Sign in to follow this  
Followers 19
Geocaching HQ

Release Notes (Website: Edit Cache Listing page) - December 5, 2017

252 posts in this topic

On 12/5/2017 at 3:22 PM, Tungstène said:

Same thing here. But maybe I misunderstood what is the intent with this field's deletion. Plus, some owners use them to link to their Wherigo cartridge. 

Related Web Page link isn't visible except on desktop. Users of apps and mobile versions of the site (phone/tablet) don't see it.

1

Share this post


Link to post

I noticed that the coordinate verification thing for waypoints is a bit too unforgiving.

  1. N 59° 18.725' E 14° 36.573' is OK
  2. N59° 18.725' E 14° 36.573' is NOT OK
  3. N 59° 18,725' E 14° 36.573' is NOT OK

The detected problem in 2 above is a missing space between "N" and "59"
The detected problem in 3 is a decimal comma instead of decimal dot.

In none of these cases the website tells the user what the problem is. Either you get a "Please enter valid coordinates." or "Please enter latitude and longitude values in DDM format only.". What does DDM even mean? An example of correctly formatted coordinates would be more helpful.

Why not use the same verification rules as the "corrected coordinates" field uses? It seems more forgiving and at least can parse the number 2 version above.

2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Rikitan said:
14 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If that were true, then the attribute should not be available for T1.5+ rated listings, but it is, so, the alternate interpretation is also valid.

Imagine 10kms long multicache on flat terrain, completelly accessible by Wheelchair user. 

How would I rate terrain? ~2-3 stars

Would I label it as Wheelchair accessible? Sure.

Exactly what I'm saying

 

4 hours ago, arisoft said:
5 hours ago, 10011010 said:

1. How come there is no link back to view the cache page?

There is "save" and "save and preview" instead. Use Ctrl+Back to open preview in different tab.

Yep I tend to have at least 2 tabs open so a refresh is all that's needed rather than back and forth navigation.  Now that waypoints and attributes are on the same page that's really only 2 tabs I'd have open (edit+preview).

1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/5/2017 at 7:53 PM, arisoft said:

The problem is that now you have to check them every time you want to save your draft. Before you had to check two check boxes only once.

It has always been necessary to click two buttons to save edits (I have read  understood guidelines, I agree to terms of use). Now it's necessary to click one - an improvement. 

 A Team has already spoken to this, but I'll repeat, the CSP has not had a related web page field for years. It WAS on the edit page. Now it's not. Most devices don't show it.

Those puzzles that rely on it will need to careful ! 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Joshism said:

Related Web Page link isn't visible except on desktop. Users of apps and mobile versions of the site (phone/tablet) don't see it.

Maybe that is the primary reason?

When I created my first Wherigo, I used the Related Web Page to link to the cartridge on Wherigo.com, and nowhere else.   Later I got feedback from app users that it was easier for them if I had a link in the description itself, so I added that.    

1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

 

On 6.12.2017 at 2:53 AM, arisoft said:

The problem is that now you have to check them every time you want to save your draft. Before you had to check two check boxes only once.

It has always been necessary to click two buttons to save edits (I have read  understood guidelines, I agree to terms of use). Now it's necessary to click one - an improvement. 

 

True but only once when you start editing. Now this checkbox resets every time you click save. Before it remained checked.

Before I checked two boxes once, now I must check one box about one hundred times.It is big difference.

Edited by arisoft
1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:
1 hour ago, Joshism said:

Related Web Page link isn't visible except on desktop. Users of apps and mobile versions of the site (phone/tablet) don't see it.

Maybe that is the primary reason?

When I created my first Wherigo, I used the Related Web Page to link to the cartridge on Wherigo.com, and nowhere else.   Later I got feedback from app users that it was easier for them if I had a link in the description itself, so I added that. 

Yep, for wherigos I got used to loading the cache web listing in order to go right to the Wherigo.  But I found more often recently that people linked to the cartridge in the description, which is nicer.

Consider though - the related web page is still a viable puzzle style IF it's available. It's quite similar to using the background image for the listing.  Apps can't access them directly necessarily. It requires a browser that can isolate that background image (via page loading or source code, etc).  Basically, if a piece of the listing data can contain a puzzle element, it's fair game.

So agreed, caches that use the related web page field should be careful not to clear the field accidentally, or the puzzle can't be recreated in the same manner; no getting that field back once it's cleared (unlike the background image).

0

Share this post


Link to post

I created a cache page before this change was made, but didn't submit it for review until after the change. I know that I had updated the final coordinates (it's a puzzle) and added attributes before submitting the cache for review. But today I saw the final coordinates were incorrect and now there's no attributes selected.

0

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, niraD said:

It sounds like the adventure you described (starting with "descend on a rope" and ending with "crawl into a narrow tunnel") is part of the "Physical effort needed to arrive at coordinates." As such, it affects the terrain rating, not the difficulty rating.

It sounds like the "Effort needed to solve and find the cache and logbook at GZ" is pretty minimal, assuming that the end of the "narrow tunnel" is GZ, and assuming that it really is "absolutely clear where the box is" once I get there. As such, that sounds like a D1.

Ok, I see. Completely different understanding of ratings :) Over here we simply like to differentiate the difficulty of a T5 cache compared to others. Noone here would rate my cache a D1/T5. Never ever ;) A D1/T5 would be a cache hanging in a tree at about 4m where you only need to use a ladder. And some people here even don't rate this kind of cache a T5 at all as they say, a ladder isn't exactly a that special tool at all.

So I understand that we see it completely different and I also understand that we still do it our way as long as possible :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

Okay, but y'all are doing it wrong, and you still owe me a steak! :D

I don't care that I'm doing wrong as this probably is the common understanding of rating over here. And regarding the steak... I just booked my flight some hours ago! Will be in Seattle 1st weekend of March (Fr-Mo)!

0

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

I realise, now, that my example was flawed, but what I was trying to achieve was triggered by my Mother-in-Law.  Many years ago she was forced to use a wheelchair for the last several years of her life and we used to go on day trips with her.  If we went to the seaside, the kids and some of the adults would go swimming while other adults stayed on the boardwalk with her.  There was no caching back then, but rolling the situation forward to today, it would be nice for someone in a similar situation to be able to plan a day trip where they could take the wheelchair and some of the group could find some caches on the way.

I had envisaged using the T rating to define the cache and the attribute to show that a wheelchair could accompany the party.  In the same way that "Stroller Accessible" means you can push a stroller there, not that the child in the stroller can reach the cache.  That, I now know isn't the way HQ intend the attribute to be used, but I still think it would be a good feature to have.  Maybe expand the meaning of the Stroller attribute to include wheelchairs, prams etc. 

No worries. Just think about wheel chair users who cache on their own. Wouldn't make sense to set that attribute then, would it? The stroller attribute might already show them they can at least join others but might not necessarily be able to get the cache by themselves.

1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

I hesitate to reply as it's going off topic and I don't really care but....

I've been to a couple of events at the "Hyde Park Winter Wonderland" in London, which were held in the Bavarian Beer hall, which is a large hall full of trestle tables and somewhere between 1,000-2,000 people. Because I know the regular faces to look out for I found the events with only slight difficulty, many people took ages to find them, and some never did... Those events had higher D rarings.

 

Just sayin :ph34r:

As far as I understand such an event shouldn't have been published as you're not allowed to have an event at an official event anyways. So no issue :D

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, monsterbox said:

No worries. Just think about wheel chair users who cache on their own. Wouldn't make sense to set that attribute then, would it? The stroller attribute might already show them they can at least join others but might not necessarily be able to get the cache by themselves.

I'd assume that a search for caches findable by a wheelchair bound user would be retrieved by searching with the attribute and T1 (maybe 1.5) and no more.

I might add a second layer of higher T caches with the attribute in just those cases that maybe it's just a looooong hike to get there on a relatively smooth trail, and the cache is still retrievable by wheelchair; but it could also include caches that are up in a tree next to a park sidewalk for which I'd ask a friend to come.

There are various interpretations of this, and the fact that the attribute can be applied to higher T directly implies that wheelchair-accessible doesn't always mean "cache is retrievable from a wheelchair".

0

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

When I submitted a mystery cache a couple of years ago, I persuaded my local reviewer to allow fractionally more than 2 miles between the posted coords and the final.  (The posted coords provided a subtle clue to the puzzle.)

I would guess there are many existing (older) caches that are considerably more than 2 miles from their posted coordinates.

What was a guideline, is now being strictly enforced by the code, even for these existing caches.  I've just tried to update my listing (simply to change the hint), but cannot save the change: Final coordinates are more than 3.2 km from the Posted Coordinates.

Is there any way round this?

I also already was requesting a change here as I still believe this is complete nonsense (sorry that for ;) ), BUT the official decision made was that this simply is as it should be! Final answer regarding that came from Frau Potter.

The fun thing is that it would be ok to have the first stage being away 1000s of miles but not the final itself. Don't know if this fact might help you...

0

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I'd assume that a search for caches findable by a wheelchair bound user would be retrieved by searching with the attribute and T1 (maybe 1.5) and no more.

I might add a second layer of higher T caches with the attribute in just those cases that maybe it's just a looooong hike to get there on a relatively smooth trail, and the cache is still retrievable by wheelchair; but it could also include caches that are up in a tree next to a park sidewalk for which I'd ask a friend to come.

There are various interpretations of this, and the fact that the attribute can be applied to higher T directly implies that wheelchair-accessible doesn't always mean "cache is retrievable from a wheelchair".

Sorry, but this already has been answered by a lackey in this thread as far as I remember and the answer was: Wheelchair icon CLEARLY says that the cacher don't need any help to grab the cache in the end.

 

Edited by monsterbox
1

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, monsterbox said:

Sorry, but this already has been answered by a lackey in this thread as far as I remember and the answer was: Wheelchair icon CLEARLY says that the cacher don't need any help to grab the cache in the end.

Sure, that may be the intent, but how can a reviewer guarantee that a T4.5 cache with the wheelchair attribute is accurate to that intent?  The reviewer could require that the T be dropped to 1 if it's accessible by wheelchair, but the allowable listing structure doesn't restrict that. We do know it technically can because other similar restrictions are in place; but you can add the attribute on high terrains.

Essentially, the reviewer would have to trust that the CO is truthful if they say for example "the cache is accessible by wheelchair but the T is rated for the very long hike/travel to get to gz from the trailhead".  The reviewer would either publish that, or require the lower terrain rating. In either case, as a finder, I can't be sure that a search for wheelchair attribute means I'm guaranteed to be able to retrieve it, or that the such a search would give me all caches I could retrieve by wheelchair.

 

In short, because higher T caches can have the wheelchair attribute, it's an honour system flag that if the wheelchair attribute is enabled that it's traversible and retrievable by wheelchair.  If I wanted caches I know I should be able to find and log alone, I'd really only be certain if I searched for both the attribute and the low T.

 

ETA: Concession - Yes, I'll admit and agree that it is reasonable for a reviewer to require in their review process that if a cache has the wheelchair attribute on it that the CO must demonstrate how it is indeed retrievable by wheelchair (unlike the stroller accessible attribute which doesn't imply the cache itself is retrievable with stroller in hand, or by a child in a stroller :P ).  If this is a rule that every reviewer must enforce, then the point is moot - the very definition of the attribute would be that the cache is retrievable by wheelchair, regardless of T rating. The complement to that as we know is that a T rating of 1 must have the wheelchair attribute.

Edited by thebruce0
0

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Sure, that may be the intent, but how can a reviewer guarantee that a T4.5 cache with the wheelchair attribute is accurate to that intent?  The reviewer could require that the T be dropped to 1 if it's accessible by wheelchair, but the allowable listing structure doesn't restrict that. We do know it technically can because other similar restrictions are in place; but you can add the attribute on high terrains.

Essentially, the reviewer would have to trust that the CO is truthful if they say for example "the cache is accessible by wheelchair but the T is rated for the very long hike/travel to get to gz from the trailhead".  The reviewer would either publish that, or require the lower terrain rating. In either case, as a finder, I can't be sure that a search for wheelchair attribute means I'm guaranteed to be able to retrieve it, or that the such a search would give me all caches I could retrieve by wheelchair.

 

In short, because higher T caches can have the wheelchair attribute, it's an honour system flag that if the wheelchair attribute is enabled that it's traversible and retrievable by wheelchair.  If I wanted caches I know I should be able to find and log alone, I'd really only be certain if I searched for both the attribute and the low T.

 

Concession: Yes, I'll admit and agree that it is reasonable for a reviewer to require in their review process that if a cache has the wheelchair attribute on it that the CO must demonstrate how it is indeed retrievable by wheelchair (unlike the stroller accessible attribute which doesn't imply the cache itself is retrievable with stroller in hand, or by a child in a stroller :P ).  If this is a rule that every reviewer must enforce, then the point is moot - the very definition of the attribute would be that the cache is retrievable by wheelchair, regardless of T rating. The complement to that as we know is that a T rating of 1 must have the wheelchair attribute.

Don't blame Groundspeak or the reviewers for cache owners abusing/misusing the attributes ;) A reviewer in many cases simply need to believe the CO and this is true here, too. Our reviewers usually ask the CO some extra questions if that attribute is set. So as a wheelchair rider I would at least try believing the attribute has been set in a correct way. If not: NM log ;)

1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, monsterbox said:

Don't blame Groundspeak or the reviewers for cache owners abusing/misusing the attributes ;) A reviewer in many cases simply need to believe the CO and this is true here, too. Our reviewers usually ask the CO some extra questions if that attribute is set. So as a wheelchair rider I would at least try believing the attribute has been set in a correct way. If not: NM log ;)

Heck I'd hope that there would by higher T caches with the attribute, as there might be days I might feel challenged to give one a go :) (not speaking as a wheelchair user, obv, and presuming such a definition of the attribute that any flagged cache is retrievable by wheelchair).

Sort of like... just as if I'm chair-bound and I might save the highT+wheelchair for a challenge, I might save scuba gear required, or boat required for the days I'm up for the 'challenge' of retrieving it with that required tool.

0

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, tomastomas said:

I noticed that the coordinate verification thing for waypoints is a bit too unforgiving.

  1. N 59° 18.725' E 14° 36.573' is OK
  2. N59° 18.725' E 14° 36.573' is NOT OK
  3. N 59° 18,725' E 14° 36.573' is NOT OK

The detected problem in 2 above is a missing space between "N" and "59"
The detected problem in 3 is a decimal comma instead of decimal dot.

In none of these cases the website tells the user what the problem is. Either you get a "Please enter valid coordinates." or "Please enter latitude and longitude values in DDM format only.". What does DDM even mean? An example of correctly formatted coordinates would be more helpful.

Why not use the same verification rules as the "corrected coordinates" field uses? It seems more forgiving and at least can parse the number 2 version above.

Thanks for the feedback - we're adding in a link to help explain this a bit better. In the meantime, you can see more information about coordinate formatting in this Help Center article: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=128&pgid=811

0

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, LivingInNarnia said:

Thanks for the feedback - we're adding in a link to help explain this a bit better. In the meantime, you can see more information about coordinate formatting in this Help Center article

But how strict will the input be?  Points 2 and 3 are minor variations where the coordinate format is easily gleaned from the input string.

eg, it should matter if I enter "n43 00.000, w80 00.000" or "N 43  00.000    w80 00.000", or for other locales use comma instead of period... with those concessions (whitespace, localizations, etc) be built in to the interpreter, as long as it understand the essential elements (hemispheres and degree numerics)?  With free text entry I'd expect that, otherwise may as well stick with individual input fields to reduce confusion :)

Edited by thebruce0
0

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Rikitan said:

Person on Wheelchair can reach the cache, sign the logbook and return the cache, without assistance of others.

 

That's it.

Okay, granted but what if "reach" and "return" might require the usage of one of those grabber things for a person in a wheelchair? A TOTT, but only for those who can't reach a book 6 ft up on a shelf? Would the wheelchair attribute/ T1 be allowed if one notes that such a TOTT might be required for those in a wheelchair?

Edited by fbingha
0

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎6‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 9:05 AM, Geocaching HQ said:

 

 

With this release, we have streamlined the Edit Cache Listing page and removed inconsistencies that existed between this page and the Cache Submission Process. We want to make it easier to create cache pages with fewer issues so that caches can get published more smoothly. Here are some of the more noticeable changes.

Waypoints are integrated into the Edit Cache Listing page.

  • No need to visit another page to add/edit waypoints! 
  • Waypoints are “smart”, meaning cache owners won’t see waypoints that aren’t allowed for their cache type, and must enter waypoints that are required for their cache type.

Attributes are integrated into the Edit Cache Listing page.

  • No need to visit another page to add/edit attributes!
  • Wheelchair attribute is enforced for T1 caches. If a cache owner selects T1 for their cache, the wheelchair attribute is automatically selected.

Map is more useful.

  • See posted coordinates and waypoints on the same map!
  • We’ve switched to OpenStreetMap, allowing you to zoom in and out, and double-check that you’ve placed the coordinates at the correct location.
  • Posted coordinates are shown as virtual (blue) or physical (green).
  • Waypoints are shown as virtual (blue) or physical (green), and denoted in the map pin by the prefix code.
  • Parking, Reference, and Trailhead icons are brown.

Cache owners can see if their posted coordinates or waypoints conflict with another physical, visible waypoint.

  • The new map shows the red proximity circles, similar to what you see during the Cache Submission Process.
  • If coordinates are too close to an existing physical, visible waypoint, a warning provides the distance, GC code, and link to the conflicting cache, along with a reminder about proximity guidelines.
  • Proximity warnings are not provided for virtual or hidden waypoints (such as finals for Mystery Caches).

The Submit for Review process is simplified.

  • Cache owners are required to enter a Reviewer Note when submitting a cache for review.
  • If a cache owner wants to edit a cache that is already submitted for review, they need to cancel their cache submission. The cache owner can then resubmit the cache for review, and enter a reviewer note explaining any changes they’ve made.
  • When there is a new Reviewer Note from a reviewer, it will appear at the top of the cache page, prompting the cache owner to either to respond or to edit the cache page.

Other updates

  • D1 is enforced for all Event Caches. Event Caches must have a 1-star difficulty rating because it is easy for geocachers to “find” events. 
  • Event Caches no longer include a container size.
  • The Admin Tools no longer link to separate pages to edit attributes, edit waypoints, and upload images, since you can make those changes on the Edit Cache Listing page. In addition, the links “Watch” and “Add to List” are available only after publication, because we found that they were not used by COs prior to publication . 
  • The Edit Cache Listing page now includes an Upload Images link, so cache owners can add photos via that link.
  • Previously, there were two text fields to describe your cache. During the Cache Submission Process, those were the cache summary and long description. On the Edit Cache Listing page, they were the short description and long description. Going forward, there’s just one field. However, the short description field still exists for any caches that currently have a short description. If a cache owner removes an existing short description from their cache, the field will disappear.
  • The Related Web Page field now only exists on caches that currently use that field. If a cache owner removes an existing Related Web Page, then the field will disappear.

Nadja (LivingInNarnia) from HQ’s Product team is watching this thread to answer questions whenever possible.

Any posts in this thread should relate to features in this release. Comments unrelated to the release may be removed. Please direct unrelated comments to other appropriate threads. Thanks!
 

The Submit for Review process is simplified.... Yeah right!!  Ive got a cache page already to go, every time I hit submit for review, it just doesnt happen, Ive tried this over ten times, why fix something thats not broken!!!  Argh

0

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Mc Jandals said:

The Submit for Review process is simplified.... Yeah right!!  Ive got a cache page already to go, every time I hit submit for review, it just doesnt happen, Ive tried this over ten times, why fix something thats not broken!!!  Argh

This sounds like a bug! Could you let me know which cache you are having the issue with? A GC code or URL would be great. Thanks!

0

Share this post


Link to post

Please note my newly published event is a North Island, New Zealand event, but the only way I could save changes to the cache listing under the fancy new cache edit page was to change the location to somewhere in USA. So I’ve made my changes as an American cache, and now can’t change it back to NZ NI. Fortunately the cache title says the event is being held in Hawke’s Bay, although apparently that’s in AL USA. I posted an Announcement to remove doubt.

Sorry I have nothing positive to say about your new cache edit process

0

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Mc Jandals said:

Ive got a cache page already to go, every time I hit submit for review, it just doesnt happen, Ive tried this over ten times, why fix something thats not broken!!!  Argh

14 minutes ago, Phronimos said:

Please note my newly published event is a North Island, New Zealand event, but the only way I could save changes to the cache listing under the fancy new cache edit page was to change the location to somewhere in USA.

Too bad there isn't a "go back to the old page" link on the new edit page.

0

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, niraD said:

It sounds like the adventure you described (starting with "descend on a rope" and ending with "crawl into a narrow tunnel") is part of the "Physical effort needed to arrive at coordinates." As such, it affects the terrain rating, not the difficulty rating.

It sounds like the "Effort needed to solve and find the cache and logbook at GZ" is pretty minimal, assuming that the end of the "narrow tunnel" is GZ, and assuming that it really is "absolutely clear where the box is" once I get there. As such, that sounds like a D1.

The physical effort of following the directions is terrain, but the mental effort of understanding the directions is difficulty. At least, in my mind. Which is why I have no trouble taking this example and imagining a D3 event. The description presented here strikes me as non-trivial to follow before considering the physical effort. But I'm not allowed to have a D3 event.

What I'm unsure of is whether I would be allowed to have an event at this location as long as I didn't rate it D3, or I'm just plain not allowed to have an event at this location because it's too hard to figure out how to get there. In other words, do events actually have to be easy, or is just that I'm not allowed to say an event is hard even when I think it is?

0

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

But how strict will the input be?  Points 2 and 3 are minor variations where the coordinate format is easily gleaned from the input string.

eg, it should matter if I enter "n43 00.000, w80 00.000" or "N 43  00.000    w80 00.000", or for other locales use comma instead of period... with those concessions (whitespace, localizations, etc) be built in to the interpreter, as long as it understand the essential elements (hemispheres and degree numerics)?  With free text entry I'd expect that, otherwise may as well stick with individual input fields to reduce confusion :)

along with the link to the Help Center update, the input will not be case sensitive and we'll be more forgiving with spaces too!

3

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Phronimos said:

Please note my newly published event is a North Island, New Zealand event, but the only way I could save changes to the cache listing under the fancy new cache edit page was to change the location to somewhere in USA. So I’ve made my changes as an American cache, and now can’t change it back to NZ NI. Fortunately the cache title says the event is being held in Hawke’s Bay, although apparently that’s in AL USA. I posted an Announcement to remove doubt.

Sorry I have nothing positive to say about your new cache edit process

We've been working on a fix for this bug and we'll have the update in production in the next few hours! The issue was a data anomaly in NZ - thanks for reporting the issue here. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, dprovan said:

The physical effort of following the directions is terrain, but the mental effort of understanding the directions is difficulty. At least, in my mind. Which is why I have no trouble taking this example and imagining a D3 event. The description presented here strikes me as non-trivial to follow before considering the physical effort

Yeah, I wasn't 100% certain about that aspect of monsterbox's example.

Ultimately, I interpreted "It was absolutely clear where the box is" as meaning that there was no mental challenge to figuring out where to go, that at each point along the way, it was "absolutely clear" where you needed to go next. The challenge was just in completing what is essentially an obstacle course. And then once you reached GZ, "It was absolutely clear where the box is."

I have found caches where a big part of the challenge is figuring out a safe, legal route to GZ. The walk itself was easy (T1 or T1.5), but it wasn't obvious where to walk. In that case, I think the challenge of figuring out the route contributes to the difficulty rating, like solving a puzzle to get the coordinates.

0

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, monsterbox said:

Ok, I see. Completely different understanding of ratings :) Over here we simply like to differentiate the difficulty of a T5 cache compared to others. Noone here would rate my cache a D1/T5. Never ever ;) A D1/T5 would be a cache hanging in a tree at about 4m where you only need to use a ladder. And some people here even don't rate this kind of cache a T5 at all as they say, a ladder isn't exactly a that special tool at all.

So I understand that we see it completely different and I also understand that we still do it our way as long as possible :)

In my view, this is a complete abuse of the D/T system. If finding the way to GZ and the cache there is both trivial, it should be a D1. If actually following the path to GZ is a hard physical challenge, it's T5 - but still D1. A different issue would be a multi-cache, where finding the way to the final (e.g. through a maze of tunnels in an old bunker system) is difficult in itself, so I agree that your original example is not D1. But using the D-rating to further differentiate between "easy" and "extra hard" T5 caches doesn't make sense. A big orange box in a tree is always D1, even if it's very high up and you need a complicated setup to reach it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

When I submitted a mystery cache a couple of years ago, I persuaded my local reviewer to allow fractionally more than 2 miles between the posted coords and the final.  (The posted coords provided a subtle clue to the puzzle.)

I would guess there are many existing (older) caches that are considerably more than 2 miles from their posted coordinates.

What was a guideline, is now being strictly enforced by the code, even for these existing caches.  I've just tried to update my listing (simply to change the hint), but cannot save the change: Final coordinates are more than 3.2 km from the Posted Coordinates.

Is there any way round this?

Wow! Thanks for making me aware of this.

That change is a bad idea. I have one puzzle, where I got an exemption from the 2-miles-rule from the reviewer, because the design of the puzzle depends on a specific listing coordinate. So now I wouldn't be able to make the slightest change to my cache page.

Well, my listing was rather old, the puzzle a bit "dated", and I had played with the idea of archiving it anyway. So that's what I did now ;) .

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, baer2006 said:

In my view, this is a complete abuse of the D/T system. If finding the way to GZ and the cache there is both trivial, it should be a D1. If actually following the path to GZ is a hard physical challenge, it's T5 - but still D1. A different issue would be a multi-cache, where finding the way to the final (e.g. through a maze of tunnels in an old bunker system) is difficult in itself, so I agree that your original example is not D1. But using the D-rating to further differentiate between "easy" and "extra hard" T5 caches doesn't make sense. A big orange box in a tree is always D1, even if it's very high up and you need a complicated setup to reach it.

But it anyways is handled that way for quite many T5 caches I did... Common use here, just do a query and check the caches :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, LivingInNarnia said:

We've been working on a fix for this bug and we'll have the update in production in the next few hours! The issue was a data anomaly in NZ - thanks for reporting the issue here. 

Thanks for getting this sorted, us Kiwi's can finally publish new caches :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Rikitan said:

I think you can still change log type to Write note from default Reviewer note. Or drop it with Reviewer note, it should work. Please, let me know if not.

 

No, didn't see that anywhere. The cache has been submitted for review, but also it was rejected. There's no way to write a note for it at the moment. There never was any way to drop a TB like there used to be. This is definitely a downgrade of features here...

0

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/5/2017 at 3:05 PM, Geocaching HQ said:

Waypoints are integrated into the Edit Cache Listing page.

  • No need to visit another page to add/edit waypoints! 
  • Waypoints are “smart”, meaning cache owners won’t see waypoints that aren’t allowed for their cache type, and must enter waypoints that are required for their cache type.

 

The button to "Add waypoint" turns green when I mouse over it (cursor not shown in my screenshot) but clicking on it does nothing, whether I use Safari or Chrome. I don't see an option to opt-out of the new features until they work. Is there another way to add or enter waypoints?

Screen Shot 2017-12-07 at 8.17.42 PM.png

0

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, LivingInNarnia said:
10 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

But how strict will the input be?  Points 2 and 3 are minor variations where the coordinate format is easily gleaned from the input string.

eg, it shouldn't matter if I enter "n43 00.000, w80 00.000" or "N 43  00.000    w80 00.000", or for other locales use a comma instead of a period... withll those concessions (whitespace, localizations, etc) be built in to the interpreter, as long as it understands the essential elements (hemispheres and degree numerics)?  With free text entry I'd expect that, otherwise may as well stick with individual input fields to reduce confusion :)

along with the link to the Help Center update, the input will not be case sensitive and we'll be more forgiving with spaces too!

Excellent. Also wow, I should have proof read that post... :o:P

1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/5/2017 at 1:10 PM, 10011010 said:

* short description and long description

Actually, the separate fields were useful when doing a series. The short description allowed for a header repeated throughout the series while the longer field afforded individual content for each cache. The separation made it easier to manage. But oh well, I guess there wasn't high demand and we won't be seeing that again.

Agreement. For all the GeoTours and geo-series I create / manage, we use the Short Description for the series text and the Long Description for the cache specifics. Easy and clean way to delineate the two. Melding the two in one field will require more effort going forward, esp. when I'm working with multiple cache owners who have varying skill levels with cache writeups and HTML. It was much easier and more understandable to say "Paste this [provided template text] into the Short Description, and don't add anything else. Use the Long Description for your cache specifics." Suspect I'll be doing a lot more back and forth to get pages done correctly for series. Sigh.

Edited by hydnsek
0

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, LivingInNarnia said:

along with the link to the Help Center update, the input will not be case sensitive and we'll be more forgiving with spaces too!

I still think an example of the correct format in the error message would be more helpful than just a link to the help center. But why chose one when you can have both? :) 

This would be my prefered error message:

"Please enter latitude and longitude values in HDD MM.mmm format. Read more here"

And please please please, make the link a target="_blank" so that clicking on the link does NOT kidnap my window and all my edits are lost :unsure:

4

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, hydnsek said:

It was much easier and more understandable to say "Paste this [provided template text] into the Short Description, and don't add anything else.

It that really any easier than saying

Quote

"First paste this [provided template text] into the Description, and then write what you want after it"

TBH I always thought it was odd having the two description boxes, and they were used differently by different people, so it makes sense to me to consolidate them

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, estherandben608 said:

 

No, didn't see that anywhere. The cache has been submitted for review, but also it was rejected. There's no way to write a note for it at the moment. There never was any way to drop a TB like there used to be. This is definitely a downgrade of features here...

If you have trackable inventory, you can drop a TB with a Reviewer Note on your unpublished cache.  I just did it.

Also, once you're on the logging page, the Reviewer note type will be selected, but the log type pull down box exists, and you can log a Write Note log (if you want that log to stay on the cache page, usually to mention FTF premium), or Archive

log page unpublished.jpg

respond.jpg

Edited by Isonzo Karst
0

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, estherandben608 said:

 

No, didn't see that anywhere. The cache has been submitted for review, but also it was rejected. There's no way to write a note for it at the moment. There never was any way to drop a TB like there used to be. This is definitely a downgrade of features here...

Please, let me know which of following steps are not working for you. I successfully dropped TB to one of my unpublished testing cache pages.

1. Click to Post Reviewer Note in Admin Tools section

1.png.e739fb067a36e4aeb8c28f8537f6a56e.png

2. Change log type to Write note (but this is not necessary anyway)

2.png.996e46a0222e61ce41e2ae582388b2da.png

3. Write text of log (i.e. "TB drop") and choose the one you'd like to Drop off

3.png.bb2f7ed99a5f08eb5db4d50203e94460.png

4. Submit the log and you'll see trackable dropped on your cache page

4.png.8b85a97772b3c566a7870069937b9cf9.png

 

Apart from first step the same process like before.

1

Share this post


Link to post

I noticed that the new form now displays the final coordinates as the posted coordinates when the CO is looking. When the cache is published the correct posted coordinates are displayed. Was that intentional?

I am not seeing the button/link on the edit cache page to permit uploading a photo. Where is it? (I am using Win 7, if that is relevant)

0

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, captainmath said:

The button to "Add waypoint" turns green when I mouse over it (cursor not shown in my screenshot) but clicking on it does nothing, whether I use Safari or Chrome. I don't see an option to opt-out of the new features until they work. Is there another way to add or enter waypoints?

Screen Shot 2017-12-07 at 8.17.42 PM.png

Thank you for reporting this issue! Could you let me know which cache you are looking at and which browser versions you are using so that we can try to reproduce the issues on our end? Much appreciated, we'll do our best to get this resolved quickly. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/7/2017 at 3:28 PM, monsterbox said:
On 12/7/2017 at 0:25 PM, IceColdUK said:

When I submitted a mystery cache a couple of years ago, I persuaded my local reviewer to allow fractionally more than 2 miles between the posted coords and the final.  (The posted coords provided a subtle clue to the puzzle.)

I would guess there are many existing (older) caches that are considerably more than 2 miles from their posted coordinates.

What was a guideline, is now being strictly enforced by the code, even for these existing caches.  I've just tried to update my listing (simply to change the hint), but cannot save the change: Final coordinates are more than 3.2 km from the Posted Coordinates.

Is there any way round this?

I also already was requesting a change here as I still believe this is complete nonsense (sorry that for ;) ), BUT the official decision made was that this simply is as it should be! Final answer regarding that came from Frau Potter.

The fun thing is that it would be ok to have the first stage being away 1000s of miles but not the final itself. Don't know if this fact might help you...

I could change the posted coordinates to within 2 miles of the final, and add an additional waypoint for reference but this would draw more attention to the location and the hint to the puzzle becomes less subtle.  Some may say this is a good thing(!), but I'm not happy that I'm forced to rework my puzzle when nothing has actually changed.

LivingInNarniais it going to be possible to bypass this validation if neither posted nor final coordinates have changed?

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:

I could change the posted coordinates to within 2 miles of the final, and add an additional waypoint for reference but this would draw more attention to the location and the hint to the puzzle becomes less subtle.  Some may say this is a good thing(!), but I'm not happy that I'm forced to rework my puzzle when nothing has actually changed.

LivingInNarniais it going to be possible to bypass this validation if neither posted nor final coordinates have changed?

Thanks for the question. The 2 mile rule has been part of our guidelines for some time, and we are enforcing the rule (along with others) as part of the changes to the edit page. As you mention, I would recommend changing your posted coordinates so that your cache aligns with the guidelines for mystery caches outlined here: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=127&pgid=277

0

Share this post


Link to post

It's a depressing shift in attitude, from flexible to rigid.  From judgement calls by cachers & reviewers to rules enforced by code.

Any stated reason why?

2

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Viajero Perdido said:

It's a depressing shift in attitude, from flexible to rigid.  From judgement calls by cachers & reviewers to rules enforced by code.

Any stated reason why?

We had a lot of conversations with the volunteer reviewer community and the community about these changes. The 2 mile rule for mysteries has been in place for some time and the volunteer reviewers have had the task of reminding COs to follow the guidelines. Now that Geocaching HQ enforces the 2 mile rule on the Edit Page, the volunteer reviewers have fewer errors to chase after and to ask the cache owner to update.

2

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the explanation.

Hopefully reviewers will have the ability to override some of this, based on their good judgement.  EG, in IceColdUK's example just above.  Uuuuusually older caches get grandfathered with the older rules...

0

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, LivingInNarnia said:

We had a lot of conversations with the volunteer reviewer community and the community about these changes. The 2 mile rule for mysteries has been in place for some time and the volunteer reviewers have had the task of reminding COs to follow the guidelines. Now that Geocaching HQ enforces the 2 mile rule on the Edit Page, the volunteer reviewers have fewer errors to chase after and to ask the cache owner to update.

I think a lot of us thought the 2-mile clause was a guideline, not a rule, and would therefore allow some leeway on the part of the reviewers. It's interesting to hear that it's now considered a hard rule. Maybe that should be mentioned in the hiding guidelines (/rules?).

What you said above makes perfect sense for new caches (if it's indeed now a rule), and I have no problem with that. Anything that makes the reviewers' lives easier is usually a good thing.

However, the removal of grandfathering for existing caches is what's concerning to us. If the owner of such a cache needs to make a minor change to their listing, they're now forced to bring it into compliance with the more recent guideline/rule? If the cache depends on the original coordinates (as is the case for some older puzzles), this could lead to a cache needing to be archived simply because a minor change needed to be made somewhere on the listing. I expect this decision was probably made in order to avoid the need to code exceptions into the page, but it would seem fairly straightforward (from the outside) to check if the coordinates or final waypoint have changed, and if they haven't, then allow other changes. This would be similar to the way you're treating the Related Web Page field.

2

Share this post


Link to post

Alas I can no longer upload images to the cache page during design phase. This is crtical for some puzzle caches and often used for numerous other cache types, especially events.

Please add back in.

Also, while designing the cache page the save and edit is way more important than the submit for review, especially if the cache is more than simple text. Please emphasize the save options at least as much as the review button.

Lastly, tooltips (alternate text) on the attributes please!

However in general I love the the new cache design page. Having way points and attributes and on;ly one description field is wonderful. Many thanks!

2

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 19