Jump to content

Past Find D/T changed yesterday, D/T grid now incomplete


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

The purpose of the ratings for difficulty, terrain, and even size is to communicate with those who may seek my cache.

Yes, yes, of course I'm not arguing about whether rating should be accurate. I'm arguing whether it's the same cache. My opinion is that "blah, blah, 12-mile hike" is a different cache than "blah, blah, drive up and park" even if the 12 mile hike wasn't the purpose. But that's because for me caching is mostly about getting there. If the CO feels differently, that's OK, but that doesn't mean I won't question the decision. In particular, I'll ask why "Beautiful View" is so important that they wouldn't want to preserve the memory of its 12-mile hike by archiving it and replacing it with "Beautiful View Drive-Up" with all the same qualities except the rating is different and the description doesn't talk about the 12-mile hike. What is so important about keeping it actually the same cache?

 

Because it's the same box at the same location offering the same view?

Link to comment

The purpose of the ratings for difficulty, terrain, and even size is to communicate with those who may seek my cache.

Yes, yes, of course I'm not arguing about whether rating should be accurate. I'm arguing whether it's the same cache. My opinion is that "blah, blah, 12-mile hike" is a different cache than "blah, blah, drive up and park" even if the 12 mile hike wasn't the purpose. But that's because for me caching is mostly about getting there. If the CO feels differently, that's OK, but that doesn't mean I won't question the decision. In particular, I'll ask why "Beautiful View" is so important that they wouldn't want to preserve the memory of its 12-mile hike by archiving it and replacing it with "Beautiful View Drive-Up" with all the same qualities except the rating is different and the description doesn't talk about the 12-mile hike. What is so important about keeping it actually the same cache?

 

Because it's the same box at the same location offering the same view?

 

T = "getting there"

D = "finding it" (which also may include solving the puzzle)

 

Groundspeak allows you to change either or both at any time.

Groundspeak allows you to edit the coordinates (within reason). I'm not sure what the maximum distance is.

 

None of those things require archival and creation of a new listing. Unless and until they do, I will change the D/T ratings and the coordinates whenever and however I see fit...whenever and however it gives a more accurate picture of the current state of the cache. Only if the hide changes significantly (i.e., the land it's on gets redeveloped or flooded or the theme I apply to the description no longer applies due to some factor outside my control, etc.) will I archive it.

Link to comment

The purpose of the ratings for difficulty, terrain, and even size is to communicate with those who may seek my cache.

Yes, yes, of course I'm not arguing about whether rating should be accurate. I'm arguing whether it's the same cache. My opinion is that "blah, blah, 12-mile hike" is a different cache than "blah, blah, drive up and park" even if the 12 mile hike wasn't the purpose. But that's because for me caching is mostly about getting there. If the CO feels differently, that's OK, but that doesn't mean I won't question the decision. In particular, I'll ask why "Beautiful View" is so important that they wouldn't want to preserve the memory of its 12-mile hike by archiving it and replacing it with "Beautiful View Drive-Up" with all the same qualities except the rating is different and the description doesn't talk about the 12-mile hike. What is so important about keeping it actually the same cache?

*facepalm*

 

What you're saying is that the cache's description is what helps you decide to hunt a cache; you like caching where it is "mostly about getting there".

 

There is no reason to archive an old listing and create a new one if the cache is in the same spot. The listing can be updated to reflect changes in conditions.

 

But let's hash out this "12-mile hike" cache. To make it a lesser D/T rating, there would have to be something like a new road built, or a cutoff path put in to shorten the hike or give a "park and grab" feel to it. The cache itself didn't change. The area around it did.

 

The idea that the former cache should be archived, and a new cache published in its place is impractical and unnecessary. A listing can be edited instead of publishing a new cache--it puts the power in the owner's hands. A new cache listing requires a new listing from the owner, more time from the already busy Volunteer Reviewers, and adds more load to the server needs to maintain archived listings on Geocaching.com.

 

Not only that, but it also smells lightly of the mentality to put out more caches to add a new cache to an area or to add more finds to one's count. Cache permanence guidelines try to guide this behavior, but nobody can stop an owner from archiving and publishing a new cache. I just think a new cache listing for a cache that is already there with an active listing is more work for me, more work for cherished volunteers, and more unnecessary load on Groundspeak servers.

___

 

I'm starting to see a rift in the thought process here depending on enrollment date. Maybe it's just my eyes...

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

T = "getting there"

D = "finding it" (which also may include solving the puzzle)

 

Groundspeak allows you to change either or both at any time.

Groundspeak allows you to edit the coordinates (within reason). I'm not sure what the maximum distance is.

 

None of those things require archival and creation of a new listing. Unless and until they do, I will change the D/T ratings and the coordinates whenever and however I see fit...whenever and however it gives a more accurate picture of the current state of the cache. Only if the hide changes significantly (i.e., the land it's on gets redeveloped or flooded or the theme I apply to the description no longer applies due to some factor outside my control, etc.) will I archive it.

+100. Thank you.

Link to comment

What you're saying is that the cache's description is what helps you decide to hunt a cache; you like caching where it is "mostly about getting there".

No, what I'm saying is that getting there is an integral part of what a cache is. This actually (still) has nothing whatsoever to do with me and what I do. I'm just offering a reasoning to people prone to radically change ratings that I was hoping would give them a way to see the issue that, just by chance, agrees with the way people see it that are shocked by the effect on their grid of a radical change in rating. Y'all keep seeing it as a demand to keep ratings the same, but they see it as the fact they they found the cache when it had certain characteristics that they expected to remain constant, but instead the characteristics have been changed because, in fact, the experience in getting the cache is completely different. You see it as a paint job. They see it as a different cache.

 

OK, none of you agree with me. I think we're done here.

Link to comment

*facepalm*

 

What you're saying is that the cache's description is what helps you decide to hunt a cache; you like caching where it is "mostly about getting there".

 

There is no reason to archive an old listing and create a new one if the cache is in the same spot. The listing can be updated to reflect changes in conditions.

 

I'll see your facepalm and raise it.

 

Early on after starting geocaching, I use to say that "geocache" is made of two words, "geo" and "cache". I interpreted the "geo" part to be using GPS to navigate to ground-zero and "cache" to mean the search for the container once you got there. The great thing about our hobby is that incorporates both aspects. Simply finding hidden container without using GPS to navigate would be letterboxing and simply using GPS to navigate someplace without finding the hidden container would be Waymarking.

 

That doesn't mean that everyone will treat both parts equally. For some it will be more about finding the hidden container, while for others it is more about the journey to get to ground-zero.

 

I would argue that saying a cache where the nature of the journey changed is the same cache is the same as saying that a cache that is a different container hidden in a different style, but at roughly the same location is the same cache. The question is always how much change is enough to archive and make a new cache. For the most part, this is up to the cache owner. I have seen caches where a regular was replaced by a nano and the owner left this as the same cache. On the other hand I've seen people exchage a blue box for a green one and list this a new cache. I'm not sure we would ever reach consensus on when to archive and when not to.

 

I'd also argue the permanance issue is not relevant. Caches are never truly permanent. The permanence guideline was put in place to deal with the common practice of the time of hiding caches specifically for an event, often that were only findable the day of the event. Groundspeak chose an arbitrary limit of 3 months as a length of time a cache should be in place. But this is not really enforced. A cache owner can archive a cache whenever they want. I have seen reviewers refuse to publish a new cache if they believe that the owner archived a cache just to have a new cache. I find this a bit of a "wow" requirement in that reviewers are being asked to decided if the new cache is "different enough" from the original cache as to allow it to be published. Forturnately it doesn't occcur to often, since in most cases the old cache had already been in place for 3 months.

Link to comment

 

No, what I'm saying is that getting there is an integral part of what a cache is. This actually (still) has nothing whatsoever to do with me and what I do. I'm just offering a reasoning to people prone to radically change ratings that I was hoping would give them a way to see the issue that, just by chance, agrees with the way people see it that are shocked by the effect on their grid of a radical change in rating. Y'all keep seeing it as a demand to keep ratings the same, but they see it as the fact they they found the cache when it had certain characteristics that they expected to remain constant, but instead the characteristics have been changed because, in fact, the experience in getting the cache is completely different. You see it as a paint job. They see it as a different cache.

 

A change by 0.5* is definitely not a radical one. I do not think that the intent of the OP is to dicuss radical changes of the ratings. The grid is effected by small changes in the same way than by large changes.

 

A newly built road or a blocked road can also lead to turning a 15km hike into a 6km hike or vice versa. I think that in such a case the T-rating should be adapted, but even if the way to the cache is an integral part of the cache hunt, I do not think that a new listing is the best way to deal with such situations. If the D-rating of such a cache is high, it could well be that the D/T combination is a relatively rare one at least in some regions, but this should not keep cache hiders from updating the ratings to the current situation.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Cache owners should keep difficulty and terrain ratings as accurate as possible for the benefit of future finders.

 

Difficulty and terrain ratings are pieces of information to help cache finders know what to expect when they attempt to find a cache. They are not "credits."

 

+1

 

IM(not so)HO, I personally think geocaching is fun enough without having to collect achievements like so many Facebook games.

+2

Link to comment

Cache owners should keep difficulty and terrain ratings as accurate as possible for the benefit of future finders.

 

Difficulty and terrain ratings are pieces of information to help cache finders know what to expect when they attempt to find a cache. They are not "credits."

 

+1

 

IM(not so)HO, I personally think geocaching is fun enough without having to collect achievements like so many Facebook games.

+2

 

+π

Edited by nonaeroterraqueous
Link to comment

A change by 0.5* is definitely not a radical one. I do not think that the intent of the OP is to dicuss radical changes of the ratings. The grid is effected by small changes in the same way than by large changes.

Yes, I agree this is a little off topic, but we nevertheless got on the subject of extreme changes. The reason I claim it's only a little off topic is that in the extreme case, it should be easy to see the case for a new cache listing, even if you don't agree with the idea. Having grasped that point, in the subtle case, particularly a minor correction where one wouldn't normally create a new listing, one might think about it when the change makes a significant difference to a grid filler even if it isn't important to the CO.

 

But I see that the consensus is antagonistic towards grid fillers, not merely neutral.

Link to comment

The purpose of the ratings for difficulty, terrain, and even size is to communicate with those who may seek my cache.

Yes, yes, of course I'm not arguing about whether rating should be accurate. I'm arguing whether it's the same cache. My opinion is that "blah, blah, 12-mile hike" is a different cache than "blah, blah, drive up and park" even if the 12 mile hike wasn't the purpose. But that's because for me caching is mostly about getting there. If the CO feels differently, that's OK, but that doesn't mean I won't question the decision. In particular, I'll ask why "Beautiful View" is so important that they wouldn't want to preserve the memory of its 12-mile hike by archiving it and replacing it with "Beautiful View Drive-Up" with all the same qualities except the rating is different and the description doesn't talk about the 12-mile hike. What is so important about keeping it actually the same cache?

 

That's the sole discretion of the cache owner.

Link to comment

But I see that the consensus is antagonistic towards grid fillers, not merely neutral.

 

It's due to the expectation that the CO must preserve their incorrect D/T ratings for all future finders for just a few past finders. This discussion would not be taking place if it was a common D/T change, such as a 1.5/2 to a 2/2, or of the other 70 types. The cacher knows they completed it, the CO can confirm it, but they want it displayed as a trophy on their grid. I can feel for them a little up until they make a big stink about it, then my feelings reverse. Sorry, my opinion is that the game does not revolve around a side game. It seems a little of an egotistical demand.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

*facepalm*

 

What you're saying is that the cache's description is what helps you decide to hunt a cache; you like caching where it is "mostly about getting there".

 

There is no reason to archive an old listing and create a new one if the cache is in the same spot. The listing can be updated to reflect changes in conditions.

 

I'll see your facepalm and raise it.

 

Early on after starting geocaching, I use to say that "geocache" is made of two words, "geo" and "cache". I interpreted the "geo" part to be using GPS to navigate to ground-zero and "cache" to mean the search for the container once you got there. The great thing about our hobby is that incorporates both aspects. Simply finding hidden container without using GPS to navigate would be letterboxing and simply using GPS to navigate someplace without finding the hidden container would be Waymarking.

 

That doesn't mean that everyone will treat both parts equally. For some it will be more about finding the hidden container, while for others it is more about the journey to get to ground-zero.

 

I would argue that saying a cache where the nature of the journey changed is the same cache is the same as saying that a cache that is a different container hidden in a different style, but at roughly the same location is the same cache. The question is always how much change is enough to archive and make a new cache. For the most part, this is up to the cache owner. I have seen caches where a regular was replaced by a nano and the owner left this as the same cache. On the other hand I've seen people exchage a blue box for a green one and list this a new cache. I'm not sure we would ever reach consensus on when to archive and when not to.

 

I'd also argue the permanance issue is not relevant. Caches are never truly permanent. The permanence guideline was put in place to deal with the common practice of the time of hiding caches specifically for an event, often that were only findable the day of the event. Groundspeak chose an arbitrary limit of 3 months as a length of time a cache should be in place. But this is not really enforced. A cache owner can archive a cache whenever they want. I have seen reviewers refuse to publish a new cache if they believe that the owner archived a cache just to have a new cache. I find this a bit of a "wow" requirement in that reviewers are being asked to decided if the new cache is "different enough" from the original cache as to allow it to be published. Forturnately it doesn't occcur to often, since in most cases the old cache had already been in place for 3 months.

I could say I'm with you on this, but cache pages are deliberately created by Groundspeak to be able to be edited. Situations change, and D/T combos were developed here in the forums to assist cachers in their hunt. It was a way to know what you were getting into before even departing your home.

 

Now, yes, we can talk about new containers, or new "style" might change a cache significantly, but that is a different subject altogether. (We can save that squirrel for another time.) The bottom line is that a cache that might lose a 1/2 or full star for some reason or another is not reason enough for a new cache listing. We as cache owners can edit a page and adjust for seasonality, new paths, new roads, removal or paths or roads, etc. (That's for the "T" rating.) We can also adjust the D rating if we notice that a cache isn't as difficult as we first thought when we placed it, if it becomes more obvious where to look for the cache (a LPC cache long ago may have been a 2-3* D, but is now a 1-2*, in most opinions, e.g.), or if we find that a hide (nano in the woods, anyone?) is tougher than first rated at publishing.

 

If anything, D/T ratings should see more adjustment from feedback in the online logs and logbook. I get pretty chuffed when a nano in the woods without a giveaway hint is actually rated a 3.5/2 (or whatever applies to the hide; hintless nanos in the woods are certainly not a 1/2 D/T, know what I mean?). I get pretty frustrated when I look up a cache that says 2/1 and find it a 1/2 mile bushwhack, or when I prepare for a 2/4.5 and find that I can walk right to it in 400 unimpeded, unimpressive feet of distance.

 

That's really what the *facepalm* was about. If you take the time to plan your caching for the journey, I would guess that accurate D/T would be more important than filling one's grid, or getting upset if an owner adjusts their cache to be more accurate in rating D/T.

Link to comment

The purpose of the ratings for difficulty, terrain, and even size is to communicate with those who may seek my cache.

Yes, yes, of course I'm not arguing about whether rating should be accurate. I'm arguing whether it's the same cache. My opinion is that "blah, blah, 12-mile hike" is a different cache than "blah, blah, drive up and park" even if the 12 mile hike wasn't the purpose. But that's because for me caching is mostly about getting there. If the CO feels differently, that's OK, but that doesn't mean I won't question the decision. In particular, I'll ask why "Beautiful View" is so important that they wouldn't want to preserve the memory of its 12-mile hike by archiving it and replacing it with "Beautiful View Drive-Up" with all the same qualities except the rating is different and the description doesn't talk about the 12-mile hike. What is so important about keeping it actually the same cache?

 

That's the sole discretion of the cache owner.

If the cache was hidden first with as a "blah, blah, 12-mile hike", but then became a "blah, blah, drive up and park", it is still the same cache, but with an opportunity to update the description. I fail to see why an owner would put themselves and their Volunteer Reviewer through the additional work of creating and approving a new listing, when the old listing edited with sole discretion of the owner would suffice for the "new" situation for finding that container at the same coordinates.

 

To use the inaccurate, yet oft-repeated iconic example, the "Un-Original Stash" (2000) is now a "Park and Grab". It wasn't to start with. The area became trod upon, the bushwhacking was decreased, and the road crews widened the road and extended the turnout. The hide was still the hide, and still is today. All the owner needs to do is update the description to reflect the current situation. Heck, if 10 feet of snow falls, they could up the difficulty and terrain while the snow is on the ground. (I remember when people used to do that regularly, or at least mention it in the description how the D/T would need to be adjusted for seasonality.) If they closed that road permanently, all the owner needs to do is change the D/T to reflect the increase in hike distance to get to that cache with a closed road in the way.

 

So again, I struggle to see why anyone would bother with archiving a cache and publishing a new one just for a change in the way a cache is rated. The only reason I can think of is if 1. The hide itself really has changed significantly (new container, container size, camouflage, e.g.) or, 2a. they just want to put out another cache to pad hide stats, or 2b. see other caches published to pad their find stats.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

That's the sole discretion of the cache owner.

I agree completely and have never said anything different.

 

I can feel for them a little up until they make a big stink about it, then my feelings reverse.

I don't really care for the idea of turning against someone because they got overly emotional about a subject. But honestly, I've never seen a big stink, I've only seen people express disappointment and ask for guidance, as the OP did.

Link to comment

I'm sorry if I didn't have the patience to read through the four pages so far, but Terrain and Difficulty ratings are made to assist individuals in determining if the cache is right for them, and what may be involved in pursuing the cache. I look at how cachers use them as "trophies" to complete a grid is a side-game, much like the first-to-find craze, or the ranking of finds.

 

If some significant change is made to the surroundings of a cache, and the terrain/difficulty significantly changes, shouldn't the ratings reflect that? If the cache had been a terrain 5 because it was on an island only accessible by boat and the park district made a foot bridge right to the cache, shouldn't the terrain be lowered? Or vice versa - if the bridge that made it a 1 star terrain was washed out and now the cache is only accessible by boat, I don't think anyone would think it proper to leave it as a 1 start terrain simply to help complete a "grid".

 

Too bad you didn't bother to read the thread. We aren't discussing a T5 or a T1. We're talking about a T4.5 downgraded to a T4. I really expect moderators to read threads.

Edited by Dame Deco
Link to comment

If the cache was hidden first with as a "blah, blah, 12-mile hike", but then became a "blah, blah, drive up and park", it is still the same cache, but with an opportunity to update the description. I fail to see why an owner would put themselves and their Volunteer Reviewer through the additional work of creating and approving a new listing, when the old listing edited with sole discretion of the owner would suffice for the "new" situation for finding that container at the same coordinates.

I had a puzzle cach that seemed to be harder than I intended, so I decided to remove the puzzle and just make it a traditional. But my reviewer said it was not the same cache and that I had archive it and re-list it as a traditional.

 

I guess the reviewer was wrong. Or is there something fundamentally different when the difficulty changed because there is no puzzle than when the terrain changes because there is a new road?

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

If the cache was hidden first with as a "blah, blah, 12-mile hike", but then became a "blah, blah, drive up and park", it is still the same cache, but with an opportunity to update the description. I fail to see why an owner would put themselves and their Volunteer Reviewer through the additional work of creating and approving a new listing, when the old listing edited with sole discretion of the owner would suffice for the "new" situation for finding that container at the same coordinates.

I had a puzzle cach that seemed to be harder than I intended, so I decided to remove the puzzle and just make it a traditional. But my reviewer said it was not the same cache and that I had archive it and re-list it as a traditional.

 

I guess the reviewer was wrong. Or is there something fundamentally different when the difficulty changed because there is no puzzle than when the terrain changes because there is a new road?

The fundamentally change was cache type - Mystery/Puzzle to Traditional, a very big change. Much more so than the difficulty change due to removal of the puzzle.

Link to comment

Because D/T matrix is so important to many folks, the cache owner should change the D/T ranking if it was inappropriate.

 

Many T4.5 caches are overestimated. It's not fair for people, who have made 'real' T4.5.

On the other side, many low T caches are underestimated, for example T2 caches that require climbing.

 

If you miss T4.5 caches, you should look for real ones, and not storms*** owner to keep incorrect ranking.

Link to comment

I'm sorry if I didn't have the patience to read through the four pages so far, but Terrain and Difficulty ratings are made to assist individuals in determining if the cache is right for them, and what may be involved in pursuing the cache. I look at how cachers use them as "trophies" to complete a grid is a side-game, much like the first-to-find craze, or the ranking of finds.

 

If some significant change is made to the surroundings of a cache, and the terrain/difficulty significantly changes, shouldn't the ratings reflect that? If the cache had been a terrain 5 because it was on an island only accessible by boat and the park district made a foot bridge right to the cache, shouldn't the terrain be lowered? Or vice versa - if the bridge that made it a 1 star terrain was washed out and now the cache is only accessible by boat, I don't think anyone would think it proper to leave it as a 1 start terrain simply to help complete a "grid".

 

Too bad you didn't bother to read the thread. We aren't discussing a T5 or a T1. We're talking about a T4.5 downgraded to a T4. I really expect moderators to read threads.

 

Its more than an individual discussion, but a general one. Should every cacher research their hide to see how rare the D/T is before making a decision to keep it accurate for future finders, or to lionize it for a few past ones? There are plenty of cache owners that don't care to do that.
Link to comment

I can feel for them a little up until they make a big stink about it, then my feelings reverse.

I don't really care for the idea of turning against someone because they got overly emotional about a subject. But honestly, I've never seen a big stink, I've only seen people express disappointment and ask for guidance, as the OP did.

 

Well, if I learned that I altered someones grid and that they were unhappy about it, the closest solution would be to create another hide that had the special D/T.

 

Another solution would be to program the grid to have a static display. That could be rather difficult and could lead to people logging finds and then deleting them just to fill the grid.

Link to comment

I'm sorry, but I just don't get this whole thing.

 

Why can't finders keep a record of the D/T ratings of the cache when they find it? That's what I do. Excel or a similar spreadsheet program works very well for this purpose. Or, if you use GSAK, you can have it not update the terrain or difficulty when it reads in your new My Finds PQ.

 

Why is it that we expect geocaching.com to do all the work for us? Challenges are fun, but they were never intended to prevent hiders from keeping terrain and difficulty current.

Link to comment

... Or, if you use GSAK, you can have it not update the terrain or difficulty when it reads in your new My Finds PQ.

 

Why is it that we expect geocaching.com to do all the work for us? ...

 

I don't have a beef with the way D/T ratings are held either way, but we expect/hope geocaching.com "to do the work for us" because it's their site and they write the code. If their customers want a feature adding/changing it's reasonable for the customers to ask them to do it.

 

I get really annoyed when someone asks for some change on these forums, and the stock mantra from many quarters is "use GSAK and there's a macro to do that". Why should paying customers have to pay for another app, or jump through hoops maintaining their own spreadsheets/databases when the basic function should be provided by the site in the first place.

Link to comment

... Or, if you use GSAK, you can have it not update the terrain or difficulty when it reads in your new My Finds PQ.

 

Why is it that we expect geocaching.com to do all the work for us? ...

 

I get really annoyed when someone asks for some change on these forums, and the stock mantra from many quarters is "use GSAK and there's a macro to do that". Why should paying customers have to pay for another app, or jump through hoops maintaining their own spreadsheets/databases when the basic function should be provided by the site in the first place.

 

You snipped the part where I recommended a non-GSAK solution. Hmm... I don't use GSAK for this purpose myself.

 

But expecting geocaching.com to magically record the complete history of terrain and difficulty ratings for all caches so that your statistics will be correct as of the date you claimed the find just seems excessive to me. It would be a database nightmare. Hardly a "basic function."

Link to comment

The purpose of the ratings for difficulty, terrain, and even size is to communicate with those who may seek my cache.

Yes, yes, of course I'm not arguing about whether rating should be accurate. I'm arguing whether it's the same cache. My opinion is that "blah, blah, 12-mile hike" is a different cache than "blah, blah, drive up and park" even if the 12 mile hike wasn't the purpose. But that's because for me caching is mostly about getting there. If the CO feels differently, that's OK, but that doesn't mean I won't question the decision. In particular, I'll ask why "Beautiful View" is so important that they wouldn't want to preserve the memory of its 12-mile hike by archiving it and replacing it with "Beautiful View Drive-Up" with all the same qualities except the rating is different and the description doesn't talk about the 12-mile hike. What is so important about keeping it actually the same cache?

 

Because it's the same box at the same location offering the same view?

 

T = "getting there"

D = "finding it" (which also may include solving the puzzle)

 

Groundspeak allows you to change either or both at any time.

Groundspeak allows you to edit the coordinates (within reason). I'm not sure what the maximum distance is.

 

None of those things require archival and creation of a new listing. Unless and until they do, I will change the D/T ratings and the coordinates whenever and however I see fit...whenever and however it gives a more accurate picture of the current state of the cache. Only if the hide changes significantly (i.e., the land it's on gets redeveloped or flooded or the theme I apply to the description no longer applies due to some factor outside my control, etc.) will I archive it.

 

I assume you're agreeing with me there? As you say the bit you hid remains the same and you change the listing to reflect what's going on around it.

Link to comment

A change by 0.5* is definitely not a radical one. I do not think that the intent of the OP is to dicuss radical changes of the ratings. The grid is effected by small changes in the same way than by large changes.

Yes, I agree this is a little off topic, but we nevertheless got on the subject of extreme changes. The reason I claim it's only a little off topic is that in the extreme case, it should be easy to see the case for a new cache listing, even if you don't agree with the idea. Having grasped that point, in the subtle case, particularly a minor correction where one wouldn't normally create a new listing, one might think about it when the change makes a significant difference to a grid filler even if it isn't important to the CO.

 

But I see that the consensus is antagonistic towards grid fillers, not merely neutral.

 

I think that if it's considered "fair" to change a T5 cache to T1 if a new wheelchair-accessible cable car makes the remote mountaintop wheelchair accessible then it's certainly fair to change a T4.5 cache to T4 if the owner realises that 4.5 is a little overstated.

 

I don't really care if people want to fill grids, a few years back I set out to fill my calendar (which was easier than filling the D/T grid) but that sort of goal is incidental to the primary game of finding things people have hidden.

Link to comment

... Or, if you use GSAK, you can have it not update the terrain or difficulty when it reads in your new My Finds PQ.

 

Why is it that we expect geocaching.com to do all the work for us? ...

 

I get really annoyed when someone asks for some change on these forums, and the stock mantra from many quarters is "use GSAK and there's a macro to do that". Why should paying customers have to pay for another app, or jump through hoops maintaining their own spreadsheets/databases when the basic function should be provided by the site in the first place.

 

You snipped the part where I recommended a non-GSAK solution. Hmm... I don't use GSAK for this purpose myself.

 

But expecting geocaching.com to magically record the complete history of terrain and difficulty ratings for all caches so that your statistics will be correct as of the date you claimed the find just seems excessive to me. It would be a database nightmare. Hardly a "basic function."

 

@MartyBartfast - I agree it makes sense for Groundspeak to provide functionality rather than assuming that Someone Else will figure it all out. I got a bit tired of twiddling with my own software to do stuff I'd have hoped the site would have done for me, especially since Groundspeak seems to have the resources to make whatever changes they make that keep breaking stuff.

 

@fizzymagic - it should actually be pretty straightforward to add the D/T combo to the find log and record it at the time a log was written, and then the grid could be populated based on querying someone's find logs rather than having to link the logs table to the caches table. It could even be backfilled, although only with the D/T ratings that currently apply. If anything it should result in faster queries and less load on the server. In practise, as I said elsewhere (maybe on this thread), given the frequency with which Groundspeak makes releases that break stuff I shudder to think how badly they could screw up a change to the logging functionality.

Link to comment

 

But expecting geocaching.com to magically record the complete history of terrain and difficulty ratings for all caches so that your statistics will be correct as of the date you claimed the find just seems excessive to me. It would be a database nightmare. Hardly a "basic function."

But the suggestion made above (and it's the first time I've ever seen it during numerous discussions on this subject) is not to record the ratings for all caches, it's to add a field to each found log recording the terrain/difficulty at the point it was logged, that wouldn't impinge on the database, just a matter of adding a field in the log which the cacher can't change once it's been recorded, so I would class it as pretty basic. After all GC.com actively encourage/support the creation of challenge caches so why is it unreasonable to ask them to do the coding?

Link to comment

 

But expecting geocaching.com to magically record the complete history of terrain and difficulty ratings for all caches so that your statistics will be correct as of the date you claimed the find just seems excessive to me. It would be a database nightmare. Hardly a "basic function."

But the suggestion made above (and it's the first time I've ever seen it during numerous discussions on this subject) is not to record the ratings for all caches, it's to add a field to each found log recording the terrain/difficulty at the point it was logged, that wouldn't impinge on the database, just a matter of adding a field in the log which the cacher can't change once it's been recorded, so I would class it as pretty basic. After all GC.com actively encourage/support the creation of challenge caches so why is it unreasonable to ask them to do the coding?

 

Seems simple, but it's not. What do you do when somebody waits for a while to log the cache and the D/T changes between when they find and and when they log it? What happens when somebody changes a user name and needs to re-log all their finds?

 

You might think that these cases shouldn't matter but believe me, they will come up and it is a support nightmare.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment

 

But expecting geocaching.com to magically record the complete history of terrain and difficulty ratings for all caches so that your statistics will be correct as of the date you claimed the find just seems excessive to me. It would be a database nightmare. Hardly a "basic function."

But the suggestion made above (and it's the first time I've ever seen it during numerous discussions on this subject) is not to record the ratings for all caches, it's to add a field to each found log recording the terrain/difficulty at the point it was logged, that wouldn't impinge on the database, just a matter of adding a field in the log which the cacher can't change once it's been recorded, so I would class it as pretty basic. After all GC.com actively encourage/support the creation of challenge caches so why is it unreasonable to ask them to do the coding?

 

Seems simple, but it's not. What do you do when somebody waits for a while to log the cache and the D/T changes between when they find and and when they log it? What happens when somebody changes a user name and needs to re-log all their finds?

 

You might think that these cases shouldn't matter but believe me, they will come up and it is a support nightmare.

 

And what happens when the CO puts out a high D/T cache for friends, and then drops the D/T for everyone else?

 

Or when CO's start putting out 'flexi' caches to help people complete their grids? Chuck out a trail of caches 161m apart and let people know that they should send you a list of the combinations they need prior to logging and change them to suit as and when required.

Link to comment

Seems simple, but it's not. What do you do when somebody waits for a while to log the cache and the D/T changes between when they find and and when they log it? What happens when somebody changes a user name and needs to re-log all their finds?

I was suggesting that the implemetation is simple, and it certainly should be.

 

And what happens when the CO puts out a high D/T cache for friends, and then drops the D/T for everyone else?

 

Or when CO's start putting out 'flexi' caches to help people complete their grids? Chuck out a trail of caches 161m apart and let people know that they should send you a list of the combinations they need prior to logging and change them to suit as and when required.

 

All the problems listed in both replies exist under the current system, and what was proposed above won't resolve them, indeed I think the issue of re-logging old finds is practically irresolvable, however above all those you just listed I think the bigger and more frequent issue is the one in the OP, whereby a cache's ratings is changed after a cacher found it and it screws up their stats, the proposal in the OP WOULD resolve that, and it's a step forward. Should we stand still simply because we can't reach our goal one go, or should we advance a little at a time towards our goal?

Link to comment

All the problems listed in both replies exist under the current system, and what was proposed above won't resolve them, indeed I think the issue of re-logging old finds is practically irresolvable, however above all those you just listed I think the bigger and more frequent issue is the one in the OP, whereby a cache's ratings is changed after a cacher found it and it screws up their stats, the proposal in the OP WOULD resolve that, and it's a step forward. Should we stand still simply because we can't reach our goal one go, or should we advance a little at a time towards our goal?

 

Our goal?

 

It's not my goal - I'm quite happy with the current setup thanks :)

 

If I were seeking to say, qualify for a challenge, I'd log the necessary caches, take a screenshot of the relevant grid on the day and upload it as proof of my qualification. If CO's changed D/T after that it wouldn't affect me, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Link to comment

 

But expecting geocaching.com to magically record the complete history of terrain and difficulty ratings for all caches so that your statistics will be correct as of the date you claimed the find just seems excessive to me. It would be a database nightmare. Hardly a "basic function."

But the suggestion made above (and it's the first time I've ever seen it during numerous discussions on this subject) is not to record the ratings for all caches, it's to add a field to each found log recording the terrain/difficulty at the point it was logged, that wouldn't impinge on the database, just a matter of adding a field in the log which the cacher can't change once it's been recorded, so I would class it as pretty basic. After all GC.com actively encourage/support the creation of challenge caches so why is it unreasonable to ask them to do the coding?

 

Seems simple, but it's not. What do you do when somebody waits for a while to log the cache and the D/T changes between when they find and and when they log it? What happens when somebody changes a user name and needs to re-log all their finds?

 

You might think that these cases shouldn't matter but believe me, they will come up and it is a support nightmare.

 

And what happens when the CO puts out a high D/T cache for friends, and then drops the D/T for everyone else?

 

Probably much the same as they could put out a custom D/T cache for friends and archive it once all the chosen ones have found it. They don't even need to put a box out there, just have a few people claim finds and when the DNFs roll in say it must have been muggled and they don't want to make a new custom box that fits.

 

Or when CO's start putting out 'flexi' caches to help people complete their grids? Chuck out a trail of caches 161m apart and let people know that they should send you a list of the combinations they need prior to logging and change them to suit as and when required.

 

Ultimately if people want to cheat they'll cheat. I'd hazard a guess that a lot of COs don't check their cache logs against the web site so it should be pretty easy to armchair log a few finds. Or throw a few hides out there along your powertrail where you have to climb the tree, make it an insanely difficult puzzle so nobody is going to be able to solve it, let your friends log it and then archive it saying so many people were unable to solve it and you can't think of a way to make it any easier.

 

I'd really say if people split a caching account they get to deal with any D/T changes along the way. If they find a cache and don't log it for a long time they get to deal with any changes. As long as the rules are known in advance it's perfectly reasonable to say "deal with it".

Link to comment

 

But expecting geocaching.com to magically record the complete history of terrain and difficulty ratings for all caches so that your statistics will be correct as of the date you claimed the find just seems excessive to me. It would be a database nightmare. Hardly a "basic function."

But the suggestion made above (and it's the first time I've ever seen it during numerous discussions on this subject) is not to record the ratings for all caches, it's to add a field to each found log recording the terrain/difficulty at the point it was logged, that wouldn't impinge on the database, just a matter of adding a field in the log which the cacher can't change once it's been recorded, so I would class it as pretty basic. After all GC.com actively encourage/support the creation of challenge caches so why is it unreasonable to ask them to do the coding?

 

Seems simple, but it's not. What do you do when somebody waits for a while to log the cache and the D/T changes between when they find and and when they log it? What happens when somebody changes a user name and needs to re-log all their finds?

 

You might think that these cases shouldn't matter but believe me, they will come up and it is a support nightmare.

 

And what happens when the CO puts out a high D/T cache for friends, and then drops the D/T for everyone else?

 

Or when CO's start putting out 'flexi' caches to help people complete their grids? Chuck out a trail of caches 161m apart and let people know that they should send you a list of the combinations they need prior to logging and change them to suit as and when required.

I think the last thing on Groundspeak's mind is whether someone will "cheat" or game the system to qualify for challenge.

 

Groundspeak has made it clear that it is up to the owner of a challenge to consider how they will substantiate claims that the geocaching challenge was met. Groundspeak is unlikely to create addition records just to allow a challenge owner to define some weird condition for qualifying. What they have said is that challenges relying solely on third-party software for verification will not be published.

 

One certainly can keep a list of D/T on caches when you find them to show you may have completed a grid square and then the D/T was changed later. The main issue, that Groundspeak hasn't answered is that the challenge criteria [...] must be verifiable through information on the Geocaching.com website. Since it is not clear that D/T changes are recorded anywhere, it would be hard to enforce a requirement that depends on what the D/T rating was on a certain date.

 

My guess is that most fizzy challenge owners are fairly accepting of claims by someone who says they had a square filled in but the D/T rating changed. Some people may feel their knickers bunch up when they discover this, after all you can always claim you found a cache that had the D/T combination you are missing and say that the owner changed the the rating after you found the cache. For most people, this chance that someone might cheat doesn't affect their underwear one bit. Since the main reason people try to fill in their grid is the sense of accomplishment in doing so, there isn't much incentive to "cheat". If someone wants the one extra WIGAS point for finding the challenge so much that they claim an accomplishment they didn't really do, I may feel sorry for them, but my knickers won't be needing any adjustment.

Link to comment

Groundspeak has made it clear that it is up to the owner of a challenge to consider how they will substantiate claims that the geocaching challenge was met.

I thought the whole point of why challenge caches are allowable ALRs and all other ALRs were disallowed was because challenges could be indisputably verified, i.e. either they found the qualifying caches or not. If now, due to changing D/T grids, etc. it can be argued that challenges could be just as disputable as far as verification goes, that hinders the whole basis on why they should be allowed and other ALRs shouldn't. It should be clear cut as to whether one qualifies for a challenge, otherwise it's no different than any other tpyes of ALRs, which are not permitted.

 

The D/T rating is at the sole discretion of the cache owner, however if possible it should be possible for the system to keep in a cacher's stats the D/T rating at the time the cache was found. If a D/T rating changes, either due to actual change in conditions, or because the owner thought it needed to be adjusted, that shouldn't affect past finders. If a cache is rated 4/5 when someone finds it, thenm later becomes a 2/5, it should stay in the finder's stats (and grid) as a 4/5. If the system lacks a way to do that, and it must show up for anyone who ever found it's current D/T rating of 2/5, then that's a flaw in the system.

Link to comment
I thought the whole point of why challenge caches are allowable ALRs and all other ALRs were disallowed was because challenges could be indisputably verified, i.e. either they found the qualifying caches or not.
That isn't how I remember it at all. The reason Challenge Caches are allowed is that they are "geocaching-related qualifications" rather than arbitrary requirements like writing your online log in rhyming verse, or posting a photo of yourself wearing a costume that the CO provided.

 

There are other rules now, such as the rule that requirements be positive accomplishments (as opposed to negative "non-accomplishments" like DNFs), or that requirements not involve winning a competition (like the FTF race). And the guidelines do recommend that cache owners "consider" how claims that the requirements have been met will be substantiated.

 

But the reason Challenge Caches are allowed and ALRs are not allowed has nothing to do with that. The reason is that Challenge Caches are "geocaching-related".

Edited by niraD
Link to comment
it should be possible for the system to keep in a cacher's stats the D/T rating at the time the cache was found. ... If the system lacks a way to do that ... then that's a flaw in the system.

 

Very much so.

 

I am still waiting for a reviewer to confirm/deny that a cache listing has an edit history, which may or may not include D/T changes.

 

If they're not allowed to confirm/deny, could they at least say so? I expect the Groundspeak Cone Of Silence from the lackeys, but not the volunteers.

Link to comment

If the cache was hidden first with as a "blah, blah, 12-mile hike", but then became a "blah, blah, drive up and park", it is still the same cache, but with an opportunity to update the description. I fail to see why an owner would put themselves and their Volunteer Reviewer through the additional work of creating and approving a new listing, when the old listing edited with sole discretion of the owner would suffice for the "new" situation for finding that container at the same coordinates.

I had a puzzle cach that seemed to be harder than I intended, so I decided to remove the puzzle and just make it a traditional. But my reviewer said it was not the same cache and that I had archive it and re-list it as a traditional.

 

I guess the reviewer was wrong. Or is there something fundamentally different when the difficulty changed because there is no puzzle than when the terrain changes because there is a new road?

The fundamentally change was cache type - Mystery/Puzzle to Traditional, a very big change. Much more so than the difficulty change due to removal of the puzzle.

Precisely. Thanks, Jester.

Link to comment

If the cache was hidden first with as a "blah, blah, 12-mile hike", but then became a "blah, blah, drive up and park", it is still the same cache, but with an opportunity to update the description. I fail to see why an owner would put themselves and their Volunteer Reviewer through the additional work of creating and approving a new listing, when the old listing edited with sole discretion of the owner would suffice for the "new" situation for finding that container at the same coordinates.

I had a puzzle cach that seemed to be harder than I intended, so I decided to remove the puzzle and just make it a traditional. But my reviewer said it was not the same cache and that I had archive it and re-list it as a traditional.

 

I guess the reviewer was wrong. Or is there something fundamentally different when the difficulty changed because there is no puzzle than when the terrain changes because there is a new road?

The fundamentally change was cache type - Mystery/Puzzle to Traditional, a very big change. Much more so than the difficulty change due to removal of the puzzle.

Precisely. Thanks, Jester.

The fundamental difference was that one is a change that the cache owner can make and the other involves a reviewer.

At one time users could change the cache type without a reviewer being involved. It was common for people to change puzzle or multis to traditional, or change traditional to a puzzle or multi, or change anything to a virtual if the container disappeared. Eventually, due to the changes to virtual caches, the ability for a user to change cache types was removed. While the example I gave above is made up, I actually did have a multi-cache where the first stage was destroyed in a forest fire. When I went to replace it, there was nothing left where I could hide something at those coordinates, so I asked the reviewer to change the cache to a traditional and change the coordinates over 1 mile to be those of the final stage. And in this case the reveiwer was happy to make the change.

 

My point is that it is totally arbitrary what changes make something a "different" cache and what changes are simply updating the description. I believe this should be left up to the cache owner. I also believe that given the objectives of many challenges, that making a new listing is not a terrible choice as it avoids the issue brought up in the OP.

 

While may be an objection by people who are WIGAS-intolerant because the new cache may give someone the opportunity to log another find, this is just another example of people getting their knickers in a twist over a game where there's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy.

Link to comment

There would be no twisting of knickers if the programmers understood (and dealt with) the temporal anomaly created by linking current conditions with a past event.

 

The cache has a certain D/T at the time and date at which it was logged. This may or may not relate to the current D/T, and the log should reflect that, by embedding the D/T in it.

 

It's not rocket surgery.

Link to comment

If the cache was hidden first with as a "blah, blah, 12-mile hike", but then became a "blah, blah, drive up and park", it is still the same cache, but with an opportunity to update the description. I fail to see why an owner would put themselves and their Volunteer Reviewer through the additional work of creating and approving a new listing, when the old listing edited with sole discretion of the owner would suffice for the "new" situation for finding that container at the same coordinates.

I had a puzzle cach that seemed to be harder than I intended, so I decided to remove the puzzle and just make it a traditional. But my reviewer said it was not the same cache and that I had archive it and re-list it as a traditional.

 

I guess the reviewer was wrong. Or is there something fundamentally different when the difficulty changed because there is no puzzle than when the terrain changes because there is a new road?

The fundamentally change was cache type - Mystery/Puzzle to Traditional, a very big change. Much more so than the difficulty change due to removal of the puzzle.

Precisely. Thanks, Jester.

The fundamental difference was that one is a change that the cache owner can make and the other involves a reviewer.

At one time users could change the cache type without a reviewer being involved. It was common for people to change puzzle or multis to traditional, or change traditional to a puzzle or multi, or change anything to a virtual if the container disappeared. Eventually, due to the changes to virtual caches, the ability for a user to change cache types was removed. While the example I gave above is made up, I actually did have a multi-cache where the first stage was destroyed in a forest fire. When I went to replace it, there was nothing left where I could hide something at those coordinates, so I asked the reviewer to change the cache to a traditional and change the coordinates over 1 mile to be those of the final stage. And in this case the reveiwer was happy to make the change.

 

My point is that it is totally arbitrary what changes make something a "different" cache and what changes are simply updating the description. I believe this should be left up to the cache owner. I also believe that given the objectives of many challenges, that making a new listing is not a terrible choice as it avoids the issue brought up in the OP.

 

While may be an objection by people who are WIGAS-intolerant because the new cache may give someone the opportunity to log another find, this is just another example of people getting their knickers in a twist over a game where there's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy.

My knickers aren't in a twist in the least about this. I'm just advocating for a relaxation of the frustration people have when trying to log a specific D/T combo and one of them changes.

 

I too wish that we as owners could change the cache type as needed. I can think of many instances where it could be helpful, but I suppose certain cache types need to be re-reviewed if they are changed. For example, if you change an Unknown written as a puzzle to a Traditional, it should be easy enough. But to change a Traditional to an Unknown or a Multi would require some review for proximity, etc.'

 

I also agree that an owner has every right to do what they want with their listing. If they want to archive and create a new page for a "12 mile hike blah blah" cache turned to a "drive up blah blah" cache at the same coordinates, so be it. But I personally don't see the point, when all you have to do is just change your page to reflect the changes in conditions, attributes, and D/T ratings. Much simpler, and doesn't require re-review for a new cache.

 

Again, the only plus I can see in any form for doing the latter would be the creation of a new cache to be found. A WIGAS opportunity many people would be happy to see.

Link to comment
There would be no twisting of knickers if the programmers understood (and dealt with) the temporal anomaly created by linking current conditions with a past event.

 

The cache has a certain D/T at the time and date at which it was logged. This may or may not relate to the current D/T, and the log should reflect that, by embedding the D/T in it.

 

It's not rocket surgery.

Sure, in 20/20 hindsight it's easy. But if the difficulty and terrain ratings are designed as a communication tool, and the stats based on them come later, then it's easy to see how the system might be designed without saving the current difficulty and terrain ratings as part of every log.
Link to comment

2 unusual local combinations changed (same CO) - both times I emailed him and he changed them back.

 

Look at my caches and you'll see few if any have D=T. I've thought long and hard about the ratings each time and would not change any of them. My treeclimb I got some feedback - the request for a higher T came from a guy with one arm!

 

My more recent unusual combo (I need it myself - T4.5D1.5) involved me propping a stepladder against a massive oak tree, climbing 4 steps from where I could place the container in a cleft. It could even have been D1 I suppose as if you can get into the tree you'll hardly be able to miss it. I think retrieval so far includes knocking it down with a long stick, jumping off vehicle rooves, launching children off shoulders and even some bona fide rope / ladder work. Also seems the cache might have migrated slowly up the tree too... glad I put in lots of log paper! But the rating stays the same.

 

14 July 2 of us are going on a D/T ticking excursion - should take me from 53 to 58. I suppose the best insurance against any changing is to get 2 of each!!!

Link to comment

There would be no twisting of knickers if the programmers understood (and dealt with) the temporal anomaly created by linking current conditions with a past event.

 

The cache has a certain D/T at the time and date at which it was logged. This may or may not relate to the current D/T, and the log should reflect that, by embedding the D/T in it.

 

It's not rocket surgery.

 

The only reason for that is to cater to the D/T grid obsessed folks...those who participate in a side game that Groundspeak is under no obligation to support or endorse. It's on thing if folks want to use the stats GS provides to compete with each other...it's another thing entirely is Groundspeak starts changing the rules of the game to suit those who do.

If they ever did, I'd be tempted to change the D's and T's on a daily basis just to make it unpredictable for folks.

Link to comment

There is a cache in my area that is a 2.0 terrain during the winter and a 5.0T during the summer. It is on an island after the snow melts and is "dry" about half of the year. The CO had been changing the T rating accordingly but he has lost interest lately. If I get a significant and challenging D/T rating I take a screen shot of my grid and date it. I have submitted the screen shot with my docs in a couple of cases. I also have explained my actions to the "challenge" owner.

Link to comment

If they ever did, I'd be tempted to change the D's and T's on a daily basis just to make it unpredictable for folks.

 

I wonder if one could get away with making that the basis of a challenge cache? :ph34r:

 

A little digression...

 

At a recent event, I talked with a guy who was interested in experimental cache ideas. One was using an Arduino-based robotic cache what would automatically move itself once a find was logged and would also take new coordinates and update the cache page automatically.

 

Can't see it ever working in real life, but it's a fun concept...one made even better if it could also modify the D/T ratings.

Link to comment

 

I too wish that we as owners could change the cache type as needed. I can think of many instances where it could be helpful, but I suppose certain cache types need to be re-reviewed if they are changed. For example, if you change an Unknown written as a puzzle to a Traditional, it should be easy enough. But to change a Traditional to an Unknown or a Multi would require some review for proximity, etc.'

 

 

You can't make that change. A type change would have to be made by a reviewer and would probably be denied since it is a ne cache experience.

Link to comment

If they ever did, I'd be tempted to change the D's and T's on a daily basis just to make it unpredictable for folks.

 

I wonder if one could get away with making that the basis of a challenge cache? :ph34r:

 

A little digression...

 

At a recent event, I talked with a guy who was interested in experimental cache ideas. One was using an Arduino-based robotic cache what would automatically move itself once a find was logged and would also take new coordinates and update the cache page automatically.

 

Can't see it ever working in real life, but it's a fun concept...one made even better if it could also modify the D/T ratings.

 

Most of that is entirely possible in theory - especially if the cache were attached to a quadcopter running something like arducopter...

 

Risking that amount of money for the purposes of a giggle though - well that would be outside my budget :(

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...