Jump to content

opencaching.com new mascot...


FickFam

Recommended Posts

I plan to place a cache exclusively on OC that was denied for listing on GC.com due to cache saturation restrictions.

 

This is precisely why opencaching.com holds little interest for me. But does opencaching.com have any guidelines for placing caches - saturation, physical containers, permission, restrictions on certain areas? I can't imagine that our local national park areas - where the superintendent forbids traditional caching - would be thrilled if opencaches started to pop up.

 

Their rules, guidelines, whatever are pretty much the same as Groundspeaks--saturation distance of .1 mile, get permission first, don't place where not allowed (such as National Parks), no buried caches. I don't remember seeing any container limitations, just suggestions of what makes a good container. But it doesn't say anything about a review process. It also has a safety rule/guideline/suggestion, saying not to place caches in dangerous areas, such as near cliffs, in trenches, etc. Wonder if they'll actually archive a cache if somebody claims it's not safe?

Link to comment

I plan to place a cache exclusively on OC that was denied for listing on GC.com due to cache saturation restrictions.

 

This is precisely why opencaching.com holds little interest for me. But does opencaching.com have any guidelines for placing caches - saturation, physical containers, permission, restrictions on certain areas? I can't imagine that our local national park areas - where the superintendent forbids traditional caching - would be thrilled if opencaches started to pop up.

Yes, they have guidelines that are very similar to Groundspeak's, and in some cases, either more restrictive or more explicit. How, and how well they enforce them is another question.
Link to comment

More to the point... do they have Souvenirs?

 

:anibad:

 

Seriously, there is still a lot of functionality that they need to add before they even begin to compete with Groundspeak's geocaching. Pocket queries are, of course, a huge one. Notifications, bookmarks, cache along a route, (ahem! Friends); I'm sure I'm missing plenty.

Link to comment
Seriously, there is still a lot of functionality that they need to add before they even begin to compete with Groundspeak's geocaching. Pocket queries are, of course, a huge one. Notifications, bookmarks, cache along a route, (ahem! Friends); I'm sure I'm missing plenty.

there's no real need for them to offer PQs, as this is where the API comes into play.

 

for one-shot bulk downloads of caches in a certain area, you can just click the button on the website. gives you up to 5000 of them.

 

if you want to remember the "search terms" you used for that download, you create a bookmark in your browser. every time you follow the bookmark link, you'll get a fresh GPX downloaded with the same search terms.

 

if you want the GPX delivered to you per email on a regular basis and at specific times, i can write a 3-line script on my server to do exactly that. put a simple web frontend over that so people can create their own deliveries and voila, PQ killer application.

 

the same applies to CAAR. even bookmarks could be implemented by another site. of course they can also implement all that on their own site, but strictly speaking they don't need to.

 

think of oc.com as the twitter of geocaching. hardly anybody uses twitter through their website, even though they have a pretty one. everyone uses it (indirectly) through their API only.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment

if you want the GPX delivered to you per email on a regular basis and at specific times, i can write a 3-line script on my server to do exactly that. put a simple web frontend over that so people can create their own deliveries and voila, PQ killer application.

I'm not going to want to be dependant on a 3rd party's website for my pocket queries, and I'm sure not going to expect most geocachers to be able to write an API script to do anything. No... for the majority of geocachers, it has to be very easy to get their caches, or they won't even bother trying.
Link to comment

if you want the GPX delivered to you per email on a regular basis and at specific times, i can write a 3-line script on my server to do exactly that. put a simple web frontend over that so people can create their own deliveries and voila, PQ killer application.

I'm not going to want to be dependant on a 3rd party's website for my pocket queries
You can run the script on your own computer then.
and I'm sure not going to expect most geocachers to be able to write an API script to do anything. No... for the majority of geocachers, it has to be very easy to get their caches, or they won't even bother trying.
How about a website that presents you with a screen to create your "PQ" (which, as the API is currently built, doesn't have nearly the flexibility of PQs here), and at the end said "here's the link to the site, bookmark it and use it when you want an updated list of caches."
Link to comment
I'm not going to want to be dependant on a 3rd party's website for my pocket queries, and I'm sure not going to expect most geocachers to be able to write an API script to do anything.

it doesn't have to be a website, it can also be a small application running on your PC. it could be built into GSAK. the possibilities are endless.

 

and you'd be surprised how many geocachers actually are able to interface with the API. a single company can never be as creative and original as hundreds and thousands of brilliant developers who put out their stuff for free. the plethora of greasemonkey scripts for gc.com is already an example of that happening, as is stats pages like mygeocachingprofile.com and even GSAK itself (ok that's not really free, but you get the point). add free and full access to all the geocache data to that and a whole new world opens up.

 

i bet all the "illegal" smartphone applications will be the first to integrate the oc.com API. it will be easy for them to pull cache data off gc.com and oc.com.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
The 'one' in our state is now over a hundred after our chapter president uploaded his hides to the site.

 

The 'logging' feature still isn't working for me.

Yeah I was wondering about that, too.

 

One of our locals uploaded all of their finds. Interesting, since they are all Geocaching.com finds, and so there is no way of linking to the cache. All it is is a list of cache names and dates. Not very useful.

Link to comment

I plan to place a cache exclusively on OC that was denied for listing on GC.com due to cache saturation restrictions.

 

This is precisely why opencaching.com holds little interest for me. But does opencaching.com have any guidelines for placing caches - saturation, physical containers, permission, restrictions on certain areas? I can't imagine that our local national park areas - where the superintendent forbids traditional caching - would be thrilled if opencaches started to pop up.

Yes, they have guidelines that are very similar to Groundspeak's, and in some cases, either more restrictive or more explicit. How, and how well they enforce them is another question.

 

Except there doesn't seem to be any mechanism to respect local or state policies or restrictions. I wonder what will happen in states like MN, MI, PA, WA that have land managers who are receptive to geocaching, but require permits?

Closer to home what will happen in the one county park that is also a university research forest, so it prohibits geocaches? I hope the users of other sites do not piss off those land managers to the point where they just prohibit all geocaching activity.

 

I plan to place a cache exclusively on OC that was denied for listing on GC.com due to cache saturation restrictions.

We had someone doing that with TC for a while around here. I guess it didn't make all that much noise as he quit after 3-4 placements that didn't get many finds. Perhaps this new site will be different?

Link to comment

Except there doesn't seem to be any mechanism to respect local or state policies or restrictions. I wonder what will happen in states like MN, MI, PA, WA that have land managers who are receptive to geocaching, but require permits?

Closer to home what will happen in the one county park that is also a university research forest, so it prohibits geocaches? I hope the users of other sites do not piss off those land managers to the point where they just prohibit all geocaching activity.

I think that right there is the crux of the matter.
Link to comment
I'm not going to want to be dependant on a 3rd party's website for my pocket queries, and I'm sure not going to expect most geocachers to be able to write an API script to do anything. No... for the majority of geocachers, it has to be very easy to get their caches, or they won't even bother trying.

I hear your point, and there is validity to it. But not for nothing I realized today that I already use a number of third parties for geocaching stuff. I have a few greasemonkey scripts installed (GC Tidy, GCVote), I use mygeocachingprofile.com, and I use GSAK. On my iPhone I used to use GeopherLite before the Groundspeak app replaced it for me, but recently installed and use PiGo.

 

All things equal I'd rather rely on gc.com to do what I want to do. But sometimes other developers come up with something that I like. I could let gc.com compile my caching stats, but it's pretty limited (total finds and hides by cache type). Most folks are content with this. But I use mygeocachingprofile.com and get orders of magnitude more flexibility, and I love it.

 

If it turns out that someone builds an easy web-based interface (ala mygeocachingprofile.com), or some sweet GSAK macros, that will let me run killer custom PQs while lifting many of the restrictions I've become accustomed to... that would be pretty interesting. If any of these are possible, I start becoming quite intrigued:

 

- More relaxed limits (5 PQs in a day, 1000 caches, myfinds every 3 days)

- Complex queries (for example, the use of the Boolean "OR" would be great, or being able to set the number of days since the last find to something other than 7, etc.)

Link to comment

Except there doesn't seem to be any mechanism to respect local or state policies or restrictions. I wonder what will happen in states like MN, MI, PA, WA that have land managers who are receptive to geocaching, but require permits?

Closer to home what will happen in the one county park that is also a university research forest, so it prohibits geocaches? I hope the users of other sites do not piss off those land managers to the point where they just prohibit all geocaching activity.

I think that right there is the crux of the matter.

 

It will be an issue and could endanger the long term viability of the sport. Land managers aren't going to distinguish GC.Com geocaches from those listed on other sites. It's all geocaching to them and if local permitting and permission policies are being ignored it will not benefit the sport.

 

Without a review process to check for that stuff, we're back to the wild west days of geocaching. Not a good thing.

Link to comment

I think the big positive of opencaching is the open API. Groundspeak needs to open up and create one; right now they are like China behind the great wall, refusing to trade with the west (ref. history). Facebook is another perfect example. They are successful, not just because of the website, but because all of their data is very open via an API for consumption by any other app or site. They actually become more important because of the API, not less important.

Link to comment
- More relaxed limits (5 PQs in a day, 1000 caches, myfinds every 3 days)

they currently allow up to 5000 caches pulled with a single request.

i don't see a rate limit mentioned anywhere, which would imply there is none. chances are they do or at least eventually will rate limit the requests you can make, but it's safe to assume that the limits will be much more relaxed (i.e. by orders of magnitude) than on gc.com.

- Complex queries (for example, the use of the Boolean "OR" would be great, or being able to set the number of days since the last find to something other than 7, etc.)

they allow searching by cache name (substring) as well as hider name (multiple possible in the same request), which is already something that gc.com should have had long time ago. attributes can be searched for in an OR or an AND manner, with the problem being that there's no real set of predefined attributes, but it's rather "tags" which can be anything, so i'm not sure how useful that really is. the number of desired logs per cache can be specified with (currently) no upper limit, at least according to the specs.

other kinds of OR searches are possible by simply making multiple requests and combining the result. no problem there as there's no (significant?) rate limit.

other search options possible on gc.com are currently not possible on oc.com, such as the placement date or last found date. but those should be trivial to add on their side.

considering the fact that you don't have to go through their website to do those kind of searches and downloads, but rather can pull the data directly off their database into whatever you're using (GSAK, your GPSr, some 3rd party website, whatever), this is pretty awesome.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
I realized today that I already use a number of third parties for geocaching stuff. I have a few greasemonkey scripts installed (GC Tidy, GCVote), I use mygeocachingprofile.com, and I use GSAK. On my iPhone I used to use GeopherLite before the Groundspeak app replaced it for me, but recently installed and use PiGo.

Yup, and guess who is responsible for getting a number of my friends set up with that stuff? Yup. And I'd be doing a lot more except that I do know how to say "no" sometimes.
Link to comment

i notice that their IP address is owned by akamai and that their domain/host name points to an akamai wildcard entry as well.

 

a user in america will thus talk to an american server, while a user in europe will talk to a european server, both of course delivering exactly the same content. knowing akamai, this ensures globally fast page load times and a reliable service, which is also pretty much awesome. i bet quite a bit of money went into this whole thing.

Link to comment

i notice that their IP address is owned by akamai and that their domain/host name points to an akamai wildcard entry as well.

 

a user in america will thus talk to an american server, while a user in europe will talk to a european server, both of course delivering exactly the same content. knowing akamai, this ensures globally fast page load times and a reliable service, which is also pretty much awesome. i bet quite a bit of money went into this whole thing.

Groundspeak is overhauling their network infrastructure next week. Maybe it'll include taking some of the eggs out of the single basket (aka single point of failure for everything) they're using today.

 

Garmin has apparently built a robust, scalable one to start with or at least has the underpinnings to scale well.

 

As someone above noted...coincidence?

Link to comment

More to the point... do they have Souvenirs?

 

:P

 

Seriously, there is still a lot of functionality that they need to add before they even begin to compete with Groundspeak's geocaching. Pocket queries are, of course, a huge one. Notifications, bookmarks, cache along a route, (ahem! Friends); I'm sure I'm missing plenty.

I almost posted the same thing last night. They don't have souvenirs, they don't have travel bugs, there are no bookmark lists or instant notifications of new caches. The site is simply about going out and finding geocaches with none of the frivilous additions that GC.com has. Now I understand that some people enjoy these frivilous add-ons when they geocache. But I'm pretty sure there is also a big group that would like to take their geocaching straight. Forget the FTF competitions, forget the challenges, just load up your GPS with a few thousand caches and head out for a day of fun.

 

Since they have puzzle caches, I don't doubt that someone will use that to create some variations. There will be challenge caches - likely ones where you have to email the cache owner with proof of the challenge to get the final coordinates. There will likely be ALR caches too. But at least for a while things will be less competitive and having to do silly frivilous things in order to log a find won't be that big of a problem. It also seems that right now a cache owner can't delete a log; so long as it stays that way this will also help to keep the lid on the frivolities.

 

As others have pointed out, they have provided an open API to access their database, so we can assume that there will be third party sites or apps to provide advanced filtering and trip planning. Cache along the route will likely be among the first things we will see someone come up with. PQs aren't really necessary since you can get bulk downloads already (without a premium membership). If the current filtering options aren't sufficient, they could be expanded in the future, or third party solutions can be developed.

 

For those who have asked for a cache rating system, Opencaching.com seems to give you one. Finders can rate the difficulty, terrain, and size of the cache as well as the "awesomeness". We will have to wait and see how well this works out. Given you can filter on these four attributes, we will see if the people who complain the loudest about lame caches will be satisfied - or if they are going to want the "survivor" option to vote bad caches off the site.

 

For now I like the simplicity. If they start to add too much and turn it into another GC.com I will lose interest pretty quickly.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
I realized today that I already use a number of third parties for geocaching stuff. I have a few greasemonkey scripts installed (GC Tidy, GCVote), I use mygeocachingprofile.com, and I use GSAK. On my iPhone I used to use GeopherLite before the Groundspeak app replaced it for me, but recently installed and use PiGo.

Yup, and guess who is responsible for getting a number of my friends set up with that stuff? Yup. And I'd be doing a lot more except that I do know how to say "no" sometimes.

I wonder what the interplay is between designing and running your own PQs on GC.com, and using third-party interfaces like mygeocachingprofile.com and geochecker.com and GSAK.

 

I have a sense that there are a lot of casual geocachers who don't bother with the added complexities of PQs at all. And that among those who are comfortable using PQs, there is a much higher rate of adoption of other interfaces with caching data.

 

I have no hard evidence of that, just a hunch.

Link to comment

More to the point... do they have Souvenirs?

 

:P

 

Seriously, there is still a lot of functionality that they need to add before they even begin to compete with Groundspeak's geocaching. Pocket queries are, of course, a huge one. Notifications, bookmarks, cache along a route, (ahem! Friends); I'm sure I'm missing plenty.

I almost posted the same thing last night. They don't have souvenirs, they don't have travel bugs, there are no bookmark lists or instant notifications of new caches. The site is simply about going out and finding geocaches with none of the frivilous additions that GC.com has. Now I understand that some people enjoy these frivilous add-ons when they geocache. But I'm pretty sure there is also a big group that would like to take their geocaching straight. Forget the FTF competitions, forget the challenges, just load up your GPS with a few thousand caches and head out for a day of fun....

 

 

It's what I do here. This site is as simple or as robust as you need it to be.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
I have a sense that there are a lot of casual geocachers who don't bother with the added complexities of PQs at all.
What's the ratio of premium to non-premium members?

 

And that among those who are comfortable using PQs, there is a much higher rate of adoption of other interfaces with caching data.

 

I have no hard evidence of that, just a hunch.

Amongst the few cachers I regularly talk to locally, each of us has a completely different method of working with PQs, so new interfaces would translate to new workflows for sure. Edited by dakboy
Link to comment
I have a sense that there are a lot of casual geocachers who don't bother with the added complexities of PQs at all.
What's the ratio of premium to non-premium members?

Good question. Among cachers who have ever visited the forums, it's about 3 non-premium members for every 1 premium member.

 

Whether or not all of those are active accounts, if cachers who visit forums are more or less likely to be premium members, etc. etc. etc... who knows. But it's not a horrible place to start.

Link to comment
EDIT: Of course now I just found that you can import your finds and hides from other sites, haha, it all makes sense now... Now I'm worried that with enough users importing their hides and finds, this site could eventually become a mirror of geocaching.com.

at which point gc.com would be doomed, as all the 3rd party developers would cease to support gc.com and would use the oc.com API only (as it's much easier to do so), which in turn would mean that cachers would have no reason left to list their caches on gc.com (other than trying to support an "alternative site" as they do with TC and NC etc today...)

Link to comment
EDIT: Of course now I just found that you can import your finds and hides from other sites, haha, it all makes sense now... Now I'm worried that with enough users importing their hides and finds, this site could eventually become a mirror of geocaching.com.

at which point gc.com would be doomed, as all the 3rd party developers would cease to support gc.com and would use the oc.com API only (as it's much easier to do so), which in turn would mean that cachers would have no reason left to list their caches on gc.com (other than trying to support an "alternative site" as they do with TC and NC etc today...)

From the feedback site ....

Groundspeak is currently in the process of developing an API for 3rd party applications. Our current plan is to make the API available to a limited group of trusted third parties starting in late January 2011. Once the API has been properly tested, we intend to expand the list of 3rd party developers throughout 2011 and beyond.

Bryan

Admin

So that problem is being addressed.

Link to comment
EDIT: Of course now I just found that you can import your finds and hides from other sites, haha, it all makes sense now... Now I'm worried that with enough users importing their hides and finds, this site could eventually become a mirror of geocaching.com.

at which point gc.com would be doomed, as all the 3rd party developers would cease to support gc.com and would use the oc.com API only (as it's much easier to do so), which in turn would mean that cachers would have no reason left to list their caches on gc.com (other than trying to support an "alternative site" as they do with TC and NC etc today...)

 

I have said it before, it could happen, some of us was waitting for another choice that has real backing. I would think Garmin has some backing. I am sure it will be a matter of time before they have geocoins, I mean caching coins and travel beavers that can be tracked on their site too. :P

Link to comment
From the feedback site ....

So that problem is being addressed.

not really, as an API that's open to everyone is much more powerful than one that isn't. also if this goes the way of the "emailing list for notifications about changes to the GPX schema", then it may never happen :P

 

I got a question, with API, can you do everything via a 3rd party? Like watchlist, friend list, bookmark list, instant notification and placing a cache on the list?

currently the API only responds to requests made to it and will never make requests out to anyone by itself, so things like instant notifications and watchlist aren't possible. the only way to do it would be to repeatedly poll the API for any new data and then send the notifications out. effectively this would do the same, only it won't be totally "instant" but delayed by whatever polling interval is being used. twitter clients work like that, they poll the site for new messages, say once per minute, and then pop up the message if there is one. in the case of oc.com it would depend on how much they rate limit their API (if at all) and if they will support date/time filters in their requests, which currently they don't.

Link to comment

EDIT: Of course now I just found that you can import your finds and hides from other sites, haha, it all makes sense now... Now I'm worried that with enough users importing their hides and finds, this site could eventually become a mirror of geocaching.com.

1) Not everyone is going to import their finds/hides from geocaching.com

 

2) Uploading your My Finds PQ or any other PQ from geocaching.com to opencaching.com would be in violation of the Waypoint License Agreement. Groundspeak could take action if you use this method to import data to opencaching.com

Link to comment

Except there doesn't seem to be any mechanism to respect local or state policies or restrictions. I wonder what will happen in states like MN, MI, PA, WA that have land managers who are receptive to geocaching, but require permits?

Closer to home what will happen in the one county park that is also a university research forest, so it prohibits geocaches? I hope the users of other sites do not piss off those land managers to the point where they just prohibit all geocaching activity.

I think that right there is the crux of the matter.

Here in CT, there are land managers who are open to caching, but they want to visit and approve every hide. Most hiders talk to the land trusts before hiding anything, but sometimes a new cache will pop up they don't know about. The land trust managers are okay walking out to check it out, but I worry that they would get upset if a bunch of random caches start appearing on their property. If someone is new, they may not even know that "the park down the road" requires each cache to be approved.

Link to comment

Except there doesn't seem to be any mechanism to respect local or state policies or restrictions. I wonder what will happen in states like MN, MI, PA, WA that have land managers who are receptive to geocaching, but require permits?

Closer to home what will happen in the one county park that is also a university research forest, so it prohibits geocaches? I hope the users of other sites do not piss off those land managers to the point where they just prohibit all geocaching activity.

I think that right there is the crux of the matter.

Here in CT, there are land managers who are open to caching, but they want to visit and approve every hide. Most hiders talk to the land trusts before hiding anything, but sometimes a new cache will pop up they don't know about. The land trust managers are okay walking out to check it out, but I worry that they would get upset if a bunch of random caches start appearing on their property. If someone is new, they may not even know that "the park down the road" requires each cache to be approved.

 

And that's why I'm concerned about no review process and no clearly defined reporting process over there. The review system - as imperfect as it may be - not only protects Groundspeak. It also helps to protect geocaching from rogue players and helps protect geocachers from themselves, each other, and "officials"..

Link to comment
EDIT: Of course now I just found that you can import your finds and hides from other sites, haha, it all makes sense now... Now I'm worried that with enough users importing their hides and finds, this site could eventually become a mirror of geocaching.com.

at which point gc.com would be doomed, as all the 3rd party developers would cease to support gc.com and would use the oc.com API only (as it's much easier to do so), which in turn would mean that cachers would have no reason left to list their caches on gc.com (other than trying to support an "alternative site" as they do with TC and NC etc today...)

 

I don't know about that. I'm sure there will be a large segment of geocachers who would rather use a site that is designed by fellow geocachers and run by fellow geocachers, rather one run by a huge corporate entity who may not have the best interest of the sport in mind.

 

Opecaching will certainly be attractive to those who don't like the rules here and want to hide caches wherever they please, regardless of the damage they could cause this sport.

Link to comment
The 'one' in our state is now over a hundred after our chapter president uploaded his hides to the site.

 

The 'logging' feature still isn't working for me.

Yeah I was wondering about that, too.

 

One of our locals uploaded all of their finds. Interesting, since they are all Geocaching.com finds, and so there is no way of linking to the cache. All it is is a list of cache names and dates. Not very useful.

 

And what if I don't want my caches listed on the opencaching site? Is there a way to delete those that I own?

Link to comment

Except there doesn't seem to be any mechanism to respect local or state policies or restrictions. I wonder what will happen in states like MN, MI, PA, WA that have land managers who are receptive to geocaching, but require permits?

Closer to home what will happen in the one county park that is also a university research forest, so it prohibits geocaches? I hope the users of other sites do not piss off those land managers to the point where they just prohibit all geocaching activity.

I think that right there is the crux of the matter.

 

It will be an issue and could endanger the long term viability of the sport. Land managers aren't going to distinguish GC.Com geocaches from those listed on other sites. It's all geocaching to them and if local permitting and permission policies are being ignored it will not benefit the sport.

 

Without a review process to check for that stuff, we're back to the wild west days of geocaching. Not a good thing.

Here in CT, there are land managers who are open to caching, but they want to visit and approve every hide. Most hiders talk to the land trusts before hiding anything, but sometimes a new cache will pop up they don't know about. The land trust managers are okay walking out to check it out, but I worry that they would get upset if a bunch of random caches start appearing on their property. If someone is new, they may not even know that "the park down the road" requires each cache to be approved.

Add AL and LA to that list in the US, plus British Columbia has some permitted areas, BC Parks has some special guidelines they want followed and Parks Canada has an even tougher permitting process that requires you meet with the park manager. Somewhere, somehow, this is going to create problems.

Link to comment

Except there doesn't seem to be any mechanism to respect local or state policies or restrictions. I wonder what will happen in states like MN, MI, PA, WA that have land managers who are receptive to geocaching, but require permits?

Closer to home what will happen in the one county park that is also a university research forest, so it prohibits geocaches? I hope the users of other sites do not piss off those land managers to the point where they just prohibit all geocaching activity.

I think that right there is the crux of the matter.

 

It will be an issue and could endanger the long term viability of the sport. Land managers aren't going to distinguish GC.Com geocaches from those listed on other sites. It's all geocaching to them and if local permitting and permission policies are being ignored it will not benefit the sport.

 

Without a review process to check for that stuff, we're back to the wild west days of geocaching. Not a good thing.

Here in CT, there are land managers who are open to caching, but they want to visit and approve every hide. Most hiders talk to the land trusts before hiding anything, but sometimes a new cache will pop up they don't know about. The land trust managers are okay walking out to check it out, but I worry that they would get upset if a bunch of random caches start appearing on their property. If someone is new, they may not even know that "the park down the road" requires each cache to be approved.

Add AL and LA to that list in the US, plus British Columbia has some permitted areas, BC Parks has some special guidelines they want followed and Parks Canada has an even tougher permitting process that requires you meet with the park manager. Somewhere, somehow, this is going to create problems.

 

I don't suppose any mod or lacky is authorized to post Groundspeak's official stance on this? Is the press kit ready yet?

Link to comment
Yes, they do have a forum. And, at the very least, discussing the issues over there would be more appropriate than discussing them here, and more likely to see this thread stay open.

 

Yes they do indeed and look at the names of users logged in - a major bug - there are email addresses shown to people not even logged in.... ouch!

Link to comment
Yes, they do have a forum. And, at the very least, discussing the issues over there would be more appropriate than discussing them here, and more likely to see this thread stay open.

 

Yes they do indeed and look at the names of users logged in - a major bug - there are email addresses shown to people not even logged in.... ouch!

Apparently that is the default, but if you look around, not every post is showing with their email address as the username. Somebody said that it is a privacy setting that is probably configured with the wrong default.

 

As for, "how is this going to be a nightmare"... read the whole thread.

Link to comment

I didn't notice whether my email was displayed in the forum, but it forced me into using my myGarmin user name and I could not change it to my OpenCaching handle. If I want to use that, I guess I'd need to set up a new gmail account and change my OpenCaching registration to sue it instead of the email Garmin already has on file for me. What a pain.

Link to comment

Think of the power trails that can be created! No need to travel 100+ miles to grab 1000+ caches! WooHoo!

 

I'm thinking of hiding a 100 page logbook near a parking lot, then submitting 100 caches at the same coordinates, one for each page of the book.

Do I have to sign every page?

 

Not only that, but you have to pull out the first page, put it in your pocket for a while then tape it to the back of the book. Repeat with each subsequent page.

 

Hey, it works for other power trails.

Link to comment

Think of the power trails that can be created! No need to travel 100+ miles to grab 1000+ caches! WooHoo!

 

I'm thinking of hiding a 100 page logbook near a parking lot, then submitting 100 caches at the same coordinates, one for each page of the book.

Do I have to sign every page?

 

Yes and if the page is missing, the cache isnt there. :P

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...