Disappearing images on cache pages

[+fizzymagic]

Here is a mini-rant. Over the last couple of weeks I have been unable to solve about 5 puzzles because they relied on images hosted on "free" image-hosting services that shut down.

 

For example, at the end of January imageshack.com removed all the "free" hosted images on their servers and went to a paid-only business model.

 

Just in the last week, I have seen dead image links to:

• imageshack.com
  
• freepages.misc.rootsweb.com
  
• googleusercontent.com
  

 

In my area, a lot of cachers seem to use photobucket.com, which drives me nuts because you can't just download the images. You have to go to some page that requires javascript in order to get the photo.

 

Why can't COs use the delightful, free image hosting provided by geocaching.com? Geocaching.com hosts lossless and lossy image types (jpg, png, gif, and bmp) and those photos are guaranteed to be available as long as your cache remains.

 

To me, it is yet another example of how many COs don't particularly care about the quality of their cache pages.

[+niraD]

A tutorial on posting non-JPEG images might help. Until recently, I thought the geocaching.com system converted all images to JPEG, which would break a lot of image-based puzzles.

[+MartyBartfast]

To me, it is yet another example of how many COs don't particularly care about the quality of their cache pages.

 

That may be true in some cases, but it's not always so. There was recently a post on an FB group where a CO had been using imageshack and was asking for recommendations for another free image host. There were several recommendations until I suggested GS (for exactly the reasons you quote above) and a couple of the posters, including the CO, had just not realised that they could do it that way.

[cezanne]

To me, it is yet another example of how many COs don't particularly care about the quality of their cache pages.

 

That may be true in some cases, but it's not always so. There was recently a post on an FB group where a CO had been using imageshack and was asking for recommendations for another free image host. There were several recommendations until I suggested GS (for exactly the reasons you quote above) and a couple of the posters, including the CO, had just not realised that they could do it that way.

 

So does it mean that meanwhile one can upload arbitrarily large image files to the GS server without changes to the file happening when one is doing it in the right way? That definitely has not been always the case.

[+Sapience Trek]

For those broken ones, the cache owner may not know. Post a needs maintenance note.

 

If it's clear they know because of other notes on the cache page, post a needs archived. There's no reason to let these linger for weeks or months. In many cases the cache owner will probably have lost the original image, and their cache likely needs to be archived unless they want to spend the time recreating the image.

[+fizzymagic]

So does it mean that meanwhile one can upload arbitrarily large image files to the GS server without changes to the file happening when one is doing it in the right way? That definitely has not been always the case.

 

One cannot upload "arbitrarily large" files but the vast majority of images will not be changed.

 

I'm not talking about those rare cases, anyway. Does this cache page really need to use photobucket?

[+J Grouchy]

I generally use both: I have images hosted on imgur for them to show up in the cache page description and then I upload them to the cache gallery as well.

[cezanne]

So does it mean that meanwhile one can upload arbitrarily large image files to the GS server without changes to the file happening when one is doing it in the right way? That definitely has not been always the case.

 

One cannot upload "arbitrarily large" files but the vast majority of images will not be changed.

 

It would be interesting to know how one can do that. I've encountered a number of picture hunting caches where the quality of the uploaded picture that collects up all the objects to be found in one image is of very bad quality.

Here is an example

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC6BTJR_floridsdorfer-spaziergange-2-kellergassen?guid=bcfdc9e0-d252-4b4d-9753-9da6c1968600

One of the snippets is very misleading.

In my experience the quality for caches of that type is much better if a version is hosted on another server.

 

Does this cache page really need to use photobucket?

 

No, but when I asked my question I did not have such caches in mind.

Edited March 9, 2016 by cezanne

[+Kalkendotters]

In the example the uploaded photo is 1980x3403 pixels, totaling about 1 Mb for the photo.

However the link the CO has used in his cachedescriptions links to:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-geo-images/d3e0eb64-31c1-440b-b1ca-8ceeed72c55b_l.jpg

See the small "_l" appended tot the filename? that causes a resize to a 'large' format.

If instead he had used:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-geo-images/d3e0eb64-31c1-440b-b1ca-8ceeed72c55b.jpg

the picture would be shwon in all it glory.

[cezanne]

In the example the uploaded photo is 1980x3403 pixels, totaling about 1 Mb for the photo.

However the link the CO has used in his cachedescriptions links to:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-geo-images/d3e0eb64-31c1-440b-b1ca-8ceeed72c55b_l.jpg

See the small "_l" appended tot the filename? that causes a resize to a 'large' format.

If instead he had used:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-geo-images/d3e0eb64-31c1-440b-b1ca-8ceeed72c55b.jpg

the picture would be shwon in all it glory.

 

You are right. Thanks for pointing that out - I did not note it. However it's not surprising that the cache owner

used that link because one gets it by clicking on the picture on the cache page after the upload.

 

Very few cachers know how to deal with the picture system correctly and so it's not surprising that so many use alternative sites. The owner of the cache I linked to meanwhile e.g. has added a pdf file to dropbox to provide a better quality as many complained about the bad quality and apparently no one realized what you pointed up above.

 

A documentation how to use the picture system, what it can do and what not would be very helpful.

Edited March 9, 2016 by cezanne

[Keystone]

Here is the existing Help Center documentation for uploading an image and including it in a cache description. Are there any steps missing? I'd be happy to suggest improvements (especially since it's my cache that's used as an example in the article)!

[cezanne]

Here is the existing Help Center documentation for uploading an image and including it in a cache description. Are there any steps missing? I'd be happy to suggest improvements (especially since it's my cache that's used as an example in the article)!

 

I know this help center documentation (by the way I do not know whether it is translated into other languages, but that's not the point here).

It seems to me however that when following this documentation one exactly ends up with the link as used by the cache owner in my example, i.e. with the _l in the picture name which leads to the reduced quality while when one omits this and uses the alternative link in kalkendotter's post, then indeed the picture is of the uploaded quality which is quite essential for this cache.

 

I vaguely recall to have read about the difference between the two views, but that's just because I follow this forum which hardly any cacher in my country does. The two display modes are quite confusing and there names (large vs. not large) are confusing too in my opinion.

 

Moreover, the help center article you linked to does not provide technical details which formats are allowed and when resizing does take place and things like that. These details would be helpful when deciding whether one can work with pictures on the Groundspeak page without having to go for the trial and error approach. Otherwise it will always be more convenient to use another picture service with a documented behaviour.

 

I'm aware that the help center documentation is mainly the work for volunteers and that it needs to be directed to a large audience, many with no technical background at all. So it's hard to accomodate at the same time the needs of those who want to know more, but it certainly encourages the usage of other sites for picture uploads.

 

Edit: I'm also aware of the dilemma that GS wants to avoid that all pictures on the cache page are presented to the users as large ones (large in the sense of the file size) because they now target a lot to mobile phone users and moreover, there are many cachers who have bandwith problems reaching the GS site. However an easier and more transparent way to include pictures which are large would be very desirable (one can hardly expect the average user to know that deleting the _l in the url of the picture name helps in many cases). The same holds true for a description under which conditions files are changed and are not available as uploaded.

Edited March 10, 2016 by cezanne

[+Happy Humphrey]

Here is the existing Help Center documentation for uploading an image and including it in a cache description. Are there any steps missing? I'd be happy to suggest improvements (especially since it's my cache that's used as an example in the article)!

A small point is that you can delete the image from the gallery once you've used it for the cache description and it will remain in the cache description.

 

This is useful if you have a lot of images to use but don't want them cluttering up the gallery or taking up space with links. An example might be where you want to include a spoiler photo to help with the final find but you don't want it to be just one of many photo links.

 

I always use the gc.com upload facility for cache images, on the basis that they are as guaranteed to work as the cache description itself.

[cezanne]

 

I always use the gc.com upload facility for cache images, on the basis that they are as guaranteed to work as the cache description itself.

 

Not neccesarily. At some point pictures hosted at gc.com got lost, and it can easily happen that what is displayed on gc.com is not what you want to get displayed.

For example you use the _l links too for your pictures and in your case this might not be an issue or even intended, but not in all cases it's intended.

 

It's easier to work with a picture hosting site where you exactly know how it behaves. Of course the backside is that it makes cache descriptions dependent on another site.

So the better solution would be improvements/changes at gc.com.

[+Viajero Perdido]

There's also some confusion of where "Groundspeak-hosted" images actually reside:

1. img.geocaching.com
2. cloudfront.net
3. amazonaws.com

Apparently Groundspeak moved the images to #2 a while ago, then more recently to #3.

 

Theoretically, using #1 in cache pages etc. will automatically redirect to #3. For a while, it redirected to #2. So the simplest instructions would be, use #1.

 

How long will #2 work? I"ve already used it in places.

 

Unfortunately, sometimes #1 doesn't redirect properly. For example, if you're using Privacy Badger in Firefox, as I found out. (Took me a long while to figure out the problem.) So I used #2 just to make things work.

 

It would help if this were documented as well. Especially (though I'm not optimistic about this) any promises of longevity.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Viajero Perdido

[+Happy Humphrey]

 

I always use the gc.com upload facility for cache images, on the basis that they are as guaranteed to work as the cache description itself.

 

Not neccesarily. At some point pictures hosted at gc.com got lost, and it can easily happen that what is displayed on gc.com is not what you want to get displayed.

For example you use the _l links too for your pictures and in your case this might not be an issue or even intended, but not in all cases it's intended.

 

It's easier to work with a picture hosting site where you exactly know how it behaves. Of course the backside is that it makes cache descriptions dependent on another site.

So the better solution would be improvements/changes at gc.com.

Well, all I can say is that I've not seen a problem. My caches set in 2004 still have their pictures, even though most are now archived. I wonder how many of these would still be available unchanged had I used free photo hosting sites.

[cezanne]

Well, all I can say is that I've not seen a problem. My caches set in 2004 still have their pictures, even though most are now archived. I wonder how many of these would still be available unchanged had I used free photo hosting sites.

 

I had to upload the pictures for some caches once again a few years ago when GS lost quite a number of pictures. Fortunately, I had kept them. Others were less lucky.

 

The private web servers of some cachers I know are more reliable than GS's servers. I did not compare free hosting sites and GS's server.

 

Moreover, it also has happened to me that I had to change links (I'm not sure whether it also affected pictures or only other subpages of GS - due to changes of the system, not even announced ones so that I only became aware when a cacher told me that some links were not working any longer).

[+Llanrhaeadr]

I have a similar problem in that for one of my caches the images will not display on my iMac, but will display on my iPhone and iPad. I reached out to Windows/Android users and found that the Windows user (who responded) could see the images, and that one of two Android users could see the images. The images are loaded to geocaching.com, and do show as images in a list just above the logs. My OS's are all up to date. How can I get the images to display properly again?

[+WearyTraveler]

Here is a mini-rant. Over the last couple of weeks I have been unable to solve about 5 puzzles because they relied on images hosted on "free" image-hosting services that shut down.

 

For example, at the end of January imageshack.com removed all the "free" hosted images on their servers and went to a paid-only business model.

 

Just in the last week, I have seen dead image links to:

• imageshack.com
  
• freepages.misc.rootsweb.com
  
• googleusercontent.com
  

 

In my area, a lot of cachers seem to use photobucket.com, which drives me nuts because you can't just download the images. You have to go to some page that requires javascript in order to get the photo.

 

Why can't COs use the delightful, free image hosting provided by geocaching.com? Geocaching.com hosts lossless and lossy image types (jpg, png, gif, and bmp) and those photos are guaranteed to be available as long as your cache remains.

 

To me, it is yet another example of how many COs don't particularly care about the quality of their cache pages.

 

What is the GC image hosting site?

[+fuzziebear3]

You can upload your images directly to your cache page on geocaching.com, rather than using a third party site.

 

After you upload an image, you can right-click it to get the url if you need to include it in the description.

[+hal-an-tow]

Here is a mini-rant. Over the last couple of weeks I have been unable to solve about 5 puzzles because they relied on images hosted on "free" image-hosting services that shut down.

 

For example, at the end of January imageshack.com removed all the "free" hosted images on their servers and went to a paid-only business model.

 

Just in the last week, I have seen dead image links to:

• imageshack.com
  
• freepages.misc.rootsweb.com
  
• googleusercontent.com
  

 

In my area, a lot of cachers seem to use photobucket.com, which drives me nuts because you can't just download the images. You have to go to some page that requires javascript in order to get the photo.

 

Why can't COs use the delightful, free image hosting provided by geocaching.com? Geocaching.com hosts lossless and lossy image types (jpg, png, gif, and bmp) and those photos are guaranteed to be available as long as your cache remains.

 

To me, it is yet another example of how many COs don't particularly care about the quality of their cache pages.

 

For me, the use of an outside location for a picture in a puzzle cache sets off a little alarm in my mind: something may be hidden within that picture which would be lost if it was hosted on geocaching.com .

 

This certainly is/was (I've no idea if the exif stripping which suddenly started here and scuppered some puzzles is currently on or off) the case , and I seem to recall some steganography requires image formats not supported here.

[+WearyTraveler]

You can upload your images directly to your cache page on geocaching.com, rather than using a third party site.

 

After you upload an image, you can right-click it to get the url if you need to include it in the description.

 

Thank you!

[+noncentric]

Found this thread because Photobucket updated their TOS this past week:

The free account does not allow any image linking or 3rd party image hosting. If you are interested in image linking and/or 3rd party image hosting, you will need to subscribe to one of our Plus Accounts described below.

The 'cheapest' 'Plus Account' that allows 3rd party image hosting is priced at $399/year!

 

The info in this thread guided me to host the images in my cache listings on geocaching.com (img.geocaching.com).

 

However, I'm wondering if there are suggestions for other free image hosting sites - since I'd rather not use a cache page to post photos in these forums.

[+Ambrosia]

Found this thread because Photobucket updated their TOS this past week:

The free account does not allow any image linking or 3rd party image hosting. If you are interested in image linking and/or 3rd party image hosting, you will need to subscribe to one of our Plus Accounts described below.

The 'cheapest' 'Plus Account' that allows 3rd party image hosting is priced at $399/year!

 

The info in this thread guided me to host the images in my cache listings on geocaching.com (img.geocaching.com).

 

However, I'm wondering if there are suggestions for other free image hosting sites - since I'd rather not use a cache page to post photos in these forums.

 

Flickr. You can also have a higher quality picture using them, if you'd like.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Found this thread because Photobucket updated their TOS this past week:

The free account does not allow any image linking or 3rd party image hosting. If you are interested in image linking and/or 3rd party image hosting, you will need to subscribe to one of our Plus Accounts described below.

The 'cheapest' 'Plus Account' that allows 3rd party image hosting is priced at $399/year!

 

The info in this thread guided me to host the images in my cache listings on geocaching.com (img.geocaching.com).

 

However, I'm wondering if there are suggestions for other free image hosting sites - since I'd rather not use a cache page to post photos in these forums.

 

I use Imgur. Very easy to use. Has an app for windows, macs, and most mobile platforms.

[+BCandMsKitty]

I don't have many images on my cache pages, but all of my image hosting is done on my own server. Well, rather on server space I pay for each month.

I used to have a web page devoted to a retail store we owned, and I just kept the server when we closed the site, and store down. Any image I post anywhere is uploaded to this server and I know as long as I keep paying, the image(s) will be out there on the web. In whatever format I want .. with whatever exif data I want in them.

My setup costs me $10.00 per month, but there are other cheaper hosting companies out there.

 

I only mention this as an alternative for anyone who is serious about their image hosting and can afford the option.

[+Viajero Perdido]

However, I'm wondering if there are suggestions for other free image hosting sites - since I'd rather not use a cache page to post photos in these forums.

You could use an archived cache's page, or for even more obscurity, the page of an unpublished-but-archived cache. For the latter, nobody can see the images unless you post a link to them. (I had one such listing laying around, and it's very handy for puzzle cache images in particular, not to mention images for forum posts.)

[+hzoi]

I have my own domain and could host my own images, but I use one of our archived caches. I figured that way, the only way they wouldn't come up is if the site itself was down. Now that Amazon has taken over image hosting, that's not a guarantee, but I've yet to see a difference.

 

The one disadvantage is that my image gallery doesn't differentiate between photos actually related to our geocaching exploits and those that are just forum fodder, so at times our caching gallery gets cluttered up with, say, aerial images from the What/where? thread.

[+Viajero Perdido]

But your image gallery won't include images from unpublished caches.

[+hzoi]

But your image gallery won't include images from unpublished caches.

Interesting. Never really played around with that before. Does it make a difference whether they are uploaded to the cache page versus uploaded in a log?

[+kunarion]

But your image gallery won't include images from unpublished caches.

Interesting. Never really played around with that before. Does it make a difference whether they are uploaded to the cache page versus uploaded in a log?

I tried it with an archived cache just now, and you can check it out here.

 

On my archived cache, images uploaded to the cache page are not displayed in my Gallery. But images uploaded in a Note log are!

 

I can't explain why your uploads to your archived cache would be showing up in your gallery when mine don't (at least it looks to me like they don't). Are you uploading images in logs?

 

Beware of using unpublished caches for anything. At least a couple of mine were cleaned up by a reviewer after two years of my not publishing them. They gone.

Edited July 12, 2017 by kunarion

[+Viajero Perdido]

On my unpublished-but-archived cache page, I have dozens of pictures I've uploaded over the years. I've uploaded those to the page directly (not on a log), and the images don't show up in my gallery. I use these for "secret" images as part of puzzles, as forum fodder, and simply for images to display on other cache pages to keep those pages just a little bit cleaner.

 

I archived that listing myself after a moose destroyed the hiding spot and I couldn't find another, all before I would've submitted it for review. Since it's archived, it doesn't annoy the reviewer, and it's been available for my use as described above for roughly a decade now.

Edited July 12, 2017 by Viajero Perdido

[+niraD]

Beware of using unpublished caches for anything. At least a couple of mine were cleaned up by a reviewer after two years of my not publishing them. They gone.

I have one like that. It isn't gone, although it is hard to get to. I've posted a number of images to it since it was archived.

 

My preferred way to find it is to go to a list of my reviewer notes, which includes several references to the archived never-published cache listing.

[+kunarion]

Beware of using unpublished caches for anything. At least a couple of mine were cleaned up by a reviewer after two years of my not publishing them. They gone.

I have one like that. It isn't gone, although it is hard to get to. I've posted a number of images to it since it was archived.

 

My preferred way to find it is to go to a list of my reviewer notes, which includes several references to the archived never-published cache listing.

That's awesome! I just now tried it on an unpublished, archived cache, and no images end up in the gallery, whether placed in a note or to the page. Could be pretty handy to have images that aren't listed on a publically available page. Plus, now I can go investigate why my cache was killed. I'm guessing a new one was published there, tricky hidden Final or something.

Edited July 12, 2017 by kunarion

[+hzoi]

I can't explain why your uploads to your archived cache would be showing up in your gallery when mine don't (at least it looks to me like they don't). Are you uploading images in logs?

 

I am. The note in question is getting pretty ridiculous, really. I also edit it every time I need to decode ROT13 text that isn't in a hint. Perhaps loading to the archived cache page itself is the way to go from now on.

 

a moose destroyed the hiding spot

I hate when that happens. If I had a nickel...

[fendmar]

I can't explain why your uploads to your archived cache would be showing up in your gallery when mine don't (at least it looks to me like they don't). Are you uploading images in logs?

 

I am. The note in question is getting pretty ridiculous, really. I also edit it every time I need to decode ROT13 text that isn't in a hint. Perhaps loading to the archived cache page itself is the way to go from now on.

 

a moose destroyed the hiding spot

I hate when that happens. If I had a nickel...

I think the fact that kunarion's cache is unpublished is the difference.

[+hzoi]

I can't explain why your uploads to your archived cache would be showing up in your gallery when mine don't (at least it looks to me like they don't). Are you uploading images in logs?

 

I am. The note in question is getting pretty ridiculous, really. I also edit it every time I need to decode ROT13 text that isn't in a hint. Perhaps loading to the archived cache page itself is the way to go from now on.

 

a moose destroyed the hiding spot

I hate when that happens. If I had a nickel...

I think the fact that kunarion's cache is unpublished is the difference.

No, that earlier reply was based on his loading images to a published, archived cache. Mystery's already solved for me, I think; I was just circling back to answer his question.

[+kunarion]

I can't explain why your uploads to your archived cache would be showing up in your gallery when mine don't (at least it looks to me like they don't). Are you uploading images in logs?

 

I am. The note in question is getting pretty ridiculous, really. I also edit it every time I need to decode ROT13 text that isn't in a hint. Perhaps loading to the archived cache page itself is the way to go from now on.

 

a moose destroyed the hiding spot

I hate when that happens. If I had a nickel...

I think the fact that kunarion's cache is unpublished is the difference.

No, that earlier reply was based on his loading images to a published, archived cache. Mystery's already solved for me, I think; I was just circling back to answer his question.

The thread was chugging along just fine til I threw a couple of monkey wrenches into it, sorry.

 

Here's what I've figure out so far about archived caches:

 

For archived caches, images uploaded to the page itself (using the Cache Owner menu) will not appear in the Gallery, but:

- Previously published caches will display images in the Gallery if the images are placed in a log, such as a Note. Other cachers can find your archived cache and all its images, by visiting your Profile, where your archived cache is listed.

- Unpublished caches will not display images in the Gallery, and other cachers cannot view the list.

 

In any case, you can post the URL of the image on an active cache page or in the Forum, for all to see.

Edited July 13, 2017 by kunarion

[+Harry Dolphin]

Here's what I've figure out so far about archived caches:

For archived caches, images uploaded to the page itself (using the Cache Owner menu) will not appear in the Gallery, but:

- Previously published caches will display images in the Gallery if the images are placed in a log, such as a Note. Other cachers can find your archived cache and all its images, by visiting your Profile, where your archived cache is listed.

- Unpublished caches will not display images in the Gallery, and other cachers cannot view the list.

 

In any case, you can post the URL of the image on an active cache page or in the Forum, for all to see.

 

I think I posted an image on one of my sister's missing geocoins. Hee Hee Hee