Jump to content

Announcing GC9FAVE Discovered while geocaching - Locationless Cache


Recommended Posts

On 8/11/2022 at 10:24 PM, Rock Chalk said:

 

We've made it clear on the cache page that finders are supposed to make a new visit to a local place they discovered while caching. Inevitably, some people will armchair the cache. It's unfortunate, but we're not going to waste much time trying to catch the very small percentage of people who do that.

Well that appears to have not aged well.....

  • Funny 4
Link to comment

Something odd I noticed when logging this just now was that the date defaulted to yesterday. I guess that's because the locationless cache's location is in Washington where it's still yesterday. I was able to correct it so no harm done but I guess there'll be a fair few logs from this part of the world with the wrong date on them.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

I have changed the coordinates to the place where I will be taking the photograph, but it still says Washington, United States.   How do I change the location to NSW, Australia.  Otherwise my stats will be wrong.


Locationless caches are excluded from stats, souvenirs, and the like on Geocaching.com for that reason. 

  • Helpful 3
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

Yes, but I would still like the location to match the coordinates.  Otherwise it just looks silly. 


That’s manually set by the cache owner and not geolocated automatically based on the coordinates. There’s a field in the editor: (this is from my own cache)

 

4129148E-6103-42AC-980E-B64618A0DFF8.jpeg.89199467af3000cbaf4f2f13184266e8.jpeg

 

You’d have to ask Geocaching HQ to change it, but then it would change for everyone. 

Edited by Hügh
Link to comment
On 8/12/2022 at 6:24 AM, Rock Chalk said:

We've made it clear on the cache page that finders are supposed to make a new visit to a local place they discovered while caching. Inevitably, some people will armchair the cache. It's unfortunate, but we're not going to waste much time trying to catch the very small percentage of people who do that.

(emphasis by me)

Out of curiosity, I just scrolled through the latest ~200 or so logs on the cache. The vast majority of "finders" blatantly ignore one or more of the logging requirements. Almost always the "revisit", quite often the "local place", and sometimes even the very basic requirement of telling where the photo was shot.

 

... all of which is just as I expected :P .

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

Very annoyed I am.

At midnight last night New Zealand time I uploaded a pre-prepared log of just under 4000 characters and added to it with a Write note of another 4000 characters. Too tired to upload the photos that go with my log. This morning I go to upload the photos but my log and note have been archived!

This is very annoying. How do I appeal to have my original logs un-archived so I can add the photos?

Cheers, Phronimos

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
17 hours ago, Hügh said:

You’d have to ask Geocaching HQ to change it, but then it would change for everyone. 

Not necessarily.

 

Since I have corrected the coordinates, it would seem to be a reasonably simple bit of javascript to do

 

IF Corrected

    Geolocate the coordinates and display that country and state

ELSE

    Display the default country and state.

ENDIF

 

As it is, Groundspeak reckons that Washington, United States is about 57 Km SE of me.

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Phronimos said:

Very annoyed I am.

At midnight last night New Zealand time I uploaded a pre-prepared log of just under 4000 characters and added to it with a Write note of another 4000 characters. Too tired to upload the photos that go with my log. This morning I go to upload the photos but my log and note have been archived!

This is very annoying. How do I appeal to have my original logs un-archived so I can add the photos?

Cheers, Phronimos

At the bottom of this page is a "Contact us" link.  Click that then click the "Can't find what you need?" dropdown and ask them there.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

I have changed the coordinates to the place where I will be taking the photograph, but it still says Washington, United States.   How do I change the location to NSW, Australia.  Otherwise my stats will be wrong.

 

GC9FAVE.jpg

 

You can't change the coordinates of the cache because you aren't the cache owner. The state & country are based on the posted coordinates of the cache. The distance from your home location is based on the coordinates relative to your home coordinates.

 

What you have done is entered solved coordinates via the pencil icon, which moves the icon to a different location but is not the same as "changing the coordinates." As with any other cache, entering solved coordinates only updated the pin location for you and does not update the state & country, it never has.

 

We understand that the original Locationless Caches used to work a little different with entering coordinates in logs, etc, but as noted before that is no longer part of the these modern limited release Locationless Caches. Appreciate this one for what it is and rest assured that it won't mess up your stats, as noted by Moun10bike.

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
On 8/18/2022 at 8:43 PM, baer2006 said:

(emphasis by me)

Out of curiosity, I just scrolled through the latest ~200 or so logs on the cache. The vast majority of "finders" blatantly ignore one or more of the logging requirements. Almost always the "revisit", quite often the "local place", and sometimes even the very basic requirement of telling where the photo was shot.

 

... all of which is just as I expected :P .

 

It had to happen I suppose...

 

image.png.c2d8eabe6bdd7dea4f3fb039327394b2.png

  • Funny 5
Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

Either people are logging this cache twice, or that "double log glitch" is back.

 

Yes, I've been seeing that a fair bit. I think it happens if people are logging it while I'm viewing the cache page. If I refresh all the duplicates vanish, until they start appearing again as I scroll further down.

Link to comment

I think I know why the double-logging appears to happen.

 

When I get to the point where it says loading more logs, sometimes one or more logs are duplicated.

 

I suspect that it takes the original number of logs, adds one and starts from there.  Meanwhile one or more new logs have been added so the start point, the nth+1 cache, is calculated from the new first cache.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
23 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

It had to happen I suppose...

 

image.png.c2d8eabe6bdd7dea4f3fb039327394b2.png

The whole purpose of my original comment (1st after the OP) was to highlight that the instructions did not say Revisit or dont use an old photo - this was eventually acknowledged and amendments made - however I still dont think the 'instructions' are clear enough and of course the CO is failing in their duty to delete spurious or non-complying logs. I have seen many caches where HQ have archived them due to the COs allowing spurious or non complying logs such as webcams and yet this happens on one of their own 
Off to find an old photo :o

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

The whole purpose of my original comment (1st after the OP) was to highlight that the instructions did not say Revisit or dont use an old photo - this was eventually acknowledged and amendments made - however I still dont think the 'instructions' are clear enough ...

It says "Old photos are not permitted". How much clearer do you want it to be ;) ?

Fact is, almost all "finders" of this cache are just ignoring this requirement - plain and simple. Many seem to think, that they should only point out their favorite past caching experience.

 

My guess is that many people don't even read the cache page. They get a heads up from buddies, that there is a cache of a "special type", which can log with a photo from a "favorite cache". In a German FB group, someone posted on 20 August ("Geocaching Day world record attempt") that if you cannot go out caching today, you can still participate by logging GC9FAVE. Many enthusiastic reactions, and only one person pointed out that GC9FAVE is not supposed to be armchair-logged. Some back and forth ensued ("yes it is" - "no, it isn't") until the OP admitted to have been wrong, because they hadn't properly read the listing. My point is: One such "multiplier" in a community, and you get lots of loggers who ignore the "no old photo" requirement.

 

16 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

and of course the CO is failing in their duty to delete spurious or non-complying logs. I have seen many caches where HQ have archived them due to the COs allowing spurious or non complying logs such as webcams and yet this happens on one of their own 

As I write this, there a 6000+ finds after only 5 days. And it's a safe guess that 95+ % of these are obviously not meeting the requirements. Try to "police" that ;) . Also, I don't think GS not really interested in policing armchair logging.

 

23 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

Off to find an old photo :o

I have a lot of these from absolutely great cache locations. Currently, I'm contemplating three options:

1) Doing what (almost) everyone does: Describing a great location I found only because of caching, and posting a photo from that trip.

2) Properly fulfilling all requirements by revisiting such a spot. All of the best ones were significant hikes, not totally without some risk.

3) Not logging GC9FAVE at all.

Luckily, I have 16 months left to decide :)  ...

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, baer2006 said:

It says "Old photos are not permitted". How much clearer do you want it to be ;) ?

Fact is, almost all "finders" of this cache are just ignoring this requirement - plain and simple. Many seem to think, that they should only point out their favorite past caching experience.

 

The Newsletter article didn't mention the need to revisit a local spot and take a new photo, and even after reading the blog post I'd managed to skim over "revisit" and "local" and was thinking about some of the awesome remote places I'd been drawn to by caching like Lord Howe Island. It was only after I'd come here and started reading the discussion that I thought "Hang on, did I miss something?"

 

Even the phrase "old photos are not permitted" could be misinterpreted as meaning photos taken at the location prior to finding the cache there aren't allowed, much like the similar requirements I've seen on virtuals and ECs, particularly if you've already formed the mindset that the locationless is all about sharing fantastic places caching has taken you to in the past.

 

5 hours ago, baer2006 said:

My guess is that many people don't even read the cache page.

 

For years now, HQ has been conditioning us not to read the cache page. The new search map shows the D/T rating, cache size, FP count and recent logs, and allows you to download a GPX file and log the cache all without ever looking at the description. Likewise in the app, where only the first few words of the description are now shown on the top level and you have to tap on it to see the rest. For traditionals, the app even goes as far as to say to only look at the description if you get stuck. But in this instance, even reading the cache page wouldn't have helped because the requirements to revisit and take a new photo weren't initially included there.

 

5 hours ago, baer2006 said:

As I write this, there a 6000+ finds after only 5 days. And it's a safe guess that 95+ % of these are obviously not meeting the requirements. Try to "police" that ;) . Also, I don't think GS not really interested in policing armchair logging.

 

The requirements to revisit and not use an old photo would be almost impossible to police, although northern hemisphere photos showing snow-covered fields are a likely give-away that it's an old photo, given what I've been hearing in the news about heatwaves. The "local" requirement is also pretty vague, especially with the podcast mentioning places within your county or state. So as far as the logging requirements go, this one was almost doomed to failure.

 

5 hours ago, baer2006 said:

I have a lot of these from absolutely great cache locations. Currently, I'm contemplating three options:

1) Doing what (almost) everyone does: Describing a great location I found only because of caching, and posting a photo from that trip.

2) Properly fulfilling all requirements by revisiting such a spot. All of the best ones were significant hikes, not totally without some risk.

3) Not logging GC9FAVE at all.

Luckily, I have 16 months left to decide :)  ...

 

It didn't take me long to decide which location to use for my log. It was at a cache I'd visited to mark my first anniversary in the game, had spectacular views and, after the original cache was archived by its owner, I'd put one of my own there. Plus it was only 3km from home and an easy walk out to the vantage point with my DSLR and tripod so I just had to wait for a clear sunny day to get some good shots. For me, it was much more fun doing that than sitting in my armchair sifting through old photos.

 

Edited by barefootjeff
Spelling
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

The whole purpose of my original comment (1st after the OP) was to highlight that the instructions did not say Revisit or dont use an old photo - this was eventually acknowledged and amendments made - however I still dont think the 'instructions' are clear enough and of course the CO is failing in their duty to delete spurious or non-complying logs. I have seen many caches where HQ have archived them due to the COs allowing spurious or non complying logs such as webcams and yet this happens on one of their own 
Off to find an old photo :o

 

I'd like to remind you that all of the Lackeys were quite busy this past weekend.  They threw a small party for the geocaching community.  Give them a chance once everyone's back in the office.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
13 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Doing what (almost) everyone does: Describing a great location I found only because of caching, and posting a photo from that trip.

 

Frankly, I think that is within the spirit of the cache. This locationless asks for a great location you found because of geocaching. I would rather someone share the story and photo of a truly great location they visited in the past and cannot practically revisit than to to follow the letter of the law and log a much less great location they visit during the next year.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
17 hours ago, Keystone said:

I'd like to remind you that all of the Lackeys were quite busy this past weekend.  They threw a small party for the geocaching community.  Give them a chance once everyone's back in the office.

I am aware of that - but are you really telling me that once everyone IS back in the office spurious logs will be deleted :D
Hope the weekend went well :-) 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Deepdiggingmole said:
On 8/21/2022 at 9:26 PM, Keystone said:

I'd like to remind you that all of the Lackeys were quite busy this past weekend.  They threw a small party for the geocaching community.  Give them a chance once everyone's back in the office.

I am aware of that - but are you really telling me that once everyone IS back in the office spurious logs will be deleted :D

 

I based my statement on my personal familiarity with HQ's efforts to police the logs on the other two active locationless caches.  I checked GC9FAVE just now and, sure enough, there are dozens of non-compliant logs that have been deleted from the cache page. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment

Visited GC25 wow what a trip to get there and great view from the top. Would never ventured anywhere near there without a cache being there and being a challenge addict the oldest in Idaho.

Reason for this post is noticed someone posted a NM log and several trackables. Hmmmm

Link to comment
On 8/23/2022 at 4:51 AM, Keystone said:

 

I based my statement on my personal familiarity with HQ's efforts to police the logs on the other two active locationless caches.  I checked GC9FAVE just now and, sure enough, there are dozens of non-compliant logs that have been deleted from the cache page. 

I am aware that logs have been deleted from the other two - though i think mainly FROG - and mainly because images are not being uploaded with the logs and it is those that are being deleted - one log for FROG I noted had 72 images which were all holiday snaps and none of frog

The difference between them (FROG and NEAT)  and this one (FAVE)  is that the request of not to use old photos and also to ensure the location was revisited - as a comparison to the first two HQ locationless caches those requirements are and will be so much harder if not impossible to check 

I sympathise as I don't envy the job of whoever is monitoring that one 

Edited by Deepdiggingmole
  • Funny 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...