[OpinioNate]

rtyrie, on 02 August 2011 - 01:25 PM, said:

emzett, on 02 August 2011 - 01:06 PM, said:

T5 caches are highlighted as beginner caches if they have a low D-rating. I don't think that these are really beginner caches.

I've been looking at this as well and I don't understand the mechanism here. I looked at my local area and see that plenty of traditional/low difficulty/low terrain caches that have been found recently are not labeled as beginner caches, while others are. I also noticed that a nearby 2.5/3.5 cache was labelled as a beginner cache, while nearby caches with lower ratings were not.

I'm curious regarding the underlying logic of this feature.

This little tooltip explains the logic. It can be modified in the future if the results aren't what was expected.

[Bloodwoosj]

After the update there seems to be a slight problem/bug in the notifications of dropped coins/TBs.
Within each mail there are four links,
the first linking to the log entry which works fine
the second linking to the coin or TB listing, which also still works fine
the third one linking to the profile of the person who placed the drop-log, also working fine
the fourth and last one linking to the cache where the coin/TB has bee dropped.
It's this last one that links to the wrong URL.
I've noticed this problem with two different coins I own during the last two hours so I suppose it's not an incident.
Greetz from the Netherlands and keep up the good work, Bloodwoosj.

[Joshism]

What makes a geocache "Tourist Friendly"? (one of the new Attributes)

This post has been edited by Joshism: 02 August 2011 - 02:54 PM

[OpinioNate]

OpinioNate, on 02 August 2011 - 01:03 PM, said:

De Zwarte Tovenaars, on 02 August 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

Quote

• Added ability for cache owners to set the "Needs Maintenance" attribute on caches they own

I must have missed something because I cannot find this on one of my own caches ... ?

Looks like this fix didn't make it to the live site. We will investigate.

(PS - the fix adds a new dropdown option for owners when logging the cache)

This is now fixed.

[jholly]

emzett, on 02 August 2011 - 01:06 PM, said:

T5 caches are highlighted as beginner caches if they have a low D-rating. I don't think that these are really beginner caches.

Depends. A cache on an island and it requires a boat/kayak/swimming to reach is properly a T5. The cache laying on the ground next to a tree out in the open on this island is properly a D1. Seems to me it would be a 1/5 and anyone that can swim or boat to the island could get this cache. Even as a 1st cache. A cache up a rock wall in a crevice can be reached by a properly equipped and experienced rock climber. This climber may choose to make this his first cache. I don't see the problem.

[AZcachemeister]

tozainamboku, on 02 August 2011 - 10:54 AM, said:

Lone R, on 02 August 2011 - 10:48 AM, said:

BBWolf+3Pigs, on 02 August 2011 - 10:26 AM, said:

Quote

• Added new cache attributes: Seasonal Access,..., Tourist Friendly,...
• Increased total number of assignable cache attributes from 10 to 15

Like these!

Yes...nice new attributes. I hope people will use the Tree Climbing attribute when needed.

I suspect some tree climbing cache owners will see this as a spoiler and not use it.

And that it will make a great 'Red Herring' otherwise.

[GOF and Bacall]

Seriously bummed about the PQ situation. Other than that it seems like some decent upgrades.

Except for the time wasted on the whole facebook/twitter stuff.

[dfx]

Where the heck is that "beginner caches" thing? I can't find it anywhere?

Edit: nm, found it

This post has been edited by dfx: 02 August 2011 - 04:40 PM

[t4e]

Joshism, on 02 August 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

What makes a geocache "Tourist Friendly"? (one of the new Attributes)

i would really like to know that too

[SwineFlew]

t4e, on 02 August 2011 - 04:45 PM, said:

Joshism, on 02 August 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

What makes a geocache "Tourist Friendly"? (one of the new Attributes)

i would really like to know that too

Same here. I am really curious of what is really behind the situation of why they choice it.

[niraD]

OpinioNate, on 02 August 2011 - 10:08 AM, said:

• Added new cache attributes: Seasonal Access, Teamwork Required, Tourist Friendly, Tree Climbing and Front Yard (private residence)

I'm curious what would make a cache "Tourist Friendly". I'm even more curious what would make a cache "Toursit Friendly" [sic].

[sillygirl & jrr]

SwineFlew, on 02 August 2011 - 05:18 PM, said:

t4e, on 02 August 2011 - 04:45 PM, said:

Joshism, on 02 August 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

What makes a geocache "Tourist Friendly"? (one of the new Attributes)

i would really like to know that too

Same here. I am really curious of what is really behind the situation of why they choice it.

Seeing as I live in an area that get lots of tourists I can tell you how I interpret (and will use) the icon. I will add that icon to our caches where you will be comfortable bringing "just tourists" (i.e., any non-cachers) traveling with you to. I see the icon as indicating that "just tourists" will be sufficiently distracted by the scenic views, historical info, wildlife viewing etc., that they will not mind (or even notice) that you are searching for a cache.

jrr

This post has been edited by sillygirl & jrr: 02 August 2011 - 05:57 PM

[t4e]

sillygirl & jrr, on 02 August 2011 - 05:56 PM, said:

SwineFlew, on 02 August 2011 - 05:18 PM, said:

t4e, on 02 August 2011 - 04:45 PM, said:

Joshism, on 02 August 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

What makes a geocache "Tourist Friendly"? (one of the new Attributes)

i would really like to know that too

Same here. I am really curious of what is really behind the situation of why they choice it.

Seeing as I live in an area that get lots of tourists I can tell you how I interpret (and will use) the icon. I will add that icon to our caches where you will be comfortable bringing "just tourists" (i.e., any non-cachers) traveling with you to. I see the icon as indicating that "just tourists" will be sufficiently distracted by the scenic views, historical info, wildlife viewing etc., that they will not mind (or even notice) that you are searching for a cache.

jrr

i was thinking more in terms of making the tourists feel safe...i.e. "no danger of being arrested/shot for suspected terrorism while searching for the cache"

[jholly]

dfx, on 02 August 2011 - 04:26 PM, said:

Where the heck is that "beginner caches" thing? I can't find it anywhere?

Edit: nm, found it

Okay, where is that thing, I haven't found it.

[t4e]

jholly, on 02 August 2011 - 06:27 PM, said:

dfx, on 02 August 2011 - 04:26 PM, said:

Where the heck is that "beginner caches" thing? I can't find it anywhere?

Edit: nm, found it

Okay, where is that thing, I haven't found it.

Search for nearest geocaches from your home location, might have to refresh the page to make it show the green the first time

This post has been edited by t4e: 02 August 2011 - 06:35 PM

[jholly]

got it.

[Don_J]

dfx, on 02 August 2011 - 04:26 PM, said:

Where the heck is that "beginner caches" thing? I can't find it anywhere?

Edit: nm, found it

It's a check box at the BOTTOM of each search result page. I bet you were looking at the TOP, where it belongs.

[GeePa]

Maingray, on 02 August 2011 - 10:39 AM, said:

Cachesense (formerly cacheberry) is a great app. Shame I switched from a blackberry.

What did you switch to? There is an Android version of CacheSense in Beta right now.

[Difool]

niraD, on 02 August 2011 - 05:48 PM, said:

OpinioNate, on 02 August 2011 - 10:08 AM, said:

• Added new cache attributes: Seasonal Access, Teamwork Required, Tourist Friendly, Tree Climbing and Front Yard (private residence)

I'm curious what would make a cache "Tourist Friendly". I'm even more curious what would make a cache "Toursit Friendly" [sic].

You can get an idea from the request.

This post has been edited by Difool: 02 August 2011 - 10:26 PM

[De Zwarte Tovenaars]

OpinioNate, on 02 August 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

OpinioNate, on 02 August 2011 - 01:03 PM, said:

De Zwarte Tovenaars, on 02 August 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

Quote

• Added ability for cache owners to set the "Needs Maintenance" attribute on caches they own

I must have missed something because I cannot find this on one of my own caches ... ?

Looks like this fix didn't make it to the live site. We will investigate.

(PS - the fix adds a new dropdown option for owners when logging the cache)

Thanks for the quick fix !



Maybe also good to note that you cannot place a Needs Maintenance when you already disabled the cache. I don't get why you should not be able to place a Needs maintenance anyway. Can you fix this ?

This post has been edited by De Zwarte Tovenaars: 02 August 2011 - 11:56 PM

[Tape worm]

I see another attribute was added as well. Partner Ownership. Don't see how to turn it on anywhere though.

[Gali+Leo]

Quote

More than 35 trusted partners are currently developing against the Geocaching Live API, on everything from mobile devices to desktop applications. Stay tuned for multiple releases coming very soon.

Can you tell us the names?

Thanks,
Haiko

[L0ne R]

De Zwarte Tovenaars, on 02 August 2011 - 11:48 PM, said:

OpinioNate, on 02 August 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

OpinioNate, on 02 August 2011 - 01:03 PM, said:

De Zwarte Tovenaars, on 02 August 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

Quote

• Added ability for cache owners to set the "Needs Maintenance" attribute on caches they own

I must have missed something because I cannot find this on one of my own caches ... ?

Looks like this fix didn't make it to the live site. We will investigate.

(PS - the fix adds a new dropdown option for owners when logging the cache)

Thanks for the quick fix !

Maybe also good to note that you cannot place a Needs Maintenance when you already disabled the cache. I don't get why you should not be able to place a Needs maintenance anyway. Can you fix this ?

I don't understand what the point is of a CO placing a Needs Maintenance tag on his own cache, instead of disabling it? Or placing an NM and disabling? Can someone explain?

[jholly]

Lone R, on 03 August 2011 - 06:04 AM, said:

De Zwarte Tovenaars, on 02 August 2011 - 11:48 PM, said:

OpinioNate, on 02 August 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

OpinioNate, on 02 August 2011 - 01:03 PM, said:

De Zwarte Tovenaars, on 02 August 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

Quote

• Added ability for cache owners to set the "Needs Maintenance" attribute on caches they own

I must have missed something because I cannot find this on one of my own caches ... ?

Looks like this fix didn't make it to the live site. We will investigate.

(PS - the fix adds a new dropdown option for owners when logging the cache)

Thanks for the quick fix !

Maybe also good to note that you cannot place a Needs Maintenance when you already disabled the cache. I don't get why you should not be able to place a Needs maintenance anyway. Can you fix this ?

I don't understand what the point is of a CO placing a Needs Maintenance tag on his own cache, instead of disabling it? Or placing an NM and disabling? Can someone explain?

Maybe a way of flagging yourself when someone mentions a soggy log in a found it log? Only reason I can think of.

[Pup Patrol]

Lone R, on 03 August 2011 - 06:04 AM, said:

De Zwarte Tovenaars, on 02 August 2011 - 11:48 PM, said:

OpinioNate, on 02 August 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

OpinioNate, on 02 August 2011 - 01:03 PM, said:

De Zwarte Tovenaars, on 02 August 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

Quote

• Added ability for cache owners to set the "Needs Maintenance" attribute on caches they own

I must have missed something because I cannot find this on one of my own caches ... ?

Looks like this fix didn't make it to the live site. We will investigate.

(PS - the fix adds a new dropdown option for owners when logging the cache)

Thanks for the quick fix !

Maybe also good to note that you cannot place a Needs Maintenance when you already disabled the cache. I don't get why you should not be able to place a Needs maintenance anyway. Can you fix this ?

I don't understand what the point is of a CO placing a Needs Maintenance tag on his own cache, instead of disabling it? Or placing an NM and disabling? Can someone explain?

I asked this and still don't see an explanation.

[jholly]

Pup Patrol, on 03 August 2011 - 01:20 PM, said:

Lone R, on 03 August 2011 - 06:04 AM, said:

De Zwarte Tovenaars, on 02 August 2011 - 11:48 PM, said:

OpinioNate, on 02 August 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

OpinioNate, on 02 August 2011 - 01:03 PM, said:

De Zwarte Tovenaars, on 02 August 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

Quote

• Added ability for cache owners to set the "Needs Maintenance" attribute on caches they own

I must have missed something because I cannot find this on one of my own caches ... ?

Looks like this fix didn't make it to the live site. We will investigate.

(PS - the fix adds a new dropdown option for owners when logging the cache)

Thanks for the quick fix !

Maybe also good to note that you cannot place a Needs Maintenance when you already disabled the cache. I don't get why you should not be able to place a Needs maintenance anyway. Can you fix this ?

I don't understand what the point is of a CO placing a Needs Maintenance tag on his own cache, instead of disabling it? Or placing an NM and disabling? Can someone explain?

I asked this and still don't see an explanation.

Hey, we had to fill up the release with useless unasked for stuff so we can put off the things folks really want.

[Moun10Bike]

Pup Patrol, on 03 August 2011 - 01:20 PM, said:

Lone R, on 03 August 2011 - 06:04 AM, said:

I don't understand what the point is of a CO placing a Needs Maintenance tag on his own cache, instead of disabling it? Or placing an NM and disabling? Can someone explain?

I asked this and still don't see an explanation.

When we fixed a bug in the toggling of the Needs Maintenance attribute in a recent release, we made it so that cache owners could not log NM on their own caches. It was a simple change in the logic and seemed to make sense on our end. However, that led to several support emails and this feedback thread: feedback. We responded by returning the old functionality.

[Moun10Bike]

jholly, on 03 August 2011 - 01:32 PM, said:

Hey, we had to fill up the release with useless unasked for stuff so we can put off the things folks really want.

I'd prefer to see constructive comments here, please. The team is in overdrive working to complete most of the top stories in the feedback forum.

[Pup Patrol]

Moun10Bike, on 03 August 2011 - 01:36 PM, said:

Pup Patrol, on 03 August 2011 - 01:20 PM, said:

Lone R, on 03 August 2011 - 06:04 AM, said:

I don't understand what the point is of a CO placing a Needs Maintenance tag on his own cache, instead of disabling it? Or placing an NM and disabling? Can someone explain?

I asked this and still don't see an explanation.

When we fixed a bug in the toggling of the Needs Maintenance attribute in a recent release, we made it so that cache owners could not log NM on their own caches. It was a simple change in the logic and seemed to make sense on our end. However, that led to several support emails and this feedback thread: feedback. We responded by returning the old functionality.

thanks for the response, but I'm still confused as to why the CO would need to post an NM log on their own cache.

Either the CO does the required maintenance and posts an Owner Maintenance log, or they disable the listing until the maintenance can be performed.

Posting an NM log on your own cache seems like a useless action to me.

[Moun10Bike]

Pup Patrol, on 03 August 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:

thanks for the response, but I'm still confused as to why the CO would need to post an NM log on their own cache.

Either the CO does the required maintenance and posts an Owner Maintenance log, or they disable the listing until the maintenance can be performed.

Posting an NM log on your own cache seems like a useless action to me.

That's what we thought, too, and hence our earlier removal of this functionality. You'll have to ask those who campaigned to get this functionality back why they feel the need for it. Most of them commented that they use the NM flag as a reminder.

[niraD]

Pup Patrol, on 03 August 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:

thanks for the response, but I'm still confused as to why the CO would need to post an NM log on their own cache.

My guess is that some COs want to use the NM flag as a reminder to do some minor maintenance that isn't severe enough to require disabling the cache. For example, if they know that the log is filling up, they know they'll need to replace it soon and want a reminder to do so. But if the log isn't full yet, then there is no need to disable the cache.

But that's just a guess, since I didn't campaign one way or the other for this feature.

[edscott]

Sorry to see there is still no action on restoring the ability to print a cache page with a satellite image.

This post has been edited by edscott: 03 August 2011 - 05:53 PM

[Pup Patrol]

Moun10Bike, on 03 August 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

Pup Patrol, on 03 August 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:

thanks for the response, but I'm still confused as to why the CO would need to post an NM log on their own cache.

Either the CO does the required maintenance and posts an Owner Maintenance log, or they disable the listing until the maintenance can be performed.

Posting an NM log on your own cache seems like a useless action to me.

That's what we thought, too, and hence our earlier removal of this functionality. You'll have to ask those who campaigned to get this functionality back why they feel the need for it. Most of them commented that they use the NM flag as a reminder.

niraD, on 03 August 2011 - 04:12 PM, said:

Pup Patrol, on 03 August 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:

thanks for the response, but I'm still confused as to why the CO would need to post an NM log on their own cache.

My guess is that some COs want to use the NM flag as a reminder to do some minor maintenance that isn't severe enough to require disabling the cache. For example, if they know that the log is filling up, they know they'll need to replace it soon and want a reminder to do so. But if the log isn't full yet, then there is no need to disable the cache.

But that's just a guess, since I didn't campaign one way or the other for this feature.

Seems weird to me, but I guess if that was important enough for folks to vote to have returned, so be it.

Thanks for the replies.

[rockhoundbmw]

Difool, on 02 August 2011 - 10:18 PM, said:

niraD, on 02 August 2011 - 05:48 PM, said:

I'm curious what would make a cache "Tourist Friendly". I'm even more curious what would make a cache "Toursit Friendly" [sic].

You can get an idea from the request.

So, since all of my cache descriptions and hints are in English, does that make all of them "Tourist Friendly" even though they are all hidden in California? (I am being mostly sarcastic there.)

I interpreted the new attribute to mean a cache hidden in a place a tourist might want to visit, so I marked one of my hides in a local park that has a cool art sculpture and amphitheater in it, and another hide that is on some cool hiking trails with good views and lots of other caches.

But after reading the feedback topic, it seems like this attribute is only for foreign (to Americans) caches that happen to also be translated into English. Does this mean I should translate my cache descriptions into Spanish, for example, to make them "Tourist Friendly?"

[JeeperMTJ]

Could you clarify the exact prerequisites for a cache being label as "Beginner Cache"? From the 200 closest cache in my home zone only 1 is marked als beginner cache. Even so quite a lot fit in that category. I don´t understand the mechanism. Here`s an example: http://coord.info/GC1P2V7 (not a great cache and cache listing) but it fits the category as described on the web site and the screenshot in the earlier post at the top of the page.

This post has been edited by JeeperMTJ: 04 August 2011 - 02:06 AM

[TomToad]

Pup Patrol, on 03 August 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:

Moun10Bike, on 03 August 2011 - 01:36 PM, said:

Pup Patrol, on 03 August 2011 - 01:20 PM, said:

Lone R, on 03 August 2011 - 06:04 AM, said:

I don't understand what the point is of a CO placing a Needs Maintenance tag on his own cache, instead of disabling it? Or placing an NM and disabling? Can someone explain?

I asked this and still don't see an explanation.

When we fixed a bug in the toggling of the Needs Maintenance attribute in a recent release, we made it so that cache owners could not log NM on their own caches. It was a simple change in the logic and seemed to make sense on our end. However, that led to several support emails and this feedback thread: feedback. We responded by returning the old functionality.

thanks for the response, but I'm still confused as to why the CO would need to post an NM log on their own cache.

Either the CO does the required maintenance and posts an Owner Maintenance log, or they disable the listing until the maintenance can be performed.

Posting an NM log on your own cache seems like a useless action to me.

There are reasons why a cache needs maintenance, and not just disable. Log almost full? Part of your clever cammo is broken, but cache is still there? Owner of property (who you received permission from) is now having concerns, cache is still ok to be there, but he wants you to stop by sometime and discuss it?

If there is no NM flag, it is easy to forget that something needs to be done when other parts of your life get in the way.

[L0ne R]

TomToad, on 04 August 2011 - 05:05 AM, said:

Pup Patrol, on 03 August 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:

Moun10Bike, on 03 August 2011 - 01:36 PM, said:

Pup Patrol, on 03 August 2011 - 01:20 PM, said:

Lone R, on 03 August 2011 - 06:04 AM, said:

I don't understand what the point is of a CO placing a Needs Maintenance tag on his own cache, instead of disabling it? Or placing an NM and disabling? Can someone explain?

I asked this and still don't see an explanation.

When we fixed a bug in the toggling of the Needs Maintenance attribute in a recent release, we made it so that cache owners could not log NM on their own caches. It was a simple change in the logic and seemed to make sense on our end. However, that led to several support emails and this feedback thread: feedback. We responded by returning the old functionality.

thanks for the response, but I'm still confused as to why the CO would need to post an NM log on their own cache.

Either the CO does the required maintenance and posts an Owner Maintenance log, or they disable the listing until the maintenance can be performed.

Posting an NM log on your own cache seems like a useless action to me.

There are reasons why a cache needs maintenance, and not just disable. Log almost full? Part of your clever cammo is broken, but cache is still there? Owner of property (who you received permission from) is now having concerns, cache is still ok to be there, but he wants you to stop by sometime and discuss it?

If there is no NM flag, it is easy to forget that something needs to be done when other parts of your life get in the way.

Thanks for the explanation. The link to the feedback page was informative too.

I'm still not getting the usefulness of the owner-created NM. The database doesn't alert you every few days to remind you that you have an NM on your cache. And when I go in a look at the list of my cache hides I don't see where the NM icon is going to show up. Don't you have to go in to each of your active caches to see the icon? I currently don't have an NM so I may be wrong about the icon not showing up when I look at my "Public Profile" or my "Your Geocaches" list. But hey, if some COs perceive that this is a useful tool, so be it.

Wouldn't it make more work for Reviewers who would end up seeing more NMs on the list? Maybe COs are hoping that the Reviewers will be their alert service. If they forget to respond to their self-flagged NM, 3 months later a Reviewer will nudge them.
And in the case of the NM because the CO needs to talk to a land manager, isn't that going to confuse a finder? Maybe what COs need is a way to tag their caches, rather then using the NM tool.

[jholly]

first off, reviewers don't see NM status unless they do a PQ for this. So the reviewers will not do any reminding. If you do a search on your caches the NM icon appears on the search page. I see it as a way for the CO to flag a cache that needs some work when a comment is made in a Found It log but the finder did not log a NM. So if you don't see a use for it, don't use it.

[Difool]

rockhoundbmw, on 03 August 2011 - 09:38 PM, said:

Difool, on 02 August 2011 - 10:18 PM, said:

niraD, on 02 August 2011 - 05:48 PM, said:

I'm curious what would make a cache "Tourist Friendly". I'm even more curious what would make a cache "Toursit Friendly" [sic].

You can get an idea from the request.

So, since all of my cache descriptions and hints are in English, does that make all of them "Tourist Friendly" even though they are all hidden in California? (I am being mostly sarcastic there.)

I interpreted the new attribute to mean a cache hidden in a place a tourist might want to visit, so I marked one of my hides in a local park that has a cool art sculpture and amphitheater in it, and another hide that is on some cool hiking trails with good views and lots of other caches.

But after reading the feedback topic, it seems like this attribute is only for foreign (to Americans) caches that happen to also be translated into English. Does this mean I should translate my cache descriptions into Spanish, for example, to make them "Tourist Friendly?"

You shouldn't use the English part as a criteria to selecting the cache as "Tourist Friendly", but if you do give it an TF-attribute you should provide English description, as you notice not as much a concern to you livening in California but an concern for the us in Europe.

Those choices of yours sounds just right, showing some special point of interest for people who might just visit the area once and might miss, because they just hit the usual tourist traps.

EDIT. I would say that your first interpretation is spot on,

Quote

I interpreted the new attribute to mean a cache hidden in a place a tourist might want to visit, so I marked one of my hides in a local park that has a cool art sculpture and amphitheater in it, and another hide that is on some cool hiking trails with good views and lots of other caches.

This post has been edited by Difool: 04 August 2011 - 08:18 AM

[L0ne R]

jholly, on 04 August 2011 - 07:44 AM, said:

first off, reviewers don't see NM status unless they do a PQ for this. So the reviewers will not do any reminding.

We have great Reviewers in our area who regularly check caches with NM logs. It's probably not going to be a big problem though. I'm thinking that only a small percentage of COs will post an NM on their own cache.

jholly, on 04 August 2011 - 07:44 AM, said:

So if you don't see a use for it, don't use it.

For sure.

It just seemed like a low-priority type of feedback request to spend time on. But <shrug>, maybe it didn't take a lot of time to reinstate and it makes a handful of COs happy, so that's fine.

This post has been edited by Lone R: 04 August 2011 - 11:57 AM

[L0ne R]

Difool, on 04 August 2011 - 07:47 AM, said:

EDIT. I would say that your first interpretation is spot on,

Quote

I interpreted the new attribute to mean a cache hidden in a place a tourist might want to visit, so I marked one of my hides in a local park that has a cool art sculpture and amphitheater in it, and another hide that is on some cool hiking trails with good views and lots of other caches.

That's how I interpret it too. So if someone plants a cache near the CN Tower in Toronto then a TF attribute would be very appropriate.

[barraseaclaid]

what about actually making the pop up when you get to the new maps page disappear. even though I click the "do not show this message again" tick box signal and his map speil still show up every time

[Berta, Nick and Zoey]

+1

[NanCycle]

OpinioNate, on 02 August 2011 - 02:18 PM, said:

rtyrie, on 02 August 2011 - 01:25 PM, said:

emzett, on 02 August 2011 - 01:06 PM, said:

T5 caches are highlighted as beginner caches if they have a low D-rating. I don't think that these are really beginner caches.

I've been looking at this as well and I don't understand the mechanism here. I looked at my local area and see that plenty of traditional/low difficulty/low terrain caches that have been found recently are not labeled as beginner caches, while others are. I also noticed that a nearby 2.5/3.5 cache was labelled as a beginner cache, while nearby caches with lower ratings were not.

I'm curious regarding the underlying logic of this feature.

This little tooltip explains the logic. It can be modified in the future if the results aren't what was expected.

Now that the parameters have been changed so that D=3.5 is not included, I think they went a bit too far in the other direction. I'm okay with only D=1 (though I think 1.5 could well be included) but I can't understand why Beginner caches have to be wheel-chair accessible. C'mon, T=1 is a ridiculous limit; that needs to be at least 1.5.

[Moun10Bike]

barraseaclaid, on 04 August 2011 - 03:19 PM, said:

what about actually making the pop up when you get to the new maps page disappear. even though I click the "do not show this message again" tick box signal and his map speil still show up every time

This would be an indication that you are not allowing cookies or that you have a corrupted cookie on your machine. Try clearing your browser cache and cookies and see if the problem continues.

[pictom]

DoubleBent, on 05 August 2011 - 10:01 AM, said:

OpinioNate, on 02 August 2011 - 02:18 PM, said:

rtyrie, on 02 August 2011 - 01:25 PM, said:

emzett, on 02 August 2011 - 01:06 PM, said:

T5 caches are highlighted as beginner caches if they have a low D-rating. I don't think that these are really beginner caches.

I've been looking at this as well and I don't understand the mechanism here. I looked at my local area and see that plenty of traditional/low difficulty/low terrain caches that have been found recently are not labeled as beginner caches, while others are. I also noticed that a nearby 2.5/3.5 cache was labelled as a beginner cache, while nearby caches with lower ratings were not.

I'm curious regarding the underlying logic of this feature.

This little tooltip explains the logic. It can be modified in the future if the results aren't what was expected.

Now that the parameters have been changed so that D=3.5 is not included, I think they went a bit too far in the other direction. I'm okay with only D=1 (though I think 1.5 could well be included) but I can't understand why Beginner caches have to be wheel-chair accessible. C'mon, T=1 is a ridiculous limit; that needs to be at least 1.5.

I agree that any beginner can find a 1.5 terrain cache with a one star difficulty. I have a cache in a parking lot. There are a row of trees in a ten foot wide island with a birdhouse that is too small to be a real birdhouse so you know even from driving in the parking lot that it is a cache. BUT I can not rate it a one star terrain because you can not get a wheelchair up the curb.
My cache is so easy to find you don't even need a GPS. The maps on the site are good enough.
But yet, its still not marked as a Beginner Cache. Hmmm . . .

[IBcrashen]

OK, maybe I havent looked enough on the boards but my Profile Information is all gone.



Or can others see it but I cant? I can see others.
Hope its not gone cause I really dont want to rewrite it.

[jholly]

IBcrashen, on 07 August 2011 - 06:02 PM, said:

OK, maybe I havent looked enough on the boards but my Profile Information is all gone.



Or can others see it but I cant? I can see others.
Hope its not gone cause I really dont want to rewrite it.

It's gone.

[De Zwarte Tovenaars]

Correct me if I am wrong but upon searching for a cache using the Play > Seek a cache link I found that when searching for a cache-name the results are all but what it should be...

For example when searching for caches with the name "apen" the link would become:

http://www.geocachin...t.aspx?key=apen

The resulting 1st cache I get back is in portugal then 1 in Belgium.. 5 in the netherlands and so the list goes on... There is definitely something wrong with the search on gc.com which is now unusable unless you know the exact name.

Can you please fix this ?

[dfx]

De Zwarte Tovenaars, on 08 August 2011 - 10:51 AM, said:

Correct me if I am wrong but upon searching for a cache using the Play > Seek a cache link I found that when searching for a cache-name the results are all but what it should be...

For example when searching for caches with the name "apen" the link would become:

http://www.geocachin...t.aspx?key=apen

The resulting 1st cache I get back is in portugal then 1 in Belgium.. 5 in the netherlands and so the list goes on... There is definitely something wrong with the search on gc.com which is now unusable unless you know the exact name.

Can you please fix this ?

The returned caches all have "apen" in their name. What did you expect to see?

This post has been edited by dfx: 08 August 2011 - 10:58 AM