Jump to content

"Doesn't need maintenance" attribute


Pontiac_CZ

Recommended Posts

Just wondering - how to set an attribute "Doesn't need maintenace" on a cache just like this one has it? (and all of the power trail caches from VT 2 to VT 112). I am looking into editing attributes on one of my caches and just am not able to find such an attribute.

I even tried to post a NM log on VT 2 and it really did not set "Needs Maintenance" attribute (red wrench) so it definitely prohibits cachers to put this cache into a NM state.

Edited by Pontiac_CZ
Link to comment

Just wondering - how to set an attribute "Doesn't need maintenace" on a cache just like this one has it? (and all of the power trail caches from VT 2 to VT 112). I am looking into editing attributes on one of my caches and just am not able to find such an attribute.

I even tried to post a NM log on VT 2 and it really did not set "Needs Maintenance" attribute (red wrench) so it definitely works.

 

The "Need Maintenance" icon is set from a needs maintenance log. You can't set it via the user's Gui.

Don't know if the owner hacked the cache page to show this:

firstaid-no.gif

 

Happy Hunting

Hans

Edited by HHL
Link to comment

As you may read in my initial post, I test-posted a NM log on the "VT 2" cache and nothing got overridden (I sure deleted my log afterwards as normally removing a NM log doesn't remove the red wrench/cross, it stays there until CO issues "Owner maintenance" log or manually unchecks the attribute in the attribute editing page).

Try it yourself.

Link to comment

Having done a little poking around into how this hack might work, I reckon that the very first Needs Maintenance log posted would override this setting :ph34r:

 

Whose going to post one, purely in research, obviously! :laughing:

 

You could do it :ph34r:

 

From the OP

 

I even tried to post a NM log on VT 2 and it really did not set "Needs Maintenance" attribute (red wrench) so it definitely prohibits cachers to put this cache into a NM state.

 

So just skip the NM and go straight for NA.

 

Interesting bugette though. I just tried to set it on mine and couldn't, maybe it's a bug that allows you to set it on creating a cache.

Edited by MartyBartfast
Link to comment

Having done a little poking around into how this hack might work, I reckon that the very first Needs Maintenance log posted would override this setting :ph34r:

 

Whose going to post one, purely in research, obviously! :laughing:

 

You could do it :ph34r:

 

From the OP

 

I even tried to post a NM log on VT 2 and it really did not set "Needs Maintenance" attribute (red wrench) so it definitely prohibits cachers to put this cache into a NM state.

 

Yeah - I mis-read that first time around but seeing as the OP supposedly posted and then deleted an NM we've no evidence either way <_<

Link to comment

Having done a little poking around into how this hack might work, I reckon that the very first Needs Maintenance log posted would override this setting :ph34r:

 

Whose going to post one, purely in research, obviously! :laughing:

 

You could do it :ph34r:

 

From the OP

 

I even tried to post a NM log on VT 2 and it really did not set "Needs Maintenance" attribute (red wrench) so it definitely prohibits cachers to put this cache into a NM state.

 

Yeah - I mis-read that first time around but seeing as the OP supposedly posted and then deleted an NM we've no evidence either way <_<

 

Sounds like you'll only believe the evidence of your own eyes, so off you go then - let us know if it works.

Link to comment

Having done a little poking around into how this hack might work, I reckon that the very first Needs Maintenance log posted would override this setting :ph34r:

 

Whose going to post one, purely in research, obviously! :laughing:

 

You could do it :ph34r:

 

From the OP

 

I even tried to post a NM log on VT 2 and it really did not set "Needs Maintenance" attribute (red wrench) so it definitely prohibits cachers to put this cache into a NM state.

 

Yeah - I mis-read that first time around but seeing as the OP supposedly posted and then deleted an NM we've no evidence either way <_<

 

Sounds like you'll only believe the evidence of your own eyes, so off you go then - let us know if it works.

 

I tend not to post such logs on caches I've never searched for myself. YMMV :)

Link to comment

I created a couple new caches yesterday and I did notice the needs maintenance attribute was one of the options. Since I was going through each attribute to check those that applied, I did consider its usefulness.

 

I didn't come up with any reason to check it so I didn't.

Link to comment

Interesting.

0 finds 154 hides

Profile page seems to have a 'hack' so email user shows 4 profiles...

 

As well as Geopivko

Profile Information

BidloJN, Tiskar94, yum-yum, ...

 

Wonder if someone has added a 'hack' to the attributes.

 

ETA.

Seems lots of cachers are doing the maintenance!

 

Welcome to the profile of Jablonec Geopivka!

This nick combines active players from Jablonec, who among other things is for the local branch of the regional site GeoSever.cz and meet at irregular bezbodíková geosetkání beer. And who are these players?

Edited by Bear and Ragged
Link to comment

I created a couple new caches yesterday and I did notice the needs maintenance attribute was one of the options. Since I was going through each attribute to check those that applied, I did consider its usefulness.

 

I didn't come up with any reason to check it so I didn't.

Now I see the icon. Make a new cache, and it's available, but only the two possibilities of "Needs Maintenance" or "N/R". As with others, there's no direct "Doesn't Need Maintenance" icon selection, although I could probably figure out how to submit that selection, if I tried :ph34r:. It is in fact an icon in the set, just not designed to be selectable.

 

igephc.jpg

 

Once checkmarked, if you then deselect "Needs Maintenance" by clicking the "N/R" radio button, that entire icon option vanishes from the list.

 

FWIW, there's also a "Don't Watch For Livestock" attribute. Probably all of the icons have a "Not" version.

 

cow-no.gif

 

Someone might make a real sneaky Puzzle Cache with this effect while it lasts, although it's likely been done already just with the usual icons.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

This attribute is also HTML manipulation, I believe.

 

When you download the cache as a GPX file, it contains this:

 

<Groundspeak:attributes>
       <Groundspeak:attribute id="42" inc="0">Needs maintenance</Groundspeak:attribute>
</Groundspeak:attributes>

 

I don't think it is HTML manipulation.

 

The presence of the Needs maintenance attribute in the GPX file with a setting of inc="0" I think says that the attribute is present in the NOT state - i.e. with a red line through it.

 

This is certainly true of other attributes with NOT states i.e. wheelchair accessible.

 

If a valid Needs Maintenance flag had been raised on that cache, the attribute would appear in the GPX file set as inc="1", I think.

Link to comment
This attribute is also HTML manipulation, I believe.
No, it is not HTML/CSS manipulation. It is not the same thing as the "DNF pride" profile tricks using HTML and CSS.

 

The icon is displayed as part of the attribute icons, just like a normal attribute. It looks like a problem with the site to me.

Link to comment

If this is to be a "feature" someone should let Clyde know.

 

When you view offline with GSAK, it puts the words "needs maintenance" but with no icon.

 

Probably it is parsing for the attribute, but not the state.

 

EDIT: grammar

Edited by frinklabs
Link to comment
This attribute is also HTML manipulation, I believe.
No, it is not HTML/CSS manipulation. It is not the same thing as the "DNF pride" profile tricks using HTML and CSS.

 

The icon is displayed as part of the attribute icons, just like a normal attribute. It looks like a problem with the site to me.

 

An oversight I would say on the part of the programmers - although I myself would never have dreamed of poking around in the system to see if such an attribute/setting combination existed in the first place :ph34r:

Link to comment

This is the fake part with the cache description:

 

 <div id="[url=""]ctl00_ContentBody_detailWidget[/url]" class="[url=""]CacheDetailNavigationWidget TopSpacing BottomSpacing[/url]">                          <h3 class="[url=""]WidgetHeader[/url]">                 Attributes             </h3>             <div class="[url=""]WidgetBody[/url]">                 <img src="[url=""]/images/attributes/firstaid-no.gif[/url]" alt="[url=""]doesn't need maintenance[/url]" title="[url=""]doesn't need maintenance[/url]" width="[url=""]30[/url]" height="[url=""]30[/url]" /> <img src="[url=""]/images/attributes/attribute-blank.gif[/url]" alt="[url=""]blank[/url]" title="[url=""]blank[/url]" width="[url=""]30[/url]" height="[url=""]30[/url]" /> <img src="[url=""]/images/attributes/attribute-blank.gif[/url]" alt="[url=""]blank[/url]" title="[url=""]blank[/url]" width="[url=""]30[/url]" height="[url=""]30[/url]" /> <img src="[url=""]/images/attributes/attribute-blank.gif[/url]" alt="[url=""]blank[/url]" title="[url=""]blank[/url]" width="[url=""]30[/url]" height="[url=""]30[/url]" /> <img src="[url=""]/images/attributes/attribute-blank.gif[/url]" alt="[url=""]blank[/url]" title="[url=""]blank[/url]" width="[url=""]30[/url]" height="[url=""]30[/url]" /> <img src="[url=""]/images/attributes/attribute-blank.gif[/url]" alt="[url=""]blank[/url]" title="[url=""]blank[/url]" width="[url=""]30[/url]" height="[url=""]30[/url]" /> <p class="[url=""]NoBottomSpacing[/url]"><small><a href="[url=""]/about/icons.aspx[/url]" title="[url=""]What are Attributes?[/url]">What are Attributes?</a></small></p>             </div>                      </div> 

 

This hack should be reported to Groundspeak.

 

Hans

Link to comment
This hack should be reported to Groundspeak.

This is the "Website" forum. I'm pretty sure you just did report it to Groundspeak.

 

However, I think you're wrong. I think the hack is actually to the "Edit Attributes" page where the CO added a form field for the negative NM attribute, clicked it, then submitted the form.

 

I can confirm that simply by going to the "Edit Attributes" page with my reviewer account, and noting that the "N/R" radio button for the NM attribute is NOT checked.

 

Moun10bike, are you listening?

Link to comment
I think the hack is actually to the "Edit Attributes" page where the CO added a form field for the negative NM attribute, clicked it, then submitted the form.

That's what I thought, too, although there also may have been some kind of weird glitch when the page was edited. Is it possible that there was an update where that icon was in view for a while?

 

I don't have fancy hacker skillz, but I see that simply editing the code and submitting that edited page doesn't work. Since the icon has no selection, the text that is displayed must been typed into the code. In that case, it wouldn't have been just a strange glitch. Just a guess.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment
I could probably figure out how to submit that selection, if I tried :ph34r:. It is in fact an icon in the set, just not designed to be selectable.

 

Could you give that a try and let us know?

My feeble attempt at site hacking failed. It's more advanced than just adding a line of code. Plus I'm sure I missed some other tasks I'd have to do. Sorry, there will be no hacked pages in my future. :laughing:

Link to comment

The owner of that power trail is a group, at least one member of which is rather well known for taking advantage of various loopholes on the site. I imagine that they once again exploited some loophole to toggle on the "no" version of the "Needs Maintenance" attribute, even though that form of the attribute is not supposed to be available. I have purged these bogus values from the database.

Link to comment

Congratulations.

 

Hey now, I write the validation for my input before I ever write a bit of HTML. It isn't a "loophole" or "backdoor", just bad coding.

 

Your code should by DRY but that also means using whitelists and blacklists for what data is acceptable in the given situation. It isn't acceptable for "42-no" to be accepted for a non reviewer, heck, probably not valid in any situation.

 

This is a minor annoyance since this isn't a banking webiste. I do hope one can't manipulate data beyond attributes using the same form data techniques.

Edited by fbingha
Link to comment

There you go .. I "manipulated" my attributes page to deny maintenance.

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5FWCM_where-cats-creep?guid=f6fc7b36-e5eb-4053-a06a-c198adee3a5d

Groundspeak programmers failed in doing proper attribute permissions validation on the post method of the backend.

 

Would be interesting to see now what happens if you post a Needs Maintenance to that cache:

 

  • Does the Needs Maintenence flag get set as it should?
  • Does the Does Not Need Maintenance attribute remain in place?
  • Do you get email notification that a Needs Maintenance log has been posted?

Link to comment

I have purged these bogus values from the database.

Well, you didn't quite succeed. (it is also present here as well as here or here, stopped looking for other appearances :) )

 

EDIT: all these caches have one thing in common: they recently received a Needs Maintenance log which apparently triggered this "Doesn't need maintenance" attribute instead of "Needs maintenance". Except the last one but I suspect the poster simply deleted his NM log later.

Edited by Pontiac_CZ
Link to comment

Maybe he has but he certainly somehow set up gc.com server so that a NM log causes this "Doesn't need maintenance" flag appear instead of the right one. I've just confirmed this on VT 75 (the second link in my previous post).

 

They state in VT 01 (the first cache of the power trail) that they do not monitor e-mails from all PT caches except VT 01 so you may try it yourself (and delete the log afterwards just like I did).

 

I do not mind that they're good enough to hack your system but what I do mind is that geocachers do not see the red wrench flag in the cache list and therefore they do not know they'd better avoid particular part of the power trail that is likely to have issues. Like caches VT 73, VT 75 and VT 99 - all these should be displaying the red wrench in the list and are not.

Edited by Pontiac_CZ
Link to comment

Hello everyone,

a few words to the attribute. I've set it for three reasons:

1, A lot of geocachers (especially at CZ Forum) called for an attribute for powertrails. Our powertrail was the first that could be filtered out by the attribute.

2, Attribute informed geocachers that maintenance requirements they shouldn't write here, but to the first listing as it was written. The reason is simple, only logs from first cache I'm receiving to the phone via SMS.

3, With this attribute, you can not turn on the red key in the list of caches or positive attribute of this, so after maintenance was not necessary to spend time writing Owner Maintenance for each cache.

This attribute was really helpful. When it was set up, we received only one NM log on other than the first listing. Now it is the exact opposite (I guess; I think that none of our group reads the logs elsewhere than in the first listing).

It really does not mean "The CO does not maintain this cache". As written in the first listing, maintenance of powertrail held six times since publication.

Because nobody has contacted us, after the disappearance of attributes we were looking for a hacker who hacked our account. Since then, only waiting for the first NA log (because our rules require at least one attribute and our powertrail does not comply that now).

No one attribute was set after their disappearance. If these attributes were somewhere now, probably they was forgotten in the removal of 3 November.

Rather than deleting attribute I would like to see official publication of it, because it is most useful attribute I've ever seen.

Link to comment

If you're going to put out a power trail to clutter up my map, then you should be prepared to service the emails that result.

I gotta agree with that. If you don't like all the emails, perhaps power trail ownership is not for you. Reading the logs is your responsibility.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#listingmaintenance

 

+1

 

Seems like if email blasts really are a problem, then you find alternate ways of dealing with it - email filters, alternative email accounts, etc. Instead, it looks like you've created a way of subverting the guidelines on cache maintenance.

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...