Changes to logging, specifically stopping double logs

[+Manville Possum]

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.

 

I enjoy Benchmarking as well, and have listed quite a few on the Waymarking site and one of the alternative geocaching sites.

 

I have no idea how many Benchmarks that I have found, but several were historically interesting.

[Pup Patrol]

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

 

?

 

You cannot read archived log entries.

 

B.

[+cerberus1]

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.

 

I enjoy Benchmarking as well, and have listed quite a few on the Waymarking site and one of the alternative geocaching sites.

 

I have no idea how many Benchmarks that I have found, but several were historically interesting.

We noticed some were on Waymarking, so figured a cacher must have

bushwacked and stumbled on it in the woods bumped into 'em similar to us.

- Though there are a lot listed, that "crickets chirping" thing there doesn't do much for me.

 

Little updating, and maybe it could be more popular soon.

[+Harris Tweed]

Not only is it galling that the flawed methodology and reasoning behind stopping 'double logging' is going to kill YOSM but, the number of people on this thread who are happy about the fact. Not only happy but are willing to take time to support its demise in writing.

 

We all have types of caches that we feel are a bit 'silly' or we think don't fit our notion of a 'proper' geocache; puzzles, events, Wherigo, challenge, earthcache, hell even multi's. I have a personal dislike for 'finds' for events but I wouldn't jump on a forum and argue for their termination - people like going to events and getting a 'find'. Not really my 'thing' (as I've said previously) but for some people it's the highlight of their caching activity, good on them. I've even been to a couple of events myself to support local cachers who have taken time to arrange them. Yes, I claimed a 'find' too. Yep, I'm a hypocrite! Sue me!

 

Would I jump onto a forum and take delight in the demise of event 'finds', no. Would I argue for their removal? No. Why? Simply because geocaching is supposed to be fun and people like events; geocaching is supposed to be a hobby; a laugh; it's enjoyment; pleasure; memories; a general good time. Some, including a few at Groundspeak, need to re-read their admirable mission statement - nowhere does it mention 'accurate numbers' to the detriment of adventure.

 

To take satisfaction in seeing something destroyed that others have a passion for is a little churlish. Many thanks to Outforthehunt for some of the most memorable caching trips; not one of them has been a nano in a litter strewn car park. Sincerely, thank you.

[+thebruce0]

Not only is it galling that the flawed methodology and reasoning behind stopping 'double logging' is going to kill YOSM but, the number of people on this thread who are happy about the fact. Not only happy but are willing to take time to support its demise in writing.

...

Not only is it galling that the flawed methodology and reasoning behind stopping 'double logging' is going to kill YOSM but, the number of people on this thread who are happy about the fact. Not only happy but are willing to take time to support its demise in writing.

...

Would I jump onto a forum and take delight in...

...

geocaching is supposed to be fun...

geocaching is supposed to be a hobby; a laugh; it's enjoyment; pleasure; memories; a general good time...

...

To take satisfaction in seeing something destroyed that others have a passion for is a little churlish...

Man, you make it sound like if you're not for YOSM then you are pleased, excited, exhuberant at its demise specifically, and want geocaching to be a mundane chore with zero fun whatsoever!

c'mon man...The sky is not falling.

Edited April 3, 2017 by thebruce0

[+Orlando's Rat]

As someone who helps maintain yosm.org.uk I have stayed in the background and let others have their say.

 

I just wanted to correct something that was said earlier. We do not log the YOSM finds on yosm.org.uk (although that may have been just how I read it). Those are recorded on gc.com and the information is extracted, processed and presented in yosm.org.uk in a similar way to Church Micro series, Sidetracked series, little bridges series, etc. And yes, all of these series are one cache one find caches

 

I have listened to both sides of the argument and I can understand both sides. It's just a shame that there is so much vitriol, from both sides. We are meant to be a community with similar, and overlapping interests. How we, as individuals, play the game (and it is a game) varies from person to person. Nothing I have read from YOSM and Brass Cap fans says that they disagree with one cache one find for the vast majority of caches. After all, we are talking about 2 caches out of a total of 2.8 million caches worldwide, which is 0.00007%.

 

Yes, the YOSM and the Brass Cap are anachronistic, but so are steam trains and people love them. It is this throwback which, for me, is part of the charm. Trust me, finding one YOSM or Brass Cap is a challenge, finding two different ones is a bigger challenge which requires the YOSMer to hike up a hill or a mountain. The YOSM and Brass Cap instills a passion that another film pot at the base of a tree just doesn't do.

 

The sense of community was there before these changes were announced. Post announcement I hear lots of comments of dismay. Perhaps we will have to log our finds as a note or even create a logging system on YOSM.org.uk. In my opinion, and it is just that, can there not be room for something slightly different rather than a homogenized view? Does everything have to fit into clear definitions?

 

I'm expecting cachers with the view that one cache one find and nothing else will do to tear this perspective apart. But why can't differences can be understood and respected?

[+Manville Possum]

Little updating, and maybe it could be more popular soon.

 

Imagine what we would be seeing if BM finds counted here. As a Geocacher/Waymarker that enjoys Benchmarks, I believe my Flickr account gets more views than my Waymarks.

 

I don't consider myself to be a Benchmarker, I just enjoy stumbling upon them.

[+Harris Tweed]

Not only is it galling that the flawed methodology and reasoning behind stopping 'double logging' is going to kill YOSM but, the number of people on this thread who are happy about the fact. Not only happy but are willing to take time to support its demise in writing.

...

Not only is it galling that the flawed methodology and reasoning behind stopping 'double logging' is going to kill YOSM but, the number of people on this thread who are happy about the fact. Not only happy but are willing to take time to support its demise in writing.

...

Would I jump onto a forum and take delight in...

...

geocaching is supposed to be fun...

geocaching is supposed to be a hobby; a laugh; it's enjoyment; pleasure; memories; a general good time...

...

To take satisfaction in seeing something destroyed that others have a passion for is a little churlish...

Man, you make it sound like if you're not for YOSM then you are pleased, excited, exhuberant at its demise specifically, and want geocaching to be a mundane chore with zero fun whatsoever!

c'mon man...The sky is not falling.

 

Then you misread and fail to understand my post 'man'.

[+dprovan]

Man, you make it sound like if you're not for YOSM then you are pleased, excited, exhuberant at its demise specifically, and want geocaching to be a mundane chore with zero fun whatsoever!

I've never done a YOSM, so I have no vested interest in them, but I can understand how Harris Tweed can read some of these posts as an expression of absolute glee that people won't be able to log the YOSMs multiple times anymore.

 

c'mon man...The sky is not falling.

Neither is the sky falling over multiple find logs. Part of the reason the arguments against YOSMs come off as happy about the prospect of them going away is that the arguments are all about why people are wrong to like YOSMs to begin with. Someone with an appreciation of the YOSM fans' feelings would be expressing regrets about the need to terminate them and falling over themselves to justify why it was so important.

[+cerberus1]

... After all, we are talking about 2 caches out of a total of 2.8 million caches worldwide, which is 0.00007%.

The Original Poster spoke of the changes coming, gleaned from GSAK, and said, "If you implement this please remember that some cache can be logged more than once, including the much loved http://coord.info/GC45CC in the UK and http://coord.info/GC43F3 in Canada".

 

Just shy of your percentages maybe, "cache logged more than once" also includes all of the moving /traveling caches, and all the "monthly, every other wednesday, etc" events that have kept the same GC#.

 

Folks (for some odd reason) just haven't really started on those yet.

[+thebruce0]

Man, you make it sound like if you're not for YOSM then you are pleased, excited, exhuberant at its demise specifically, and want geocaching to be a mundane chore with zero fun whatsoever!

I've never done a YOSM, so I have no vested interest in them, but I can understand how Harris Tweed can read some of these posts as an expression of absolute glee that people won't be able to log the YOSMs multiple times anymore.

I can understand why he would read it that way - but dare I say, that's not the right way to read it.

 

c'mon man...The sky is not falling.

Neither is the sky falling over multiple find logs. Part of the reason the arguments against YOSMs come off as happy about the prospect of them going away is that the arguments are all about why people are wrong to like YOSMs to begin with. Someone with an appreciation of the YOSM fans' feelings would be expressing regrets about the need to terminate them and falling over themselves to justify why it was so important.

 

Many here have expressed how great the cache is. But that doesn't mean we have to support the concept of multi-logging else we're against everything good and wonderful about geocaching. I don't think anyone in this thread has expressed "delight", let alone "glee" that YOSM is affected (certainly not "must" be archived, which is not true). On the contrary, many have expressed recognition of its special stature in the hobby, and remorse at the fact that the change means it can no longer function as intended. Many have also said it can remain active, so that people can still log it found (even if only once), and that people can still use it to have all the fun of finding the markers at which it resides.

Sure, some here are more blunt and bold about the fact that with the rule change certain things will have to change, and there are strong stances about what constitutes a "find".

 

But I fail to see how this thread is somehow piling on gleefully at the demise of special caches merely because the structure and definition of a "Find" is being locked down.

For myself, I expressed earlier that I'd much support the decision to grandfather it and the brass marker given their age, and community and beloved status. It appears that GS has decided not to though; but that won't change my feeling about the API rule change.

 

Yes, it's unfortunate that there is collateral damage, but there is far more intended effect than unfortunate effect. That does not translate to "Yay! Finally it'll be archived! Geocaching no longer has to be a 'fun hobby; a laugh; enjoyable; pleasurable; to make memories; a general good time'!"

(which itself is incorrect as it's not being forced into archival - the CO has chosen that course of action rather than let it live on and let people still locate them and post notes insead of Find Logs)

 

So, can we leave the rhetoric out, and discuss the merits/drawbacks (or as microdot put it, the academic nature) of the decision? If there's anything more to discuss at all, since the decision appears to have already been made? Unless someone can make a good argument to convince GS to change their mind about grandfathering of course (which would need to be purely academic and not based on rhetoric, which typically ends up futile)

Edited April 3, 2017 by thebruce0

[+thomfre]

...

The sense of community was there before these changes were announced. Post announcement I hear lots of comments of dismay. Perhaps we will have to log our finds as a note or even create a logging system on YOSM.org.uk. In my opinion, and it is just that, can there not be room for something slightly different rather than a homogenized view? Does everything have to fit into clear definitions?

...

I believe that the YOSM might live on, if the YOSM community decide that they want to keep it alive.

 

Groundspeak made their decision. So if we really want to behave as a community, we should discuss how to solve this within the rules.

 

People double logging my caches, either because they haven't read a single word about this activity before starting, or due to problems with the site/app/API, annoys me. So I'm happy this change will fix that.

 

I have no reason for wanting the YOSM dead. I would never log the caches myself, as I don't like moving caches (the coordinates move around). And I don't like caches that change placed date all the time. Like this, and some recurring events. But I don't mind other people logging them.

 

If yosm.org.uk is based on logs, it should be just as easy to read notes, and update the find list. But that's only if the cache doesn't get archived.

 

The game evolves, whether we like it or not. We can choose to evolve with it.

[+Harris Tweed]

Groundspeak's mission statement: Our mission is to inspire and enable discovery, exploration and adventure.

 

I can't see the bit where it says 'as long as the numbers add up'.

 

YOSM's meet the mission statement in FULL.

 

And yes, there are people on here who are happy to see the demise of YOSMs. Geocaching has just become a little bit more bland in the UK. Oh well, no one died ... happy face. <<< see.

[+Viajero Perdido]

To reduce confusion for our newer community members, I think Groundspeak should also abolish "geology virtuals" (try explaining those to a newbie), benchmarks, and any other games-within-a-game that I've forgotten.

 

After all, how fair is it to abolish some but not all?

 

Sacrilege, I know. Going into hiding...

[+thomfre]

To reduce confusion for our newer community members, I think Groundspeak should also abolish "geology virtuals" (try explaining those to a newbie), benchmarks, and any other games-within-a-game that I've forgotten.

 

After all, how fair is it to abolish some but not all?

This change isn't made to abolish YOSM and the others. It's clearly meant to make the site behave like the guidelines. It doesn't make sense that the guidelines state that you should not log your own caches, or log a cache twice, when the site let you do both. That's really hard to explain. "Why does the site let me log my own cache, if I'm not supposed to?" always come up when someone asks about this.

 

If Groundspeak wanted to abolish YOSM, they would have just archived it.

[+Malpas Wanderer]

... After all, we are talking about 2 caches out of a total of 2.8 million caches worldwide, which is 0.00007%.

The Original Poster spoke of the changes coming, gleaned from GSAK, and said, "If you implement this please remember that some cache can be logged more than once, including the much loved http://coord.info/GC45CC in the UK and http://coord.info/GC43F3 in Canada".

 

Just shy of your percentages maybe, "cache logged more than once" also includes all of the moving /traveling caches, and all the "monthly, every other wednesday, etc" events that have kept the same GC#.

 

Folks (for some odd reason) just haven't really started on those yet.

 

The game is diverse.

 

Some of us (myself) was unaware that GC codes could be locked and reused for regular events etc.

Must be confusing to reviewers when considering proximity clashes for events or is that just another (UK only) application?

[+Malpas Wanderer]

With an Owner Maintenace log for one of my adopted caches throwing a 500 Server error one imagines some changes are already in effect.

 

Envision a lot of problems in the days to come.

[+thomfre]

With an Owner Maintenace log for one of my adopted caches throwing a 500 Server error one imagines some changes are already in effect.

 

Envision a lot of problems in the days to come.

Yes, the change is coming to the website earlier than the API. So people that want to continue to log multiple finds on the same cache until May 8th, will have to do so through GSAK or any other API-enabled app (c:geo will not do work).

[+niraD]

Just shy of your percentages maybe, "cache logged more than once" also includes all of the moving /traveling caches, and all the "monthly, every other wednesday, etc" events that have kept the same GC#.

 

Folks (for some odd reason) just haven't really started on those yet.

The first page of this thread includes a reference to traveling caches and to recurring monthly events that reuse the same listing. But yeah, most of the discussion has been focused on YOSM.

[+thomfre]

Just shy of your percentages maybe, "cache logged more than once" also includes all of the moving /traveling caches, and all the "monthly, every other wednesday, etc" events that have kept the same GC#.

 

Folks (for some odd reason) just haven't really started on those yet.

The first page of this thread includes a reference to traveling caches and to recurring monthly events that reuse the same listing. But yeah, most of the discussion has been focused on YOSM.

The recurring events can be solved just by creating new listings for each event. So I guess there's a lot less motivation for arguing about the change from the owners of those events.

[cezanne]

Just shy of your percentages maybe, "cache logged more than once" also includes all of the moving /traveling caches, and all the "monthly, every other wednesday, etc" events that have kept the same GC#.

 

Folks (for some odd reason) just haven't really started on those yet.

The first page of this thread includes a reference to traveling caches and to recurring monthly events that reuse the same listing. But yeah, most of the discussion has been focused on YOSM.

The recurring events can be solved just by creating new listings for each event. So I guess there's a lot less motivation for arguing about the change from the owners of those events.

 

I do not think that that's the reason. I rather think that recurring events are dying out. I have been a fan of recurring events for regular events at inns but with the addition that they are not logged multiple times as attended as I used to think about events as something special and not a cheap +1 which after all is what meanwhile almost all events in my area have come to be about (helped also by the no moving events change).

[+TmGrandemotte]

Shame on you Groundspeak, hang your head in shame.

 

There is little else to say that hasn't already been said

Edited April 3, 2017 by TmGrandemotte

[+SwineFlew]

Groundspeak's mission statement: Our mission is to inspire and enable discovery, exploration and adventure.

 

I can't see the bit where it says 'as long as the numbers add up'.

 

YOSM's meet the mission statement in FULL.

 

And yes, there are people on here who are happy to see the demise of YOSMs. Geocaching has just become a little bit more bland in the UK. Oh well, no one died ... happy face. <<< see.

 

No... you are taking GS's word out of context to support your argument to save a cache thats against GS's guideline.

 

I am still believe in the one cache = one find. I believe it got alot to do with keeping the database accurate. (from the company point of view) Bad data (multi of same type of logs) isn't good. Junk data always spill out junk stats. <_< You want to keep your stats accurate as much you can. Its for business reason(s)... borrowing money and advertisement and etc. Those are my opinion and I might be wrong but I am trying to think from a business point of view about "bad data" Can anyone here tell me if bad data can over tax the data system?

[+tundra70]

Groundspeak's mission statement: Our mission is to inspire and enable discovery, exploration and adventure.

 

I can't see the bit where it says 'as long as the numbers add up'.

 

YOSM's meet the mission statement in FULL.

 

And yes, there are people on here who are happy to see the demise of YOSMs. Geocaching has just become a little bit more bland in the UK. Oh well, no one died ... happy face. <<< see.

 

No... you are taking GS's word out of context to support your argument to save a cache thats against GS's guideline.

 

I am still believe in the one cache = one find. I believe it got alot to do with keeping the database accurate. (from the company point of view) Bad data (multi of same type of logs) isn't good. Junk data always spill out junk stats. <_< You want to keep your stats accurate as much you can. Its for business reason(s)... borrowing money and advertisement and etc. Those are my opinion and I might be wrong but I am trying to think from a business point of view about "bad data" Can anyone here tell me if bad data can over tax the data system?

 

Fair point. A few British cachers with flasks of tea and Eccles Cakes logging different trig pillars (at unique locations!) multiple times would tax the servers at MIT, NOAA and NASA combined, so what chance have Groundspeak?

[+niraD]

I am still believe in the one cache = one find. I believe it got alot to do with keeping the database accurate. (from the company point of view) Bad data (multi of same type of logs) isn't good. Junk data always spill out junk stats. <_< You want to keep your stats accurate as much you can. Its for business reason(s)... borrowing money and advertisement and etc. Those are my opinion and I might be wrong but I am trying to think from a business point of view about "bad data" Can anyone here tell me if bad data can over tax the data system?

I'm trying to figure out how multiple Find logs from the same user for the same cache would over-tax the DB any more than multiple Note logs from the same user for the same cache would do so.

 

Or for that matter, multiple NM logs from the same user for the same cache.

[+J Grouchy]

Shame on you Groundspeak, hang your head in shame.

 

There is little else to say that hasn't already been said

 

I'm really resisting the urge to post an eye-rolling gif here...

 

"Hang your head in shame"??? Really?

 

The strongest, most negative responses appear to be coming not from those who welcome the change, but from those who resist it. I think most everything that CAN be said about this HAS been said. Now...who here has actually had their mind changed?

 

Anyone? Anyone?

Bueller...?

[cezanne]

Groundspeak's mission statement: Our mission is to inspire and enable discovery, exploration and adventure.

 

No... you are taking GS's word out of context to support your argument to save a cache thats against GS's guideline.

 

 

It is probably off topic here but I need to admit that I feel that the bold statement does not fit to how Groundspeak has acted since years at least when it comes to the inspire part.

[+hal-an-tow]

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.

 

It is not possible to log anything on yosm.org.uk

 

Maybe you should follow that quick google search with a slow thoughtful read ? Go back and have a proper look instead of leaping to unfounded conclusions, I'm not wasting my time explaining .

[+tundra70]

Shame on you Groundspeak, hang your head in shame.

 

There is little else to say that hasn't already been said

 

I'm really resisting the urge to post an eye-rolling gif here...

 

"Hang your head in shame"??? Really?

 

The strongest, most negative responses appear to be coming not from those who welcome the change, but from those who resist it. I think most everything that CAN be said about this HAS been said. Now...who here has actually had their mind changed?

 

Anyone? Anyone?

Bueller...?

 

The strongest responses are coming from cachers in the UK who will have the way they have chosen to cache for years, changed. We in the UK found and logged the YOSM within the rules as we found them. What we can't understand is why anyone in, for instance the USA, who was unlikely to have even heard of GC45CC prior to a few days ago, would be anything other than supportive of us being allowed to keep a cache so many of us enjoy. (I use the 'we' somewhat presumptively, I admit).

[+thomfre]

It is not possible to log anything on yosm.org.uk

 

Maybe you should follow that quick google search with a slow thoughtful read ? Go back and have a proper look instead of leaping to unfounded conclusions, I'm not wasting my time explaining .

Maybe you should read the previous posts. We know that it's currently not possible. But is it impossible to change that?

 

It does, by the way, look like it's possible to log on this page: http://trigpointing.uk/

[+Voltgloss]

Forgive my ignorance as a non-UK cacher, but the question that comes to my mind is: What is preventing a cacher local to any given YOSM site from either (1) hiding a physical cache at or near the site, or (2) if that is not possible for proximity or other reasons, making the YOSM site a virtual stage in a multi or mystery cache and having it lead to a physical cache elsewhere?

 

One cache per one find per one YOSM site. For as many YOSM sites as local cachers think are worthwhile enough to visit that they'd like to draw other cachers there.

[+Malpas Wanderer]

With an Owner Maintenace log for one of my adopted caches throwing a 500 Server error one imagines some changes are already in effect.

 

Envision a lot of problems in the days to come.

Yes, the change is coming to the website earlier than the API. So people that want to continue to log multiple finds on the same cache until May 8th, will have to do so through GSAK or any other API-enabled app (c:geo will not do work).

 

At first I thought they might have set that you can only log Owner Maintenance if A Needs Maintenance was present but a test on one of my "Self Owned" caches went through ok.

 

A note on the adopted one ran ok and the notification came back ok.

 

Only thing different on the adopted one is the owner name has been left as the setter with my name in brackets.

They should be using Owner ID and certainly the note worked as expected.

Hope they are not using the name as many placers mis-spell or use something diverse.

 

The try for Owner Maintenance was rejected 4 times.

 

A little baffled.

[+J Grouchy]

I'm not wasting my time explaining .

 

Good...so I won't have to waste my time reading your response. Like someone else said, seems like it could be made to accept logging...or to read 'Notes' rather than 'Found it' logs. It's all about the willingness to make it so being greater than the desire to continue complaining about this update to the system.

[+Malpas Wanderer]

It is not possible to log anything on yosm.org.uk

 

Maybe you should follow that quick google search with a slow thoughtful read ? Go back and have a proper look instead of leaping to unfounded conclusions, I'm not wasting my time explaining .

Maybe you should read the previous posts. We know that it's currently not possible. But is it impossible to change that?

 

It does, by the way, look like it's possible to log on this page: http://trigpointing.uk/

 

Yes you can log on Trigpointing.uk I've logged some there but not all of my finds.

 

I guess the major difference is it would not be solely geocachers logging finds there. The geocaching site as you've seen created a greater sense of community.

 

As I've said before in previous posts I believe that site to be run by a private individual rather than a commercial entity.

A generous provision but only valid as long as that generosity continues.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Malpas Wanderer

[+MartyBartfast]

 

It does, by the way, look like it's possible to log on this page: http://trigpointing.uk/

 

I suppose we could also stick a QR code on them and then all go over to Munzee to log them, but I don't expect that suggestion is going to go down very well with TPTB.

[+niraD]

Like someone else said, seems like it could be made to accept logging...or to read 'Notes' rather than 'Found it' logs.

One possibility would be to borrow a technique from the FTF tracking systems. Have people include a special string in their Note logs, and then have the system count both Find logs and Note logs that include the special string.

 

For example, posting a Note that reads:

I'm glad this historic cache was not archived.

would not be counted by the system. But posting a note that reads:

[=YOSM=] This is my third survey monument!

would be counted by the system.

[+fbingha]

If this thread was merely about someone posting a "Needs Archived" over this series, the masses would be shouting "PLAY THE GAME LIKE YOU WAN'T TO PLAY IT AND IGNORE THE REST. LEAVE IT ALONE".

When Groundspeak makes the same call, then the tide shifts to "STOP WHINING, YOU RULE BREAKERS".

Frankly, bowing to the Power Trail lot was a bigger loss of face than allowing this lot to keep logging their markers.

[+thebruce0]

It does, by the way, look like it's possible to log on this page: http://trigpointing.uk/

I suppose we could also stick a QR code on them and then all go over to Munzee to log them, but I don't expect that suggestion is going to go down very well with TPTB.

 

Who are TPTB in that case? What you do at the YOSM site is entirely up to you; that's a valid course of action as well. Place a munzee near the locations to visit, log them there. It's not taking anything away from GC, and it's additive to that service. Whether you log them there, or on trigpointing, or changes are made to yosm.org.uk is practically irrelevant if the desired practice is no longer allowable at GC.

 

Unless you mean TPTB as the landowners of the markers in that case if it's private then it's unlikely you'd be able to place a cache there either. But if a cache can be placed nearby, then an M* nearby should be just as feasible.

Geocheckpoints were also a thing for a while; no idea how active they are now. But yep, there are numerous other sites that can be used just as well for tracking YOSMs in various ways.

[+thomfre]

 

It does, by the way, look like it's possible to log on this page: http://trigpointing.uk/

 

I suppose we could also stick a QR code on them and then all go over to Munzee to log them, but I don't expect that suggestion is going to go down very well with TPTB.

They still support virtuals over there, so no need for the code

[+Team Microdot]

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

 

?

 

You cannot read archived log entries.

 

B.

 

The CO posted a note indicating that the cache was to be archived on 7th May.

 

That note seems to have disappeared. No idea why.

[+dprovan]

It doesn't make sense that the guidelines state that you should not log your own caches, or log a cache twice, when the site let you do both.

The last time I looked, the guideline about logging a cache only said it was bad form to log your own cache. If it now says something more absolute, I'd be thinking the guidelines were changed to match this API change, not the other way around. I don't remember anything about logging a cache twice, and I'm not sure why the guidelines would bother to specify a rule against that. At most, I'd expect the guidelines to point out that it rarely makes sense, at least until this API change.

 

To me, it doesn't make sense to prohibit things that are so innocuous.

[+thebruce0]

Well the problem is, it's not nearly as innocuous as you seem to imply, as evidenced by many examples in this very thread.

[+J Grouchy]

It doesn't make sense that the guidelines state that you should not log your own caches, or log a cache twice, when the site let you do both.

The last time I looked, the guideline about logging a cache only said it was bad form to log your own cache. If it now says something more absolute, I'd be thinking the guidelines were changed to match this API change, not the other way around. I don't remember anything about logging a cache twice, and I'm not sure why the guidelines would bother to specify a rule against that. At most, I'd expect the guidelines to point out that it rarely makes sense, at least until this API change.

 

To me, it doesn't make sense to prohibit things that are so innocuous.

 

Closing a loophole or fixing a bug does not require modifying guidelines.

[+dprovan]

No... you are taking GS's word out of context to support your argument to save a cache thats against GS's guideline.

 

I am still believe in the one cache = one find. I believe it got alot to do with keeping the database accurate. (from the company point of view) Bad data (multi of same type of logs) isn't good. Junk data always spill out junk stats. <_< You want to keep your stats accurate as much you can. Its for business reason(s)... borrowing money and advertisement and etc. Those are my opinion and I might be wrong but I am trying to think from a business point of view about "bad data" Can anyone here tell me if bad data can over tax the data system?

LOL! First accuse someone else of taking something GS actually did say and interpreting in a way you don't think is correct. Then, turn around in the same post and present a completely fabricated excuse that doesn't bear any resemblance to anything GS has said.

[+dprovan]

Well the problem is, it's not nearly as innocuous as you seem to imply, as evidenced by many examples in this very thread.

I must have missed those examples. Could you point them out? I've only heard some vague references to "confusion", "loophole", and "bug", and really very little of that. In another thread, kanchan did mentioned accidental duplicate logs clogging up his GPSr, but that hardly seems like justification for killing of these popular caches.

 

Closing a loophole or fixing a bug does not require modifying guidelines.

I'm sorry, but I think you've lost track of this conversation. I didn't bring up the guidelines. Someone else was supporting the changes by using the argument that they brought the actual system behavior into line with the guidelines, and I was questioning that claim.

[+SwineFlew]

No... you are taking GS's word out of context to support your argument to save a cache thats against GS's guideline.

 

I am still believe in the one cache = one find. I believe it got alot to do with keeping the database accurate. (from the company point of view) Bad data (multi of same type of logs) isn't good. Junk data always spill out junk stats. <_< You want to keep your stats accurate as much you can. Its for business reason(s)... borrowing money and advertisement and etc. Those are my opinion and I might be wrong but I am trying to think from a business point of view about "bad data" Can anyone here tell me if bad data can over tax the data system?

LOL! First accuse someone else of taking something GS actually did say and interpreting in a way you don't think is correct. Then, turn around in the same post and present a completely fabricated excuse that doesn't bear any resemblance to anything GS has said.

Why you are so rude?

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Anyone logging a cache as 'found' more than once is wrong. Personally, I think extra 'found it' logs should be deleted. Really, all it does is run up ones find count. I don't do it, nor do those I cache with. Lame.

 

False numbers just ruin it for everyone. On the one hand it make you look like you may have more experience than you really do. On the other it's a slap in the face to those of us that come by our number honestly. Like I said, lame. Saying anything different is blasphemous.

 

Unless I missed something, or am not reading between the lines of the initial post (that seems to capitalize on this long overdue policy), I apologize in advance for those who just don't get it.

 

Wait...what? This isn't an April Fools joke? I thought for sure it was, hence my original post in this thread (bold added). My true feelings on the topic is a healthy ambivalence...

[+fizzymagic]

No... you are taking GS's word out of context to support your argument to save a cache thats against GS's guideline.

 

I am still believe in the one cache = one find. I believe it got alot to do with keeping the database accurate. (from the company point of view) Bad data (multi of same type of logs) isn't good. Junk data always spill out junk stats. <_< You want to keep your stats accurate as much you can. Its for business reason(s)... borrowing money and advertisement and etc. Those are my opinion and I might be wrong but I am trying to think from a business point of view about "bad data" Can anyone here tell me if bad data can over tax the data system?

LOL! First accuse someone else of taking something GS actually did say and interpreting in a way you don't think is correct. Then, turn around in the same post and present a completely fabricated excuse that doesn't bear any resemblance to anything GS has said.

Why you are so rude?

 

He learned it from me. I'm so proud *sniff*.

 

Seriously, being taken to task for poor arguments in a thread is not a result of rudeness. Rather, it's the the other person is being direct and pointed. If his argument had a weakness, then point it out. Responding to the language of his argument is basically an admission that your argument was indeed bad.

[+noncentric]

It doesn't make sense that the guidelines state that you should not log your own caches, or log a cache twice, when the site let you do both.

The last time I looked, the guideline about logging a cache only said it was bad form to log your own cache. If it now says something more absolute, I'd be thinking the guidelines were changed to match this API change, not the other way around. I don't remember anything about logging a cache twice, and I'm not sure why the guidelines would bother to specify a rule against that. At most, I'd expect the guidelines to point out that it rarely makes sense, at least until this API change.

 

To me, it doesn't make sense to prohibit things that are so innocuous.

The Help Center addresses this in its Logging Etiquette article: "Each geocache should be logged as found only one time by any one geocacher. If you visit the cache again, you should write about your experience by posting a note, not logging another find." This statement was not recently added.

[+pinkunicorn]

I do not think that that's the reason. I rather think that recurring events are dying out. I have been a fan of recurring events for regular events at inns but with the addition that they are not logged multiple times as attended as I used to think about events as something special and not a cheap +1 which after all is what meanwhile almost all events in my area have come to be about (helped also by the no moving events change).

 

Side note: I tried to figure out what was the biggest geocaching event held so far recently and that turned out to be more difficult than expected due to lots of events with multiple logs for either recycled listings or faked finds for event caches. For this reason alone, I'd actually be happy to see one-event-one-log implemented retroactively. Not that it'll happen, but I fail to see the point of multi-logging like this.

 

For the recurring events: it isn't the same event. If I log the March one and my friend the April one but they are the same listing, we seem to have visited the same event unless you really read the log dates (and assume that people never accidentally log on the wrong date). Since there has never been any problems creating new events, this just creates unnecessary confusion.

 

For event caches: If they are worthy of being noted as finds, then they should have a real listing and be available for users on later days. By just making log-as-event-caches, the "cache" owner is dodging both the maintenance guidelines (caches should be placed for the long term) and the proximity guidelines (since these caches aren't ever reviewed) at the cost of messing up everyone else's statistics.