Search the Community

of course I don't want to risk my expensive device, as I told before geocaching is specific activity, that could really benefit from watch app since in normal circumstances I wouldn't walk on rocky cliff with smartphone in my hand, but when geocaching I don't really have a choice.. You shouldn't drive and talk with your phone at a same time, but if you have to, if your work is to drive and talk to clients at a same time, you have a safer option of buying hands free set, but with geocaching there is no safer alternative.. and its not all about risk of braking device.. do I really have to give an example of every possible scenario? ok, lets say you're geocaching on that rocky cliff with smartphone in your hand and you slip, you're falling.. you'll probably by reflex going to try to safe not only your self, but your device to and by doing that your injuries may be bigger, but if you would have an extra free hand to grab on something, you may end up with lighter injury.. ok, ten-thousands.. how much do you think it costs? millions? billions of dollars? its just an app, not a space rocket, it shouldn't be unaffordable for descent company so far I've heard only one decent reason not to make watch app, its technical reason of apple watch not having magnetic compass, although it still would be nice to at least have watch app for reading hints, descriptions, logs... all other reasons is basically stating that Groundspeak is barely making a living and just can't afford such big luxury like creating simple app.. that makes me feel like I'm getting into lost cost, like windows phone users did..

Can you talk to the cache owner again? Since they know it's not there anymore, if they'd archive it, that would save you a lot of steps.

So, suppose I tell you that your proposed location is 110m northwest of the final coordinates for "Cacher Conundrum," a five-star puzzle cache that only four people have ever solved and logged in the past three years. Armed with that intelligence, you track down the container and sign the log at the same time when you move your cache to a spot that's 162m away. What do I get for being helpful? A flaming email from the CO of "Cacher Conundrum," who also posts to three Facebook groups, and files a complaint with Geocaching HQ that I gave away secret information and ruined the puzzle cache. Having had that happen to us enough times, reviewers nowadays are constrained to be less forthcoming with details. Depending on your reviewer, you may get a hint, like "you are less than 161m from "Cacher Conundrum," GCABCDE, or you may get a hint that you should strongly consider moving to the southeast, or you may not get any guidance at all. So, that's how come. In a world where people hack lab caches and share the final coordinates of puzzle caches in Facebook groups, the inevitable outcome of such a feature would be to spoil every puzzle cache, multicache and Wherigo cache, plus a fair percentage of letterbox hybrid caches. There are people who like placing and finding these cache types. Geocaching.com has chosen not to alienate them by ruining the ability to keep the actual locations a secret. "But all I need is a distance and direction," you might say. So, the cheater simply enters enough coordinates into the planner tool to permit them to hone in on the actual location through triangulation. Think that can't happen? Talk to the travel bug stalkers who watch for drops of trackables in unpublished caches so they can figure out the locations and log a pre-publication "FTF." Talk to the group of cachers who hid traditionals in every conceivable spot within two miles of a 5-star puzzle, knowing they'd eventually "battleship" their way to a hit, and then they could do a scorched earth hunt within that area. I foiled them by publishing their cache even though it was 200 feet away from the puzzle final. Reviewers are smart humans*, you see, and that is better than an automated system. *Many reviewers are dogs.

Same here. I receive and send on average five emails a day in this hobby. Most are people who don't/won't enter the forums. All my other communication is by email as well. People talk to me on the phone too.

Maybe you are right. I encountered these two phrases in some kind of a corporate talk and they were used interchangeably there.

The bit I've highlighted in red is probably what scares me most about this cache quality push, not so much for my own hides which I visit fairly regularly anyway just for my own satisfaction that all's well (and because I put them in places I like to visit), but for some of the excellent ones I've enjoyed over the years that are well-made, well-concealed from muggles and simply don't need regular maintenance. A nano in a busy city might need its log scroll and/or seal replaced every few months, but the same isn't true of a remotely-placed rugged cache with a proper logbook that might only get a couple of visits a year. To fill in a dull evening last week (and to avoid all the endless political talk about our Federal election), I went through the hundred caches I've given FPs to. Of those, 9 have been archived, 23 have had some maintenance done during their life, but the other 68 as best I could tell have never had any maintenance at all (no NMs logged and the only OMs just said everything's fine). They're still the original container with its original logbook and are still in great condition. These aren't just all new caches either; of the ones that haven't been archived, 41 are more than 5 years old and 9 of those are more than 10 years old. The oldest was placed in 2001 and, after being replaced in 2002 following a fire, hasn't had or needed any attention since. A good container in a hiding place protecting it from the elements and muggles will last pretty much indefinitely without any owner attention, so it really doesn't matter whether the owner is responsible and still active or not, the cache remains there to be enjoyed by generations of cachers to come. I'd hate to see any well-intentioned enforcement of regular maintenance designed to rid the world of decrepit micros result in the loss of many of these fine caches either because their owners have left the game or are unwilling to put in the often substantial effort needed to visit them regularly when there's no need to.

But what if I really really need to talk to you? Just kidding. It would be nice if there was an Ignore All Messages option.

I like it. Until I don't get drawn and then I will talk mad trash about everyone who got one! ;) Actually, the nice thing about 2.0 is that won't be the case. I will know I didn't randomly get drawn and there isn't anything you can do about it. However, I would like to see this applied to webcam caches. People with over 25 webcam caches and who opt in get drawn to make a new list of webcam caches. I would love that...because I have found over 25 webcam caches! However, that took a lot of miles and work. It was not easy. I love webcam caches!

Yeah that is really frustrating. :-( I am not 100% certain I will be at GW yet, but if I am I will for sure look for you again. If you want I could be a wing man if you want to talk to them.

I updated the WF site to use Groundspeak's new API. Let me know if anyone experiences any issues. Here's something funny: I was asked if I wanted to list Kit (and perhaps the WF site) in the list of API partners. Uhh... Groundspeak, not unless you want to thoroughly confuse the mess out of the community, listing third-party Wherigo services as a partner on one hand and reviewers saying you can't talk about it on the other. That might not be the best of ideas until you lift the reviewer ban.

I was inspired once again to come here to the forums to discuss maps after attempting to plan a hike for this weekend. To find new caches I need to hike in unknown areas. If I were doing a small area city cache adventure then the current maps might suffice. To find new caching trails in many miles of mountains, I need a big view of the available caches. I find trails by looking for cache trails. It is very frustrating to keep having to reload the caches. My internet connection can get bogged down and what is supposed to be a few fun moments of searching for new cache trails turns into a long frustrating exercise in testing my internet speed. I end up thinking about quitting caching and stop my search early. I suspect new cachers who use their phones may not care about the new map differences. But it's the old cachers who find a lot of caches who are the ones who pay to keep the electricity on at Groundspeak Headquarters, so I would hope that they will pay attention to how many people are reporting in on this. Pay attention to what exactly people are complaining about, and who is not happy. I am considering writing an old fashion letter, this issue is so important to me, since it doesn't seem to draw any attention to talk about it on the forums. Anyone else who wants to join me on this: Groundspeak Headquarters 837 N 34th St #300, Seattle, WA 98103

I can't listen to the Geocaching podcasts or the advertised "10 Best Geocaching Songs" while I'm using the app to geocache? That's crazy talk! What's the point of a Geocaching Mix tape if I can't listen to it while I look for geocaches? https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2018/03/the-top-10-best-geocaching-songs/

Thank you for your quick reply. I disabled the Cachetur Assistant and that did produce the desired results on the map. Now to talk with Thomfre.

I don't see why the event wouldn't be published, if geocachers can attend and at least talk about geocaching; that's sufficient to be geocaching-themed. But the souvenir, yeah, almost certainly wouldn't get one. The Geocaching In Space promo a few years back was because of the ISS geocache and TB travels, so there was reason to hold official events and provide a souvenir.

I might never have met them and have no idea who they are or how to find them to talk to them. It might not even be in my country. That could be considered storking too. Besides, I consider the comments written in a log as 'talking' to the CO. It's like the old fashioned letter that 'talked' to the recipient. I read my logs and take them seriously. If the coordinates were regularly being mentioned as off I would investigate. I don't need someone to track me down and talk to me, even at events. If they waited to do that and not write what was wrong in a log, I would find that very strange and unhelpful, as I should have been told earlier. If it's only one person's comments, say the coordinates are out, that might not be enough to go on (although that is affected by how experienced they are), but after several comments, time to act and go check those coordinates. I found several caches recently by a CO whose coordinates were often out. It was not only me mentioning this, but others too. After I logged NM explaining the problem, the CO checked and did a OM, saying log and cache good. That wasn't what the NM was about, but the off coordinates. I messaged the CO and explained the problem again (politely). They said they would check this. Nothing has changed. The coordinates are still not fixed. I don't want this archived, so am not going to log a NA. Besides, I find that sort of rude if the person is at least looking after the cache and log. People are still mentioning the cache is not being found at GZ.

I said talk to the CO, not post yet another log. Your initial note made it sound to me more like you've occasionally run into COs that made a mistake, not that you were talking about COs that willfully and regularly post bad coordinates. So I suggested you focus more on fixing the CO so he doesn't keep doing that instead of focusing on getting each individual cache archived which you'll be doing the rest of your life if the CO isn't educated. My experience is just the reverse. First, COs normally post good coordinates so it doesn't come up very often. More often than not, it's the person complaining that has the bad coordinates. Second, when there really is a problem, the COs in my area will quickly adjust the coordinates. That's why I'm suggesting you teach your COs to be more like mine. Now if a CO is clearly making a game of posting bad coordinates, refusing to listen to reason, and deleting any logs that post the correct coordinates, then feel free to talk to the reviewer about them. GS will be interested if they insist on breaking the rules on purpose.

Why do you care if the reviewer picks up on it? The CO's the one that can easily fix these things. Talk to him, not to the cops.

That only works if I'm browsing around my home coordinates. 9 times out of 10, I'm browsing the area around some cache I'm looking at. I used to be able to do this from the cache description. You're suggesting that instead of open the map around my home area and scroll it how ever many miles away to look at the area I'm interested in? That or install a hack to correct GS's mistake? I mean, thanks for the advice and all, but it would be easier if the system just did what we all want. Just to remind everyone, there's an "old search map" that I rarely found myself looking at and have no particular feelings about whether it was better or worse than the new search map. There's also the browse map, which hasn't changed (much). The button you talk about takes you to the browse map, not the old search map. Although the new search map replaced the old search map as part of the recent release, the much more sweeping change that I think most if not all of us are complaining about was changing all the pointers to the browse map so they now point to the search map. Interesting point about "Browse Geocaches" being unintuitive. I hadn't thought of that because I've been reading the forums where "browse map" has become a common term to distinguish the two maps. But now that you mention it, "browse geocaches" makes no sense to someone looking at the maps because maps are inherently used to browse. "End Search" might make more sense, although only if the user got to the map by starting a search.

I have to agree with everything The A-Team said. So often here I'm reminded of the shellfish tracks I see in the sand at low tide, moving along, randomly changing direction, expending a lot of effort and never getting anywhere... A few years back, perhaps in the lead-up to a previous iteration of the search tool, I'm sure I there was talk of a goal to unify all the site's various search functions into one universal engine that incorporated all the functionality of PQs, lists and random cache searches with enough flexibility to allow searching for any combination of localities, cache names, owners, types, attributes, D/T rating, favourite points, corrected coordinates, personal cache notes, etc. That would've been great had it ever come to pass, but sadly instead each iteration seems to remove functionality and further segregate the search tools across the site. Another prime example of what I mean is the new logging page. Introduced just on two years ago to support future functionality and replace old legacy code that was becoming difficult to maintain, it removed some features (the text formatting bar, preview window, log entry encryption, add coordinates and perhaps others I've forgotten), took ages to support multiple photos and captions on them, and even now photo captions from that page don't appear in the cache page gallery because they use the Description field rather than the Title field that the gallery uses (I'm sure at the time someone said the gallery was going to be fixed to use the Description field if the Title was blank, but it never happened). Its use of default log types has been widely criticised as leading to unintended Find logs that should have been DNFs or, for COs, OMs that should have been other log types (which our reviewer even raised in our local FB group), yet this scourge still remains when the simple solution is to revert to making the logger select the log type as was previously the case on the website and still is in the app. The stated intention was to retire the old log entry page once the new one was complete, but the whole process just suddenly ended mid-stream, with not only the old log creation page still being selectable as an option, but any subsequent log editing still using that old page and presumably its old unservicable legacy code. The new cache creation page has some nice features but also some glaring issues that were repeatedly reported but never followed up. At the very beginning where you select cache type, the only options are Traditional and Multi, you then have to click on a link to show other types even though there's plenty of room on that page to show them all at once. Why? Then there's that big default Submit button at the bottom of the cache edit page which is all too easy to hit when what you want to do is Save and View - there really shouldn't even be a submit button on the edit page as COs ought to be forced to at least look at what their html code has created before submitting it (again our reviewer brought this up in the local FB group, wondering why there'd been a sudden upsurge in badly formatted cache pages). And there's that pop-up reviewer note that appears after clicking Submit. In spite of the Guidelines and many reviewers encouraging COs to include photos with their reviewer note (a picture paints a thousand words), the pop-up reviewer note editor doesn't allow photos to be attached. Instead you either have to go back and edit the log to attach photos, hoping the reviewer hasn't already looked at it, or create another reviewer note prior to submission with all the photos and details, and in the pop-up just say to refer to the other note. It seems designed to encourage minimalist reviewer notes, the exact opposite of what our reviewers ask for. Likewise the cache size selection doesn't mention the official definitions of each cache size, instead giving vague examples that lead to unnecessary confusion. All this unfinished stuff just leaves it cumbersome and counter-productive in places where it really doesn't have to be. It's almost a year since we were all invited to discuss various aspects of cache quality, what made a good quality versus poor quality cache and suggestions of what cachers and HQ could do to improve cache quality. There was a follow-up survey a few months later and then nothing at all. I can only imagine it ended up in the too-hard basket and those involved have moved on to other things. What would be nice to see is a detailed medium to long term vision of where you think caching is going and how the website's development is working towards that goal. Instead what we get time and again is new ideas that burn brightly for a few months and are then left unfinished and forgotten. Too often now the emphasis seems to be on style over function, with it appearing as if the goal is to produce something modern and flashy to capture the attention of millennials rather than be actually useful and productive to ordinary cachers just trying to hide, find and log caches. Don't get me wrong, many of the changes have added benefits to the site, it's just that they often seem to end up as something of a square peg left half-hammered into a round hole, unfinished and unpolished because some other new thing has captured the attention.

I'd contact the adoptee and "talk" with him directly before going the route of filing a NA log. That way you'll know for certain the plans and if he says it's OK, then you can have him hold off on archiving them until you actually have all your caches made, coordinates taken and verified, caches placed, old caches retrieved, and cache pages done and ready to go. All you would then need to do is hit submit. If he says no, he has plans to fix them up, then you'd know that as well. I think it's bad form to file a NA without first contacting the CO, especially with your comments about under maintained and mediocre caches there now. Whether you meant it or not, your comments elicit the idea that the caches aren't any good, regardless of whether it's because of the container or the state of the cache.

I'm kinda disappointed by the answers you're getting. Yes, of course it's fine to talk to the CO and ask if he'd like some help or even let you take over the area. All I can imagine is that the other people responding to your OP think you're going to say, "Hey, your caches suck, and I demand you archive them." But, naturally, you're just going to politely talk it over with him and work with him to make the geocaching in that area better for everyone. Sure, you do something like that in a rude way if you try hard enough, but it's not inherently rude or offensive, and any reasonable CO should be happy to hear the input.

OK. The point was that you think about exactly why this is a real problem and consider it from their point of view. I wasn't trying to talk you out of it being a problem, just suggesting you make sure to consider it from all angles. Sounds like you're well on the way to developing a productive relation with him. Good idea to start with encouragement so it's clear the negative comments are things that can be improved. It's too easy for a new CO to see any criticism as judgment, not suggestions.

First, have a hard talk with yourself about what you're really complaining about. Is it really that bad? For example, when you complain about parking, are you just being car centric because there's a perfectly good sidewalk that goes past the cache? These were all on country roads with no place to turn off, and they are pretty busy roads. Other cachers mentioned the parking problems, that is why bone archived the one. I got three of them by parking about a quarter of a mile down one road and walking to each cache. One I did send a message concerning his one cache. it was a good one which I let him know. The problem was he had the host locked with a padlock and the key was hidden also. Where and how he hid it was the problem, a bare key hidden between a tree and a vine , lying on the ground. I told him the key would rust and may not be usable pretty soon. . He did change it, I think he has a note in a plastic bag hidden telling where the key is. I think he changed the name and it is now one of a series-- which I think I have two of before I noticed the series.

First, have a hard talk with yourself about what you're really complaining about. Is it really that bad? For example, when you complain about parking, are you just being car centric because there's a perfectly good sidewalk that goes past the cache? One you really have a good understand of what the true problems are you're worried about, then just talk to them. Not as adult vs. teenager, but just as friends that geocache. A lecture about forgetting a pen won't be effective, but good natured ribbing about making this mistake over and over might pay off. Don't say you can't have a cache without parking, but point out that it looks difficult and dangerous to get there, and ask about how they suggest safely looking for the cache. Maybe they have a way, maybe that didn't think about that problem, but either way, they'll start thinking about the issue in the future. Don't bother with the anomalies in finding each other's caches. If you think they're being cheesy, go ahead and express your opinion, but there's no reason to make a big deal out of some dubious finds and insider FTFs. You're right to be worried about how they're approached, though, so I encourage you to step right in. It's become far too common for people to see any situation as being a slight against them, and that would drive a "mentor" to go into the conversation with a goal of forcing them to do it The Right Way instead of helping them see the issues and come to their own conclusions about how to best interact with the rest of the community.

Groundspeak has always forbidden the use of alternate listing services. The most they have been willing to do is look the other way as long as the cartridges were cross-listed on their site and the cache listings didn't mention anything concerning the Wherigo Foundation: player apps, builders, and the listing service itself. Nothing outside of the iPhone app, of which Groundspeak acquired an interest, can be mentioned on a geocache listing. This has been true in 2009, close to when the first player app came out, and it's still true now. This is also one of the reasons that development of Wherigo Foundation initiatives has slowed: if Groundspeak is taking such a passive-aggressive approach, why put in time on a development project? That's especially true of the Wherigo Foundation listing service: since I could be asked to take it down at any moment, putting in additional time into advanced features might make it even more popular and result in its demise from a takedown request--and that wouldn't help both sides, Groundspeak and the community. True, I don't believe Groundspeak has a legal standing to demand such a thing, but not acquiescing to the request would forever prohibit the possibility of future cooperation. I spent years trying to get Groundspeak to acknowledge the Wherigo Foundation. Though I came close to it with a few drafts of a partnership agreement on the table, it just didn't seem like Groundspeak was genuinely interested in moving forward, much like it has been with Waymarking. Not once did they initiate any action on their side. The Wherigo Foundation site was made public to demonstrate it to Groundspeak as has remained public to demonstrate its stability and usefulness to the community. They know it exists and it's fine to leave public (the footer on the listing service site was created by Groundspeak, by the way). They also know the guidelines under which the reviewers are operating. I've always officially and unofficially stated a Wherigo geocache must link to a cartridge hosted on Wherigo.com. It's an interesting existence, isn't it? In short, the Wherigo Foundation is Fight Club. You do not talk about Fight Club. I usually try to avoid posting about this topic or answering questions because some people might think I have a conflict of interest on the matter. In fact, I can separate my roles just fine, and have my statements conflict with each other depending on the role I'm filling at that time. Yes, I have my own personal feelings on the matter. I'll sum it up by saying that if you feel it's a shame that you can't mention the Wherigo Foundation site on your cache listing, what must it feel like to people who have invested so much time into creating these things and supporting the community only to have the rule being that people can't mention what they've created? My endgame was never to run Wherigo: it was to improve what it offers, grow the community, make it more enjoyable for all, and make the creation of content easier. If running it was the only way to reach those objectives, then fine, though I don't have the time to do it properly. Anyway, things have worn on over the years and dealing with the same things without the promise of improvement is really wearing me out. So, those are my feelings. Oh, but you're free to talk about Wherigo Foundation topics in this forum. Just like the old reviewer rule is that Wherigo Foundation things can't be mentioned in cache listings, the old 2009 rule is that they can be discussed in the forum. It boils down to that, back then, due to a situation that happened, I was given the unusual responsibility (for a moderator) of approving which third-party Wherigo sites and apps are discussed in Groundspeak's forum, without having to ask again. My own guideline on that is as long as it's noncommercial and doesn't negatively impact the community, it can be discussed. Much later, during a discussion with Groundspeak, we both added an amendment: though not forbidden, I should try not starting topics regarding the Wherigo Foundation listing service as this could be seen as a conflict of interest, though I've always been free to answer questions and contribute. And as I've explained in the past, the moderator role is seen as a public relations extension of Groundspeak, so being in the position I am with also starting the Wherigo Foundation movement, I need to make sure there isn't any confusion as to which role I'm acting under--community member, Wherigo Foundation member, geocacher, or moderator--lest there be confusion on Groundspeak's position. So that's most of the story. Half of the rest involves details and history and the other half is close enough to a non-disclosure agreement.