not practical. While the intent of this cache type was positive, it created significant problems for reviewers and often led to poor cache quality. Some people used Virtual Caches as a shortcut to create basic caches that did not require maintenance. Guidelines were eventually updated to require Virtuals to have special qualities to set them apart from other caches. However, that introduced so much subjectivity that the review process became difficult for both reviewers and cachers. The decision was finally made for the Virtual to become a legacy cache type and no longer permit them unless we could find a way to avoid the aforementioned issues. We feel that these limited Virtual Rewards release have helped to minimize the previous problems with Virtuals, while delivering more opportunities for the community to enjoy this beloved cache type. Most importantly, it’s a fun reward for cache owners who have contributed so much to the game.

Yes, it's a bit of a turn-around from "don't place caches every 528 feet just because you can" to being something they're now outright encouraging. I'll be doing my first ever power trail next month even though it will be autumn by then. It's a kayaking one along a 12km section of the Colo River from Colo to Lower Portland, with a mixture of traditionals, geoart puzzles and a couple of other cache types thrown in. The caches appear to be spaced a bit further apart than the regulation 161 metres, with the closest being nearer to 200 metres apart, and most look to be containers hanging from trees along the bank. I haven't solved all of the puzzles yet so they'll likely fill in some of the blank spaces on my map. It'll be a group outing (no dividing and conquering, though!) with an event the night before and a camp-out before hitting the water bright and early the next morning. It should be a lot of fun although it's not one for the numbers chasers as I'm sure there are much easier ways to get thirty-something smileys in a weekend.

For each of my trackables, I record the date of release and the dates of all subsequent drops (or changes of possession). The total number drops divided into the total days between the dates of release and last drop is the average movement interval for that trackable. Low interval numbers mean frequent movement, higher numbers are slower movement. To understand these numbers on drops a per-year basis, see the Conversion Table below. My trackables are not uniform. Some are just a tag alone in circulation, whereas most are the usual dog tag attached to items of varying sizes, shapes and materials. This post is the first step in comparing endurance and rates of travel among trackables that can be confidently sorted into discrete groups, poker chips, flag patches, laminated images, etc. In the meantime, I will report on the observed drop intervals in some of my oldest trackables as a whole. The present sample includes only trackables released in the years 2010-2015. Old trackables have the advantage of yielding values that will not change, because all but a handful have been missing for 5-10 years. Those few trackables that are still active, including some released in 2010, all have total drop numbers above 50, out to 75. This project does not extend that far, with drops numbers only to the range of 40-44. Furthermore, for higher drop totals, once they get beyond 50, an excessive interval will have only a barely discernable effect on the average. I keep up with my trackables by theme or series. The Sample Organization Table below shows the names of the series and part of the organization for this project. The values between the green columns are those intervals from trackables having made only 1-4 drops. The values between green and gold columns are intervals for trackables having made 40-44 drops. Not shown are seven other intermediate data sets in 5-drop increments. The abbreviations in the table are as follows: n, sample size; %, the percent of the series n; Ave, the arithmetic average interval; Min, the minimum interval observed; Max, the maximum value observed. A description of the trackables in in each series will be done in a later post, although the titles make many of the forms evident. The gray line in the graph has nothing to do with the drop intervals but, but is the sample sizes within each interval range…in a happy circumstance, the same scale as for intervals could be used. That line is essentially the same survivorship curve posted before, but with data pooled into discrete drop ranges. By almost any standard, a sample size of 885 for the 1-4 range is more than adequate. However, because of the high rate of attrition, the sample sizes drastically decrease through the other drop ranges, finishing with a 23 total for the 40-44 range. I elected not to graph the actual maximum and minimum values shown on the table. Instead, I used the mean of all the maximum (red line and red numbers) and minimum (blue line and blue numbers) values for each series. To have graphed the 1819 maximum for the Country Flags would have increased the distortion of the scale and merged the colored lines at the bottom, an important part of the graph. The averages (black line) are those for all the intervals in each interval range, not the averages of the averages, as for minimums and maximums. I showed in previous posts that around 95 percent of my 4500+ trackables are released in the US, mostly in northwest Texas. Furthermore, among all my trackables that survive to make 15 drops (around 13%), only half are in the US, most of the others are in Europe. Of those in Europe, only a little more than 200 were released there, another 700+ were independently taken there by other cachers. Thus, we may interpret that the part of the colored curves to the left of the 15-19 interval range result mostly from trackables in the US, and the curve to right is mostly from trackables outside the US, mostly Europe. The important point to be made is that at the left side (US) of the table and graph, the average drop interval is 132 days, or a rate of just over three drops per year. At the right, the average interval is 65 days, or almost six drops per year. Clearly it is the high extreme intervals (years, in many instances) on the US side and the lack of extremes on the right that most influence the average values. These data are part of the reason I am willing to state that trackable in Europe move almost twice as often (on average) as those here in the US. That more trackables last longer in Europe, will be addressed, in part, in the next post.

From having tried this with my home-town Lopik in the Netherlands (one time rural Wales, two times ocean) and some other cities I've visted and from your reactions I have two observations: -The four options with the conversion from N to S or E to W are too few. Most of the time you end up in the ocean. If you swap the NS coordinate with the EW coordinate you gain 4 additional options. With my home-town I 'gained' a place in the Amazon Rain Forest and a place 20 km out of the coast of Guyana. Off course this is difficult when you are at a coordinate above 80 E/W, as the corresponding N/S coordinate doesnt exist. I would suggest correcting the coordinate of Sydney for example from 151° 12.520 to 15° 11.252. -The places found are mostly in places where no waymarker is present, such as central Asia, Africa or South-America. The 'two-waymarker' thing and the 'joint-effort' are thus not realistic. Maybe it is enough if you found a place large enough and can find some information about the specific town or city on the internet. While rare, I think this is an enjoyable coordinate game and rarity hasn't stopped us to make a category in the past... Succes! I succesfully matched Amsterdam and Cayenne in Guyana this way. Coordinates N 052° 20.200 E 04° 56.200 and N 04° 56.200 W 052° 20.200

Hallo, den TB wieder in den letzten Cache zurücklegen: "Zum letzten Aufenthaltsort verschieben" Anschließend den TB "grabben" damit dieser wieder in Deinem Inventar ist. Den Tracking-Code kannst Du auf einen Token oder auf irgendetwas anderes gravieren lassen. Es gibt Shops, die diese Möglichkeiten anbieten. Ist natürlich bei einem Einzelstück auch eine Kostensache. Ich habe z.B. 200 Woodcoins mit dem gleichen TB-Code machen lassen. Den verteile ich dann zum Discovern oder zum Sammeln in passende Behälter. Den Code habe ich von einer Coin aus meiner Sammlung genommen. https://coord.info/TB4314M

Have you ever tried any Waymarking webpage with an HTML validator? The doctype is "XHTML 1.0 Transitional" and still there are (just tried the front page) "124 Errors, 53 warning(s)". So, do you worry about a 125th error? A few random WMs had 160-200 errors. A random category page had more than 600 errors. BTW, I always use target="_blank" in the long descriptions of my WMs. And still the W3C police has not knocked on my door.

This happens both on different computers. When using the PLAY SEARCH feature, I have to enter the location twice before it will accept it. Then I create a filter, of: not found by me, 20 miles, only 1.0 and 1.5 terrain. submit A listing of 200 caches appear. Cool. Check them all and add to LIST. Nope, only 5 caches go over, and those are not within the filter specs. Any ideas? Thanks, Randy

De Dutch Geocoin 2021 laat helaas nog op zich wachten. Toch ben ik weer aan het nadenken over de 2022 editie. Het start dan met de ontwerpen. Het is, tot nu toe, nog mogelijk om (na 14 jarnuari) geocaching events, en daarmee ook ontwerp events te organiseren. In hoeverre dat verstandig is, is iets waar je over kunt discussiëren, dat laat ik dan ook aan jullie eigen verantwoordelijkheid over. Het blijkt dat corona er voor heeft gezorgd dat ook voor 2022 er weinig risico genomen wordt door de organisatoren van grote manifestaties. Ik heb niet zoveel jaar specifieke onderwerpen kunnen vinden. Het Mauritshuis bestaat 200 jaar. Utrecht heeft 900 jaar stadsrechten en Zevenbergen 750. Verder vieren de Dolly Dots en Blof hun jubileum. Hoe dan ook kunnen ontwerpen ingestuurd worden naar het bekende email adres: DutchGeocoin apestaatje gmail punt com. Tc

I just started Waymarking a couple weeks ago and have found a lot of waymarks where the point of interest, building, business, or object in question are missing. So far I have logged these as "visits" or "finds" but others have told me now that this is incorrect. What is the official ruling on logging a waymark find or visit? What counts? Just to add some details. I have found a little over 200 waymarks, and so far for about 30-40% of these, the waymarks object or reference point was clearly gone. I imagine that many of the other waymark sites in our area are also missing as most of them have never been visited by anyone and most the pages appear to be updated prior to 2010. Just to clarify, I am using the term "Visit" and "Find" to mean the same the thing since this is what is counted on the waymark website. There are a plethora of additional logging requirements I have seen which are also very confusing. Here are some of the scenarios: A waymark at a sculpture where the sculpture is totally gone and removed from the park. Do I log that the sculpture is gone, post a picture of the empty ground and then log it as found? A waymark at a sculpture, where the sculpture is gone but moved to some other part of the park (I've seen these moved anywhere from a couple hundred feet to a mile away). Log a picture of the empty site and then also log a picture of where the sculpture is at the new location? Also add gps coordinates of the new spot and the log as found? A waymark about a boat ramp where the logging requirements say post a picture of you with your GPS and your boat. This park doesn't have a boat ramp and the closest car access is a mile away. I'm really not sure what to do at this one but will just skip it unless I can get a boat out there since the WMO seems pretty specific about having a boat. A waymark about a car show where the owner says you can only post a visit during the Easter holiday when the specific car show is happening. Will skip this one unless I can make it to the show. A waymark about sledding or fireworks at a location. Can you log a find/visit without doing or seeing the assigned activity at this location? (Btw, I have actually done both requirements but I was not officially Waymarking when I was sledding or watching the fireworks at that spot). The tricky part here, is the waymark page just says post a photo from the location. A waymark at a fallout shelter which is located inside police headquarters. The waymark page only shows the outside of the building but the description question mentions requiring a picture "inside." Honestly it seems like a really bad idea to go inside a police building to take pictures. I took a picture of the fallout shelter sign outside the building, is this qualification enough to count it as found? A waymark at a bar where the bar is totally gone and there is a new business there now. Do I take a picture of the new business and log as found? I really wish there were more specifics about what counts and what doesn't count as a find. I was searching around the Waymarking website but couldn't find a clear answer. A general faq about logging requirements would be really nice.