Release Notes (Website: New geocache and trackable logging flow) - November 2, 2023

[+Geocaching HQ]

Release Notes (Website: New geocache and trackable logging flow) - November 2, 2023

Geocaching HQ is making an ongoing effort to create a consistent player experience across Geocaching.com.

 

Today, we begin releasing a new geocache and trackable logging experience. We will gradually release this new experience to all players over the next few weeks.

 

This latest web release creates a consistent experience across the following aspects:

• Logging Drafts
• Creating new geocache logs
• Editing existing geocache logs
• Viewing a geocache log
• Creating new trackable logs
• Editing existing trackable logs
• Viewing a trackable log

 

The new logging flow combines the best features of the two legacy logging experiences that exist today, including:

• It includes a link to the geocache or trackable details page and the respective geocache or trackable owner’s profile page. They open in new tabs.
• It shows a label indicating the geocache’s status: disabled, archived, unpublished.
• Players must select log types from a dropdown menu. It includes all available log types depending on cache state and the player’s log history on the respective cache.
• Once a log type is selected, players will see an updated explanation of the intent behind the selected log type.
• The Needs Maintenance log type is renamed to Owner attention requested to more accurately reflect the intent behind the log type.
• The Needs Archived log type is renamed to Reviewer attention requested to more accurately reflect the intent behind the log type.
• The Log date field now has a “pin” icon to allow players to choose if they want to use today’s date for new logs, or to “pin” a different date. Once a date is pinned, the pinned date is used for all new logs until the player “un-pins” the date or when the browser session expires.

 

                       

 

• The log text input field includes a user-friendly editor for formatting log text with markdown. A modal provides an updated overview of additional formatting options.
• Log text is now limited to 5000 characters.
• A log preview section gives an overview of the formatted log. This section is collapsible.
• It enforces that Favorite points can only be awarded when posting a Found it or Webcam photo taken log.
• Favorite points can be added or removed by editing an existing log.
• Image previews now better indicate whether the image is still uploading, is uploaded but has no custom description, or is uploaded and has a custom description.
• Players can edit uploaded images in a modal by clicking on the image preview links.
• A trackable inventory section allows players to visit or drop trackables with their cache log. This section is collapsible.
• We have removed the ability to encrypt logs on cache logs and trackable logs moving forward. Cache logs and trackable logs were not encrypted on the mobile app and very few users used the encryption feature. We have decided to streamline this functionality.
• We have removed the ability to add a ‘Write Note’ log to unpublished caches. That log type did not automatically archive upon cache publication and private information was occasionally shared. We recommend that players interested in dropping trackables into caches use a reviewer note instead. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The cache and trackable log details view also received an overhaul. It remains available via the View Log links from various pages and via direct links. It now features:

• Additional detail of the current player’s relationships to the cache logs they’re viewing, e.g owned, found, DNFed, etc
• For cache owners, indication of whether a log had a Favorite point associated with it.
• Captures a log’s Great story and Helpful votes
• Updated image gallery utilizing additional space
• New share log modal
• Cache and trackable owners are required to provide a reason for deleting others’ logs or images. This reason is shared with the log author or image owner via an automated email.

 

 

 

 

 

 

We also updated the image upload functionality for adding images to an existing geocache log, trackable log, and geocache details page. It is now more consistent with images uploaded to a new log, during the Cache Submission Process, and on the Edit Page.

 

It now offers:

• Drag and drop file upload options
• Max image size of 5 MB, approved file types are PNG, JPG, and GIF 
• Total number of images per log limited to 20
• EXIF data is stripped from uploaded images
• Image editing in the same interface
• Adding an image name (limited to 50 characters)
• Adding an image description (limited to 125 characters)
• Rotating or flipping an image

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please see this Help Center section for more details about logging your finds online. 

 

Ari (ari54321) 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!

[+arisoft]

Looks very good, unfortinately I am not selected to use this new experience yet but I look forward to it.

 

Quote

Captures a log’s Great story and Helpful votes

 

Are these really used for something valuable anywhere? I suggest to streamline this feature.

[+icabrian]

I hope the new logging flow will not allow logging trackables on log types that don't involve travel. Such as Will Attend logs or Locationless cache logs.

[+Pontiac_CZ]

"Players must select log types from a dropdown menu. It includes all available log types depending..."

 

Like really all, including OAR and RAR? No more "Report a problem"? That would be good. (you could have attached a screenshot of the dropdown items)

 

"reason for deleting others’ logs..." - finally!

 

As to the "Great story" and "Helpful" - I don't mind the feature, I have actually assigned either flag to lots of logs since I like browsing through logs. But the cache page is unfriendly to this feature - it does not show how many logs have GS or Helpful and does not remember user's preference regarding the log order. I actually agree with Arisoft's call for "something valuable"...

 

Anyway, I'm looking forward to try the new logging flow.

[+ari54321]

1 hour ago, Pontiac_CZ said:

Like really all, including OAR and RAR? No more "Report a problem"? That would be good. (you could have attached a screenshot of the dropdown items)

 

Yes, we removed the "Report a problem" feature. All available log types are now available in the dropdown, including Owner attention requested and Reviewer attention requested.

 

Here's what those options look like on an unfound cache:

[+Bl4ckH4wkGER]

Congratulations Team ONE (Scott, Brandon, Alex, Joshua, Cory) on completing this project.. Huge thank you to Jessica for the design and all the other lackeys who provided feedback. I'm glad to see it out for people to use and enjoy. I'm excited to see what other work this reduction in tech debt and duplicate experiences will enable.

Edited November 3, 2023 by Bl4ckH4wkGER

[+baer2006]

11 hours ago, Bl4ckH4wkGER said:

I'm glad to see it out for people to use and enjoy.

... as long as you are privileged to actually get this upgrade. Which I am apparently not .

[+ta68]

Glad to see that the tickbox "report a problem" is gone. 

i wonder however, will there be a fix for drafts, as when I upload from my GPS I always get all my logs, not just the new ones since the last time I uploaded (which is how it worked before).

At least allow me to "delete all drafts before date X" after the upload so I can focus on the new ones. I much prefer to make a quick note in my gps and then write my logs at the end of the day instead of pushing up copy/paste one liners from my phone.

Edited November 3, 2023 by ta68

[+ari54321]

1 hour ago, ta68 said:

i wonder however, will there be a fix for drafts, as when I upload from my GPS I always get all my logs, not just the new ones since the last time I uploaded (which is how it worked before).

 

We are aware of the issue with drafts uploaded from a GPS device, but that issue is separate from this release. The team is looking into a fix. 

[Rock Chalk]

6 hours ago, baer2006 said:

... as long as you are privileged to actually get this upgrade. Which I am apparently not .

 

Please see the original post, which notes that the release is gradual over the course of days. This is so that the release may be adjusted if significant issues arise. It's random selection and not a matter of privilege.

[+Numanoid]

Unfortunately I already have to endure the new logging "experience". Can we please have the "Opt out" button back?

[+ChileHead]

10 minutes ago, Numanoid said:

Unfortunately I already have to endure the new logging "experience". Can we please have the "Opt out" button back?

 

If there are things that aren't working you should post them here, as even if you could opt out you'd get the new logging experience sometime in the next few weeks as it rolls out.

[+ChriBli]

I can no longer log any geocaches, or edit existing logs. The screen goes all blank, sometimes after briefly flashing some content. Is this the expected new experience?

 

Yes, yes, I am using an old browser version. Firefox 86.0.1, I think. Of course it's my own fault. There can be no valid reasons for sticking to an old browser.

[+MartyBartfast]

14 hours ago, Rock Chalk said:

the release is gradual over the course of days. This is so that the release may be adjusted if significant issues arise. It's random selection and not a matter of privilege.

I haven't been randomly selected either, but I just tried the new logging on the Staging site and I like it, IMO it's a big improvement so thanks to all involved.

This does make me think though, why don't you encourage us to test such things out on the Staging site before going live? I'm sure there are plenty of exeperienced folks who would be interested enough to go and give it a final UAT before going live on the main site.

[+predator1337]

• Log text is now limited to 5000 characters.

really good, now i can write longer logs ^^

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 11/2/2023 at 2:50 PM, Geocaching HQ said:

Log text is now limited to 5000 characters.

 

What was the old limit?

[+2Abendsegler]

1 minute ago, JL_HSTRE said:

What was the old limit?

4000

[+Pontiac_CZ]

I've just looked into staging.geocaching.com but there is still the previous logging flow there (with "Report a problem" etc.).

[+JL_HSTRE]

10 hours ago, 2Abendsegler said:

4000

 

The people who always post maximum length meaningless copy-n-paste logs because they're obsessed with their average log length stat get an extra thousand characters of space to waste.

[+ChriBli]

After painstakingly selecting, installing and configuring a parallel browser of more recent version, just to be able to log my geocaches, I notice the new max limit for number of images per log (20). I am predictably disappointed.

[+MartyBartfast]

15 hours ago, ChriBli said:

I notice the new max limit for number of images per log (20). I am predictably disappointed.

Do you really upload more than 20 images on a single log?

If so I'd be interested to know how often you do so, and thereby how much if a problem it really is.

[+kunarion]

17 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Do you really upload more than 20 images on a single log?

If so I'd be interested to know how often you do so, and thereby how much if a problem it really is.

 

Is the "20 image limit" a standard limitation on the Interwebs?  First time I've heard of it.

 

I used to upload images to a cache page for many Geocaching projects, including Forum posts, background images, lots of stuff, and as a way to organize them and not later "lose" them in the case of using a 3rd party site that removes files.  But even then, there was no 20 image limit.  

[+capoaira]

I like the new-new logging page.

But I wonder that I can select a Date for OAR (Owner Attention Requested) and RAR (Reviewer Attention Requested). (Did not test if the date will be submitted)

 

What I also miss is the owner's pseudonym. For caches placed by a team, it would be great to see that also in the log Form.

Edited November 5, 2023 by capoaira

[+ChriBli]

1 hour ago, MartyBartfast said:

Do you really upload more than 20 images on a single log?

If so I'd be interested to know how often you do so, and thereby how much if a problem it really is.

Maybe, maybe not. I have a hard time seeing a new limitation as an improvement though. Actually I have a hard time identifying any improvements (4,000 characters was usually enough for me, with the rare exception), but maybe that's just me. I tend to prefer things unchanged, so I'm not obstructed by new behavior when doing what I usually do.

 

It's a bit difficult to compare, since I can no longer have the old logging experience, but isn't there increased waste of vertical screen real estate as well? I seem to remember the post button beeing visible without scrolling down on my screen, which it is not now.  I realize this is a trend to accommodate mobile users, who for some reason are not expected to use the app instead.

[+ChriBli]

OK, what is going on? A new, lower limit for image size? I don't know what the limit was before, but I do know that I have never run into it before, and I tried uploading an image that I uploaded successfully before the new experience, and it didn't work. Three out of four images, taken with default settings on my not overly recent iphone, now refuse to upload because they are over 5 MB.

 

Let me get this straight. Am I supposed to

a) Set my phone to produce smaller images, thereby crippling the resolution of all my photos?

b) Open every image I want to upload in e.g. Photoshop first, crop or resample it, or increase the compression, re-save it in another location, and then upload it?

 

On top of it all, it takes for-ever to upload an image now, and the result after uploading four images (three of them shrunk first) was this:

 

 

Edit: OK, all four images turned out to have been uploaded, I don't know why it looked like they weren't. The rest of the rant still stands though.

Edited November 5, 2023 by ChriBli
Indignation

[+JL_HSTRE]

4 hours ago, kunarion said:

I used to upload images to a cache page for many Geocaching projects, including Forum posts, background images, lots of stuff, and as a way to organize them and not later "lose" them in the case of using a 3rd party site that removes files. 

 

That's not what geocache online logs are for.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, ChriBli said:

b) Open every image I want to upload in e.g. Photoshop first, crop or resample it, or increase the compression, re-save it in another location, and then upload it?

That's what I do with all the photos I upload with my logs, as a courtesy to anyone viewing them so they're not having to download many MB for each image. I typically resize them to 1200 pixels across, or smaller if it's just a photo of a logbook or something taken in portrait orientation, as that's what looks reasonable on a typical PC or laptop screen (1920x1080 or less). It results in a file size of a few hundred kilobytes while still using a high quality compression setting.

[+thebruce0]

21 hours ago, kunarion said:

I used to upload images to a cache page for many Geocaching projects, including Forum posts, background images, lots of stuff, and as a way to organize them and not later "lose" them in the case of using a 3rd party site that removes files.  But even then, there was no 20 image limit.  

Well, I mean, you could just post another log, and upload another 20 images.

[+kunarion]

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Well, I mean, you could just post another log, and upload another 20 images.

 

Yes, the Internet can be used in various ways. 

The question I was addressing was about surprise changes to the site requiring changes to one's routine.

[+kunarion]

19 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

That's what I do with all the photos I upload with my logs, as a courtesy to anyone viewing them so they're not having to download many MB for each image. I typically resize them to 1200 pixels across, or smaller if it's just a photo of a logbook or something taken in portrait orientation, as that's what looks reasonable on a typical PC or laptop screen (1920x1080 or less). It results in a file size of a few hundred kilobytes while still using a high quality compression setting.

 

My Interweb is so sloow, uploading huge unprocessed camera files is out of the question.  And yes, I can upgrade to a faster speed.  Or I can be patient and outlast the Internet Provider, until they fix my connection.  Pretty sure they're "encouraging me" to upgrade.  My point is, small files are good.

 

A few years ago, the Geocaching.com site was discovered by users to be re-sizing and compressing images that were above a threshold, if they were much larger than 1024x768.  I don't like my photos to become "compressed" after upload.  Ever since then, I batch run all my image files through "Fotosizer" at 800x600, which turns a 5MB camera file into a 0.1MB file.  That way, I don't press my luck, and won't discover later that I need to fix a bunch of previously uploaded photos again.  Maybe my photos will remain under any future arbitrary compression threshold.  But batch processing requires me to be at my PC, which in turn means almost no uploads to logs in the field.

 

Edited November 6, 2023 by kunarion

[+ChriBli]

20 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

That's what I do with all the photos I upload with my logs, as a courtesy to anyone viewing them so they're not having to download many MB for each image. I typically resize them to 1200 pixels across, or smaller if it's just a photo of a logbook or something taken in portrait orientation, as that's what looks reasonable on a typical PC or laptop screen (1920x1080 or less). It results in a file size of a few hundred kilobytes while still using a high quality compression setting.

Doesn't the site do that for you? I'm pretty sure that if I click on a picture in someone's log, I am presented with a 640 x 480 pixel image at the most. I don't have to click on it, and then it is not downloaded at all. I thought this was done to save storage space, but I recently discovered that the original picture is actually also stored and can be accessed by those who wish to do so. The downsampling must therefore be done for this very reason, to save download time for those who want to see the picture but don't need full resolution (probably looking for clues to find the cache).

 

The point is, regardless what habits other uses have or their reasons for them, to me it's absurd to do either a) or b) above. It will radically reduce the number of photos I upload. Could that be the reason for the change? If it is to address the cost of storage, then why not downsample images on upload if they are too big? Finally, as far as I know the cost of storage drops at around the same rate as the image size produced by modern phones increases, so I don't see the need for this sudden austerity.

[+JL_HSTRE]

5 hours ago, kunarion said:

The question I was addressing was about surprise changes to the site requiring changes to one's routine.

 

Much like the erection of a sign reading "No Dumping" on a vacant lot, Groundspeak giving notice that they were setting a 20 photos per log limit seems to me the kind of thing that shouldn't need to be explicitly stated in the first place.

[+The A-Team]

I just noticed the new logging experience. Overall, I like it. It shows that the requests of the members were heard and implemented.

 

I understand that the limit on size and number of images is likely with the intention of cutting storage and bandwidth cost. The limit of 5MB seems too low, though. By just looking at the recent photos I took with my iPhone, about half are over that limit. I don't upload those directly, but many do. This limit will mean members either have to go through several steps to reduce the size first, or will simply give up and not upload. There's a good chance that more would head toward the latter. What might have been a valuable addition to the experience (for the finder, owner, and later cache viewers) is lost.

 

If storage costs are becoming so problematic that a very-restrictive limit needs to be put in place, I'm not sure how else to deal with it. Increasing the limit to something like 10MB would allow most photos to be uploaded, but then we're just back to where we started. Maybe somewhere in between?

 

I upload many photos and can adjust my workflow to make them fit within the limit, but I worry that this limit will severely restrict things beyond what's necessary for many members and the overall experience will suffer.

[+The A-Team]

A couple of notes about the new image uploading:

• After I drag in an image and add a caption, hitting Enter on my keyboard activates the "Rotate 90 right" button. This seems like unintended behaviour, or at least isn't what users would expect. The logical expectation for hitting Enter would be to either submit the image, or do nothing.
• After uploading an image to an existing log, it used to be that the just-uploaded image would be shown. Now, it takes you to the log view with the first image displayed. It might make more sense to display the just-uploaded image, so the uploader can confirm that things look right.

[+ChriBli]

7 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

Much like the erection of a sign reading "No Dumping" on a vacant lot, Groundspeak giving notice that they were setting a 20 photos per log limit seems to me the kind of thing that shouldn't need to be explicitly stated in the first place.

Are you likening log photos to garbage? Why not remove them altogether then? I also think 20 photos would be enough in most cases, I for one have maybe a third of a photo per log on average. But no (practical) limit has been needed for the first 23 years of this game (I am aware that log photos may not have been a thing for the first years), so why now.

[+barefootjeff]

5 minutes ago, ChriBli said:

But no (practical) limit has been needed for the first 23 years of this game (I am aware that log photos may not have been a thing for the first years), so why now.

 

The "new" logging page that was introduced in 2017, which I guess you opted out of, limits the number of photos that can be added to a log to twenty. I'm guessing the same coding under the hood is responsible for the limit in this new version.

[+dadoskawina]

On 11/5/2023 at 6:41 PM, MartyBartfast said:

Do you really upload more than 20 images on a single log?

 

For example this virtual https://coord.info/GC892PK requires at least 54 images upload.

[+dadoskawina]

Two issues:

 

1. There is no possibility to manually enter log date. Usually it's easier than clicking and clicking the calendar (it was possible on the older legacy logging page; that's why I still sometimes used it).

 

2. The possibility to "opt-out" or in any way switch to the older page was removed.

[+baer2006]

1 hour ago, dadoskawina said:

For example this virtual https://coord.info/GC892PK requires at least 54 images upload.

OMG, what's that?!? - someone really made the most out of their "Virtual Award" !

 

But the solution is trivial: Add 20 photos to your find log, and post two notes for the remaining photos. Seems that many finders of the cache have already done this anyway.

[+Goldenwattle]

On 11/4/2023 at 9:38 AM, Numanoid said:

Unfortunately I already have to endure the new logging "experience". Can we please have the "Opt out" button back?

Fortunately I can still see the old version.

[+thebruce0]

40 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

2 hours ago, dadoskawina said:

For example this virtual https://coord.info/GC892PK requires at least 54 images upload.

OMG, what's that?!? - someone really made the most out of their "Virtual Award" !

 

But the solution is trivial: Add 20 photos to your find log, and post two notes for the remaining photos. Seems that many finders of the cache have already done this anyway.

 

There's one in Washington (iirc) that's sort of the flip of that - a photo scavenger hunt (challenge cache), and you need to post one single note with every photo qualification, and once you've done all of them you can log it as found. Scrolling through the log history for relevant geocache notes is insane.

Edited November 7, 2023 by thebruce0

[+dadoskawina]

Actually those players that were not forced to be testers are privileged.

 

The new link: https://www.geocaching.com/live/geocache/<gc_code>/log works now for ALL players.

So anyone can test this new feature (just change play to live in your log page url).

 

However, whereas most of us still can choose the preferred login page (the new experience or one of the older pages), those already selected must use the new page and have no possibility to select any of older versions.

[+vpdj]

I miss the "Report Problem" - now you have to go back and post another log - rather than a couple clicks to notify the owner of an issue with the cache.

 

Also - a bug - the date on Owner Maintenance log kicks back to today - rather than the date I changed it to - so the find and the maintenance request ended up on different dates since I was logging a find from a couple days ago.

[Keystone]

20 minutes ago, vpdj said:

Also - a bug - the date on Owner Maintenance log kicks back to today - rather than the date I changed it to - so the find and the maintenance request ended up on different dates since I was logging a find from a couple days ago.

 

This isn't a bug, and carries forward existing functionality in the old logging flow.  Defaulting the date to today prevents abuse (backdating a key action like Owner Attention Needed, Owner Maintenance, Reviewer Attention Requested, Disable, Enable and Archive logs).

[+capoaira]

52 minutes ago, vpdj said:

I miss the "Report Problem" - now you have to go back and post another log - rather than a couple clicks to notify the owner of an issue with the cache.

But less annoying mails for Owners. Many Cachers (my experience as cache owner) had forgotten to check the "Report a Problem" button and therfore logging their found and after that, a Note with the NM. I'm happy that it is now possible again to log an OAR (aka NM) as standalone, where the description of the problem is actually in the log.

[+dadoskawina]

1 hour ago, Keystone said:

 

This isn't a bug, and carries forward existing functionality in the old logging flow.  Defaulting the date to today prevents abuse (backdating a key action like Owner Attention Needed, Owner Maintenance, Reviewer Attention Requested, Disable, Enable and Archive logs).

 

Agree that all mentioned log types except for Owner Maintenance, should be logged with log post date. So this will keep the date of actual action request or cache enabling / disabling / archiving.

 

However, for Owner Maintenance I would prefer to have the date adjusted to the time of real service.

 

Imagine that I changed the logbook or replaced the cache a week ago, but could not log it instantly. If I post OM log with today's date (instead of date of physical service) it will introduce chaos. There can be found logs from few days before, then my today's information that the container is new... Inconsistency in cache history...

 

I prefer to track real dates of my services at GZ, not the time I logged them from home.

 

 

[+ChriBli]

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

The "new" logging page that was introduced in 2017, which I guess you opted out of, limits the number of photos that can be added to a log to twenty. I'm guessing the same coding under the hood is responsible for the limit in this new version.

I stand corrected, the first 17 years. But not really, people opting out could still post many photos, and anyone wanting to post many photos could opt out. So the effect on number of uploaded photos should have been marginal during the last six years. I certainly opted out, because I prefer working things to stay unchanged, so I never noticed the 20 image limit. It is listed in the release notes right next to the 5 MB limit, was that also a property of the new logging page from 2017? I wonder what percentage of users opted out, I guess we'll never know...

[+JL_HSTRE]

18 hours ago, ChriBli said:

Are you likening log photos to garbage? Why not remove them altogether then? I also think 20 photos would be enough in most cases, I for one have maybe a third of a photo per log on average. But no (practical) limit has been needed for the first 23 years of this game (I am aware that log photos may not have been a thing for the first years), so why now.

 

I'm equating behaviors that shouldn't be done whether explicitly prohibited or not, with the added allusion to logs being used as a dumping ground.

 

I would suggest a limit of 20 photos for Event logs and 10 photos for other cache types. More than sufficient. 

 

12 hours ago, dadoskawina said:

 

For example this virtual https://coord.info/GC892PK requires at least 54 images upload.

 

That's appalling. At least it's D5.

 

8 hours ago, Keystone said:

 

This isn't a bug, and carries forward existing functionality in the old logging flow.  Defaulting the date to today prevents abuse (backdating a key action like Owner Attention Needed, Owner Maintenance, Reviewer Attention Requested, Disable, Enable and Archive logs).

 

I often log caches after returning home from a trip, resulting in logs backdated 2-3 weeks (I'm pretty stringent about logging a Find date of the date actually found).

 

On the one hand I understand backdating an Owner Attention log could give the false impression of CO negligence in responding to problems. 

 

On the other hand, having the Found log and Maintenance logs separated by weeks, sometimes with intervening logs by other cachers, can create other kinds of confusion.

[+The A-Team]

I just found that the 5 MB limit is misleading. I tried uploading an image that was reported as 4.89 MB by Windows, and it got rejected. I suspect the limit is really 5000 KB or 5000000 bytes, either of which my image would have been over. It would be good if the limit was set to 5242880 bytes (5 MiB), so users don't have to worry about fractions of a megabyte and can base things off of what their device is reporting for the image size.

[+kamla]

I don't have any issue with a size limit - but I wonder about the way it's implemented. Instead of enforcing a size limit and forcing the user to resize the image to be below the 5MB limit why don't you resize the image on upload? This can easily be done on the client with a few lines of javascript (keyword canvas) and is what's commonly used.

That'd be the most user-friendly solution as the user can use 'any' input and would allow GC to still enforce its limits.