Changes to logging, specifically stopping double logs

[+cerberus1]

Fair play to our American friends not quiet getting the appeal of the YOSM maybe it is just a British thing, we are the older crankier country after all.

 

Then again they voted in the Donald which most over here can't understand either, mad as a bog of frogs that one so getting rid of the YOSM probably sounds like a stroke of genius.

If you don't mind, I'll just bypass the bizarre, off-topic stuff. Okay?

 

Curious, are you saying that a reward requirement is a "British thing" ?

- Because I thought it was just society today in general...

 

As an American, I believe many here understand full well what the appeal is.

In fact, it's popular enough that many have enjoyed that part of the hobby without the need for a "smiley" to find them.

They're not included in the find count here...

 

We know of a few folks with over 800 benchmark finds.

With none on the "smiley count", yeah, I think we get it.

 

The difference being US benchmarks are catered for under the main site umbrella.

 

The 3 US benchmarks I have found are easily viewable on the main site together with a running total.

 

When the UK asked for a similar system we were refused.

 

We took the only route possible to us at that time which is now causing such uproar.

 

Geocaching is supposed to be a global hobby but seems very discriminating both in the past and once again now.

 

If benchmarking fall under the remit of geocaching then the global benchmarks should be included within the site framework or alternatively the US ones removed.

 

Dual standards are not conducive to harmony.

 

Is now is the time to standardise logging then it is time to do it universally.

Not sure I remember it all, but a Reviewer once said that since there were few caches in the beginning of this hobby, "the reason" benchmarks where added in the US (where this site is located...) was simply so folks at that time had something else to search for.

- It's not near a full list BTW.

 

I'd think if you guys were already hounding the site to have the same, there no longer was a need for that "fill in" of few caches.

 

When Waymarking started getting tons of benchmarks added, many not on the geocaching site, I just figured what's here now is "grandfathered".

Maybe just a "thanks for the help guys" kinda thing...

 

To a Reviewer/Mod ... close?

April Fools?

[+hal-an-tow]

Not sure I remember it all, but a Reviewer once said that since there were few caches in the beginning of this hobby, "the reason" benchmarks where added in the US (where this site is located...) was simply so folks at that time had something else to search for.

- It's not near a full list BTW.

 

I'd think if you guys were already hounding the site to have the same, there no longer was a need for that "fill in" of few caches.

 

When Waymarking started getting tons of benchmarks added, many not on the geocaching site, I just figured what's here now is "grandfathered".

Maybe just a "thanks for the help guys" kinda thing...

 

To a Reviewer/Mod ... close?

April Fools?

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I have absolutely no idea what any of this means, with the exception of the dig about Groundspeak being an American site, which is irrelevant: if Groundspeak wants my money and cache listings, and those of the rest of the cachers in the world, I expect the same service.

 

The differences between the impassioned and positive posts from the YOSM and Brass Cap supporters in this thread are in stark contrast to the snide, derogatory, judgemental and borderline offensive sniping by some of those posters who are eager to jump in for an arguement on any topic.

 

Edited to drop a line in , not sure what happened to the quote there !

Edited April 1, 2017 by hal-an-tow

[Cascade Reviewer]

I know that this can be a passionate subject for some of the people participating in this thread. I just want to remind everyone to please keep the posts civil, and please do not make rude or off topic comments. We can talk about our differences without being inappropriate with our personal or national comments.

[+Malpas Wanderer]

Certainly none of my posts have been April Fools as perhaps I've been accused.

 

There has been a discrepancy of logging through evolution rather than any intent or malice in many cases.

 

I also consider it difficult perhaps senseless to manage affairs with the multiple historic logs remaining in situ.

 

Time for a spring clean.

 

Suggestions to remedy;

 

Create a single or multiple new icon for the grandfathered YOSM / Cuckoo / Event Temporary Caches or a secondary logging channel.

Change cache page to that Icon or move all logs from log two to reside under that Icon (secondary channel).

 

Delete any other duplicate or owner placed erroneous logs.

 

Logging process going on wards detects if it is a first or subsequent log and routes it correctly to cache page or secondary Icon.

 

Moderators / Administrators / Management feedback invited.

[+Touchstone]

Certainly none of my posts have been April Fools as perhaps I've been accused.

 

There has been a discrepancy of logging through evolution rather than any intent or malice in many cases.

 

I also consider it difficult perhaps senseless to manage affairs with the multiple historic logs remaining in situ.

 

Time for a spring clean.

 

Suggestions to remedy;

 

Create a single or multiple new icon for the grandfathered YOSM / Cuckoo / Event Temporary Caches or a secondary logging channel.

Change cache page to that Icon or move all logs from log two to reside under that Icon (secondary channel).

 

Delete any other duplicate or owner placed erroneous logs.

 

Logging process going on wards detects if it is a first or subsequent log and routes it correctly to cache page or secondary Icon.

 

Moderators / Administrators / Management feedback invited.

The chances of a new icon is somewhere between slim and none I would think, considering the previous clambering for a Challenge icon.

[+dprovan]

I really don't understand, either: why do you care why he cares?

Her implicit argument is that since she doesn't understand why people want to log the find, then we don't have to take them into account when deciding if this change is good or bad. My argument is that all that matters is that they like to log the find, and jellis (and everyone else) should just accept that and take it into consideration instead of trying to prove that logging notes would be just as good.

[+Team Microdot]

I really don't understand, either: why do you care why he cares?

Her implicit argument is that since she doesn't understand why people want to log the find, then we don't have to take them into account when deciding if this change is good or bad.

 

Is it? Are you sure? Or are you just surmising?

 

Really don't understand. You found it why do you need to find it again. You can always post "write note" instead.

 

My argument is that all that matters is that they like to log the find, and jellis (and everyone else) should just accept that and take it into consideration instead of trying to prove that logging notes would be just as good.

 

Why? Why shouldn't jellis ask questions and offer alternatives? And why do you care?

[+Malpas Wanderer]

Certainly none of my posts have been April Fools as perhaps I've been accused.

 

There has been a discrepancy of logging through evolution rather than any intent or malice in many cases.

 

I also consider it difficult perhaps senseless to manage affairs with the multiple historic logs remaining in situ.

 

Time for a spring clean.

 

Suggestions to remedy;

 

Create a single or multiple new icon for the grandfathered YOSM / Cuckoo / Event Temporary Caches or a secondary logging channel.

Change cache page to that Icon or move all logs from log two to reside under that Icon (secondary channel).

 

Delete any other duplicate or owner placed erroneous logs.

 

Logging process going on wards detects if it is a first or subsequent log and routes it correctly to cache page or secondary Icon.

 

Moderators / Administrators / Management feedback invited.

The chances of a new icon is somewhere between slim and none I would think, considering the previous clambering for a Challenge icon.

 

I over complicated my thoughts there.

 

If there was a new "repeat visits" smiley for the logs section those few caches that were set up to operate that way could live on as intended to operate.

 

Current log count locked, new logs unless first instance get "repeat visits smilie.

 

All viewable on the page and founds not confused with notes used for other purposes.

 

Likely "Repeat visits" a register not incrementing found count.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Fair play to our American friends not quiet getting the appeal of the YOSM maybe it is just a British thing, we are the older crankier country after all.

 

The Americans do understand the appeal of logging benchmarks which is why the Americans are catered to by Groundspeak and allowed to log benchmarks. It's only the UK and Canada that are having our benchmark logging taken away.

 

There is a lot of information about U.S. benchmarks on the "Groundspeak Benchmark Hunting" page. What you'll find from reading it is that anyone (including non-Americans) can "Log a Benchmark", but they don't count as a geocaching find. Logging a note instead of a find on a YOSM or Brass cap is really no different than how Americans have logged Benchmarks all along.

[+FOX 661L]

I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I feel about the situation.

 

I already had YOSM gathering routes sketched out for the end of this month, for a weekend away in May, for a weekend away in July, and one in August, and one in November. It isn't simple claiming multiple finds on GC45CC, it takes planning and effort and petrol, but now the powers that be say no more...

 

... and all to solve an unimportant problem,

so some people log a cache twice by mistake - Who Cares ?

So some cache owners find their own caches - again Who Cares ?

so some cachers bump find numbers up by claiming multiple finds on caches - again Who Cares ?

 

They are killing the two of the top 8 most active caches in the world just so the cache police can better police the find numbers in a game that is about the finds and not about the numbers.

 

I don't understand the argument that some have put forward that you can carry on finding YSM's without a smiley because it's not about the numbers - well if it's not about the numbers why does it matter that people double log other caches ?

 

I have made 125 finds on GC45CC (plus a couple of DNF's - sometimes the vegetation is just too thick to find those buried surface blocks) and that seems like a nice number to stop on.

 

I can't double log caches anymore, but my statistics will still show at least 124 more finds than individual caches and that's only if they sort out statistics for Lab Caches - I currently have 52 Lab Cache finds, so 176 more finds than individual caches, and that gap between the two is going to widen without YOSM's anyway as I find more Lab Caches.

 

Yes YOSM and Brass Cap are anachronisms, they don't fit into the modern cache mould but their quirkiness is their charm, and this new restriction just pushes caching further down the route of identikit caches under rocks at the base of fenceposts every 0.1mile down the trail.

 

The caching world is becoming a much duller place.

Edited April 2, 2017 by FOX 661L

[+Team Microdot]

I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I feel about the situation.

 

I already had YOSM gathering routes sketched out for the end of this month, for a weekend away in May, for a weekend away in July, and one in August, and one in November. It isn't simple claiming multiple finds on GC45CC, it takes planning and effort and petrol, but now the powers that be say no more...

 

... and all to solve an unimportant problem,

so some people log a cache twice by mistake - Who Cares ?

So some cache owners find their own caches - again Who Cares ?

so some cachers bump find numbers up by claiming multiple finds on caches - again Who Cares ?

 

They are killing the two most active caches in the world just so the cache police can better police the find numbers in a game that is about the finds and not about the numbers.

 

I don't understand the argument that some have put forward that you can carry on finding YSM's without a smiley because it's not about the numbers - well if it's not about the numbers why does it matter that people double log other caches ?

 

Can you carry on finding them or not?

 

Or is it that the cache police are going to put an ankle tag on you and impose some sort of curfew?

[+Manville Possum]

 

They are killing the two most active caches in the world just so the cache police can better police the find numbers in a game that is about the finds and not about the numbers.

 

 

Are they only the two most active caches in the world because everyone logs them hundreds of times per customer?

[elfre]

The Americans do understand the appeal of logging benchmarks which is why the Americans are catered to by Groundspeak and allowed to log benchmarks. It's only the UK and Canada that are having our benchmark logging taken away.

 

There is a lot of information about U.S. benchmarks on the "Groundspeak Benchmark Hunting" page. What you'll find from reading it is that anyone (including non-Americans) can "Log a Benchmark", but they don't count as a geocaching find. Logging a note instead of a find on a YOSM or Brass cap is really no different than how Americans have logged Benchmarks all along.

 

I disagree.

 

Brits and Canadians aren't allowed to log local benchmarks as USians are allowed to log local benchmarks and that's why these "special" caches were allowed in the first place. We were allowed a substitute that was seen as second best and now, after those caches have become much beloved, they're being taken away from us. We are NOT being offered a benchmark count as a substitute. It's a loss with NO substitute. "Write note" is a general feature with many uses that will NOT show me a distinct benchmark or YOSM count. Your argument is demonstrably wrong.

 

These are 15 year old "special" caches (although box tickers don't get to score the original hiding date so there's no benefit for any hypothetical "stats" cachers - likewise arbitrary d/t box tickers) which Groundspeak has chosen to alter. If these were 15 year old "special" USian caches I have no doubt they'd have been "grandfathered" before anyone could draw breath, and I lol at anyone who pretends otherwise.

 

The only argument I've seen so far in favour of actively altering these beloved historic caches is one of convenience for Groundspeak to cater more easily to cachers who wrongly double-log. So YOSM loggers are basically being punished for the stupidity and laziness of others. That's not a good ethical example to set. I'm sure Groundspeak have decided it's their preferred business model though so any discussion on this forum is almost certainly a waste of time (as is usually the case).

Edited April 2, 2017 by elfre

[+FOX 661L]

 

Can you carry on finding them or not?

 

 

Ah, semantics... doesn't take long for it to raise it's ugly head

 

However, to answer your question

In Geocaching terms 'Find' is used as a noun, it is used to describe a 'Thing' that is the result of a cacher going to a particular location then doing one or more specific actions, signing the log book, answering earth cache questions etc.

In Geocaching.com terms the primary requirement of a 'Find' on GC45CC is to submit a 'Found it' log to the GC45CC cache page on the website

 

So as we will no longer be able to submit a 'Found It' log then we will not be able to carry on 'Finding' GC45CC.

[elfre]

so some people log a cache twice by mistake - Who Cares ?

So some cache owners find their own caches - again Who Cares ?

so some cachers bump find numbers up by claiming multiple finds on caches - again Who Cares ?

 

They are killing the two most active caches in the world just so the cache police can better police the find numbers in a game that is about the finds and not about the numbers.

 

I don't understand the argument that some have put forward that you can carry on finding YSM's without a smiley because it's not about the numbers - well if it's not about the numbers why does it matter that people double log other caches ?

 

+1

[+thomfre]

 

They are killing the two most active caches in the world just so the cache police can better police the find numbers in a game that is about the finds and not about the numbers.

 

 

Are they only the two most active caches in the world because everyone logs them hundreds of times per customer?

They are not the two most active caches in the world. That would be GC189E5 and GC13Y2Y.

[+FOX 661L]

 

They are not the two most active caches in the world. That would be GC189E5 and GC13Y2Y.

 

Fixed it thanks...

 

They are only 4th and 8th most found caches

GC45CC is the most active cache in the UK by a lot (22,000 finds where the next is under 10,000 finds)

GC43F3 is similarly the most active cache in North America (20,000 finds where the next is 12,500)

[+thomfre]

Fixed it thanks...

 

They are only 4th and 8th most found caches

GC45CC is the most active cache in the UK by a lot (22,000 finds where the next is under 10,000 finds)

GC43F3 is similarly the most active cache in North America (20,000 finds where the next is 12,500)

How would the numbers be if we look at unique cachers?

 

And if they consist of "700 separate virtuals", like some claimed earlier here. They're not the most active caches in their respective countries anymore. Then it's just "1400 virtuals", with not that many finds per cache.

[Keystone]

Brits and Canadians aren't allowed to log local benchmarks as USians are allowed to log local benchmarks and that's why these "special" caches were allowed in the first place. We were allowed a substitute that was seen as second best and now, after those caches have become much beloved, they're being taken away from us. We are NOT being offered a benchmark count as a substitute. It's a loss with NO substitute. "Write note" is a general feature with many uses that will NOT show me a distinct benchmark or YOSM count. Your argument is demonstrably wrong.

 

These are 15 year old "special" caches (although box tickers don't get to score the original hiding date so there's no benefit for any hypothetical "stats" cachers - likewise arbitrary d/t box tickers) which Groundspeak has chosen to alter. If these were 15 year old "special" USian caches I have no doubt they'd have been "grandfathered" before anyone could draw breath, and I lol at anyone who pretends otherwise.

 

The only argument I've seen so far in favour of actively altering these beloved historic caches is one of convenience for Groundspeak to cater more easily to cachers who wrongly double-log. So YOSM loggers are basically being punished for the stupidity and laziness of others. That's not a good ethical example to set. I'm sure Groundspeak have decided it's their preferred business model though so any discussion on this forum is almost certainly a waste of time (as is usually the case).

Leave the geographic prejudices and insults out of your argument if you'd like to keep posting in this topic.

 

For everyone's information, the longest-running "recurring event" and the most popular "log multiple times" challenge cache are located in the USA. I'm sure they're considered quite special by their owners and participants.

[+Mudfrog]

 

Can you carry on finding them or not?

 

 

Ah, semantics... doesn't take long for it to raise it's ugly head

 

However, to answer your question

In Geocaching terms 'Find' is used as a noun, it is used to describe a 'Thing' that is the result of a cacher going to a particular location then doing one or more specific actions, signing the log book, answering earth cache questions etc.

In Geocaching.com terms the primary requirement of a 'Find' on GC45CC is to submit a 'Found it' log to the GC45CC cache page on the website

 

So as we will no longer be able to submit a 'Found It' log then we will not be able to carry on 'Finding' GC45CC.

 

The argument that people can still find the cache but then log a note on it seems silly. Let's face it, not many of us would want to go out and find a cache and then not be able to log it as found. I can guarantee that most would not like it and geocaching popularity would suffer. I do believe that stats have become too important for most people, there's way too much emphasis placed on them. But at the same time, i don't imagine there would be that many of us pursuing the hobby if we didn't have the one main stat, find count. There will be some who will keep finding YOSM no matter what, but the cache experience just wouldn't be the same for most. The cache will not be anywhere near as popular to find after this change takes place.

 

Again though, i do believe the one found log per cache is long overdue,,, FOR, the majority of caches out there. It should have been implemented from the start. However, these grandfathered caches should not fall under it.

[+Team Microdot]

 

Can you carry on finding them or not?

 

 

Ah, semantics... doesn't take long for it to raise it's ugly head

 

Ah the cache police card... doesn't take long for it to raise its ugly head.

 

However, to answer your question

In Geocaching terms 'Find' is used as a noun, it is used to describe a 'Thing' that is the result of a cacher going to a particular location then doing one or more specific actions, signing the log book, answering earth cache questions etc.

In Geocaching.com terms the primary requirement of a 'Find' on GC45CC is to submit a 'Found it' log to the GC45CC cache page on the website

 

So as we will no longer be able to submit a 'Found It' log then we will not be able to carry on 'Finding' GC45CC.

 

I see now why you brought semantics into the equation whereas I on the other hand was using find in its simple everyday sense rather than some special sense related to being able to increase your smiley count on geocaching.com

 

You can still find them. You can still enjoy the walks and the scenery. You can still enjoy the company of others and the cameraderie and banter that goes with that. You can still take photographs - amazing or otherwise - and upload them along with a record of your experience on geocaching.com.

 

You just don't get the smiley.

 

But it's not about the smiley - is it?

 

We've also had comments on here decrying Groundspeak for throwing the baby out with the bath water - yet people claim that this change will be the end of their caching career. They are prepared to throw away all of the reasons they claim are key to their pursuit and enjoyment of YOSM/Brass caps and all of the things they claim to value most highly just because they can't log their experience in a particular way.

 

As I expressed earlier in the thread - I sympathise with the cause, I genuinely do and at the same time I can see why many of the arguments for special treatment have failed to convince TPTB.

[+dprovan]

Why shouldn't jellis ask questions and offer alternatives?

jellis can say anything she likes.

[+Team Microdot]

Why shouldn't jellis ask questions and offer alternatives?

jellis can say anything she likes.

 

Splendid - glad you agree

[+SwineFlew]

I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I feel about the situation.

 

I already had YOSM gathering routes sketched out for the end of this month, for a weekend away in May, for a weekend away in July, and one in August, and one in November. It isn't simple claiming multiple finds on GC45CC, it takes planning and effort and petrol, but now the powers that be say no more...

 

 

You can still do it. Nothing is stopping you to do them.

[+pinkunicorn]

About a year ago, Groundspeak brought Challenges caches back with a few clarification of the rules.

I'd laugh if this statement weren't so sad. Those "few clarifications" blocked all but a small handful of challenge cache types.

 

That's your opinion. Mine is different. On the whole, I liked the changes to challenges (offhand I can think of one detail I found negative (no polygons), but the total was an improvement).

[+dprovan]

About a year ago, Groundspeak brought Challenges caches back with a few clarification of the rules.

I'd laugh if this statement weren't so sad. Those "few clarifications" blocked all but a small handful of challenge cache types.

That's your opinion. Mine is different. On the whole, I liked the changes to challenges (offhand I can think of one detail I found negative (no polygons), but the total was an improvement).

I just don't like not having challenges. Before the changes, lots of CO's in my area were having fun coming up with ideas, from old hat challenges like spelling stuff to new ideas like the 360° challenge. Since the changes, only a handful of challenges.

 

As it happens, I think the changes range from pointless to draconian, but the fact that I don't like the changes yet you do is somewhat unimportant compared to the fact that they killed challenge caches off. Unless, of course, that's one of the changes you like. Or are you seeing challenge caches becoming more popular in your area since the changes?

[+Team Microdot]

As it happens, I think the changes range from pointless to draconian

 

As it happens, I think that the majority of challenge caches range from pointless to draconian.

 

Each to their own I suppose.

[Keystone]

A detailed discussion of challenge caches belongs in its own thread. The subject is irrelevant to the change in Geocaching.com's log interfaces, except as an analogy/example of what some community members regard as "killing off" something that was popular. That point's been made.

[+FOX 661L]

I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I feel about the situation.

 

I already had YOSM gathering routes sketched out for the end of this month, for a weekend away in May, for a weekend away in July, and one in August, and one in November. It isn't simple claiming multiple finds on GC45CC, it takes planning and effort and petrol, but now the powers that be say no more...

 

 

You can still do it. Nothing is stopping you to do them.

 

I could, but they wouldn't be geocaching trips anymore now would they ?

[+thomfre]

You can still do it. Nothing is stopping you to do them.

 

I could, but they wouldn't be geocaching trips anymore now would they ?

Of course they would, as long as you find other caches along the road, or the YOSM doesn't get archived.

[+noncentric]

First, my opinion is that it's unfortunate that a unique cache like YOSM will no longer be able to function in the same way it has for all these years. I understand that they're not easy to locate and agree that there would be much easier ways to "find" caches if one's motivation was simply to inflate their find count. I also understand that logging a "write note" doesn't provide the same sense of satisfaction as logging a "found it".

 

Considering that these caches are so different from geocaches listed on geocaching.com - then maybe this isn't really the best listing site for them. The YOSM website is quite impressive. I haven't looked at the websites of the other similar caches, if they have independent websites. Perhaps there are cachers that could develop some additional functionality to the YOSM website, one that would allow cachers to log there finds there.

 

I know it's not the same as logging finds on geocaching.com - but since the decision has been made, then maybe it would be good to try to find ways to salvage the YOSM activity rather than just lament that it's changed. I certainly wasn't thrilled with all of the changes to challenge caches, but it is what it is. Many cachers stated their opinions about challenge caches during the moratorium, but Groundspeak made their decisions and we all just have to deal with them.

[+FOX 661L]

 

I see now why you brought semantics into the equation whereas I on the other hand was using find in its simple everyday sense rather than some special sense related to being able to increase your smiley count on geocaching.com

 

You can still find them. You can still enjoy the walks and the scenery. You can still enjoy the company of others and the cameraderie and banter that goes with that. You can still take photographs - amazing or otherwise - and upload them along with a record of your experience on geocaching.com.

 

You just don't get the smiley.

 

But it's not about the smiley - is it?

 

 

I hardly think it's a "special sense" to use the specific definition of the word 'Find' as it relates to Geocaching in a Geocaching forum.

 

And is it about the smiley ?

Well there's only one smiley on the map for GC45CC, you don't fill your map up with smileys by logging more YOSM locations...

 

All your posts have done so far is to state the bleeding obvious in that we can carry on visiting these specific trig points but doing so will not be geocaching - and my point is that for the last 15 years it has been geocaching, and so an unfortunate and maybe unforeseen result of these new rules is that the definition of geocaching is being further restricted, and geocaching heritage is being lost.

Edited April 2, 2017 by FOX 661L

[+Team Microdot]

 

I see now why you brought semantics into the equation whereas I on the other hand was using find in its simple everyday sense rather than some special sense related to being able to increase your smiley count on geocaching.com

 

You can still find them. You can still enjoy the walks and the scenery. You can still enjoy the company of others and the cameraderie and banter that goes with that. You can still take photographs - amazing or otherwise - and upload them along with a record of your experience on geocaching.com.

 

You just don't get the smiley.

 

But it's not about the smiley - is it?

 

 

I hardly think it's a "special sense" to use the specific definition of the word 'Find' as it relates to Geocaching in a Geocaching forum.

 

And is it about the smiley ?

Well there's only one smiley on the map for GC45CC, you don't fill your map up with smileys by logging more YOSM locations...

 

All your posts have done so far is to state the bleeding obvious in that we can carry on visiting these specific trig points but doing so will not be geocaching - and my point is that for the last 15 years it has been geocaching, and so an unfortunate and maybe unforeseen result of these new rules is that the definition of geocaching is being further restricted, and geocaching heritage is being lost.

 

I'm glad you agree with that the key experience properties I've written about in my posts are bleeding obvious and take that as your agreement that it's bleeding obvious you can still do all those things

 

So the quintessential essence of geocaching is posting a Found it log on geocaching.com?

 

And anything which does not include that step fundamentally isn't geocaching?

[+The Magna Defender]

You want caching police come to North West England. We got them in the bucket loads.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I hardly think it's a "special sense" to use the specific definition of the word 'Find' as it relates to Geocaching in a Geocaching forum.

 

And is it about the smiley ?

Well there's only one smiley on the map for GC45CC, you don't fill your map up with smileys by logging more YOSM locations...

 

All your posts have done so far is to state the bleeding obvious in that we can carry on visiting these specific trig points but doing so will not be geocaching - and my point is that for the last 15 years it has been geocaching, and so an unfortunate and maybe unforeseen result of these new rules is that the definition of geocaching is being further restricted, and geocaching heritage is being lost.

 

While I think that those two caches should be grandfathered, I have logged 857 benchmarks as found. I got one Geocaching find on a benchmark. It doesn't bother me. The benchmarks are not geocaching finds. It doesn't bother me. Why does it bother you?

Yes. Groundspeak has a separate section for finding NGS benchmarks (Only a small proportion of US benchmarks.) But they don't count as geocaching finds. It's a separate area. It has not been updated in over a decade. It is not geocaching. It's a separate section called benchmarking. I do not get geocaching finds for them. Should I petition Groundspeak to give me another 857 finds? No. It is not Geocaching. It is Benchmarking.

While I agree that some old Geocaching types should be grandfathered. I have problems that you should be able to log many finds on benchmarks, while I am not permitted to do so.

While I think that YOSM should be grandfathred, I can carry on finding benchmarks, and not get any Geocaching finds. Yet you think that you should be able to.

[outforthehunt]

A little history of the Brass Cap Cache and the Ye Ole Survey Monuments Cache. Before I created the two I asked geocaching.com if they could include Canada and the UK in with the US benchmarks.I also submitted links to data bases for these surveyed points from both countries. As a surveyor I knew that most people have never been to these locations and would enjoy some of the history and views they provide. I was told it wasn't possible. I then submitted the two caches. There were no restrictions or changes from geocaching.com to my original submitted cache proposals. It's the same today as it was 15 years ago. Was it a mistake or over site? Who really should care.They were approved and each cache has given years of enjoyment to geocachers. Why should that change?

[+lodgebarn]

A little history of the Brass Cap Cache and the Ye Ole Survey Monuments Cache. Before I created the two I asked geocaching.com if they could include Canada and the UK in with the US benchmarks.I also submitted links to data bases for these surveyed points from both countries. As a surveyor I knew that most people have never been to these locations and would enjoy some of the history and views they provide. I was told it wasn't possible. I then submitted the two caches. There were no restrictions or changes from geocaching.com to my original submitted cache proposals. It's the same today as it was 15 years ago. Was it a mistake or over site? Who really should care.They were approved and each cache has given years of enjoyment to geocachers. Why should that change?

+1

Well said and exactly what I feel myself. Value history rather than sweep it away.

[+tundra70]

I can't help wondering why caches in Canada and UK that have been available to log for 15 years and, as OFTH and others have said, have brought huge enjoyment to thousands of cachers need to be changed now. All UK YOSMer's have done is follow the rules as they were set up. Why change that now? It amazes me how bothered cachers in other countries are about it. It's the British and Canadian's (and anyone who visits) that are the bothered ones. What happens in the USA or other countries is their own affair as far as I'm concerned. I've found numerous caches in the USA and other countries I thought would not have been allowed in the UK, but I'm not going on forums moaning about them.

GC45CC has be maintained superbly over the last 15 years, and Groundspeak's response is a huge slap in the face for the CO. I might add, this is a CO who is actually interested in the stories we all have about finding a YOSM, reads logs, replies to every email we have ever sent - and not with 'thanks' or 'cheers' but with a bit of banter and good-humour. We've never met OFTH but we count him as a caching friend.

Everyone who walks in the countryside knows what a triangulation pillar is. They are part of our history and landscape. They are part of the history of cartography that eventually led to the GPS system we use today. Yes, such a cache would not be allowed to day but it was allowed 15 years ago, so why change it now? Lots of other caches will need to go if today's guidelines are applied uniformly.

Lastly, I'm quite happy to say that for us of course it's about +1 and stats (and getting new countries, the DT matrix etc etc) - what on earth is wrong with that, virtually all hobbies are the same! Lots of people are just kidding themselves if they say it isn't.

[cezanne]

While I think that those two caches should be grandfathered, I have logged 857 benchmarks as found. I got one Geocaching find on a benchmark. It doesn't bother me. The benchmarks are not geocaching finds. It doesn't bother me. Why does it bother you?

 

But you got a counter on the profile of gc.com for the benchmarks and you can log them via the site.

 

Those logging notes for the YOSM cache cannot record the number of found ones via gc.com. Notes are garbled among all the other notes ones writes.

[+MartyBartfast]

A little history of the Brass Cap Cache and the Ye Ole Survey Monuments Cache. Before I created the two I asked geocaching.com if they could include Canada and the UK in with the US benchmarks.I also submitted links to data bases for these surveyed points from both countries. As a surveyor I knew that most people have never been to these locations and would enjoy some of the history and views they provide. I was told it wasn't possible. I then submitted the two caches. There were no restrictions or changes from geocaching.com to my original submitted cache proposals. It's the same today as it was 15 years ago. Was it a mistake or over site? Who really should care.They were approved and each cache has given years of enjoyment to geocachers. Why should that change?

+1

Well said and exactly what I feel myself. Value history rather than sweep it away.

+2, and I know a lot of other cachers agree.

[+redsox_mark]

 

The argument that people can still find the cache but then log a note on it seems silly. Let's face it, not many of us would want to go out and find a cache and then not be able to log it as found. I can guarantee that most would not like it and geocaching popularity would suffer. I do believe that stats have become too important for most people, there's way too much emphasis placed on them. But at the same time, i don't imagine there would be that many of us pursuing the hobby if we didn't have the one main stat, find count. There will be some who will keep finding YOSM no matter what, but the cache experience just wouldn't be the same for most. The cache will not be anywhere near as popular to find after this change takes place.

 

Again though, i do believe the one found log per cache is long overdue,,, FOR, the majority of caches out there. It should have been implemented from the start. However, these grandfathered caches should not fall under it.

 

I agree with the first part 100%. As I said before, for those finding these caches, they logically are vitual caches, which get logged in a specific way. The end result (before the change) is: Cachers look for a virtual cache, find it, log it as found, see it in their finds.

Now they won't be able to log it as found.

 

Logging caches as found isn't what geocaching is all about. And sure, there are some cachers we hear about who don't log finds online at all. But for most, logging finds is a key part of the game. Again to repeat myself - if Groundspeak decided tomorrow that all grandfathered Virtuals will remain but can no longer accept "found it" logs, the popularity of finding Virtuals would decline considerably.

 

The second part I'm in two minds. I have friends who really love the YOSM caches, and I'd like to see them stay. But I also understand they are an anomaly, and I don't have an issue with Groundspeak making this decision.

[+J Grouchy]

While I think that those two caches should be grandfathered, I have logged 857 benchmarks as found. I got one Geocaching find on a benchmark. It doesn't bother me. The benchmarks are not geocaching finds. It doesn't bother me. Why does it bother you?

 

But you got a counter on the profile of gc.com for the benchmarks and you can log them via the site.

 

Those logging notes for the YOSM cache cannot record the number of found ones via gc.com. Notes are garbled among all the other notes ones writes.

 

So...a quick google search brings me to this page: http://www.yosm.org.uk/

Looks like not only can you log the finds on that and get a full map of all the locations, you can use the "statpics" utility to post the count to your GC profile.

 

I get that folks like to have their finds count in some way...same with benchmarks in the US. Just saying it doesn't necessarily have to be this loophole (or whatever we're calling it). Personally, I'd rather have a log for each distinct location, on a page for THAT particular monument, rather than 100 logs on the same page that just get buried among thousands of other logs on the same page for different monuments.

[+thebruce0]

While I think that those two caches should be grandfathered, I have logged 857 benchmarks as found. I got one Geocaching find on a benchmark. It doesn't bother me. The benchmarks are not geocaching finds. It doesn't bother me. Why does it bother you?

 

But you got a counter on the profile of gc.com for the benchmarks and you can log them via the site.

 

Those logging notes for the YOSM cache cannot record the number of found ones via gc.com. Notes are garbled among all the other notes ones writes.

You can make your own profile counter.

Benchmark counts are not cache find counts. So the only difference is one would be automated, one wouldn't be. Is that the crux of the matter? Which is it - an automated record of the logs c/o Groundspeak? or is it the Find count being incremented? Both? People defending multi-finds of YOSM need to provide and stand by what it is that makes this a deal-breaking rule change, and why it's a good argument to reverse the decision or implement yet another grandfathered concept, despite the counter-arguments.

 

So...a quick google search brings me to this page: http://www.yosm.org.uk/

Looks like not only can you log the finds on that and get a full map of all the locations, you can use the "statpics" utility to post the count to your GC profile.

Boom. Nice find.

People complained when things were moved to Waymarking. This, really, is just the same thing over again. Multi-finds of a moving Virtual isn't geocaching (not what it has been since specific caches were grandfathered). Now, there are other places to continue the same activity, and other means to show off your accomplishment.

[+Mudfrog]

While I think that those two caches should be grandfathered, I have logged 857 benchmarks as found. I got one Geocaching find on a benchmark. It doesn't bother me. The benchmarks are not geocaching finds. It doesn't bother me. Why does it bother you?

 

But you got a counter on the profile of gc.com for the benchmarks and you can log them via the site.

 

Those logging notes for the YOSM cache cannot record the number of found ones via gc.com. Notes are garbled among all the other notes ones writes.

 

Exactly! Maybe i'm just spoiled but i have come to expect geocaching.com to keep up with the items i find. Benchmarks aren't included with my geocache finds but they are kept up with and are easily viewed on the website. I would suspect we wouldn't be having this discussion if geocaching.com would have initiated a counter for brass caps (like benchmarks) back when the cache first became available. After all these years, after being grandfathered in, to suddenly take away the way they have always worked is just wrong.

[cezanne]

 

So...a quick google search brings me to this page: http://www.yosm.org.uk/

Looks like not only can you log the finds on that and get a full map of all the locations, you can use the "statpics" utility to post the count to your GC profile.

 

You still need to use a different site and posting a picture to your profile is something different than numbers included by Groundspeak.

 

I get that folks like to have their finds count in some way...same with benchmarks in the US. Just saying it doesn't necessarily have to be this loophole (or whatever we're calling it). Personally, I'd rather have a log for each distinct location, on a page for THAT particular monument, rather than 100 logs on the same page that just get buried among thousands of other logs on the same page for different monuments.

 

Of course it does not need to have this implementation but I understand why it is appreciated also by cachers who do not care about whether a log increases their counter on gc.com.

 

As to having a different page per object, that depends on the type of objects and one's personal preferences. The classical locationless cache concept collects all logs on one page and for many sorts of objects I preferred that to the Waymarking style where you have a separate one per object. I particularly like the all logs on one page concept for objects for which there are no preexisting maps and lists - I really like the way how a map of all visited locations is set up at the German opencaching site for their type of locationless caches (what I do not like there however is that those finds are garbled with one's find for classical cache types).

Edited April 3, 2017 by cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

Looks like the discussion is purely academic now anyway The CO has decided to archive YOSM.

[+dprovan]

I can't help wondering why caches in Canada and UK that have been available to log for 15 years and, as OFTH and others have said, have brought huge enjoyment to thousands of cachers need to be changed now.

It's hard to keep in mind through all the arguing, but these caches aren't being targeted, they're just collateral damage to a change made for other reasons which, in my opinion, are vague and insignificant. So the debate here has centered entirely around people justifying these benchmark caches, but no one's done anything to justify the actual restriction against multiple finds.

 

But just to repeat something I said before: here in the U.S., I've found a couple other cache types that are routinely found multiple times. Like the benchmark caches, they've both grandfathered types that people, nevertheless, enjoy without them causing any trouble. The first type is traveling caches. It makes sense to log traveling caches multiple times because each time you find the container, it's hidden in a different way in a different place. The second type is challenge caches which can be logged multiple times if the criteria is met multiple times. The best example is an ABC city cache: you can find it once after you've found 3 caches in the same day in three cities that start with A, B, and C, then you can log it again if you find three caches in cities starting with D, E, and F, etc. This, too, will have to stop.

[+cerberus1]

Looks like the discussion is purely academic now anyway The CO has decided to archive YOSM.

Got that on watch, but don't understand why the 7th of May...

"Ye Ole Survey Monuments will be archived on May 7th, 2017 due to changes being made by geocaching.com

The new rules state that a cache can only be logged once from May 8th onward".

 

Yet according to the announcement, "... in early to mid-April, we will begin enforcing changes to the logging rules through the user interface on Geocaching.com and the Geocaching® app. The changes take effect for Authorized Developers on May 8, 2017."

 

Looks like (to me) that later 8th date's for app developers.

- folks who haven't read the announcement will be coming back in mid-April, asking why things were shut down so early.

[+cerberus1]

While I think that those two caches should be grandfathered, I have logged 857 benchmarks as found. I got one Geocaching find on a benchmark. It doesn't bother me. The benchmarks are not geocaching finds. It doesn't bother me. Why does it bother you?

Yes. Groundspeak has a separate section for finding NGS benchmarks (Only a small proportion of US benchmarks.) But they don't count as geocaching finds. It's a separate area. It has not been updated in over a decade. It is not geocaching. It's a separate section called benchmarking. I do not get geocaching finds for them. Should I petition Groundspeak to give me another 857 finds? No. It is not Geocaching. It is Benchmarking.

While I agree that some old Geocaching types should be grandfathered. I have problems that you should be able to log many finds on benchmarks, while I am not permitted to do so.

While I think that YOSM should be grandfathred, I can carry on finding benchmarks, and not get any Geocaching finds. Yet you think that you should be able to.

+1

Of the 94 benchmarks we've located, only 12 are on the system.

We have fun when spotting them, yet we not only can't log them as a "find", we can't log them on geocaching.com at all.

The surprising thing about that (for me) is the other 2/3rds, once a FTF/stat monster, isn't even bothered by the fact we're not "rewarded".

[+tundra70]

dprovan's point about GC45CC and its like being collateral damage is quite right. I'm more worried about the phrase in the announcement justifying the change "reduce confusion for our newer community members".

 

Perhaps this means "we've found out that it's just too easy to send a log twice with our new app" (that launch went well...)?

 

If 'reducing confusion' is the latest thing then watch out:

• 
   
  
• All the remaining Virtuals (many much loved) - there's nothing to sign, the info can often be found on the internet, but you are still supposed to visit - how confusing is that?
  
• The DT matrix - it uses 0.5s (!) and often the rating is quite hard to justify - far to confusing for the marketing department.
  
• Difficult puzzles - opening a cache page to find it's totally blank, or worse in some sort of code? More confusion....
  

 

Thin end of a very big wedge.