Jump to content

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


Geocaching HQ
Followers 21

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

I agree.  Fair enough for new caches, but it seems very poor that I am forced to move the coordinates of an existing cache as a result of a software change.

The only change I think should be made is a notice to the cacher when the final is more than 2 miles away.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Windows Pro  Firefox 57

peter-tvm - I just logged into my Basic member account, and edited an old multi-cache  that account owns  I had no issues with a blank edit page, and the map worked okay. 

Perhaps you could offer the GC Code?  A published or unpublished cache?

Quote, "When I log out the basic member and log in myself everything on the cache edit page is functional."

If the cache belongs to a Basic Member, when logged in Premium, a different account, you shouldn;t be able to access the edit form at all.

 

Edited by Isonzo Karst
Link to comment

Hmm, this is even more bizarre now. I created an new account today, to be used later for an special purpose, and the cache edit page is OK there.

But when editing an cache on the account mentioned yesterday the map, posted coordinates and waypoints are still impossible to use. And it's the same on published as well as unpublished caches.
Of course I edit one of the caches belonging to the account that is logged in for the moment.

Edited by peter-tvm
Link to comment
On 08/12/2017 at 6:13 PM, LivingInNarnia said:

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

I understand the guidelines.  What I don’t understand is whether the intention was to get older caches in line, or whether this is just an unfortunate side effect of the change.  If the latter, it would be nice if the validation could be applied only if posted and/or final coordinates were moved.

Is there any chance that this will be changed?  Do you know how many existing mystery caches are affected by the change?

If I do move the posted coordinates to allow me to update the cache page, will a reviewer be able to move them back to their already approved position?  If not, I have a couple of puzzles that will need to be reworked. :-(

 

Link to comment

I find all of the changes do streamline the process and make editing easier.  The "coordinate circles" are particularly useful as a check on "coordinate typos".

I think that removing the Related Web page is a bad idea as many cachers use the link to provide additional information useful to finding puzzle caches as well as additional "background information" which otherwise would be on the cache page.  The link therefore improves the "readability" of the cache page, especially "in the field" when reading the page on a small screen GPRs.

Link to comment

Something that I recently noticed is that you can no longer embed HTML comments in your listing source.  I'm not sure when this happened but it's a bit of a pain.  It seems that the comments get filtered out when you submit changes.  I have a few puzzles in which I've included hints in the listing source and I know of other COs who have done the same.

Link to comment
On 05/12/2017 at 10:19 PM, HHL said:

Yes, that should be changed to a more common "... about the size of a PET preform or smaller."

Hans

A what? I had to Google that, so (unless you were joking) I think it needs to be something understood in all countries

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, cachbefound said:

Something that I recently noticed is that you can no longer embed HTML comments in your listing source.  I'm not sure when this happened but it's a bit of a pain.  It seems that the comments get filtered out when you submit changes.  I have a few puzzles in which I've included hints in the listing source and I know of other COs who have done the same.

That would be a nasty surprise, if HTML comments critical to the puzzle were stripped out when the CO just wanted to make some other simple change to the cache listing (e.g., checking the checkbox to enable the built-in solution checker).

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, niraD said:

That would be a nasty surprise, if HTML comments critical to the puzzle were stripped out when the CO just wanted to make some other simple change to the cache listing (e.g., checking the checkbox to enable the built-in solution checker).

That's what happened with my last puzzle, although the hint turned out not to be critical. However, there's at least one puzzle I know of where the solution depends one being able to view those comments.  And yes, I have at least one puzzle where the hint is very important to the solution.

 

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, cachbefound said:

Something that I recently noticed is that you can no longer embed HTML comments in your listing source.  I'm not sure when this happened but it's a bit of a pain.  It seems that the comments get filtered out when you submit changes.  I have a few puzzles in which I've included hints in the listing source and I know of other COs who have done the same.

That's nasty! On one of my puzzle caches, I've included a fairly big hint as a comment in the source. I just checked and the comment's still in there, but now I'm not game to do any editing on that page.

There are other puzzles around here where the only way to solve them is to look at source code comments. Will the reviewers now be archiving those?

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:
1 hour ago, cachbefound said:

Something that I recently noticed is that you can no longer embed HTML comments in your listing source.  I'm not sure when this happened but it's a bit of a pain.  It seems that the comments get filtered out when you submit changes.  I have a few puzzles in which I've included hints in the listing source and I know of other COs who have done the same.

That's nasty! On one of my puzzle caches, I've included a fairly big hint as a comment in the source. I just checked and the comment's still in there, but now I'm not game to do any editing on that page.

There are other puzzles around here where the only way to solve them is to look at source code comments. Will the reviewers now be archiving those?

I just did a test, adding a comment line to a puzzle listing, and it worked with the comment still visible in the page source after editing. Maybe it's been fixed already?

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I just did a test, adding a comment line to a puzzle listing, and it worked with the comment still visible in the page source after editing. Maybe it's been fixed already?

Here's what I'm not seeing. Before in the listing editor and then looking at the page source.

 

 

In Listing.png

Lost in src.png

Link to comment

Here's my edited text:

Quote

<p>The hiding place has two openings: from one you'll be able to see the cache but not reach it, from the other you can reach it but not see it. Please make sure to put it back this way. <strong>Note that the National Parks and Wildlife Service allows only an information card, logbook, pencil and sharpener in the container - no swag or trackables please!</strong></p>
<!-- A test comment -->
<p>Brisbane Water National Park, created in 1959, extends along the northern side of the Hawkesbury River from Mooney Mooney to Umina, encompassing 12,000 hectares of mainly open forest and woodland. Hawkesbury sandstone is a Triassic sedimentary quartzose rock laid down from Antarctic sands some 200 million years ago and uplifted to form a plateau. Scopas Peak, along with the nearby Leochares Peak and Mount Kariong, are remnants of the higher points on this plateau, with deep valleys eroded around them by running water. Wind erosion has also attacked weaknesses in the rock, forming alcoves and honeycombing on exposed faces throughout the park.</p>

and the page's source view:

Quote

<p>The hiding place has two openings: from one you'll be able to see the cache but not reach it, from the other you can reach it but not see it. Please make sure to put it back this way. <strong>Note that the National Parks and Wildlife Service allows only an information card, logbook, pencil and sharpener in the container - no swag or trackables please!</strong></p>
<!-- A test comment -->
<p>Brisbane Water National Park, created in 1959, extends along the northern side of the Hawkesbury River from Mooney Mooney to Umina, encompassing 12,000 hectares of mainly open forest and woodland. Hawkesbury sandstone is a Triassic sedimentary quartzose rock laid down from Antarctic sands some 200 million years ago and uplifted to form a plateau. Scopas Peak, along with the nearby Leochares Peak and Mount Kariong, are remnants of the higher points on this plateau, with deep valleys eroded around them by running water. Wind erosion has also attacked weaknesses in the rock, forming alcoves and honeycombing on exposed faces throughout the park.</p>

It also works if I put the comment inside the <p></p> paragraph delimiters, so I'm not sure why other ones don't work.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

It also works if I put the comment inside the <p></p> paragraph delimiters, so I'm not sure why other ones don't work.

I can not reproduce this problem either. I remember that I have found something weird which relates to comments even before this change. Some comments disappeared and others didn't. I remember vaguely that it was depending on the position where I added the comment or the content inside the comment.

Edited by arisoft
Link to comment
2 hours ago, cachbefound said:

Here's what I'm not seeing. Before in the listing editor and then looking at the page source.

 

 

In Listing.png

Lost in src.png

I found the issue; or perhaps I should say the non-issue.  If you look closely at the dashes, they're are different lengths. I think the shorter one is a dash and longer one is probably a minus sign. After replacing the longer one with the shorter one, the problem is gone.  Case closed. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, cachbefound said:

I found the issue; or perhaps I should say the non-issue.  If you look closely at the dashes, they're are different lengths. I think the shorter one is a dash and longer one is probably a minus sign. After replacing the longer one with the shorter one, the problem is gone.  Case closed. 

Theory: Maybe 3 dashes were typed, and (as smoe phones may do) the double dash was converted to the longer hyphen character, leaving the third as a regular dash.  Should be noted that comments are only 2 dashes; but if your text editor converts them to hyphens, that's going to be annoying - you'll have to ensure that 2 dashes are stored whenever editing, no hyphen.

It shouldn't do that on desktop (unless you've enabled some form of grammar/autocorrect). Odd that it would do it in a standard textbox editor tho. If that was the cause...

Link to comment

Just wanted to add a couple notes/problems I have noticed. I didn't read through the whole thread so I apologize if some of things I mention have already been brought up. 

1. It is no longer possible to view waypoints once the cache page has been submitted. Although this is not a huge deal, I will now have to make sure that I have all my waypoints saved somewhere else prior to submission when setting up any type of multi. Would it be possible for Groundspeak to make a way to view waypoints after submission and once the page becomes locked? I usually go out and place the stages after submitting it so the way it is setup now makes additional steps of work for the cacher.

2. If a reviewer posts a review note, we have to go to the edit page in order to submit for review again. This seems in unnecessarily confusing to me. I believe the idea was that the cacher needs to respond to any review note, but there are many times when it is not necessary to respond to review notes. Would it be possible to make the "submit for review" page at the top always?

3. We can no longer edit pages after submitting the cache. It seems to me that the idea was to not have changes going on during the review process but the cacher can still cancel the submission to make the changes and then re-submit. Does this really fix the problem though? I am one of those perfectionist type people that likes to keep going back and edit everything many times over, for me this new change is very frustrating.

4. Images can no longer be uploaded from the top of the cache submission page. If I am editing my cache page in an external editor this is now an additional step that I have to go through to add the image to the page. Also, I find upload image link confusing its placement on the edit page too. It was not easy to find, and I think for most cachers who are not tech savvy will probably have difficulty finding this. Why not just leave the "upload image" option at the top of the page? 

 

 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, chas49 said:
On 12/5/2017 at 5:19 PM, HHL said:

Yes, that should be changed to a more common "... about the size of a PET preform or smaller."

Hans

A what? I had to Google that, so (unless you were joking) I think it needs to be something understood in all countries

It's this.  It may not be in use in your area, or you may have seen it before and just didn't know what it was called.

pet-preform-in-situ-1350166351.png

It's a plastic tube that drink bottle manufacturers use to make, say, a water or Coke bottle, by heating it and inflating it into a mold to take a certain shape.  But it also makes a very useful micro geocache.

I saw them start to get popular in Germany in 2008 or so, after some cachers bought a bulk case of them and then started distributing them around.  They've become pretty popular over the last ten years, some geocaching shops sell them.

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, Forest-Ghost said:

1. It is no longer possible to view waypoints once the cache page has been submitted. Although this is not a huge deal, I will now have to make sure that I have all my waypoints saved somewhere else prior to submission when setting up any type of multi. Would it be possible for Groundspeak to make a way to view waypoints after submission and once the page becomes locked? I usually go out and place the stages after submitting it so the way it is setup now makes additional steps of work for the cacher.

This is a good note. Many times I detect some errors after submitting and now this possibility is gone for waypoints. I suggest that the "Cancel" button to be moved to the end of editor page, so you can see all details but can not save it until you cancel the previous submission.

I also submitted the cache accidentally many times because the Submit button is next to the Save and preview. Luckily this process can be cancelled even though there is no visible Cancel option.

56 minutes ago, Forest-Ghost said:

2. If a reviewer posts a review note, we have to go to the edit page in order to submit for review again. This seems in unnecessarily confusing to me. I believe the idea was that the cacher needs to respond to any review note, but there are many times when it is not necessary to respond to review notes. Would it be possible to make the "submit for review" page at the top always?

You can post more reviewer notes from the description page but only reviewer notes. Old way to post an ordinary note before publishing is gone, which helps newcomers to do the right thing but also prevents to post public announcements before the cache is published.

56 minutes ago, Forest-Ghost said:

3. We can no longer edit pages after submitting the cache. It seems to me that the idea was to not have changes going on during the review process but the cacher can still cancel the submission to make the changes and then re-submit. Does this really fix the problem though? I am one of those perfectionist type people that likes to keep going back and edit everything many times over, for me this new change is very frustrating.

Now I have submitted a new cache using the new editor. I resubmitted it about three times leading to a long list of reviewer notes. I guess that there is acceptable techincal reason to lock the cache this way.

56 minutes ago, Forest-Ghost said:

4. Images can no longer be uploaded from the top of the cache submission page. If I am editing my cache page in an external editor this is now an additional step that I have to go through to add the image to the page. Also, I find upload image link confusing its placement on the edit page too. It was not easy to find, and I think for most cachers who are not tech savvy will probably have difficulty finding this. Why not just leave the "upload image" option at the top of the page? 

Even though I knew that I can upload new images directly from the editor, I could not find where it can be done until I used a text seach for "image".  The upload feature is hidden to a text link and it is unlikely to be noticed. Finallly I had no problems to get the link address as I have done many times before, but for a newcomer it is still difficult to add images to the description. Maybe the image upload feature could be moved to the gallery as it is not intented to be a part of editing the description anyway.

Edited by arisoft
Link to comment

Really hate this new change. Reasons are simple as you have made it harder to get the information on the new cache page. You can no longer upload a picture to an archived cache to place on your new cache. Once a reviewer note is placed the cache is submitted. This is all wrong and I sure wish you folks would change it back

Link to comment
1 hour ago, horseshoechamp said:

Really hate this new change. Reasons are simple as you have made it harder to get the information on the new cache page. You can no longer upload a picture to an archived cache to place on your new cache. Once a reviewer note is placed the cache is submitted. This is all wrong and I sure wish you folks would change it back

If it’s any help, it is still possible to upload an image to a log of an archived cache. This is useful if someone doesn’t want the link to the images to be visible on the new cache page. I went back and uploaded my image to an old maintenance log on one of my archived caches.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Forest-Ghost said:

1. It is no longer possible to view waypoints once the cache page has been submitted. Although this is not a huge deal, I will now have to make sure that I have all my waypoints saved somewhere else prior to submission when setting up any type of multi. Would it be possible for Groundspeak to make a way to view waypoints after submission and once the page becomes locked? I usually go out and place the stages after submitting it so the way it is setup now makes additional steps of work for the cacher.

This is probably a good point, but please don't submit your cache for review before all the stages are in place. You have to assume that your cache could be published at any moment after you click on submit, and if the stages aren't in place you'll have a bunch of disappointed searchers all scratching their heads.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

This is probably a good point, but please don't submit your cache for review before all the stages are in place. You have to assume that your cache could be published at any moment after you click on submit, and if the stages aren't in place you'll have a bunch of disappointed searchers all scratching their heads.

In our local area the reviewers quite often want us to submit a cache page labeled "do not publish." The reviewer then checks the cache to make sure everything is ready to go (i.e. the waypoints aren't to close to other caches) and then they send the page back to us. We then place the waypoints and all physical parts, and then hit the submit for review with a note that says "ready for publication."

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Forest-Ghost said:

In our local area the reviewers quite often want us to submit a cache page labeled "do not publish." The reviewer then checks the cache to make sure everything is ready to go (i.e. the waypoints aren't to close to other caches) and then they send the page back to us. We then place the waypoints and all physical parts, and then hit the submit for review with a note that says "ready for publication."

Oh right, sorry, yes a coordinate check is a different matter entirely. My bad.

Link to comment

Hey, I like the most off the new changes!
But I use the Related Web Page for my Wherigos or Mysterys where I give the link to the Puzzle. I think, that it is great have this tool back!

I have a Idea to make host and organize an Event easier:
If everyone must write by logging "will attend" how many people come form there account, event owner know exactly how man people come.

And my second Idea:
A way for owners to ask questions like this:
Do you want something to drink? Yes O | No O
Than must everybody give the answer by logging "will attend" and the event owner now, how mucht he have to bring.

It's possible to create a tool like this?

I hope, this post is understandable, I have use Google translate


Greetings from Germany
capoaira

 

Edit:

 

Edited by capoaira
Link to comment
2 hours ago, dustymax said:

I hate the changes! It has taken me 3 weeks since submission and my cache still isn't published. I had NO problems before with over 60 caches published. If it ain't broke, DON'T FIX IT

Since the new edit page was only released last week, I don't understand how it could have any impact on your cache submission from 3 weeks ago. You'll need to work with your reviewer to sort out any issues with your cache.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, capoaira said:

If everyone must write by logging "will attend" how many people come form there account, event owner know exactly how man people come.

I hardly ever log "will attend" if it's an open place where we meet.  If the number of attendees doesn't matter I come when I have time and I stay away if I have no time.  But I don't put myself under pressure by saying "I will be there".  If it's indoor and only a limited number of people will find a seat, I usually log "will attend".  From my experience, event owners don't really care to know the exact number of attendees front up.

Quote

A way for owners to ask questions like this:  Do you want something to drink? Yes O | No O

If I want something to drink i bring it with me, If the event is in a restaurant, I order from the waiter. 

I don't think we need to change current procedure.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, capoaira said:

I have a Idea to make horst and organize an Event easier:
If everyone must write by logging "will attend" how many people come form there account, event owner know exactly how man people come.

And my second Idea:
A way for owners to ask questions like this:
Do you want something to drink? Yes O | No O
Than must everybody give the answer by logging "will attend" and the event owner now, how mucht he have to bring.

It's possible to create a tool like this?

I only log around half the events attended.  Most enjoy our company, and the kids appreciate the goodies we bring for them .  I won't log "will attend" if I'm not logging an attend later...

Things happen (sick is one...) and though a total sounds like a good idea, we haven't seen it work well.  Add in the folks that realize they can make it last minute...     We've only attended a couple events where folks were so anal to make rules on attendance.

We've attended "pot luck" events for years.  Most have a mention on the event page who's bringing what (hopefully editing's fixed). Everything turns out well,  I really don't see the issue you're trying to fix.  :)

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, capoaira said:

And my second Idea:
A way for owners to ask questions like this:
Do you want something to drink? Yes O | No O
Than must everybody give the answer by logging "will attend" and the event owner now, how mucht he have to bring.

It's possible to create a tool like this?

Events around here have linked to Google Docs documents for things like that. Attendees can say what they're bringing to a potluck, or tell the CO what kind of donut they want, or whatever.

Link to comment
On 12/8/2017 at 2:00 AM, MartyBartfast said:

 

On 12/7/2017 at 7:39 PM, 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"

============================

Yes, much easier. As I mentioned, many folks don't know how to use HTML correctly, so when I have them paste HTML-tagged text into the same text box with their own content, the page often ends up a mess.

I've always appreciated the Short Description / Summary box for that reason, and also, for my own caches, it lets me write a quick summary at the top, distinct from the more detailed description. Different strokes....

Link to comment

Editing one of my Multi-Cache caused a problem with the hint..: 250 Chars for the hint are not enough for Multi-Caches!

I know: the hint should be easily decoded in the field. But what about some larger hints for each stage of the Multi, hm?

Indeed, I could create additional visible waypoints, but what an effort ... and there is no automatic decryption supported ..

 

In my Multi Caches I have something like this (525 chars):

"""
S0: W: Marienkäfer
......(die aus Schneckenblut gewebten Leitern
.......an den Bäumen haben keine Bedeutung)
S1: S: Dreieck, Schneckenblut
S2: NW: Marienkäfer
S3: NO: Marienkäfer
+ weißer Hilfsreflektor

S4: S: Dreieck, Schneckenblut
S5: W: Dreieck, Schneckenblut
S6: O: Marienkäfer
S7: W: Schneckenblut
......(weißer Hilfreflektor als Dreieck)
Final: Direkt am Gehweg
----------
Zum Bonus:
Denkt auch an das "dies sei ..." im Final vom Hauptcache!
S1: SO: Marienkäfer, Schneckenblut
Final: Efeuranke

"""

 

Link to comment

Some responses to recent posts:

1) Re html comments, nothing has changed. Apparently the poster who was having trouble had some mis-formed html

2) Cache owner can  post a Write Note log, and cache owner can post a Reviewer note log in response to questions from Reviewer, see my post in this thread and the post immediately below it, both illustrate how to post a Write Note log.

3) Good point about not being able to see your own waypoints without going to the edit page. I'd missed that. It's not intuitive for current users but I expect to get used to it.  This awkwardness is compounded by there being no obvious way off the edit page  back to the cache page. You can do it by going to edit page, eyeballing what you want, click "I agree..." button, and having made no changes, Save and View.

4) watersphere - hints field limits, I didn't see that mentioned in the release notes, but you're right..hm, for many staged caches, yes, it could  be a problem. II was able to remove  punctuation from your hint above,  and fit all the text into the hints field. I guess a person is going to be forced to brevity, or as you've noted, add visible info to the waypoints.

 

 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

I hardly ever log "will attend" if it's an open place where we meet.  If the number of attendees doesn't matter I come when I have time and I stay away if I have no time.  But I don't put myself under pressure by saying "I will be there".  If it's indoor and only a limited number of people will find a seat, I usually log "will attend".  From my experience, event owners don't really care to know the exact number of attendees front up.

If I want something to drink i bring it with me, If the event is in a restaurant, I order from the waiter. 

I don't think we need to change current procedure.

Ok, I want to explain again why I want these tools:
But First: I don't want the exactly number and I don't want the tool for every Event.

I host an Event with campfire, stick bread and baked apples. It were good, when I now, how much people want some stick bread or/and baked apples, so that I have enuogh but not way too much.
The last Events I have made non-alcoholic mulled wine for all and I had not enough have more people write, that they want some, I had make much more.

I don't think, it is a tool for every Event, like meet and greets. But for the most restaurants it's good, when they now what the people want to eat. (when many come and the restaurant not so large)

Link to comment
4 hours ago, watersphere said:

 my Multi Caches I have something like this (525 chars):

"""
S0: W: Marienkäfer
......(die aus Schneckenblut gewebten Leitern
.......an den Bäumen haben keine Bedeutung)
S1: S: Dreieck, Schneckenblut
S2: NW: Marienkäfer
S3: NO: Marienkäfer
+ weißer Hilfsreflektor

S4: S: Dreieck, Schneckenblut
S5: W: Dreieck, Schneckenblut
S6: O: Marienkäfer
S7: W: Schneckenblut
......(weißer Hilfreflektor als Dreieck)
Final: Direkt am Gehweg
----------
Zum Bonus:
Denkt auch an das "dies sei ..." im Final vom Hauptcache!
S1: SO: Marienkäfer, Schneckenblut
Final: Efeuranke

In deinem Fall kann man das ja leicht kürzen:
S0, S2, S3, S6: Marienkäfer
S0 ...(die aus Schneckenblut gewebten Leitern
...an den Bäumen haben keine Bedeutung)

S3 weißer reflektor
usw.

Das ist zwar nur halb so schön würde es aber erst mal auch tun.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, capoaira said:

Das ist zwar nur halb so schön würde es aber erst mal auch tun.

In this context: yes. This was an example fron an older cache. But also at the current cache, I had to formulate very carefully. These are already 241 characters:

"""

Immer genau das Objekt messen, an
dem sich der Reflektor befindet.
Keine Schrauben oder anderes dicht bei!

Start: ablesen oder selber messen
S2 bis S7: vom Meeresgrund
S8: nur das Runde
Final: kleinere Menschen benötigen evtl. Hilfe

"""

Both caches are also solvable without Hints. But then you have to be a little bit clever ;-).

Hints are supposed to help if someone has problems at a station.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, watersphere said:

[...]

Immer genau das Objekt messen, an
dem sich der Reflektor befindet.
Keine Schrauben oder anderes dicht bei!

Start: ablesen oder selber messen
S2 bis S7: vom Meeresgrund
S8: nur das Runde
Final: kleinere Menschen benötigen evtl. Hilfe [...]

These informations should be part of the description.

Hans

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, HHL said:

These informations should be part of the description.

First: Not at all. The listing contains a description what you should do. The hint should help if you are running into trouble in the field.

Second: It's not the point to discuss where this specific hint should be placed. The point is that 250 characters are possibly not enough for a Multi-Cache - independent from my examples.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, watersphere said:

Editing one of my Multi-Cache caused a problem with the hint..: 250 Chars for the hint are not enough for Multi-Caches!

I have a easy and evil solution for this problem.

You know that the only special feature for the hint field is that it is ROT-13 encoded. You can easily move your large hint section to the end of the description field if you use a tool like http://rot13.com to encode it. This is the easy part. The evil part is that your hints are not visible to geocachers until they really decode the hint. It gives them opportunity to decode only one hint at a time, not all at once, as it unintentedly happens when you use the default hint field.

Link to comment

The new edit page is less efficient for uploading photos.

First, I have to click edit.  Then, scroll down past everything to add images.  Then, I'm forwarded to the separate image uploading page where I can upload my photos as usual.

That's one extra click, a fair bit of scrolling down, and then I have to find the one line that says "add images".

Link to comment

We have two puzzle caches that were published in 2008 and 2009. On both caches, the fake coordinates were outside of the 2 mile limit of the final. Reviewers allowed the distance to be further back then. In both cases, we need to move the final spot very slightly, about 20 feet in one case and about 100 feet in the other case. We like keeping older caches so that cachers can fill their Jasmer Challenges. However, with the new editing feature, we cannot make a single change to our cache page because we get a notice that the final is more than 2 miles from the fake coords. We sent an email to our local reviewer about 5 days ago about the issue on the first cache we needed to change and have not heard back. Do we need the reviewer to make the change or does Groundspeak need to make the change. It is our fake coordinates that we need to change to bring them within the 2 mile limit.

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, SerenityNow said:

We have two puzzle caches that were published in 2008 and 2009. On both caches, the fake coordinates were outside of the 2 mile limit of the final. Reviewers allowed the distance to be further back then. In both cases, we need to move the final spot very slightly, about 20 feet in one case and about 100 feet in the other case. We like keeping older caches so that cachers can fill their Jasmer Challenges. However, with the new editing feature, we cannot make a single change to our cache page because we get a notice that the final is more than 2 miles from the fake coords. We sent an email to our local reviewer about 5 days ago about the issue on the first cache we needed to change and have not heard back. Do we need the reviewer to make the change or does Groundspeak need to make the change. It is our fake coordinates that we need to change to bring them within the 2 mile limit.

If you would like to make edits to those caches, you can move your fake coordinates so that they are within the 2 mile limit. You can see earlier comments about this in this thread here and here. Thank you!

Link to comment

I would love to do what you suggested, LivingInNarnia, but since I am moving the cache page coordinates more than 528 feet, I get this message when I try -

You cannot move a geocache more than 528ft from its original position. Again I would like to know who to contact to help change them. I believe it is only a reviewer or Groundspeak that can do this for us.
 
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 21
×
×
  • Create New...