Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10
Moun10Bike

Release Notes - May 13, 2014

Recommended Posts

Read the previous release notes

 

Release Notes:

 

If Geocaching.com were a car, this release would be giving it some sparkly new wheels, a fresh coat of wax and a few tweaks under the hood. Here's a glimpse at what's new:

 

  • Hiding a geocache is easier than ever — That's right, the whole geocache submission process is jam-packed with new features that make it easier for geocache hiders and volunteer reviewers.
  • Choosing your home location is a breeze — Setting your home location not only customizes the experience on Geocaching.com, but also turns the Weekly Newsletter into a custom geocaching tool filled with nearby events and recently published nearby geocaches. Oh, and don't worry: your home location is kept totally private.
  • And of course, no release would be complete without a solid round of text changes, site updates and bug extermination.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't know if this the right place to report, but I've tried out the new cache listing, and I encountered a few bugs...

 

Edit... I've started a thread here

Edited by Beach_hut

Share this post


Link to post

  • Hiding a geocache is easier than ever — That's right, the whole geocache submission process is jam-packed with new features that make it easier for geocache hiders and volunteer reviewers.

 

I'm sure, that new process is more educative for newbies, but for me as experienced geocache hider is desperately slower and less useful. New wizard-like form is enforcing its one and only workflow, it's slower for network and server latence between steps and furthermore have bugs with i18n (try to enter date 28.06.2014, 28/06/2014). For me personally it would be great, if I could fully skip this slow wizard, get GC code and edit created cache listing in still preserved edit form.

Share this post


Link to post

I share AHA's objections too. At least for some of experienced geocachers the old report form "all-in-one-page" was of better use than this "feeding step by step with a teaspoon". Any chance of getting the optional link to the old form back?

 

For a comparsion have a look to Wikipedia: Their developers also gradually introduced lots of similar wannabe "progressive" features regarding skin, editing interface and - very similarly to our case - form for image uploads - but, what is important, they apparently have their users in higher esteem, because they keep the older variants functional and accessible for those users who prefer them.

Edited by Toniczech

Share this post


Link to post

I share AHA's objections too. At least for some of experienced geocachers the old report form "all-in-one-page" was of better use than this "feeding step by step with a teaspoon". Any chance of getting the optional link to the old form back?

 

For a comparsion have a look to Wikipedia: Their developers also gradually introduced lots of similar wannabe "progressive" features regarding skin, editing interface and - very similarly to our case - form for image uploads - but, what is important, they apparently have their users in higher esteem, because they keep the older variants functional and accessible for those users who prefer them.

 

OMG, bring back the original Coke. Please resurrect the OPTION to use the old entry method.

Share this post


Link to post

I share AHA's objections too. At least for some of experienced geocachers the old report form "all-in-one-page" was of better use than this "feeding step by step with a teaspoon". Any chance of getting the optional link to the old form back?

 

For a comparsion have a look to Wikipedia: Their developers also gradually introduced lots of similar wannabe "progressive" features regarding skin, editing interface and - very similarly to our case - form for image uploads - but, what is important, they apparently have their users in higher esteem, because they keep the older variants functional and accessible for those users who prefer them.

 

OMG, bring back the original Coke. Please resurrect the OPTION to use the old entry method.

:like: +1000

Share this post


Link to post

Hm. I still get the old form (though newly stylized) if I edit a cache that's in the publish queue...

Maybe the link has just been removed for new listings. Perhaps a workaround for now would be to just zoom through with dummy data, then edit it to get the old form back.

Share this post


Link to post

Hiding a geocache is easier than ever— That's right, the whole geocache submission process is jam-packed with new features that make it easier for geocache hiders and volunteer reviewers.

 

I do not agree. The new form makes it a much more annoying experience for many experienced cache hiders. I had a quick look a couple of minutes ago and wonder whether I should stop hiding caches. Instead of making the submission process more efficient (e.g. by a way to upload additional waypoints in bulk from a gpx file), it got more tiresome for cache hiders.

 

Already with the old form setting up a cache with many waypoints (for example my last cache has 46 waypoints) the submission process was partially akward and not up to the standards of what is impossible in 2014. The new form makes the experience even more annoying. I wonder whether anyone at Groundspeak does own a cache with a really large number of waypoints.

 

The fact that cache types like mystery caches need an extra step (click) is also not something I appreciate. I'm into geocaching for more more than 11.5 years, but I felt treated like a beginner.

 

Another issue that seems to be present is that one can start a cache submission only with having final coordinates ready.

I often started working on a cache listing without having final coordinates ready. I did not block anything as I did not add any physical waypoints at that stage.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't looked at the new form, but this sounds like a classic User Interface failure: developers of UIs get so focused on making it easier for people unfamiliar with the task that they forget that 99% of the people using their interface will be experts.

 

The last time they did this with the submission form, there was a way around it to the original form. Is that not true this time?

Share this post


Link to post

Again, I believe you can create a listing with dummy data, zooming through the new interface, then edit the listing and be presented the original form, with some styling updates.

 

(that's by virtue of me editing a listing of mine that is in the publish queue)

Share this post


Link to post
  • And of course, no release would be complete without a solid round of text changes, site updates and bug extermination.

 

Solid...????

 

You've broken a lot of 3rd party softwares by just changing the term "Stages of a Multicache" to "Physical Stage" and "Question to Answer" to "Virtual Stage". link

 

Thanks to notify us this change in advance...

 

Edited by DanPan

Share this post


Link to post

tried to do the "Online Form" today and all I get is a 404 file not found error :(

 

Can you provide more information? What link or URL were you attempting to access?

Share this post


Link to post

You've broken a lot of 3rd party softwares by just changing the term "Stages of a Multicache" to "Physical Stage" and "Question to Answer" to "Virtual Stage".

In all fairness Groundspeak does not have any control over "3rd party software" and if the 3rd parties are not part of the approved API group then there is no mechanism (or requriement) for Groundspeak to communicate any such changes to them.

 

In a sepearate thread some 3rd party software was indicated as working (robust) and some not, therefore it seems obvious that some of the 3rd party software was not bulletproof in the first place...

Share this post


Link to post

In all fairness Groundspeak does not have any control over "3rd party software" and if the 3rd parties are not part of the approved API group then there is no mechanism (or requriement) for Groundspeak to communicate any such changes to them.

It seems some approved API group 3rd party software developers were not aware and not be prepared for this change...

 

However, this most recent change seems to have caught the 'partner' developers by surprise, and for good reason, they do not know what to best do with the new content. When gc.com makes such changes, I do not understand why all 3rd party partner organizations with access to the API would not be notified in advance of a change like that.

Edited by DanPan

Share this post


Link to post

I share AHA's objections too. At least for some of experienced geocachers the old report form "all-in-one-page" was of better use than this "feeding step by step with a teaspoon". Any chance of getting the optional link to the old form back?

 

For a comparsion have a look to Wikipedia: Their developers also gradually introduced lots of similar wannabe "progressive" features regarding skin, editing interface and - very similarly to our case - form for image uploads - but, what is important, they apparently have their users in higher esteem, because they keep the older variants functional and accessible for those users who prefer them.

 

OMG, bring back the original Coke. Please resurrect the OPTION to use the old entry method.

:like: +1000

 

Add my vote there, too. Us veterans don't need, nor request this kind of hand holding.

Share this post


Link to post

In all fairness Groundspeak does not have any control over "3rd party software" and if the 3rd parties are not part of the approved API group then there is no mechanism (or requriement) for Groundspeak to communicate any such changes to them.

The mechanism is the forums, the requirement is to avoid causing your customers unnecessary trouble.

 

Having said, I sympathize: I never understood the thinking behind the old names for multicast stages, and if I were in the developer's shoes, I probably would have thought it was an obvious and excellent correction of what was essentially a bug of the original names being dumb, so I could see myself overlooking the possibilities of people writing software that depends on the poor names that have been used until now. But in that case, I still would think I'd deserve to get grief over it.

Share this post


Link to post

Again, I believe you can create a listing with dummy data, zooming through the new interface, then edit the listing and be presented the original form, with some styling updates.

 

It would be nice what can be changed at a later time. Is it for example possible to start out with a multi cache or a traditional cache and change the type to mystery?

 

Or can only the text edited and further waypoints be added?

 

Without creating dummy listings which I do not want to do it is hard to foresee what can be done at a later stage and what needs to be done with the new form.

Share this post


Link to post

Again, I believe you can create a listing with dummy data, zooming through the new interface, then edit the listing and be presented the original form, with some styling updates.

 

It would be nice what can be changed at a later time. Is it for example possible to start out with a multi cache or a traditional cache and change the type to mystery?

 

Or can only the text edited and further waypoints be added?

 

Without creating dummy listings which I do not want to do it is hard to foresee what can be done at a later stage and what needs to be done with the new form.

 

I can't tell if this is an effort to slow down cache publishing (which it certainly will), just float out a precious series of pages and ignore feedback from those who would use them, or change for the sake of change. I'm sure we won't really be told. The question is, can I whip together a web app to get me back to where I once was... Yeah, I'm seriously looking at programming a work around for this mess.

Share this post


Link to post

Again, I believe you can create a listing with dummy data, zooming through the new interface, then edit the listing and be presented the original form, with some styling updates.

 

It would be nice what can be changed at a later time. Is it for example possible to start out with a multi cache or a traditional cache and change the type to mystery?

 

Or can only the text edited and further waypoints be added?

 

Without creating dummy listings which I do not want to do it is hard to foresee what can be done at a later stage and what needs to be done with the new form.

 

I can't tell if this is an effort to slow down cache publishing (which it certainly will), just float out a precious series of pages and ignore feedback from those who would use them, or change for the sake of change. I'm sure we won't really be told. The question is, can I whip together a web app to get me back to where I once was... Yeah, I'm seriously looking at programming a work around for this mess.

Where is locus prime and greasemonkey when you really need them?

Share this post


Link to post

Again, I believe you can create a listing with dummy data, zooming through the new interface, then edit the listing and be presented the original form, with some styling updates.

 

It would be nice what can be changed at a later time. Is it for example possible to start out with a multi cache or a traditional cache and change the type to mystery?

 

Or can only the text edited and further waypoints be added?

 

Without creating dummy listings which I do not want to do it is hard to foresee what can be done at a later stage and what needs to be done with the new form.

 

Yes, it's possible to change the cache type after you start filling out the page. I just changed my Unknown type to a multicache and it accepted the change.

 

And what thebruce0 said is the best way to handle this new form. Just zip through the initial wizard, putting in generic info and once you submit the listing, you can edit to your hearts content. Don't edit as you go along.

When I go in to edit my new listing that I created using the wizard, it's almost exactly like the old form.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, it's possible to change the cache type after you start filling out the page. I just changed my Unknown type to a multicache and it accepted the change.

 

Thank you. That's a very helpful information.

 

And what thebruce0 said is the best way to handle this new form. Just zip through the initial wizard, putting in generic info and once you submit the listing, you can edit to your hearts content. Don't edit as you go along.

When I go in to edit my new listing that I created using the wizard, it's almost exactly like the old form.

 

If indeed everything can still be changed at this stage of the process, I agree. I was worried that a part of the contents cannot be changed at this stage as Moun10Bike wrote somewhere (quite a while ago) that the change to the

new form is necessary to ensure proper treatment of the header coordinates. If the type can be changed later on this however means that either the checks are done at a later stage anyway too or that there is a way around these checks.

 

I do hope that when submitting caches with many waypoints with the workaround you and others have suggested, there will neither be issues nor a loss of efficiency for the submitting cacher nor the reviewers.

 

Even if the workaround, I do not really feel comfortable with the new process. It increases the number of required clicks and the waiting times considerably and I'm one of those users who already feels annoyed when a computer system asks questions of the type "Do you really want to delete this item?". I prefer experts modes to which I can switch and in general prefer actions that I can perform via the keyboard (I like editors like vi to give you an impression.) So in any case for users like me any type of wizward for a system I'm familiar with is a chore.

As I said before, I feel treated like a beginner.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

As far as eliminating the old cache input form, I agree with most all of the comments. The new form takes longer to work through, is really designed for new cachers, and makes it more difficult for experienced cachers. Can't we at least have an OPTION to use the old form?

Share this post


Link to post

What the HECK! Really... How are us geocachers that ALWAYS use the http://www.geocaching.com/hide/report.aspx link supposed to get caches published now. I'm NOT EVER WANTING TO USE THE NEW PROCESS! Why was this page Disabled.

 

PLEASE FIX THIS MAJOR BUG Immediately!

 

The Steaks

 

By using the new form at http://www.geocaching.com/hide/typelocation.aspx

Edited by baloo&bd

Share this post


Link to post

I hate the new "wizard" forms for entering new hides. It takes five times longer and is a royal PITA to have to continue between each bit of information.

 

PLEASE BRING BACK THE OPTION TO USE THE SINGLE PAGE FORM!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post

Again, I believe you can create a listing with dummy data, zooming through the new interface, then edit the listing and be presented the original form, with some styling updates.

 

It would be nice what can be changed at a later time. Is it for example possible to start out with a multi cache or a traditional cache and change the type to mystery?

 

Or can only the text edited and further waypoints be added?

 

Without creating dummy listings which I do not want to do it is hard to foresee what can be done at a later stage and what needs to be done with the new form.

 

Yes, it's possible to change the cache type after you start filling out the page. I just changed my Unknown type to a multicache and it accepted the change.

 

And what thebruce0 said is the best way to handle this new form. Just zip through the initial wizard, putting in generic info and once you submit the listing, you can edit to your hearts content. Don't edit as you go along.

When I go in to edit my new listing that I created using the wizard, it's almost exactly like the old form.

 

Crow,

 

What we're looking at here is the Work-around is becoming the norm.

 

That's revealing the flaw in the design process.

Edited by DragonsWest

Share this post


Link to post

Is anyone else having a problem downloading caches to their GPS unit. I use a Garmin Dakota 10, and since the update all I get is "The plug-in was not unlocked successfully". I have updated my plug-in a number of times, cleared internet cache and reset my GPS to no avail. I do most of my GPS connecting in Firefox but have tried 3 browsers and 2 different computers. I need help and not sure it is related to this release but I started getting the message about the same time this release came out.

Share this post


Link to post

Is anyone else having a problem downloading caches to their GPS unit. I use a Garmin Dakota 10, and since the update all I get is "The plug-in was not unlocked successfully". I have updated my plug-in a number of times, cleared internet cache and reset my GPS to no avail. I do most of my GPS connecting in Firefox but have tried 3 browsers and 2 different computers. I need help and not sure it is related to this release but I started getting the message about the same time this release came out.

 

This has been reported in other threads as well (use the search function). It only occurs if you use the send command from the map and not when you use it from the individual cache pages or the search page.

The reason for the error message appears to be that on the web https links are used and not http links.

For the moment you can only use the workaround not to send caches to your GPSr from the map.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Note that the workaround is simply going to the (still standard) cache editing page. If you edit any of your existing caches, you'll be presented the same single form as before (plus the visual 'enhancements'). Nothing has changed for that. We're simply creating a dummy listing, then editing it.

Share this post


Link to post

Note that the workaround is simply going to the (still standard) cache editing page. If you edit any of your existing caches, you'll be presented the same single form as before (plus the visual 'enhancements'). Nothing has changed for that. We're simply creating a dummy listing, then editing it.

 

I'm not sure whether powertrails can be set up as quickly as they could before, but I'm not a fan of powertrails anyway. The poster before you owns a large trail however.

It appears to me that the old form was easier to automate so that only the title and the coordinates need to be updated. Now the form requires quite some interaction in between is not of the one short type.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Long time ago, I used iMacros add-on for Firefox to automate some rather repetitive process on websites. It should be possible to use that to automate submission of a power trail with the new cache submission process (though, admittedly, slower).

 

If Groundspeak wants to support power trails, they should create a form to make that process simpler. Even automating the old form is a rather kludgy hack. Not sure if there's a mechanism in the API for cache submission, but I suspect not.

Edited by Chrysalides

Share this post


Link to post

If Groundspeak wants to support power trails, they should create a form to make that process simpler.

Maybe they no longer want to support power trails and the new form is a way to help deter them.

 

...we can only hope...

Share this post


Link to post

Just now I tried to register a new event cache, and found out the cache listing has been completely FUBARed. I'm trying to be nice here, but I'm quite pissed about this change, making it so much harder and quite frustrating just to get an event listed.

 

1) The old, simple, quick and easy one-page cache submission form is gone. That was the first WTF moment.

 

2) I filled in the new form with placeholder data, just to get everything in one place, then try to edit it again.

 

3) the D/T rating part in the new wizard doesn't work. At all. There is simply no radio button or anything to click on. This may be a browser compatibility issue - it just means you have to test your forms better, starting by making sure it's valid HTML (just use the w3validator or so).

 

4) Editing the cache gets me back a single page, good start. But: the editor is broken. Many characters are not what they should be; a > looks very different; the $ too. As a result I can't properly read my own HTML code.

 

It makes me feel like the old "maps change" all over again. There was the classic maps, and a perfectly working "beta maps" that everyone used. Then both were ditched, and far worse new maps were produced. Instead of using the working "beta maps".

 

Here the same problem: I once or twice tried the wizard, and while cumbersome it actually worked. Yet now both working options are being ditched, and a far less well tested single new option is presented.

 

Very, very bad practice. Very frustrating for us users. Change is fine, but make sure the new option is at least on par with the old option, and stop rollling out new features without thorough testing and/or fallback to the old, tried and tested versions!

Share this post


Link to post

Note that the workaround is simply going to the (still standard) cache editing page. If you edit any of your existing caches, you'll be presented the same single form as before (plus the visual 'enhancements'). Nothing has changed for that. We're simply creating a dummy listing, then editing it.

This still requires you to go through this whole wizard. It's not exactly a reasonable workaround. A lot of extra work to get back to that single page.

Share this post


Link to post
If Groundspeak wants to support power trails, they should create a form to make that process simpler.
Maybe a single form to list the entire numbers run trail, and even a single form to log the entire numbers run trail? Like this suggestion?

Share this post


Link to post

Note that the workaround is simply going to the (still standard) cache editing page. If you edit any of your existing caches, you'll be presented the same single form as before (plus the visual 'enhancements'). Nothing has changed for that. We're simply creating a dummy listing, then editing it.

This still requires you to go through this whole wizard. It's not exactly a reasonable workaround. A lot of extra work to get back to that single page.

Well, it is reasonable because it's a workaround. The alternative is, by clear opinion, not as desirable. So. It's up to you :P

If you can find a more reasonable workaround, please share!

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
If Groundspeak wants to support power trails, they should create a form to make that process simpler.
Maybe a single form to list the entire numbers run trail, and even a single form to log the entire numbers run trail? Like this suggestion?

A single form to list a power trail would be useful for power trail creators. A new cache type is probably not desirable (from the fewer-changes-are-better school of thought) and a single form to log the trail is unnecessary - there are tools already, and what if some of the caches are missing, or if I only did part of the trail?

Share this post


Link to post

What the HECK! Really... How are us geocachers that ALWAYS use the http://www.geocaching.com/hide/report.aspx link supposed to get caches published now. I'm NOT EVER WANTING TO USE THE NEW PROCESS! Why was this page Disabled.

 

PLEASE FIX THIS MAJOR BUG Immediately!

 

The Steaks

 

By using the new form at http://www.geocaching.com/hide/typelocation.aspx

That is the NEW form. I am specifically looking for the "Classic" or Old Cache publishing page. This is (for all intents and purposes) the SAME as the Edit page that is Currently on GC.com...

Share this post


Link to post

Note that the workaround is simply going to the (still standard) cache editing page. If you edit any of your existing caches, you'll be presented the same single form as before (plus the visual 'enhancements'). Nothing has changed for that. We're simply creating a dummy listing, then editing it.

 

I'm not sure whether powertrails can be set up as quickly as they could before, but I'm not a fan of powertrails anyway. The poster before you owns a large trail however.

It appears to me that the old form was easier to automate so that only the title and the coordinates need to be updated. Now the form requires quite some interaction in between is not of the one short type.

In response, the Powertrail that I've set up has 560 caches on it, and it took me all of 30 Mins to crunch thru every 60 caches or so. Using the (Ctrl+Tab), Click mouse, (Ctrl+V) for each of the fields, the ONLY thing that I had to go back thru and edit was the name(Addning #XXX), and Coordinates.

 

With the new page... I'm not even going to GUESS how long I'd take. I'm REALLY Glad that my trail was done Before this change. This change will add HOURS TO THE CACHE PLACING PROCESS!!!

Share this post


Link to post

Note that the workaround is simply going to the (still standard) cache editing page. If you edit any of your existing caches, you'll be presented the same single form as before (plus the visual 'enhancements'). Nothing has changed for that. We're simply creating a dummy listing, then editing it.

 

I'm not sure whether powertrails can be set up as quickly as they could before, but I'm not a fan of powertrails anyway. The poster before you owns a large trail however.

It appears to me that the old form was easier to automate so that only the title and the coordinates need to be updated. Now the form requires quite some interaction in between is not of the one short type.

In response, the Powertrail that I've set up has 560 caches on it, and it took me all of 30 Mins to crunch thru every 60 caches or so. Using the (Ctrl+Tab), Click mouse, (Ctrl+V) for each of the fields, the ONLY thing that I had to go back thru and edit was the name(Addning #XXX), and Coordinates.

 

With the new page... I'm not even going to GUESS how long I'd take. I'm REALLY Glad that my trail was done Before this change. This change will add HOURS TO THE CACHE PLACING PROCESS!!!

 

As has been mentioned, iMacros is a possible answer to doing a power trail. Set up the script and let it rip, then you have a whole bunch of mostly filled out cache pages to put the final polish on with the edit page.

Share this post


Link to post
If Groundspeak wants to support power trails, they should create a form to make that process simpler.
Maybe a single form to list the entire numbers run trail, and even a single form to log the entire numbers run trail? Like this suggestion?
A single form to list a power trail would be useful for power trail creators. A new cache type is probably not desirable (from the fewer-changes-are-better school of thought) and a single form to log the trail is unnecessary - there are tools already, and what if some of the caches are missing, or if I only did part of the trail?
If I do the entire ET Highway numbers run trail (0001-E.T. through 2400-E.T.) then I enter 2400 when I log the numbers run trail.

 

If some of the caches are missing, or if I only did part of the numbers run trail, then I enter 2371 or 642 or 1 when I log the numbers run trail.

Share this post


Link to post
If some of the caches are missing, or if I only did part of the numbers run trail, then I enter 2371 or 642 or 1 when I log the numbers run trail.

I guess we should continue this in your other thread. I'll follow my own suggestion and do that.

 

Edit : except that I see now the thread is 3 years old and I don't think I want to revive it. Besides, it looks like it was almost the first thing that was brought up. I still think the easiest solution for power trails would be for the user to upload a CSV file with coordinates and names of stages, fill in a form for the rest of the cache submission details, click, and hey presto, another 1000 cache power trail / geo art in the desert.

Edited by Chrysalides

Share this post


Link to post

hi there, on a listing I cant edit the starting coordinates - i solved a mystery cache and want to change its coordinates so that it shows in a PQ on the real location, not the set in system, but there is not more the edit option... is it a problem on my end?

Share this post


Link to post

hi there, on a listing I cant edit the starting coordinates - i solved a mystery cache and want to change its coordinates so that it shows in a PQ on the real location, not the set in system, but there is not more the edit option... is it a problem on my end?

You're right, I didn't even notice this! It's still in the HTML...

 

<a href="#" class="edit-cache-coordinates" id="uxLatLonLink" title="Correct these coordinates">

<strong>

<span id="uxLatLon">N 37° 19.976 W 121° 57.200</span></strong>

</a>

 

And the function buildCacheCoordMenu is still there.

 

Tested with Firefox and Internet Explorer.

Share this post


Link to post

Note that the workaround is simply going to the (still standard) cache editing page. If you edit any of your existing caches, you'll be presented the same single form as before (plus the visual 'enhancements'). Nothing has changed for that. We're simply creating a dummy listing, then editing it.

 

I'm not sure whether powertrails can be set up as quickly as they could before, but I'm not a fan of powertrails anyway. The poster before you owns a large trail however.

It appears to me that the old form was easier to automate so that only the title and the coordinates need to be updated. Now the form requires quite some interaction in between is not of the one short type.

In response, the Powertrail that I've set up has 560 caches on it, and it took me all of 30 Mins to crunch thru every 60 caches or so. Using the (Ctrl+Tab), Click mouse, (Ctrl+V) for each of the fields, the ONLY thing that I had to go back thru and edit was the name(Addning #XXX), and Coordinates.

 

With the new page... I'm not even going to GUESS how long I'd take. I'm REALLY Glad that my trail was done Before this change. This change will add HOURS TO THE CACHE PLACING PROCESS!!!

 

As has been mentioned, iMacros is a possible answer to doing a power trail. Set up the script and let it rip, then you have a whole bunch of mostly filled out cache pages to put the final polish on with the edit page.

 

I Just got back from GW12, and tried to set up iMacros with Placeholders. This would have been nice for the old page, but I can't seem to get it right. Can Someone send me the Macro that they have gotten to work(OR just post here so I can Paste it in...)

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10

×