Jump to content

Changes to logging, specifically stopping double logs


Recommended Posts

A cache with 20,000 logs and 600 favourite points seems to suggest it's well liked by the caching community.

That's only 3% favorite points. Not that much really.

 

 

22000+ finds but 2917 unique finders (1038 have logged more than once). That gives ~21% favourite points. It's in the top 10 for favourites in the UK.

 

Uh, no? Not even close.

 

21% favorite points means place #58 looking just at virtuals in the UK (which seem to get a fair amount of FP just for being virtuals, since they are rare nowadays). Looking at *all* UK caches, there are 47 that have 100% FP (of those that have at least 10 FP). As for what position 21% FP would be in the total list, I can't be bothered to page that far down the list. Position #1500 has 70% FP, as a random sanity check.

Link to comment

Why does anyone care about anyone else's find count? I couldn't care less that my neighbour has 1 million cache finds. For that matter, I really don't care about my total find count. I don't play this game to only worry about stats or find count. Nor do I think that doing so is truly in the spirit of the game.

 

Let people log caches the way they want to. It's just a game. If I want to log a find on GC43F3 125 times (for 125 unique brass caps - virtuals, BTW, not locationless), what does anyone else care? Seriously?

 

I handle support questions for Project-GC. You have *no*idea* how seriously people take the statistics.

Link to comment

If I want to log a find on GC43F3 125 times (for 125 unique brass caps - virtuals, BTW, not locationless), what does anyone else care? Seriously?

 

I do not care how often someone logs such a cache however it is a locationless cache and not a virtual. Have you ever looked into the concept of locationless caches which existed in the early years of gc.com?

Link to comment

A cache with 20,000 logs and 600 favourite points seems to suggest it's well liked by the caching community.

 

Of course those folks who can use one cache to obtain many smilies would like it...it bumps their numbers.

 

I can assure you that GC45CC to bump up your numbers is a particularly ineffective way of doing so - I was on a YOSM trip which started before sunrise and finished after dark - we covered 300 miles in the car and walked many more and we only managed 22!!! If you want to bump up your numbers just do one of those unbelievably unimaginative power trails in the US where you can apparently get 1000 identical film containers in a day! Apparently it's even acceptable to replace each one with the one before it so you can sign them on the move!!!

 

You have no idea what GC45CC is all about but you can be assured it's significantly more in keeping with Geocaching origins than you can possibly imagine!!

Link to comment

If I want to log a find on GC43F3 125 times (for 125 unique brass caps - virtuals, BTW, not locationless), what does anyone else care? Seriously?

 

I do not care how often someone logs such a cache however it is a locationless cache and not a virtual. Have you ever looked into the concept of locationless caches which existed in the early years of gc.com?

Actually, it's a moving cache...

Link to comment

Posting as a player here.

 

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.

 

Logging online is not equal to logging a smiley. You can still log those caches multiple times with a note, but only once with a smiley.

 

Apart from that, these are typical edge cases. And in my observation, Groundspeaks approach to edge cases is usually a big Meh! And rightly so, as otherwise there would be no progress possible. This Meh! approach to edge cases worked pretty well in the past. For example geocachers still shower with cold water at the Walddusche GCKA1T, even though additional logging requirements have been abandoned years ago. It works well as an optional task, because it's fun.

Link to comment

If I want to log a find on GC43F3 125 times (for 125 unique brass caps - virtuals, BTW, not locationless), what does anyone else care? Seriously?

 

I do not care how often someone logs such a cache however it is a locationless cache and not a virtual. Have you ever looked into the concept of locationless caches which existed in the early years of gc.com?

Actually, it's a moving cache...

 

Not really, moving caches normally have containers.

Link to comment

What about adoptions ? I and a friend adopted a series of 200 from someone who packed in caching. I didn't set the caches nor do i have any idea of how they are hidden. The only reason we took on 200 caches is so we could log them as found at our own pace. Now this is being made impossible and I'm stuck with one hundred caches i didn't want and can't log.

 

As a player, I'm happy if removing the option to log your own cache as found will stop such silly adoptions.

Link to comment

And in my observation, Groundspeaks approach to edge cases is usually a big Meh! And rightly so, as otherwise there would be no progress possible. This Meh! approach to edge cases worked pretty well in the past.

 

You will have had something else in mind when writing the above but I do not agree at all that changes like forbidding DNF and NM logs for cache owners is any sort of progress. It's rather the opposite in my mind.

Link to comment

A cache with 20,000 logs and 600 favourite points seems to suggest it's well liked by the caching community.

That's only 3% favorite points. Not that much really.

 

 

22000+ finds but 2917 unique finders (1038 have logged more than once). That gives ~21% favourite points. It's in the top 10 for favourites in the UK.

 

Uh, no? Not even close.

 

21% favorite points means place #58 looking just at virtuals in the UK (which seem to get a fair amount of FP just for being virtuals, since they are rare nowadays). Looking at *all* UK caches, there are 47 that have 100% FP (of those that have at least 10 FP). As for what position 21% FP would be in the total list, I can't be bothered to page that far down the list. Position #1500 has 70% FP, as a random sanity check.

 

I wouldn't rate favourite caches on % favourites as a new cache with 1 find and 1 favourite would always be at the top of the list. I was ranking on total number of favourites.

For some reason it isn't in the ranking on ProjectGC or the Find Geocaches page sorted by favouries on the GC site.

Link to comment

Not really, moving caches normally have containers.

Normally, moving caches aren't allowed :)

 

The cache will be moved around the UK and area Geocachers from all areas will get a chance to log it.
Ye Ole Survey Monuments (GC45CC) is a travelling geocache that is owned by outforthehunt. The cache moves around the country
Link to comment

I wouldn't rate favourite caches on % favourites as a new cache with 1 find and 1 favourite would always be at the top of the list. I was ranking on total number of favourites.

For some reason it isn't in the ranking on ProjectGC or the Find Geocaches page sorted by favouries on the GC site.

Looking at the total number of favorites, without looking at the find count, is not any better than treating a cache with 1 find/1 FP as the top of the list...

You need to look at both. With that many finds, 3%, 21% or 25% as geocaching.com states (basic members excluded), still isn't very much.

Link to comment

A cache with 20,000 logs and 600 favourite points seems to suggest it's well liked by the caching community.

That's only 3% favorite points. Not that much really.

 

 

22000+ finds but 2917 unique finders (1038 have logged more than once). That gives ~21% favourite points. It's in the top 10 for favourites in the UK.

 

Uh, no? Not even close.

 

21% favorite points means place #58 looking just at virtuals in the UK (which seem to get a fair amount of FP just for being virtuals, since they are rare nowadays). Looking at *all* UK caches, there are 47 that have 100% FP (of those that have at least 10 FP). As for what position 21% FP would be in the total list, I can't be bothered to page that far down the list. Position #1500 has 70% FP, as a random sanity check.

 

Er - 650 FPs is 10th in the U.K. by number Duncan. One of my own has 64% FPs but as it's only been found 25 times I'm not sure that's a good measure!

Link to comment

I have read through all the comments and I cannot add much except to say that I absolutely love YOSMs, they have been an important part of my caching life for several years and the caching world will be a worse place without them. To end the special features of YOSMs and other similar caches just to tidy up inadvertant (or deliberate) double logging is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Surely the few of this type still in existence can be given an exemption from the new rules.

 

Once again, nothing is stopping anyone from continuing to find these things. The only difference is you wouldn't get your +1 anymore. The "special feature" you talk about is the problem. Anyone claiming it would spoil caching not to have it is being a bit disingenuous. Essentially all they are really saying is they are only searching them out for the numbers.

 

I'm sure the numerous posters on here that have visited multiple YOSMs will be amused by the idea that they visited them 'for the numbers', whereas of course logging large numbers of trads, multis and letterboxes was for some higher purpose.

 

I agree with Tundra70. To me, this argument that if someone wants to log a cache they are only in it for the numbers doesn't make sense. You might as well say, why not stop all logging of all finds for all types of caches? People can still look for the caches if they want.

 

Cachers find this YOSM cache all around the country because they enjoy it. And sure, part of that enjoyment is recording the finds, seeing which ones you have done, which remain, etc. Just like most of us enjoy logging our finds. For some, that includes seeing their name on a "league table" of how many YOSMs they have found. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

I've only found the YOSM cache twice. So I'm not personally emotionally attached to it. But I understand for many, it is one of their favourite part of geocaching. And it is good if Groundspeak listens to how popular it is. If they decide there can't be an exception, and for the greater good multiple logs will no longer be allowed on this cache, so be it. It will upset some cachers. I don't think many will quit the game completely.

Link to comment

I have read through all the comments and I cannot add much except to say that I absolutely love YOSMs, they have been an important part of my caching life for several years and the caching world will be a worse place without them. To end the special features of YOSMs and other similar caches just to tidy up inadvertant (or deliberate) double logging is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Surely the few of this type still in existence can be given an exemption from the new rules.

 

Once again, nothing is stopping anyone from continuing to find these things. The only difference is you wouldn't get your +1 anymore. The "special feature" you talk about is the problem. Anyone claiming it would spoil caching not to have it is being a bit disingenuous. Essentially all they are really saying is they are only searching them out for the numbers.

 

I'm sure the numerous posters on here that have visited multiple YOSMs will be amused by the idea that they visited them 'for the numbers', whereas of course logging large numbers of trads, multis and letterboxes was for some higher purpose.

You found that cache 453 times. I can see why you are upset about it. :blink: :blink: :blink:

 

I suggest you go onto the YOSM site (http://www.yosm.org.uk/cacher_stats.php) and see just how far Tundra70 has had to travel to enable him to log it 453 times before you make such comments!

Link to comment

If anyone doesn't understand why we want to keep GC45CC, try looking at the cache page - the photographs will give you a good idea what's so special about them. Getting 'multiple' smileys takes enormous effort; it's not remotely like logging a urban nano more than once!

I tried asking this question: are there really no other caches to find near the survey monuments? I'm trying to understand why this one cache is so much more important than the ~3 million other caches.

 

And even if we say it's important, which it clearly is to some people. Why not just be glad that it gets to live, and log a note for all consecutive finds after the first one?

It's easy to compare this cache to benchmarks (which can be logged as a separate, non-counting, type). I've found a couple benchmarks, when finding the caches near them. But I'm not upset that it doesn't give me another smiley.

If you want the counter, I guess adapting yosm.org.uk to handle counting of write notes, isn't that hard. Then you can get to keep your stats, keep the cache alive, and still follow the rules of geocaching.com.

 

Edit: you could also start using Waymarking: http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=15f76a9a-f6df-4d1a-af0d-a7446a8406fd

Edited by thomfre
Link to comment

If I want to log a find on GC43F3 125 times (for 125 unique brass caps - virtuals, BTW, not locationless), what does anyone else care? Seriously?

 

I do not care how often someone logs such a cache however it is a locationless cache and not a virtual. Have you ever looked into the concept of locationless caches which existed in the early years of gc.com?

Actually, it's a moving cache...

 

The cache description says "Any of the past posted trigs can be logged [...] There are over 700 past posted trig locations.". That sounds pretty much like a locationless cache to me. If it was a moving cache, it should only be possible to log it on it's current coordinates.

Link to comment

With regards to poor communication I'm indeed not surprised that the news was first posted by an API partner and not Groundspeak. What annoys me though is that the few owners of caches that can be logged multiple times were apparently not informed. At least outforthehunt sounded very surprised. If he was given this information in advance, like the API partners he could have easily looked at alternatives and said: "look, we do it this way", rendering the whole discussion here pointless.

Link to comment

The cache description says "Any of the past posted trigs can be logged [...] There are over 700 past posted trig locations.". That sounds pretty much like a locationless cache to me. If it was a moving cache, it should only be possible to log it on it's current coordinates.

Fair point. But that makes it worse in my opinion. Locationless caches was archived and moved to Waymarking a long time ago...

Link to comment

With regards to poor communication I'm indeed not surprised that the news was first posted by an API partner and not Groundspeak. What annoys me though is that the few owners of caches that can be logged multiple times were apparently not informed. At least outforthehunt sounded very surprised. If he was given this information in advance, like the API partners he could have easily looked at alternatives and said: "look, we do it this way", rendering the whole discussion here pointless.

This was communicated to API partners to give them time to adapt their apps. And I'm very thankful that Groundspeak did that!

 

It was communicated on Facebook by the Norwegian reviewers (with a strange date) before the email was sent to the partners.

 

I guess it's possible that Groundspeak thought that a change like this *could* lead to mass logging own caches and duplicate finds from now and until the announced date. And therefore the general public won't be notified before after the change is in effect.

Link to comment

 

I tried asking this question: are there really no other caches to find near the survey monuments? I'm trying to understand why this one cache is so much more important than the ~3 million other caches.

 

And even if we say it's important, which it clearly is to some people. Why not just be glad that it gets to live, and log a note for all consecutive finds after the first one?

 

Some of the monuments have caches nearby. Some don't. Of those which don't, some have places to hide them nearby. Some may be on land where caches are not allowed.

 

It is just a "type" which some cachers like. And as such they prefer it could continue. I don't see what is wrong with that.

 

If it can't continue as is (which seems the case), then I'm sure it will adapt. I guess that will be mainly down to the cache owner, does he want to adapt the tools etc. Or leave it as is, just no new found logs. Or archive it.

Link to comment

Most cachers are intelligent enough to be able to decide whether to duplicate log and will be able to correct if they log accidentally. Is removing the, albeit accidental, functionality that allows caches like YOSM to flourish the right answer? By the same mentality, how has the APE series survived?

It seems to me that Groundspeak would be better placed looking at methods of extending the current functionality rather than reducing the features that give our hobby colour.

Please don't place so many restrictions on the community. By and large, we are grown ups.

Link to comment

Perhaps the solution could be, as a one off, for Groundspeak to work with outforthehunt to allow the creation of individual new virtual caches at each location where GC45CC is currently available, so that previous loggers don't lose their genuine finds (and, indeed, the virtuals would then appear correctly in their stats too), and then archive GC45CC. I know that would mean that no further YOSMs could be added, but at least it would mean that all those people who have genuinely invested vast chunks of their leisure time walking up and down hills and mountains in the UK will still see the benefit of doing so, and would also mean that all previous locations remain accessible and loggable. I'm only invested in it to the tune of about 17 finds, by the way.

Edited by MKGees
Link to comment

The cache description says "Any of the past posted trigs can be logged [...] There are over 700 past posted trig locations.". That sounds pretty much like a locationless cache to me. If it was a moving cache, it should only be possible to log it on it's current coordinates.

Fair point. But that makes it worse in my opinion. Locationless caches was archived and moved to Waymarking a long time ago...

 

No, not moved to Waymarking. What Waymarking offers is something different which does not appeal to real fans of locationsless caches.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

The cache description says "Any of the past posted trigs can be logged [...] There are over 700 past posted trig locations.". That sounds pretty much like a locationless cache to me. If it was a moving cache, it should only be possible to log it on it's current coordinates.

Fair point. But that makes it worse in my opinion. Locationless caches was archived and moved to Waymarking a long time ago...

 

No, not moved to Waymarking. What Waymarking offers is something different which does not appeal to real fans of locationsless caches.

 

Can you explain the difference for us?

Link to comment

With regards to poor communication I'm indeed not surprised that the news was first posted by an API partner and not Groundspeak. What annoys me though is that the few owners of caches that can be logged multiple times were apparently not informed. At least outforthehunt sounded very surprised. If he was given this information in advance, like the API partners he could have easily looked at alternatives and said: "look, we do it this way", rendering the whole discussion here pointless.

This was communicated to API partners to give them time to adapt their apps. And I'm very thankful that Groundspeak did that!

 

It was communicated on Facebook by the Norwegian reviewers (with a strange date) before the email was sent to the partners.

 

I guess it's possible that Groundspeak thought that a change like this *could* lead to mass logging own caches and duplicate finds from now and until the announced date. And therefore the general public won't be notified before after the change is in effect.

 

Yes, but the point is: There aren't many of those caches around, and most of them are by outforthehunt. Just inform those few people beforehand, work with them to find a solution, or ask them to keep'em going in any other form. ofth has maintained his caches so well over the years. I could imagine that he would have come up with a good solution before all here exploded. Just a bit more communication from GS's side as ever, not more!

Link to comment

ofth has maintained his caches so well over the years.

 

Looks like the reviewer has ended up archiving quite a few through lack of CO attention :unsure:

 

Actually the YOSMs archived were done so by OFTH, who saw that the landowner was upset my geocachers and archived them to save both the geocacher and the landowner arguments. Or that the OS was now destroyed to make way for roads.

Link to comment

ofth has maintained his caches so well over the years.

 

Looks like the reviewer has ended up archiving quite a few through lack of CO attention :unsure:

 

Actually the YOSMs archived were done so by OFTH, who saw that the landowner was upset my geocachers and archived them to save both the geocacher and the landowner arguments. Or that the OS was now destroyed to make way for roads.

 

I'd no reason to believe the post I responded to was only talking about YOSM.

 

If it was only talking about YOSM then I'm left wondering what there is to maintain anyway given that it's a virtual cache.

Link to comment

No, not moved to Waymarking. What Waymarking offers is something different which does not appeal to real fans of locationsless caches.

 

Can you explain the difference for us?

 

There are a number of differences apart from the obvious one that one needs to visit and register at a different site.

One key difference is that if there were a locationless cache for example for all Gothic churches in Southern England,

then all logs would be collected together in the listing of that very locationless cache which is nice for those who enjoy browsing through the logs.

Right now this is the case for the brass caps.

 

With Waymarking there are two concepts, the one is a the Waymarking category(with a special and in my opinion very complicated and tedious system how such categories can be opened) and the other are waymarks within a category

A category could be e.g. Gothic churches. Then everyone could register a new Gothic church as a waymark in that category (and also separately any other category where it could fit, e.g. if the church is in city X in the UK, there could be a category churches in the UK and another sights in city X, the same location could also be listed as waymark in these and other categories). Everyone listing a new waymark needs to comply with the rules announced by the officers of the waymark categories.

 

The visit logs are per waymark and not per waymark category and are thus spread over many different items.

 

Waymarking is typically used by those who wish to collect waypoints and not so much by those who enjoy visiting them and those who enjoy reading logs and looking at photos in a collective manner as it was possible for locationless caches.

For the brass cap example, one would need to look at all waymarks within the brass cap category (if it exists) which is quite inconvenient, I'd say.

 

Another aspect of many/most (not all) locationless caches was that everyone who logged a find needed to come up with a new location and could not use again a location someone else has used before which let an additional challenge enter the game.

 

I'd say that something like safari caches known at the German opencaching site is much better suited for the brass cap concept than Waymarking.

Link to comment

Waymarking is typically used by those who wish to collect waypoints and not so much by those who enjoy visiting them

 

People who are into Waymarking are motivated by collecting points rather than visiting the locations?

 

Not all, but many, yes. Many just list waymarks but never visit any waymarks. Their idea is to set up e.g. a list of all McDonalds restaurants in some area or a list of all dry stone walls under protection. These kind of waymarkers also typically do not care whether they get visit logs for their waymarks.

 

From the point of view of setting up such lists, it is also perfectly ok if the same object is listed in many categories as is the case in Waymarking. You do not log the visit to the location/object but log specific waymarks and the same object could be listed in 10 and more categories.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I'd just like to add my voice to the many who enjoy logging YOSM. This cache greatly enhances my caching experience. I know that many UK Cachers, and I'm sure the same is true for Canadian cachers and the Brass Cap series, base their caching activities almost entirely round the YOSM series and that, by effectively killing it off, Groundspeak is, and this is no exaggeration, ending their caching careers. This issue, which is close to my heart, together with the number of cache owners who like to use NM as a reminder to themselves that some action is required without having to disable the cache leads me, and the complications arising from adopted caches, to add my support to the solution already suggested, namely that a pop-up warning be implemented in the event of users attempting to use any of the lig types in the scope of this change. This would achieve the desired effect of preventing accidental double logging or choosing the wrong type through inexperience or mistake while allowing people to continue "playing the game their own way", preserving popular grandfathered caches and accomodating cache adopters and COs wishing to use NM for their own maintenance responsibilities.

 

*SAVE THE YOSM! *

Link to comment

In defence of GC45CC it is, in our view, a moving Virtual. Each location is unique, therefore we have no problem logging it multiple times (some cachers clearly do). As Titus pointed out, if we wanted numbers we’d be wise to ignore it.

 

It’s logged in the same way as a Virtual i.e. email the CO with what you found at the location. In the case of a YOSM emailing OFTH your own co-ordinates and a description of the pillar, rivet, bolt or FBM. It suffers from the same problems as many Virtuals:

• The info can be found online

• A photo would prove you were there (but not when) but these can’t be required.

 

It is very anomalous, there is no about that, because it can be logged based on where it has been as well as where it currently is.

 

As many people have pointed out, there is a YOSM community in the UK, which we would rather not lose. Most of us (but not all) started logging it long after the way the cache worked was set, and we’ve just accepted it. Personally, we’d not like to see it go. We note with interest how pleased some on here seem to be at the thought of it going, despite the fact that it would make some of their fellow cachers unhappy.

 

Some strange and well-liked caches will have to go in the interests of uniformity. Are we sure we’ll all be happier for that? Presumably the Sherlock series in London should be archived, as they are self-described as ‘virtual-multis’ i.e. log the feeders like a virtual (which log as a multi despite there being nothing to sign) and these lead to a multi-final (where there is something to sign).

In the interests of uniformity and being family-friendly, you’ll lose the very things which make it interesting. The DT grid will be next. Who likes anything with .5 in it? It’ll be replaced with smilies with increasing grins.

The comments on here seem to come down to whether people want all caching to be identical the world over i.e. a level playing field (which in simply not achievable) , or whether some diversity and ‘weirdness’ is allowed. We are in the latter camp. It’s more fun.

 

Cameron & Debbie

Link to comment

I guess it's possible that Groundspeak thought that a change like this *could* lead to mass logging own caches and duplicate finds from now and until the announced date. And therefore the general public won't be notified before after the change is in effect.

 

If that was HQ's reasoning (and I'm not saying it was or wasn't), then that reasoning is flawed. Informing some folks before the general public works right up until someone publicly posts the "secret", and then it's no longer a secret anymore.

 

 

 

Link to comment

If that was HQ's reasoning (and I'm not saying it was or wasn't), then that reasoning is flawed. Informing some folks before the general public works right up until someone publicly posts the "secret", and then it's no longer a secret anymore.

It might not be a secret, but it's not public either. But judging by how slow people are to read information, it might not be a problem anyway. People are still asking why their app is not working...

Link to comment

I admittedly have not read this entire topic but I'll drop my random 2c in here anyway for better or worse.

 

IMO it would have been better to allow people as many duplicate finds as they want, but simply display a count of "geocaches found" not "find logs on geocaches" - I would think that would make everyone happy(ish).

Yeah, GSAK does this by labeling them 'Finds on Unique Geocaches'.

I believe the official Find count on gc.com is also unique geocaches ("Caches Found").

I'm not sure of any location calling it "# Finds" which is also properly the count of Find Logs rather than Caches.

 

It's a stat easily attainable (just count the number of Found It logs instead of caches with Found It logs), but confusing if not labeled properly. And, even with this change to logging finds, 3rd party sources will still need to ensure it's labeled properly for past logs that remain. I don't think there's any question about that. I still have a 1:1 ratio of finds on caches, and I prefer seeing 'unique finds/caches' as its description. :)

 

I think new geocachers who complain when duplicate logs are deleted on their cache finds aren't paying much attention to their find count, or are not at all, since they just see "Find Deleted" and call shenanigans. To some degree, everyone should pay attention to the dreaded "Numbers" ohmy.gif

 

Here's how I see it, based on catching up with this thread:

1. This change is a functional one, not a data one. Old logs will remain, it's only the ability of the API to post Find Logs that will be adjusted (limited to one visible Find Log per cache listing).

2. Grandfathering is by definition an exception to rare, popular caches, the concept of which is no longer allowed. I don't see why this couldn't be considered an option for the highly popular caches mentioned in this thread.

3. Rarity itself isn't a reason to respond "meh". The Seattle APE cache being reinstated was due to its status and rarity. Granted it was more tied directly to Groundspeak as a corporate marketing partnership rather than with community-instilled value.

4. Older concepts no longer allowed were often formed by community taking advantage of loopholes, or iffy but not disallowed practices (such as multi-logging, or moving caches). The intent of logging has never changed, but loopholes are now being closed. And we return to point #2 for consideration.

4b. Side note: grandfathered caches, especially recently, are just rules that are allowed by exception for certain listings. A moving cache is not a "Moving Cache", it is an excepted Traditional/Mystery/Multi etc. YOSM is not a "Locationless" cache, a "Moving Cache", or a "Moving Virtual", it is an excepted Virtual (which also are no longer allowed). Considering something to be different than it is doesn't make it that. Asking something to be grandfathered is asking for a rule that is not the norm to be given special consideration moving forward, and is not a simple request to grant by TPTB.

5. I have no stake in the matter - never logged a cache more than once, and to me it doesn't really make sense. I support the move to limit finds moving forward, but I'd support grandfathering the few highly active and popular old caches repeatedly mentioned in this thread.

 

Or this site, made for logging exactly what you want: http://trigpointing.uk/

Nice!

Link to comment

If I want to log a find on GC43F3 125 times (for 125 unique brass caps - virtuals, BTW, not locationless), what does anyone else care? Seriously?

 

I do not care how often someone logs such a cache however it is a locationless cache and not a virtual. Have you ever looked into the concept of locationless caches which existed in the early years of gc.com?

Actually, it's a moving cache...

You are both incorrect. The collection of survey markers posted within the YOSM and the Brass Cap cache pages are virtual caches, not locationless or moving caches.

 

The goal, in case you're not aware, is to visit a posted set of coordinates (ie the location of a particular survey marker) and read the data printed on the marker. You then email the data printed on the survey marker as proof of finding.

 

They are NOT locationless (and they certainly aren't moving caches - see GCA0D6 for an example of a moving cache). See definitions below from the web page:

Locationless caches: "Instead of finding a hidden container, you locate a specific object and log its coordinates." [this isn't the case - you are given coordinates which you must visit]

Virtual caches: "A Virtual Cache is about discovering a location rather than a container. The requirements for logging a Virtual Cache vary—you may be required to answer a question about the location, take a picture, complete a task, etc... In any case, you must visit the coordinates before you can post your log." [this is correct]

 

The interesting thing about YOSM and the Brass Cap page is that they both consist of hundreds of separate and completely unique virtuals, packaged into one GC code.

 

What MKGees said is correct. One possible solution would be to make all the virtuals packaged on the YOSM and Brass Cap pages a unique cache page. This would fix the problem of multiple finds on one cache. BUT, it would involve publishing (in the case of the brass cap cache) 700+ virtuals throughout a huge area. This would likely be a nightmare to create the pages and transfer found it logs (especially photos!)!

 

Keep in mind these are grandfathered geocaches. It is interesting to note that the CO (outforthehunt) is still an active cacher who maintains these caches. The brass cap cache page has been operating in this way for 15 years! To shut them down now would be unfair. If they were going to be shut down, it should have been over a decade ago when virtuals were given the hook!

Edited by brendan714
Link to comment

Here's how I see it, based on catching up with this thread:

1. This change is a functional one, not a data one. Old logs will remain, it's only the ability of the API to post Find Logs that will be adjusted (limited to one visible Find Log per cache listing).

2. Grandfathering is by definition an exception to rare, popular caches, the concept of which is no longer allowed. I don't see why this couldn't be considered an option for the highly popular caches mentioned in this thread.

3. Rarity itself isn't a reason to respond "meh". The Seattle APE cache being reinstated was due to its status and rarity. Granted it was more tied directly to Groundspeak as a corporate marketing partnership rather than with community-instilled value.

4. Older concepts no longer allowed were often formed by community taking advantage of loopholes, or iffy but not disallowed practices (such as multi-logging, or moving caches). The intent of logging has never changed, but loopholes are now being closed. And we return to point #2 for consideration.

4b. Side note: grandfathered caches, especially recently, are just rules that are allowed by exception for certain listings. A moving cache is not a "Moving Cache", it is an excepted Traditional/Mystery/Multi etc. YOSM is not a "Locationless" cache, a "Moving Cache", or a "Moving Virtual", it is an excepted Virtual (which also are no longer allowed). Considering something to be different than it is doesn't make it that. Asking something to be grandfathered is asking for a rule that is not the norm to be given special consideration moving forward, and is not a simple request to grant by TPTB.

5. I have no stake in the matter - never logged a cache more than once, and to me it doesn't really make sense. I support the move to limit finds moving forward, but I'd support grandfathering the few highly active and popular old caches repeatedly mentioned in this thread.

+1!

Link to comment
You are both incorrect. The collection of survey markers posted within the YOSM and the Brass Cap cache pages are virtual caches, not locationless or moving caches.

You may call it what you want. The description states that it's movable. The official "ignored in statistics"-bookmarklist states that it's working like a disguised locationless.

 

The interesting thing about YOSM and the Brass Cap page is that they both consist of hundreds of separate and completely unique virtuals, packaged into one GC code.

So did locationless caches. They have been archived.

 

Keep in mind these are grandfathered geocaches. It is interesting to note that the CO (outforthehunt) is still an active cacher who maintains these caches. The brass cap cache page has been operating in this way for 15 years! To shut them down now would be unfair. If they were going to be shut down, it should have been over a decade ago when virtuals were given the hook!

The cache is grandfathered, yes. Incorrectly in my opinion, but still grandfathered. And it still will be. It won't be archived. It can still be found. Just not more than once. Like every other cache.

Link to comment

Killing off the very popular YOSM cache here in the UK by stopping cachers logging its different locations would be an epic fail for Groundspeak, and if the C.O. chose in consequence to move it away from here and over to another geocaching listing website, I'm sure there would be a spike in interest, activity and membership of that site.

 

Why is the YOSM virtual so popular ? Well, I've logged the cache 17 times, in 17 different places, many were locations atop hills with excellent views (which is why pillars were placed there),some deep in woodland which has sprung up since the pillar was put in place, once a housing estate had engulfed the farmland which the pillar had been sited on, but it had been carefully retained by the developer.

They are invariably interesting locations, giving a sense of history (as well as geography) because of the original use the pillars, blocks, and bolts had in the surveying of Britain. Finding a YOSM is often the highlight of a caching day, a far more pleasurable experience than trawling stinging nettles and brambles for what so ofter turns out to be a damp, uncared for container.

 

The YOSM C.O. always (and I mean ALWAYS )in my experience gives a timely, polite and individual reply to e-mails sent to him with the information required to log the virtual, which is remarkable dedication given the number of such messages he must get. That is a considerable maintenance burden to bear for 15 years, far more time consuming than visiting an owned trad. occasionally, and is part of what makes the YOSM a special cache with a community of its own.

 

Project GC says the UK caches found for last month compared with 2016 was down by 10%, and the number of active cachers in the same time down by a whopping 21% , it is remarkable that YOSM has had approximately 475 logs this March (approximate because I lost count as I was scrolling down the page a few times, but I erred on the side of the lower number when in doubt) . Interestingly all but 10 of those logs were by premium members. That is a lot of paying customers who will be seriously peeved when they find out about this change.

 

Yes, it's an ususual shifting virtual (but not locationless, it is absolutely all about the locations) what's wrong with that? Cachers don't have to log it more than once if they don't want to, but hundreds of us do want to. I want to mark my visit to each YOSM place with a log which shows up in the correct order in my list of geocache finds, so I can see the full story of my caching day.

 

Changing a 15 year long popular winning formula and annoying a bunch of premium, website using members in the process is not a wise business decision. Caching , judging from those UK stats on project GC, is in serious decline. The way to halt that decline is not to alienate loyal, long term, paying customers.You know, the ones who set and own many of the caches the business is built on . So many little gripes (the new indistinguishable map symbols, the useless newsletter of links,imposition of local rules on event spacing,lack of notification of important changes ... I could go on ... ) each one adding a little more disillusion.

 

Or, perhaps a better analogy, another nail in the coffin.

Link to comment
You are both incorrect. The collection of survey markers posted within the YOSM and the Brass Cap cache pages are virtual caches, not locationless or moving caches.

You may call it what you want. The description states that it's movable. The official "ignored in statistics"-bookmarklist states that it's working like a disguised locationless.

You seem to have missed my comment as well.

It is a Virtual cache. It is abiding by a grandfathered rule allowing it continue as it is. If rules come into play that have TPTB consider it no longer viable as a grandfathered listing, especially if it no longer works as intended, then it may or may not be archived by the owner or TPTB, but it will no longer work under the prior grandfathered ruleset (movable, but no more multi-logging).

It is a Virtual cache with grandfathered rules.

 

Keep in mind these are grandfathered geocaches. It is interesting to note that the CO (outforthehunt) is still an active cacher who maintains these caches. The brass cap cache page has been operating in this way for 15 years! To shut them down now would be unfair. If they were going to be shut down, it should have been over a decade ago when virtuals were given the hook!

The cache is grandfathered, yes. Incorrectly in my opinion, but still grandfathered. And it still will be. It won't be archived. It can still be found. Just not more than once. Like every other cache.

It can't be incorrectly grandfathered. If it's not grandfathered, it would be archived. There is no current allowable setup in the guidelines that would let that listing exist and survive as it currently is. So it is correctly grandfathered, excepted against current general guidelines. If it were not grandfathered, it would not exist.

 

IF Groundspeak decides to continue its existence, they will be extending its grandfathered status further to allow multiple finds which are otherwise disallowed. They can do that (and I'd support that). If they deem that its grandfathered status is itself no longer viable once multiple logs are disallowed, then yes they may archive it themselves, or it may fall down to the CO to archive it if they feel it's no longer possible to treat it as previously intended. But, if the owner feels that it's fine if people only find it once from now on, then it may yet live on in its current grandfathered status (still movable).

Until we hear back about what happens to the listing, we can only conjecture possible outcomes.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

If anyone doesn't understand why we want to keep GC45CC, try looking at the cache page - the photographs will give you a good idea what's so special about them. Getting 'multiple' smileys takes enormous effort; it's not remotely like logging a urban nano more than once!

I dont understand. The only thing I understand is One cache = One find. Does matter how "wonderful" the cache is, its still against the guidelines. Stop putting lipstick on a pig. A pig is a pig.

Link to comment

If anyone doesn't understand why we want to keep GC45CC, try looking at the cache page - the photographs will give you a good idea what's so special about them. Getting 'multiple' smileys takes enormous effort; it's not remotely like logging a urban nano more than once!

I dont understand. The only thing I understand is One cache = One find. Does matter how "wonderful" the cache is, its still against the guidelines. Stop putting lipstick on a pig. A pig is a pig.

 

Is there any particular need for your constantly snidy remarks?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...