Show My Hides previously Found

[+SurdiVisio]

Most geocaches are created and hidden by original geocachers and maintained for years to come (at least, that’s the general consensus).

 

However, some geocachers do retire or relocate elsewhere and offer some geocaches up for adoption. I’ve happily adopted some to keep these in play for a few additional years or more.

 

The bug I wish to report is that if I already found most of these adopted hides, they won’t show up in my Official Geocaching app in the map view. Where I disable “Hide owned by me” and enable “Hide my Finds” options.

 

Shouldn’t the cache owner be able to see all their active / disabled geocaches irrespective of find status in this scenario?

 

Ciao SurdiVisio

[+Max and 99]

18 minutes ago, SurdiVisio said:

Most geocaches are created and hidden by original geocachers and maintained for years to come (at least, that’s the general consensus).

 

However, some geocachers do retire or relocate elsewhere and offer some geocaches up for adoption. I’ve happily adopted some to keep these in play for a few additional years or more.

 

The bug I wish to report is that if I already found most of these adopted hides, they won’t show up in my Official Geocaching app in the map view. Where I disable “Hide owned by me” and enable “Hide my Finds” options.

 

Shouldn’t the cache owner be able to see all their active / disabled geocaches irrespective of find status in this scenario?

 

Ciao SurdiVisio

Yeah, that's one of a few conflicts when you adopt a geocache. On one of mine I can't correct the coordinates so it shows at the final location on the map, because the fact that I found it is overriding the fact that I own it now. 

[+SurdiVisio]

Last week I also emailed Geocaching HQ / Groundspeak who said "This is expected behavior for our filter because you previously found this cache before adopting it. Therefore, the "found by me" filter will exclude this cache. Try unselecting this filter or deleting your "found it" log. "

 

My response was
"Could we still request such a change? For instance, offer each user an option to prioritise finds vs hides?

I just want to see my low number of Hides on the map - whilst filtering out thousands of finds. 

I already saved all my Hides to a List (premium membership feature) yet it shows me a smaller number on the map - these being hides that I didn’t find beforehand.

To those out there, what is your preference?
a) Happy to see *all* finds hidden if you select that option whilst "Show Hides" enabled? or
b) Prefer to see "all* hides visible on your GC mp, including those previously found - when you Non-Show Finds and Show-Hides?

[+niraD]

5 hours ago, SurdiVisio said:

Last week I also emailed Geocaching HQ / Groundspeak who said "This is expected behavior for our filter because you previously found this cache before adopting it. Therefore, the "found by me" filter will exclude this cache. Try unselecting this filter or deleting your "found it" log. "

 

My response was
"Could we still request such a change? For instance, offer each user an option to prioritise finds vs hides?

I just want to see my low number of Hides on the map - whilst filtering out thousands of finds. 

I already saved all my Hides to a List (premium membership feature) yet it shows me a smaller number on the map - these being hides that I didn’t find beforehand.

To those out there, what is your preference?
a) Happy to see *all* finds hidden if you select that option whilst "Show Hides" enabled? or
b) Prefer to see "all* hides visible on your GC mp, including those previously found - when you Non-Show Finds and Show-Hides?

What happens if you select just the "Show Hides" filter, without the "Do Not Show Finds" filter?

[+thebruce0]

Yeah what shows with a map showing hides but no finds? Which is priority then? 

It's kind of an odd filter pairing, since as a rule hides and finds are mutually exclusive, the exception being adopted caches. So Hidden+Found is essentially this specific pairing. How should those show on the map? (q to hq; is there a technical priority because I think it's entirely arbitrary, thus the request by the OP)