More robust map illustrating ineligible geocache hide zones

[+drdr88]

https://www.geocaching.com/hide/planning.aspx

 

Feature suggestion:

Add satellite imagery to distance/planning map in above link to better enable individuals hiding new caches to correlate objects with conflicting radius of nearby geocaches.  Add GPS "blue dot" real-time location for the same reason.  These features will create a more robust map that allows individuals hiding caches to better scout areas in real-time and in advance, as opposed trial and error from denied cache hide reviews. 

 

Another nice feature would be to add the ability to scout for and hide/publish new caches in mobile apps. 

[+Max and 99]

20 minutes ago, drdr88 said:

https://www.geocaching.com/hide/planning.aspx

 

Feature suggestion:

Add satellite imagery to distance/planning map in above link to better enable individuals hiding new caches to correlate objects with conflicting radius of nearby geocaches.  Add GPS "blue dot" real-time location for the same reason.  These features will create a more robust map that allows individuals hiding caches to better scout areas in real-time and in advance, as opposed trial and error from denied cache hide reviews. 

 

Another nice feature would be to add the ability to scout for and hide/publish new caches in mobile apps. 

I'm not understanding how that's an improvement over the current process. 

[+drdr88]

Be a little more specific and I can answer your questions. 

[+Lynx Humble]

I always found that strange that satellite view wasn't available while publishing to verify that your coordinates is at the right tree/lampost/guardrail.

 

Not sure about being able to publish with the apps but an easy way to get coordinates for a hide with an averaging function instead of using a nearby existing cache compass tab would be great improvement already.

[+Goldenwattle]

It's easy to put the intended coordinates in Google maps to see where they are. I always do this before publishing a cache. It gives the ability to see the cache is in the correct area, and not over a tall fence 400 metres away (thinking of a real example of a newly published cache).

 

Some have said that this is not accurate, but even if it's not, at least it gives a visual of the area. However,  for where I live I have found Google maps is fairly good for doing this. It might vary, depending where you live. It gives very limited help though if the area is forested and you can't see beyond the trees. Still, you would be able to see the cache coordinates are in roughly the correct area.

[+cerberus1]

45 minutes ago, drdr88 said:

Feature suggestion:

Add satellite imagery to distance/planning map in above link to better enable individuals hiding new caches to correlate objects with conflicting radius of nearby geocaches.  Add GPS "blue dot" real-time location for the same reason. 

These features will create a more robust map that allows individuals hiding caches to better scout areas in real-time and in advance, as opposed trial and error from denied cache hide reviews. 

 

Maybe I'm not getting what you're looking for, but wouldn't this also aid in "battleshipping" hides of others ?   

 - If I can now see all the possible hiding spots of others on the map... 

We've always told new folks to do the caches around them if the truly want to know where other's caches are. 

We usually offer to go with them.    

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

I always found that strange that satellite view wasn't available while publishing to verify that your coordinates is at the right tree/lampost/guardrail.

 

 

Maybe because the satellite imagery is sometimes not very well aligned and doing so would encourage people to just go from the picture rather than actually visit GZ and take multiple readings on their GPSr/phone.

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

It's easy to put the intended coordinates in Google maps to see where they are. I always do this before publishing a cache. It gives the ability to see the cache is in the correct area, and not over a tall fence 400 metres away (thinking of a real example of a newly published cache).

 

Some have said that this is not accurate, but even if it's not, at least it gives a visual of the area. However,  for where I live I have found Google maps is fairly good for doing this. It might vary, depending where you live. It gives very limited help though if the area is forested and you can't see beyond the trees. Still, you would be able to see the cache coordinates are in roughly the correct area.

 

A couple of years ago, Google downgraded the resolution of their images for my area. To the north and south they still have high resolution images but here it's almost useless now. This is a comparison of one of my hides on Google and the NSW government's SIX Maps site:

 

 

That said, I've occasionally come across places where the SIX Maps alignment is poor. There was a place I was looking at up the north coast where two tiles were well out of alignment such that a road suddenly jumped some 10 or 20 metres to the left as it crossed the boundary.

[+drdr88]

16 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

It's easy to put the intended coordinates in Google maps to see where they are. I always do this before publishing a cache. It gives the ability to see the cache is in the correct area, and not over a tall fence 400 metres away (thinking of a real example of a newly published cache).

 

Some have said that this is not accurate, but even if it's not, at least it gives a visual of the area. However,  for where I live I have found Google maps is fairly good for doing this. It might vary, depending where you live. It gives very limited help though if the area is forested and you can't see beyond the trees. Still, you would be able to see the cache coordinates are in roughly the correct area.

But you cannot do this while simultaneously viewing the planning map that has the nearby cache radiuses (the red zones around caches indicating the 528 ft limitation). 

[+drdr88]

16 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Maybe I'm not getting what you're looking for, but wouldn't this also aid in "battleshipping" hides of others ?   

 - If I can now see all the possible hiding spots of others on the map... 

We've always told new folks to do the caches around them if the truly want to know where other's caches are. 

We usually offer to go with them.    

Out of curiosity, who is "we?"  Because if an actual Geocache/Groundspeak rep is here in this forum, then I'd be ecstatic.  When's the last time that happened? Seriously though, who are you referring to when you say "we?"

 

Perhaps I could explain this feedback better if I broke geocache types into two broad categories:

 

1.  Geocaches hid by those who wish to highlight a unique environment or locale.  These cache hides tend to have few nearby caches with conflicting 528 ft radius zones.

2.  Geocaches hid by those who wish to express the cache itself or a story behind the cache.  With these caches, locale is secondary, and tend to have a higher quantity of caches nearby and therefore limited eligible areas outside of the 528 ft radius zones. 

 

If someone wishes to hide a cache in a saturated area (not recommending it, but it happens -- and it could add flavor to an otherwise dull area with dozens of caches, if it's a particularly high quality cache), then it would benefit them to be able to see in real-time what areas are eligible for new hides instead of banking on trial and error cache-reviewing process.  The blue dot GPS marker would help with this much more than satellite imagery. 

 

E.g.  A person interested in hiding a new cache doesn't have a special locale in mind, but wants to see what hiding options exists at a nearby park.  So that person goes to the park, uses Groundspeak's planning map (webpage on a mobile device), sees their real-time GPS location, and scouts the areas that fall outside of the ineligible radiuses of existing caches.  Now they can find logical hiding places in the eligible zones of said park and can gather coordinates that they know will absolutely not be denied by the 528 ft rule.  As long as they meet all the other requirements, then their new cache gets approved with only one trip to the park.

Edited June 11, 2020 by drdr88

[+niraD]

6 minutes ago, drdr88 said:

But you cannot do this while simultaneously viewing the planning map that has the nearby cache radiuses (the red zones around caches indicating the 528 ft limitation). 

If the only way you can find a spot for a new cache is looking for holes in the saturation map, then maybe the area has enough caches already. Once upon a time, the guidelines actually said that the goal of the saturation guideline was "to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area". Maybe it's time to seek out new places to hide caches.

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, drdr88 said:

A person interested in hiding a new cache doesn't have a special locale in mind, but wants to see what hiding options exists at a nearby park. 

So that person goes to the park, uses Groundspeak's planning map (webpage on a mobile device), sees their real-time GPS location, and scouts the areas that fall outside of the ineligible radiuses of existing caches. 

Now they can find logical hiding places in the eligible zones of said park and can gather coordinates that they know will absolutely not be denied by the 528 ft rule.  As long as they meet all the other requirements, then their new cache gets approved with only one trip to the park.

 

Yeah... battleship.     

There may be multis, puzzle caches, a "bonus" cache,  letterbox hybrid, or wherigos there. 

Your plan seems to disclose the locations to finals   Just so you can squeeze a cache in-between  ?

 

If that person did those caches, they wouldn't need a way to find an open spot.     

When a cacher is a PM to boot, they can't really say they don't know what's there either...  

We had a series that could be battleshipped.  It's not a nice thing.

[+drdr88]

2 hours ago, niraD said:

If the only way you can find a spot for a new cache is looking for holes in the saturation map, then maybe the area has enough caches already. Once upon a time, the guidelines actually said that the goal of the saturation guideline was "to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area". Maybe it's time to seek out new places to hide caches.

Absolutely true.  But in a sea of 0-1 favorite points, there is normally that one big fat cache that stands out from the crowd and is worth a cacher's while.  I aspire to "fix" those saturated areas in this way.

 

13 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Yeah... battleship.     

There may be multis, puzzle caches, a "bonus" cache,  letterbox hybrid, or wherigos there. 

Your plan seems to disclose the locations to finals   Just so you can squeeze a cache in-between  ?

 

 

When a cacher is a PM to boot, they can't really say they don't know what's there either...  

We had a series that could be battleshipped.  It's not a nice thing.

All of my thoughts and feedback occurred to me while playing around with the planning map on the web page I linked, not necessarily in correlation with a cache I have in mind.  Although I do aspire to add some flavor to overly saturated areas with gadget caches and other stand out caches.  But those caches aren't ones I tend to rush. 

 

"If that person did those caches, they wouldn't need a way to find an open spot."  Not sure what you're saying here.

 

[RuideAlmeida]

58 minutes ago, drdr88 said:

Not sure what you're saying here.

 

I would say it's all part of the "learning curve" of geocaching.

[+drdr88]

12 minutes ago, RuideAlmeida said:

 

I would say it's all part of the "learning curve" of geocaching.

I don't know if they are referring to the cache hider or seeker. 

[RuideAlmeida]

9 minutes ago, drdr88 said:

I don't know if they are referring to the cache hider or seeker. 

 

The learning curve applies to both... but on your current case, the hider.

When a cacher has a good amount of caches found, especially of all types in a given area, he already knows the available spots for new hides.

 

PS: It is a good idea to keep track and record of the physical stages and final points of Multi, Mysteries, Letterboxes, etc.

Edited June 11, 2020 by RuideAlmeida

[+barefootjeff]

If I'm reading what you're trying to achieve correctly, you can sort of do this already in the app. At the top right of the screen click on the three vertical dots and select List View. This will bring up a list of the caches that were showing on the map sorted in order of distance from where you're standing, like this:

 

 

The distance is shown under each cache name where I've indicated with the arrow. So when you're trying to find that elusive hiding spot in your cache-saturated area, you can just walk around until the nearest cache is more than 161 metres away. Of course it won't show hidden multi and puzzle finals but nothing will.

[+Goldenwattle]

7 hours ago, drdr88 said:

But you cannot do this while simultaneously viewing the planning map that has the nearby cache radiuses (the red zones around caches indicating the 528 ft limitation). 

Something I have never found a problem. Check the coordinates are roughly where you want then to be on Goggle maps. Then place those coordinates on the planning map. There they will either be okay or not. If not, pick another hide. I don't see what's difficult with doing it this way. It's an easy method.

[+drdr88]

6 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Something I have never found a problem. Check the coordinates are roughly where you want then to be on Goggle maps. Then place those coordinates on the planning map. There they will either be okay or not. If not, pick another hide. I don't see what's difficult with doing it this way. It's an easy method.

Probably no reason for the planning map at all, then.

[+Goldenwattle]

7 minutes ago, drdr88 said:

Probably no reason for the planning map at all, then.

That's just being silly.

[+drdr88]

4 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

That's just being silly.

How does feedback get submitted and/or reviewed here? 

[+TmdAndGG]

37 minutes ago, drdr88 said:

How does feedback get submitted and/or reviewed here? 

What do you mean?

Edit: Oh I get it. This isn't exactly the best place to give feature suggestions if you want anything done about it. Your best bet is probably to contact GcHQ directly, although not in these times as they will more than likely tell you that they are not available. 

Edited June 12, 2020 by TmdAndGG

[Keystone]

Feature suggestions can be posted in this forum section.  It is a good way to see if a consensus exists, whether an idea is technically feasible, whether there are workarounds, etc.  Feature suggestions and bug reports are monitored, but a response in every thread cannot be expected.  Sometimes, features suggested here are implemented in a Release many months or even years after being posted.  For example, if current development sprints are focused on the public profile page and the "Lists" feature, a suggestion about the planning map could be added to the backlog of story ideas for the next time that the developers focus on the Cache Submission process.

 

If a geocacher wants to request a new feature or modification, but doesn't want to hear about workarounds, etc., then writing privately to Geocaching HQ might be the way to go.  All HQ Lackeys are busy working from home, and are working hard on improvements to the website.

[+barefootjeff]

On 6/11/2020 at 2:33 PM, barefootjeff said:

That said, I've occasionally come across places where the SIX Maps alignment is poor. There was a place I was looking at up the north coast where two tiles were well out of alignment such that a road suddenly jumped some 10 or 20 metres to the left as it crossed the boundary.

 

I just found an example of an alignment error in SIX maps. This one is only 5 or 6 metres but I'm sure I've seen worse. A pity as their high resolution images are otherwise excellent.

 

[+coachstahly]

On 6/10/2020 at 8:14 PM, drdr88 said:

https://www.geocaching.com/hide/planning.aspx

 

Feature suggestion:

Add satellite imagery to distance/planning map in above link to better enable individuals hiding new caches to correlate objects with conflicting radius of nearby geocaches.  Add GPS "blue dot" real-time location for the same reason.  These features will create a more robust map that allows individuals hiding caches to better scout areas in real-time and in advance, as opposed trial and error from denied cache hide reviews. 

 

At its very core, you're asking that purposefully obscured final locations be revealed for puzzles, wherigos and multis as well as purposefully obscured physical stages be revealed in order to scout/hide new caches.  What, then, would be the point of placing multis, puzzles, and Wherigos if all you had to do was look at a cache planning map and see where finals or stages are located?  Seems to me that you're just creating a way for everyone to find everything (at least where everything is located) in order to make things "easier" to place a cache.  Saturation is certainly an issue in areas where caching is extremely popular but I don't think revealing all the hidden waypoints/finals of all the other caches in the area is the way to go about it. Unless you're not advocating for that.  You don't clarify that point at all.

 

Although I don't understand why satellite imagery isn't available, it's easy to work around.  Just open up another webpage and go to a satellite view and enter your coordinates.  I do that and I'm certain others do as well (GW already commented on that).  I'm not sure why that's not good enough. No, you won't get those circles on the satellite map but I'm not certain as to why the circles on the planning map isn't good enough to narrow in your initial search area and then refer to the satellite view to confirm your desired "spot".  IIRC, once you enter your coordinates, that's when the map populates with known saturation issues.  Using that, you can get a free location and then transfer those coordinates over to the satellite view.

[+drdr88]

4 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

At its very core, you're asking that purposefully obscured final locations be revealed for puzzles, wherigos and multis as well as purposefully obscured physical stages be revealed in order to scout/hide new caches.  What, then, would be the point of placing multis, puzzles, and Wherigos if all you had to do was look at a cache planning map and see where finals or stages are located?  Seems to me that you're just creating a way for everyone to find everything (at least where everything is located) in order to make things "easier" to place a cache.  Saturation is certainly an issue in areas where caching is extremely popular but I don't think revealing all the hidden waypoints/finals of all the other caches in the area is the way to go about it. Unless you're not advocating for that.  You don't clarify that point at all.

 

Although I don't understand why satellite imagery isn't available, it's easy to work around.  Just open up another webpage and go to a satellite view and enter your coordinates.  I do that and I'm certain others do as well (GW already commented on that).  I'm not sure why that's not good enough. No, you won't get those circles on the satellite map but I'm not certain as to why the circles on the planning map isn't good enough to narrow in your initial search area and then refer to the satellite view to confirm your desired "spot".  IIRC, once you enter your coordinates, that's when the map populates with known saturation issues.  Using that, you can get a free location and then transfer those coordinates over to the satellite view.

It sounds like you're saying that Groundspeak may have a specific reason as to why the planning map has limited functionality? 

 

To me, it's all or nothing:  either a fully featured planning map is offered to individuals hiding caches, or it isn't offered at all.  Since the website admins have the inclusion of a planning map for any and all people hiding geocaches, it appears to me that they *want* those individuals to have that tool at their disposal.  Enough people likely requested a visual representation of the 528 ft rule, and Groundspeak obliged.  

 

In summary, my features suggestion wasn't published in order to discuss whether or not a planning map should be included to begin with, but to improve the planning map that's already present.  I've hidden hundreds of letterboxes on Atlasquest and LetterboxUSA with little to no guidance whatsoever (those were the days!).  It's not hard to do.  But if Groundspeak wishes to include a planning map as a feature for the geocache hiding process, then they might as well include GPS location so a person hiding can discern eligible locations in real time. 

 

My feature suggestion is focused more on live GPS map marker than it is satellite imagery.  Am I in an ineligible zone, or out of it?  E.g.  I have a neat gadget cache that I want to hide on my property... but there are other geocaches nearby which limit where I can hide said gadget cache on my own property.  What are my options to hide this gadget cache on my property by using the planning map without having to reference other tools as well.

Edited June 19, 2020 by drdr88

[+niraD]

15 minutes ago, drdr88 said:

It sounds like you're saying that Groundspeak may have a specific reason as to why the planning map has limited functionality?

Bingo. Groundspeak isn't going to spoil caches with hidden stages by showing those hidden stages on a planning map.

 

15 minutes ago, drdr88 said:

To me, it's all or nothing:  either a fully featured planning map is offered to individuals hiding caches, or it isn't offered at all.

Then just ignore the planning map. Problem solved. For you, it's as if the planning map isn't offered at all.

 

For others, those who find use in a planning map that shows only non-hidden stages, the planning map will continue to be helpful (if limited).

[+drdr88]

7 minutes ago, niraD said:

7 minutes ago, niraD said:

Bingo. Groundspeak isn't going to spoil caches with hidden stages by showing those hidden stages on a planning map.

 

Then just ignore the planning map. Problem solved. For you, it's as if the planning map isn't offered at all.

 

For others, those who find use in a planning map that shows only non-hidden stages, the planning map will continue to be helpful (if limited).

Hey niraD, I'm not seeing any connection to hidden stages in the topic of this thread discussion.  Can you help me understand how hidden stages are germane to this discussion?  The feature feedback offered is the inclusion of a GPS map marker and possible satellite imagery to aid in the hiding process. 

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by drdr88

[+niraD]

29 minutes ago, drdr88 said:

Hey niraD, I'm not seeing any connection to hidden stages in the topic of this thread discussion.  Can you help me understand how hidden stages are germane to this discussion?  The feature feedback offered is the inclusion of a GPS map marker and possible satellite imagery to aid in the hiding process.

 

I was basing my comment on coachstahly's response:

5 hours ago, coachstahly said:

At its very core, you're asking that purposefully obscured final locations be revealed for puzzles, wherigos and multis as well as purposefully obscured physical stages be revealed in order to scout/hide new caches.

 

And your discussion of saturation in your respone:

58 minutes ago, drdr88 said:

Enough people likely requested a visual representation of the 528 ft rule, and Groundspeak obliged.

 

 

 

Earlier you wrote:

On 6/11/2020 at 10:44 AM, drdr88 said:

Now they can find logical hiding places in the eligible zones of said park and can gather coordinates that they know will absolutely not be denied by the 528 ft rule.

 

The "absolutely will not be denied" part will never happen, because the planning map will not show hidden stages (puzzle finals, multi-cache finals, Wherigo finals, PMO caches if you're a basic member, etc.). If it did show hidden stages, then it would spoil those caches. Groundspeak won't do that.

 

Since there is always a chance of such a hidden stage, you will never be able to know that your new cache will absolutely not be denied because of a saturation conflict with a hidden stage.

[+cerberus1]

On 6/11/2020 at 4:22 PM, drdr88 said:

"If that person did those caches, they wouldn't need a way to find an open spot."  Not sure what you're saying here.

 

Did you ever play battleship ?     

The method you're proposing means that people could find finals to multis and puzzles that are normally hidden.

The site won't purposely show finals to those caches, so you'll only know where they are when you do them.

[+drdr88]

To clarify:

 

Functionality to add to planning maps:  

- GPS map marker

- Satellite imagery

 

Functionality not to add to planning maps:

- Hidden stages, clues, way points

 

The current planning map doesn't include hidden locations, and it never should.  The only conflict for a new geocache is whether it falls within 528 ft of the first stage and/or physical location of an existing cache.  Although the website doesn't flesh this out. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by drdr88

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, drdr88 said:

Functionality to add to planning maps:  

- GPS map marker

- Satellite imagery

 

The planning map is part of the cache submission process, not a stand-alone tool, and I'd venture to say that most people work through that process in the comfort of their home rather than out in the field, in which case indicating where they currently are wouldn't be helpful and could add confusion, especially if it went the next step and used the current location to populate the latitude-longitude fields of the proposed cache. As I mentioned earlier, the official app in list mode will show the distance to all the nearby caches in real time and a GPSr loaded with the surrounding caches will do the same, so you can do what you want to do without having to view the planning map in the field.

 

As for the satellite imagery, I suspect that's intentionally not included to stop people just picking a spot on the image rather than going out and actually measuring the coordinates. I posted an example yesterday of the discrepencies in satellite images when the tiles don't quite line up.

[+coachstahly]

7 hours ago, drdr88 said:

My feature suggestion is focused more on live GPS map marker than it is satellite imagery.  Am I in an ineligible zone, or out of it?

 

You won't know unless you submit the coordinates for a coordinate check (to verify you're clear of hidden waypoints).  Based on your suggestion, I don't see how GS' planning map would be implemented/improved within either the app or the site.  As mentioned, the planning map is not a standalone feature for use on the site, although it appears that's your feature request (?), along with an integrated "live" version for use when out in the field (either app based or web-based or both?). I really don't think GS is going to incorporate that any time soon, if at all and would surmise that a third party API partner might be the one to approach for possible development.  

 

The current "tool" I have and use, as Jeff has mentioned, is the use of the list that tells you how far away a cache is from your current location.  The live search on the official app updates caches as you move (your location as well) and there are satellite, street and hybrid views that are available for use.  That appears to be the closest you can currently get but it won't have the circles.  You'd have to toggle to the list view to determine if you are at a location that meets saturation guidelines.  You'd still need to run the coordinates by the reviewer to verify the location is available (hidden waypoints) so I'm not really sure how much a live, stand alone version of the planning map would make things better or more efficient than the current set up.

[+drdr88]

So the 528ft rule applies to hidden stages too, huh? That makes it tricky. GPS marker is still useful for those who use the planning map as a tool outside, but the map in general is seemingly meaningless. A map with limited functionality doesn't serve much of a purpose. It should still be all or nothing. 

Edited June 20, 2020 by drdr88

[+coachstahly]

6 hours ago, drdr88 said:

The only conflict for a new geocache is whether it falls within 528 ft of the first stage and/or physical location of an existing cache.

 

You left out (intentionally?unknowingly?) the fact that it's 528 feet from ANY physical cache or stage, hidden or not hidden.  That means that a multi with 5 stages grouped somewhat close together all could factor into the saturation policy.  I have a multi that is circular in shape.  A new hide that is closer than 528 feet to any of those stages, including the first stage, automatically disqualifies the new cache from being published.  Virtual waypoints don't apply at all.

Edited June 20, 2020 by coachstahly

[+coachstahly]

2 minutes ago, drdr88 said:

So the 528ft rule applies to hidden stages too, huh? Although a GPS marker would help with ineligible zones around standard caches, that does make it difficult for hidden points. Tricky....

 

Saw this just as I posted.  Yes.  The saturation rule applies to ALL physical waypoints, hidden or visible.

[+niraD]

5 minutes ago, drdr88 said:

It should still be all or nothing. 

Feel free to ignore it entirely. Then it will be nothing for you.

 

It will never be all, because hidden physical waypoints will never be shown, but they do count for the saturation guideline. Others who still find it useful--even with that limitation--will continue to use it.

[+drdr88]

1 minute ago, niraD said:

Feel free to ignore it entirely. Then it will be nothing for you.

 

It will never be all, because hidden physical waypoints will never be shown, but they do count for the saturation guideline. Others who still find it useful--even with that limitation--will continue to use it.

Not ignoring it -- removing it from the web page entirely. Or fully fleshing it out to include a GPS marker (and not hidden stages).

[+coachstahly]

13 minutes ago, drdr88 said:

Not ignoring it -- removing it from the web page entirely. Or fully fleshing it out to include a GPS marker (and not hidden stages).

 

I'm not sure why you think it should be removed (other than you don't find it useful) but it will never be fully fleshed out to the point that it's "more" useful than it currently is.  I don't know about you, but I have no intention of ever writing up a cache description on my phone, as well as everything else that goes into submitting a cache for publication.  I'll do that from a desktop/laptop.  The only function that you seem to want is a version that allows you to see if your current location is a viable location, which means that you'll need to have your coordinates available to enter in order to actually get to a planning map that will show you any saturation issues.  Again, I'm not sure how that will effectively make the submission process any more efficient as you'll still need to run the coordinates past the reviewer (either as part of a pre-publication coordinate check or as an actual submission).  Even a standalone planning map won't provide you with any sort of certainty about your proposed location, beyond the caches you know are in the area.  You'd still be left with uncertainty until the reviewer verifies that the location is available.

 

Yes, it's limited, but it's limited by design.  It won't guarantee that your cache will get published so making a "live" version or standalone version most likely won't ever be high on the priority list for GS to do.  A third party API partner might have the free time on their hands but again, even with the developments you desire, you still would need to run the coordinates past the reviewer.  A fully fleshed out version would most likely entail hidden waypoints being visible, which basically removes the "hidden" option and makes every cache a traditional cache.

[+Goldenwattle]

8 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I have no intention of ever writing up a cache description on my phone

Horrors, good grief no !

[+drdr88]

58 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

I'm not sure why you think it should be removed (other than you don't find it useful) but it will never be fully fleshed out to the point that it's "more" useful than it currently is.  I don't know about you, but I have no intention of ever writing up a cache description on my phone, as well as everything else that goes into submitting a cache for publication.  I'll do that from a desktop/laptop.  The only function that you seem to want is a version that allows you to see if your current location is a viable location, which means that you'll need to have your coordinates available to enter in order to actually get to a planning map that will show you any saturation issues.  Again, I'm not sure how that will effectively make the submission process any more efficient as you'll still need to run the coordinates past the reviewer (either as part of a pre-publication coordinate check or as an actual submission).  Even a standalone planning map won't provide you with any sort of certainty about your proposed location, beyond the caches you know are in the area.  You'd still be left with uncertainty until the reviewer verifies that the location is available.

 

Yes, it's limited, but it's limited by design.  It won't guarantee that your cache will get published so making a "live" version or standalone version most likely won't ever be high on the priority list for GS to do.  A third party API partner might have the free time on their hands but again, even with the developments you desire, you still would need to run the coordinates past the reviewer.  A fully fleshed out version would most likely entail hidden waypoints being visible, which basically removes the "hidden" option and makes every cache a traditional cache.

If you look at it objectively, you'll see it.

 

Bare minimum, a GPS marker could slightly reduce the likelihood of cache review denial. 

[+cerberus1]

14 hours ago, drdr88 said:

So the 528ft rule applies to hidden stages too, huh? That makes it tricky.

GPS marker is still useful for those who use the planning map as a tool outside, but the map in general is seemingly meaningless.

A map with limited functionality doesn't serve much of a purpose. It should still be all or nothing. 

 

You might be better off raising D/T a bit to place a cache, looking for a lot more green area on the map, rather than attempting to "fit one in" somewhere.

More practical than thinking hiding guidelines will change because you don't want to simply do those caches in the way, and marking their locations.    

[+drdr88]

22 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

You might be better off raising D/T a bit to place a cache, looking for a lot more green area on the map, rather than attempting to "fit one in" somewhere.

More practical than thinking hiding guidelines will change because you don't want to simply do those caches in the way, and marking their locations.    

Hi Cerberus, what change in hiding guidelines are you referring to?

[+cerberus1]

45 minutes ago, drdr88 said:

Hi Cerberus, what change in hiding guidelines are you referring to?

 

Well,  Part 1.3 in "Follow the guidelines" in the Help Center is "Hidden Waypoints", and it says, " Hidden waypoints include stages and final locations of mystery and multi-caches. You have to solve for these locations, so we don’t reveal them on the map".

Another is the main page of the  Geocache hiding guidelines,  which says, "Don’t rely only on the Geocache Planning Map to choose a location.

Multi-Caches, Mysteries, Wherigos, and Letterbox Hybrids can have hidden physical waypoints. "

[+drdr88]

You had said "thinking hiding guidelines will change," which is what I'm asking about. 

[+cerberus1]

   I gave you two examples from the hiding guidelines.  As it seems maybe trolling's your thing, I'm done...

[+drdr88]

Did someone suggest those guidelines should change? Did I? It's totally possible. 

[+coachstahly]

On 6/19/2020 at 10:23 PM, drdr88 said:

Bare minimum, a GPS marker could slightly reduce the likelihood of cache review denial. 

 

A little blue dot on a live map on a phone, which has a +/- factor of 10 feet (in really good conditions), and has a slight likelihood of reducing a reviewer denial doesn't sound like an upgrade that makes a whole lot of sense for TPTB to develop.  You say this is the bare minimum as to what this development could do.  What are the other benefits that this could provide?

 

What if your location is hampered by a +/- of 25 feet due to overcast skies or a +/- of 30 feet due to dense tree cover?  You get a set of coordinates from your phone that show you're apparently very close (but clear) of a nearby cache but then when you enter your coordinates into the current planning map (thinking you're OK), it tells you that you're inside the zone of another cache or you realize that the location you wanted is 30 feet away (due to poor reception) from where your phone put you during that particular visit on that particular day.   What if you go back to the previous location to verify your coordinates and make sure they're good, and your phone puts you in a completely different location 25-30 feet away? 50 feet away?

 

Because of the ability of the lists of caches to determine their distance from your current location, this would be a duplicate feature, albeit one with a visual aid.  You still won't know whether or not there are any hidden waypoints that will conflict with your potential cache placement.  You would still need to submit the coordinates (either for a coordinate check pre-publication or for actual submission for publication) to a reviewer.  This suggestion doesn't really make anything more effective or efficient than current tools at our disposal.  The only extra that this provides is a live version of a tool that we currently have as a static tool.  It would do the exact same thing the current planning map does, again, with the extra addition of a live option, which doesn't significantly change or alter what we already have to do.  There's no guarantee that your live map coordinate check against known published visible waypoints will be any better than the current planning map coordinate check against known published visible waypoints and it still does nothing to address hidden waypoints (nor should it).

[+drdr88]

It's less a development feature and more a toggle on/off switch to decided extent of the map.