Search the Community

Well, we've got that (the mention) now! Honestly, if you'd talk with Clyde, you'd have a better picture of how ugly the situation actually is. And if you didn't pick up on it here or elsewhere, understand that Clyde's ability to contribute to the current project is pretty limited. Fortunately, he's got a couple of people helping. I've also spent some time porting code for a living (I used to do printer firmware development, and all emulations had to be ported to different platforms), and it's only after having a better understanding of how GSAK was built that I suggest that moving it to another platform would be a train wreck for anyone trying to tackle it.

What else do you expect when you talk about a new PT, be it made of ALs or real caches? The numbers crowd falls all over itself from excitement. Quite a while ago, in a German FB group someone mentioned there is a new Mega-PT in southern France - more than 5000 caches (which is absolutely huge for Europe). A lot of people liked that, and many were like "We MUST do this ASAP!!!!!". So, of course you get "wows and yays" for an AL-PT(*). I'm still not convinced that it's a good idea, though . (*) I just noticed that "ALPT" are the first four letters of the German word "Alptraum", an alternate spelling (less common but valid) of "Albtraum", which means "nightmare" !

We did talk a while but I didn't ask to be 'joined FTF" and he didn't. The reason? It's not important. When meeting other cachers we always have talks about each other's caching experiences and more importantly about nice caches. When meeting cachers along a series though we tend to wait a while so others can enjoy finding the containers themselves or if we are on our bikes we try to get ahead far enough. Nope. But I see a "team" as people who know each other and make arrangements beforehand, not people who accidentally meet at a cache and "team up" to be FTF. Besides, did I miss a memo? Is there something to be won? (besides FTF )

Again, just because it works that way in your neck of the woods does NOT mean that it works that way everywhere. Just as terrain ratings differ based on the general topographical features one area has that others do not, there are various ways that FTFs are determined. You believe it's a black and white, clearcut determination, whereby only one person is entitled to the FTF. There are many of us here who have pointed out that while this is certainly a possibility (and one that is valid), it's not the ONLY way to determine who may or may not lay claim to the FTF and that a group of cachers, regardless of whether or not they know each other, can discuss it and come to some arrangement that each cacher can abide by. Sometimes that may mean a singular FTF and other times it may mean a shared FTF. We're not asking you to change your determination of who may claim a FTF. We're only pointing out that cachers in other areas have come up with some other solution that appears to work and co-exist within each others' manner of playing. If it happens not to work, then it reverts to the manner in which you play, which is perfectly fine as well. The fact that it didn't even come up seems a bit odd to me as, at least in my area, cachers tend to be talkative when running into other cachers, even if we don't know each other, be it at events or at a cache. We realize we're part of a community and socialize as such, which typically means that a P&G can turn into a 5-10 minute meet and greet. It doesn't always happen that way but more often than not, it does. Having managed quite a few FTFs, I can only think of one time when another cacher (or group of cachers) didn't talk about the FTF. There used to be 4 of us that were serious FTF seekers during my first couple of years of caching and we'd continuously run into each other at newly published caches or just miss out running into each other. Each time we did actually meet up at a newly published cache, we discussed who was going to claim the FTF if it was found with more than one of us at GZ. The longer this went on, the more it changed to a shared FTF style of play, except when the other cacher requested they be the one to claim the FTF (for whatever reason). I (and hopefully the others who feel as I do) am NOT telling you that you need to change your style of play. What we hope you realize is that your way isn't the only way and that both styles can co-exist. Logically, it may not make any sense to you but for those of us who choose to play this way, we're fine with this determination of whether or not we are willing to share a FTF. Beats? Are you trying to win something here? We're discussing various methods of determining how cachers rectify FTFs and throwing out, in essence, two different variations of how cachers determine who gets to claim the FTF. Your way is certainly a valid way. No one here is really disputing that (at least I don't think so). Since it's not a recognized thing by GS and there are no guidelines that specify exactly how a FTF is awarded (first to put hands on it, first to find it [someone else may have unknowingly touched it without realizing it was the cache], first to sign the log), we are left to our own devices and those of us who feel like a shared FTF is a valid decision are comfortable with that decision, assuming everyone else at the cache is fine with it as well. If not everyone agrees, then we arrive at some consensus that allows a singular FTF and that's usually the one who pulls it from the hiding spot, although I can think of one instance when it was the first person that actually saw it but was unable to retrieve it due to physical limitations.

I'm working on my AL; a tour of wineries near me, in our Valley. At a socially distanced event in a park in June, (the first in months!) talk turned to AL's - turns out another gal was also working on highlighting our Valley - we did have a couple of the same spots on our list! We decided to focus each a bit differently, as I'll do all wineries, and she will focus on fruit, olive oil and some of the other things produced by local farmers - the bounty in our Valley. And we compared our locations so that they are all different. She will have a winery on her list, I will have 5 and will not include the one she is using for her AL. Without the in person event and actually talking with people, Neither of us would have known the other was working the same locations. It was good we could cooperate and make each one unique! I need to get mine done and out there before someone else does one first!

Yeah, I'm tempted to do just that. I'm holding an event as I've held off hosting an evening since sometime in February. Would be nice to talk to other cachers again. I'm sure people will show up, but if not then I likely won't log it as it just feels wrong.

I don't see any problem here considering the finds of the last week. The cacher was in South Africa (vacation I think) and found some caches that were recently found by others and the owners are still active as well. Then (s)he returned and made finds in california which seems possible, too. The number of caches found isn't too big - and if someone wanted to boost the staristics (s)he could do better: find more caches, find more countries, find more of the rare icons (and not so many traditional caches) .... So maybe all the bad logs have been deleted but from that what remails I can't see anything that proves your (bad) claim (so I am not sure if I like what you do here). I think it would be fair to inform the cacher that we are discussing about her/him so that (s)he can give her/his own version of the story. We shouldn't talk behind the back of someone as long as there isn't any evidence..... Jochen

You can talk about that topic here: https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/358303-release-notes-website-attribute-search-filters-august-31-2020/&tab=comments#comment-5851476

There'd be a whole lot less discussion overall in the forum about ideas, and a whole lot more demanding if that were the case; or at least incentive to brainstorm and things through. I don't think the system needs to be changed, but that doesn't mean we should not talk about ideas for how the system could be changed. So no, respectfully, I don't think I'll take that suggestion (especially when plenty of other users regularly post complaints about the current system) Yep, looks like they went with what's probably the technically easiest implementation, combined with a few other related updates.

My post did not talk about any attribute except for the Challenge Cache attribute, and the guidance provided should be limited to the four corners of my post. Reviewers generally do not have jurisdiction over the correct use of attributes. There are existing exceptions, such as use of the Wheelchair Accessible and Wireless Receiver Required attributes. The Challenge Cache attribute is part of that list of exceptions.

Bonus caches, including bonus caches solved by completing an Adventure Lab Umm. Is there any other type of Bonus Cache? And, while they may now always have to be Mysteries, there are those that are not. Does anyone at GCHQ talk to each other?

Wow.. I looked it up, seems in Belgium Covid-19 (PCR) tests cost €46 (max.) and it's 100% paid by health insurance if it's a mandatory test. If voluntary (not by doctor's request) it's at the patient's expense. A test for travel is probably voluntary. We're not prepared to sit shoulder to shoulder in a confined metal tube yet (although air is very clean and filtered and it seems no infection has been traced to air travel yet). Ouch. We thought it was quite high but still cheaper than eating the airline and hotel costs. Plus honestly we felt over 6 months in Thailand was more than enough. Now if Laos, Cambodia or Vietnam had of reopened... Fortunately the whole shoulder to shoulder thing was not an issue. In both flights there were many more rows of seats than people. In fact the first flight was a 777 with roughly 40 people. Would of needed a carrier pigeon to talk to someone else. I hear you though. I am severely immune system compromised so flying probably wasn’t the wisest action.

Some place where there is a caretaker, but does't require interaction with the caretaker would work. A library or chamber of commerce building, for example. I found a cache at the chamber of commerce in Kansas City. The coordinates took me to a spot where I could see the cache. Even though I didn't have to talk to the woman working there to find the can I had a nice chat while signing the log.

Go back year after year, season after season? Mebbe actually go in and talk to them AND buy some of their produce? After all, you're a growing boy - you need your fruits and veggies.

Can't argue with that at all, that's reasonable, but Tom's talking about someone who wants to talk to the manager because he's got to provide two photos.

If you don't need the vicar in the zone after the player talks to him, you could move the vicar to the next zone as the first command when you talk to him. If you still need him around in the current zone, you should be able to disable the command, at which point the player app is supposed to be smart enough to recognize there isn't an object in that zone anymore that has that command. If that's not the case--it really depends on how the player app handles things--disabling the command and then toggling the zone's enabled state should do the trick. So: - On Talk() - - Disable Talk command - - Set zone.Enabled = false - - Set zone.Enabled = true - - Do things for Talk

Thanks for the link Max. Nice to know that it isnt just me. However, my question remains. Does anyone know of a way of getting the Geocaching app to 'talk' to any of the Compass apps available out there.

I have previous used an android tablet and LocusPro when out as a back up for the GPS. Then I bought a new phone. I have loaded the Geocaching app on my new phone and most of it works fine. However, when I click on 'directions' I get the message "This device does not have a compass". This could well be the case as it wasnt one of my priorities when chosing which phone to buy. There are many compass apps around but does anyone know a way of getting the geocaching app to talk to any of them?

A couple of years ago, one small team put out a series in every one of the Denver Public Library branches -- 36 in all as I recall. Looks like most of them are up and running still. There was a nice geocoin from the library system for the first xx finders of the entire series. You might want to talk to the crew that did all of ours. Note that as mentioned above, none are traditionals, but they do represent an interesting cross section of other types.

Please can you advise how to shut off the talk to command for each zone. I am doing a Church Wherigo and I want the vicar to pop up at each question point. As such he is in zone 1, has a talk to command, asks a question, gives commands to move on or retry if answer wrong or right. I am stuck at the next bit, as in how do I turn off the talk to, or attribute it to one zone only so I can do a further talk to at zone 2...

that secret Platinum membership is a secret, cannot talk about it. Shhh

You haven't got or don't supply us with all of the pertinent facts for this 'other' account that you say got the short end of the stick, so there is absolutely no way to compare the two instances that you find in conflict in your earlier posts that complain of a double standard by gc.com. Unless you intend to have the guidelines changed, the account that Keystone has addressed seems very odd, but well within the guidelines. So if you are prepared to explain fully what historical details got the bee in your bonnet regarding the 'banished' account, fine. If not, the merits of the original comparison you have been trying to draw are something only you can determine for yourself, and soliciting help here isn't going to prove very practical. We don't have those details. Are you hoping that we'll start some sort of email campaign to gc.com on your behalf? If not, I would suggest you take your issues directly to them. The rest of us have no clue what really transpired with regard to the banished account, so why are you using this forum to argue the point? As I noted earlier, it seems Dr. Alien's caches, whatever their merit (or lack) as caches, are being maintained a hell of a lot better than many of the true 'vacation caches' I often complain about here whose purpose appears to be only to try to get another country souvenir for finders in difficult areas of the world where caches just don't easily work. Properly placed and maintained caches are the basis for your issue. Improperly placed and maintained caches are the basis for mine. Frankly, I'd rather talk about my issue.

"You could post some real truth in the forums. First, Trump2020 is not my account. They are a geocaching friend of mine I invited to try Waymarking. I have several family members, we all have geocaching accounts. Two of my dogs have their own accounts. Groundspeak don't have a problem with us supporting them by being paying members. I approve my own WM because I enjoy doing it. I don't follow your made up rules, I make up my own. Mine work best for me. But please tell all you troll friends that want me gone that you were offered a seat as the fourth person in the LFP group and you declined. I am the founder of the category. You are just choking on sour grapes. We were willing to leave, but your forums trash talk upset me enough that I choose to stay and lead and manage the category I founded.Blame yourself."

Just a suggestion: maybe if you spent a teeny bit less time on the forums discussing how the system could be changed, people would not come to the (natural, IMO) conclusion that you want the system changed. 28 of your last 30 posts have been about changes to the geocaching web site. For someone who doesn't think anything needs to be changed, you sure do like to talk about it. A LOT.

The Geocache Talk podcast "4th Annual Podcast of Hope" had Mike Rowe and Dave Barsky on back in December. https://geocachetalk.com/all-about-the-4th-annual-podcast-of-hope/