Groundspeak Forums: Geocaching.com Release Notes April 24th, 2012 - Groundspeak Forums

Jump to content

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

Geocaching.com Release Notes April 24th, 2012

#1 User is offline   colin 

  • PM
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 22-July 08

Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:34 AM

Added Facebook Connect to login process
Added Geooh Live for Android to /Live
Added CacheMe for Symbian OS to /Live
Fixed bug in CSP with Multicaches and letterbox hybrids with 2 mile barrier
Fixed bug with map links on Cache Details pager
New Cache Submission Process is available to all users (link from the existing hide page, see screenshot)

Attached thumbnail(s)

  • Attached Image: CSP.JPG


#2 User is offline   doug_hollyNKC 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 161
  • Joined: 05-June 10

Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:36 AM

I am logged into the forums, but the JPG / screenshot that you have attached says I don't have permission to view it.

#3 User is offline   Delta68 

  • Volunteer Geocache Finder
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1556
  • Joined: 05-March 07

Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:42 AM

New CSP looks good! :)

Shame there's no built in proximity alert though



Mark

#4 User is offline   Starf 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 294
  • Joined: 06-July 05

Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:44 AM

What has changed in the guidelines?

#5 User is offline   koia 

  • Premium Cacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 13-August 08

Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:47 AM

View Postcolin, on 24 April 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

Added Facebook Connect to login process
Added Geooh Live for Android to /Live
Added CacheMe for Symbian OS to /Live
Fixed bug in CSP with Multicaches and letterbox hybrids with 2 mile barrier
Fixed bug with map links on Cache Details pager
New Cache Submission Process is available to all users (link from the existing hide page, see screenshot)


come on - let us see that picture

#6 User is offline   jholly 

  • I like the smell of a cache in the morning
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7896
  • Joined: 16-August 02

Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:48 AM

View PostStarf, on 24 April 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

What has changed in the guidelines?

It would be nice to have a is/was or this is new but I guess that is hoping for too much.

#7 User is offline   puczmeloun 

  • ...need to travel
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: 01-January 07

Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:49 AM

View PostStarf, on 24 April 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

What has changed in the guidelines?


Is there anywhere the list of all the changes?

#8 User is offline   maantes 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 21-October 10

Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:52 AM

Hmm, I can't access the pic, too. :unsure:

#9 User is offline   Maingray 

  • Immolation.
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2038
  • Joined: 08-June 02

Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:53 AM

Prob same image as here:

http://blog.geocachi...listing-wizard/

#10 User is offline   Damned Rodan 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 01-November 07

Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:54 AM

Highlighting the changes in the guidelines would be nice, since, to me, they look pretty much same as they ever were.

#11 User is offline   Starf 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 294
  • Joined: 06-July 05

Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:56 AM

View Postjholly, on 24 April 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

View PostStarf, on 24 April 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

What has changed in the guidelines?

It would be nice to have a is/was or this is new but I guess that is hoping for too much.

Agree! So we have to read it again and again...

#12 User is offline   Sandy 

  • Cacher from Down Under
  • Group: Guests
  • Posts: 932
  • Joined: 01-October 01

Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:57 AM

View PostDelta68, on 24 April 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

New CSP looks good! :)

Shame there's no built in proximity alert though



Mark


Watch for V2 in the Fall.

#13 User is offline   Moun10Bike 

  • Groundspeak Lackey
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 6143
  • Joined: 05-September 00

Posted 24 April 2012 - 11:00 AM

View Postmaantes, on 24 April 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

Hmm, I can't access the pic, too. :unsure:


Please try again; I think the permissions in this forum were set to prevent download (you may need to log out and back in).

#14 User is offline   The A-Team 

  • Oh snap! ...now in HTML!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4390
  • Joined: 15-March 09

Posted 24 April 2012 - 11:06 AM

View PostStarf, on 24 April 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

View Postjholly, on 24 April 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

View PostStarf, on 24 April 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

What has changed in the guidelines?

It would be nice to have a is/was or this is new but I guess that is hoping for too much.

Agree! So we have to read it again and again...

I must have missed something. Where does it say there were changes to the guidelines?

#15 User is offline   Sandy 

  • Cacher from Down Under
  • Group: Guests
  • Posts: 932
  • Joined: 01-October 01

Posted 24 April 2012 - 11:07 AM

View PostThe A-Team, on 24 April 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

View PostStarf, on 24 April 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

View Postjholly, on 24 April 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

View PostStarf, on 24 April 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

What has changed in the guidelines?

It would be nice to have a is/was or this is new but I guess that is hoping for too much.

Agree! So we have to read it again and again...

I must have missed something. Where does it say there were changes to the guidelines?

Here you go.

#16 User is offline   Starf 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 294
  • Joined: 06-July 05

Posted 24 April 2012 - 11:09 AM

View PostSandy, on 24 April 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

View PostThe A-Team, on 24 April 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

View PostStarf, on 24 April 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

View Postjholly, on 24 April 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

View PostStarf, on 24 April 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

What has changed in the guidelines?

It would be nice to have a is/was or this is new but I guess that is hoping for too much.

Agree! So we have to read it again and again...

I must have missed something. Where does it say there were changes to the guidelines?

Here you go.

But Sandy, can you say what changed?

#17 User is offline   The A-Team 

  • Oh snap! ...now in HTML!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4390
  • Joined: 15-March 09

Posted 24 April 2012 - 11:37 AM

View Postcolin, on 24 April 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

New Cache Submission Process is available to all users (link from the existing hide page, see screenshot)

It looks pretty good, but I see a couple of things:
1. After you've completed a few sections, you can click on one of the previous steps to jump backwards and make a change. Once you've made your change, you can't simply click on the later step you got to, you have to click through each subsequent step to get forward to where you were.
2. In the Additional Waypoints section, there are presets for Parking, Trailhead, and Reference Point. When you pick one of these, it autofills the prefix and name, but if you then choose another preset, the previously autofilled information isn't replaced.
3. The Size section should have a link to the Help Center article on cache sizes. There should also be some description of when to use the "Other" and "Not chosen" sizes. Right now they're just mysterious, unexplained options.
4. The icons for the Difficulty rating aren't very good. They strongly imply that the route taken to a cache is a major factor in the difficulty rating, which it usually is not. To be honest, I'm not sure what would be better, but I can see these icons leading to a lot of mis-rated caches.
5. The sliders for the Size and D/T ratings seem a little faint. They might show up better if they were darkened a bit. Also, when you grab them, they turn white, which makes them even harder to see. Maybe make them really dark by default, and turn grey when grabbed.

Other than these, I really like some of the changes. The new way to enter the hint should cut down on the "Sorry, no hint" hints. I like the single text field for the coordinates, rather than the multiple fields. The WYSIWYG description editor should more easily allow better looking descriptions for those with little or no experience with HTML. Having the attributes right in the creation process should hopefully encourage their use more. As a whole, I like it!

#18 User is offline   The A-Team 

  • Oh snap! ...now in HTML!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4390
  • Joined: 15-March 09

Posted 24 April 2012 - 11:37 AM

View PostSandy, on 24 April 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

View PostThe A-Team, on 24 April 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

I must have missed something. Where does it say there were changes to the guidelines?

Here you go.

Thanks!

#19 User is offline   BlueRajah 

  • Signals little Crony
  • Group: Site Wide Moderators
  • Posts: 739
  • Joined: 02-June 09

Posted 24 April 2012 - 11:40 AM

If you are looking for a large change.. I do not think you will find it. There is not a new cache type, or major shift in caching guidelines. Some of it was rewritten to try and be clear, and concise, and fit with how reviewers and cachers were already going about the game.

#20 User is offline   stebu 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 207
  • Joined: 01-October 07

Posted 24 April 2012 - 11:50 AM

View PostBlueRajah, on 24 April 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

If you are looking for a large change.. I do not think you will find it. There is not a new cache type, or major shift in caching guidelines. Some of it was rewritten to try and be clear, and concise, and fit with how reviewers and cachers were already going about the game.

Sandy said:

Yesterday, April 23, 2012, we updated our Cache Placement Guidelines/Requirements, which are posted in our Knowledge Books.

All subsequently-submitted caches will be subject to these new guidelines. Caches placed prior to the update will be grandfathered into the game, and were subject to the guidelines current at the time of publication.

What are the changes that require grandfathering existing caches?

#21 User is offline   MightyReek 

  • GeoPT Staff
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 228
  • Joined: 01-August 07

Posted 24 April 2012 - 12:01 PM

Also can't find what changed in the guidelines requiring that the already published caches to be grandfathered... The text seems the same, or at least meaning the same...

#22 User is online   NYPaddleCacher 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8761
  • Joined: 08-January 07

Posted 24 April 2012 - 12:06 PM

View PostBlueRajah, on 24 April 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

If you are looking for a large change.. I do not think you will find it. There is not a new cache type, or major shift in caching guidelines. Some of it was rewritten to try and be clear, and concise, and fit with how reviewers and cachers were already going about the game.


I actually brought this up in another thread earlier today and expressed the desire to see something that made it very clear to someone submitting a new cache that the guidelines have changed since they last had a cache published.

The thread was related to the "no buried caches" guideline which used to make references to the use of pointy objects. Now it reads:

Geocaches are never buried. If one has to dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache, then the cache is not permitted.

Hopefully, the use of "or break ground" will make it a little more clear that attempting to circumvent the guideline by using a power washer to create a hole in the ground isn't going to fly.

#23 User is offline   MightyReek 

  • GeoPT Staff
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 228
  • Joined: 01-August 07

Posted 24 April 2012 - 12:16 PM

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on 24 April 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

I actually brought this up in another thread earlier today and expressed the desire to see something that made it very clear to someone submitting a new cache that the guidelines have changed since they last had a cache published.

The thread was related to the "no buried caches" guideline which used to make references to the use of pointy objects. Now it reads:

Geocaches are never buried. If one has to dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache, then the cache is not permitted.

Hopefully, the use of "or break ground" will make it a little more clear that attempting to circumvent the guideline by using a power washer to create a hole in the ground isn't going to fly.


Nope, that was there before, I remember reading it some time ago when we had an issue here about the use of a wooden stick stuck in the ground to hold a cache...

#24 User is offline   The A-Team 

  • Oh snap! ...now in HTML!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4390
  • Joined: 15-March 09

Posted 24 April 2012 - 12:20 PM

View PostStarf, on 24 April 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

But Sandy, can you say what changed?

I'm not Sandy, but I compared recent Google cached versions to the current ones, and here are the changes I see:
1. The buried guideline has changed to "If one has to dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache, then the cache is not permitted."
2. The "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can." section has been removed.
3. A new paragraph has been added to the "Other Placement Considerations":

Quote

Please carefully read our Geocaching.com Disclaimer. Groundspeak is not in any way responsible or liable for caches or their placement. All aspects of your cache and its placement are your responsibility, and you may be held liable for any resulting consequences.

4. A mention to include the GC code on the container.
5. Along with a general re-wording of the "Inappropriate or Non-publishable Placements" section, a mention that "It is also advised that you state permission on the cache page to reassure cachers seeking the cache."
6. "Food items or scented items are always a bad idea." has been changed to "Food items or scented items are inappropriate and disallowed."
7. Under the Additional Listing Guidelines for Puzzles, this has been added: "Before you submit the cache listing, post a Note to Reviewer with an explanation of how the puzzle is solved. This log will auto-delete on publication."
8. Under the Additional Listing Guidelines for Letterbox Hybrids, this has been added: "A Letterbox Hybrid must include significant GPS usage for at least part of the hunt. Letterbox-style clues may be used to guide seekers to the container, but only if the clues are accompanied by coordinates specific to the hide."
9. "Webcam Cache Logging Guidelines" has been changed from:

Quote

Logging a webcam cache find requires compliance with the requirements stated by the owner. This includes providing the requested photograph, as stipulated by the cache owner on the cache page.
to

Quote

Webcam cache can only be logged with a photograph taken from the webcam associated with the cache page.

10. New "Event Cache Logging Guidelines":

Quote

An event cache can be logged online if the cacher has attended the event. Event cache owners can request that cachers sign a logbook, but this is optional and cannot be a requirement for logging an event cache.


There has been lots of wording changes, but in most cases the meaning has remained largely the same. The ones I listed above appear to me to be the most significant changes.

#25 User is online   NYPaddleCacher 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8761
  • Joined: 08-January 07

Posted 24 April 2012 - 12:23 PM

View PostThe A-Team, on 24 April 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

View Postcolin, on 24 April 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

New Cache Submission Process is available to all users (link from the existing hide page, see screenshot)

It looks pretty good, but I see a couple of things:
1. After you've completed a few sections, you can click on one of the previous steps to jump backwards and make a change. Once you've made your change, you can't simply click on the later step you got to, you have to click through each subsequent step to get forward to where you were.



I am currently doing some development work on a digital repository submission system and agree with you. I haven't looked at the process in great detail, but other than the final submit button I can't think of any of the steps that would be dependent upon a previous step so as long as the form data has been validated one should be able to jump to any step in the process.


Quote


4. The icons for the Difficulty rating aren't very good. They strongly imply that the route taken to a cache is a major factor in the difficulty rating, which it usually is not. To be honest, I'm not sure what would be better, but I can see these icons leading to a lot of mis-rated caches.



I didn't notice that until you mentioned it. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that could represent difficulty other than math formulas (arithmetic, algebra, trigonometry, calculus, differential equations)

Quote

As a whole, I like it!


So do I. I also like that "warning" that shows up if you own any caches which currently have the needs maintenance attribute set. I found one that had a Needs Maintenance log but I fixed the problem awhile back and forgot to clear the attribute.

One other things that I'd like to see. If someone has started a cache submission process (using the old method) but has not yet submitted it review, I couldn't see a way to Edit the Listing using the new process.

#26 User is offline   The A-Team 

  • Oh snap! ...now in HTML!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4390
  • Joined: 15-March 09

Posted 24 April 2012 - 12:46 PM

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on 24 April 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

I also like that "warning" that shows up if you own any caches which currently have the needs maintenance attribute set.

I don't have any with the NM flag, so I didn't know this was added! It sounds good, but I'll have to wait until one of my caches has a problem before I can see it. :laughing:

Quote

If someone has started a cache submission process (using the old method) but has not yet submitted it review, I couldn't see a way to Edit the Listing using the new process.

I couldn't either, so I guess it's just available for new creations for now.

#27 User is offline   Max and 99 

  • CONTROL's highest ranking agents
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1897
  • Joined: 18-October 06

Posted 24 April 2012 - 12:50 PM

So do I understand correctly that if I publish a new puzzle cache, I must tell the reviewer HOW to solve the puzzle? It's not enough that he/she has the final coords? I need to provide a step-by-step explanation of how to solve the puzzle?

#28 User is offline   The A-Team 

  • Oh snap! ...now in HTML!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4390
  • Joined: 15-March 09

Posted 24 April 2012 - 12:53 PM

View PostMax and 99, on 24 April 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

So do I understand correctly that if I publish a new puzzle cache, I must tell the reviewer HOW to solve the puzzle?

I was wondering about that, too. Can we get some clarification from TPTB on this new guideline?

#29 User is offline   Moun10Bike 

  • Groundspeak Lackey
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 6143
  • Joined: 05-September 00

Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:07 PM

View PostThe A-Team, on 24 April 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

1. After you've completed a few sections, you can click on one of the previous steps to jump backwards and make a change. Once you've made your change, you can't simply click on the later step you got to, you have to click through each subsequent step to get forward to where you were.

I'll be following up on this. The original design indicated that as long as you didn't jump back to the first page (where choices are made that significantly affect the options on later pages), you would be able to jump back forward. However, data you have entered in later pages is being preserved when you jump back and then return.

Quote

2. In the Additional Waypoints section, there are presets for Parking, Trailhead, and Reference Point. When you pick one of these, it autofills the prefix and name, but if you then choose another preset, the previously autofilled information isn't replaced.

We had many discussions about this and left this functionality as By Design. We don't want anybody to lose any data by editing the contents and then selecting a new waypoint type.

Quote

3. The Size section should have a link to the Help Center article on cache sizes. There should also be some description of when to use the "Other" and "Not chosen" sizes. Right now they're just mysterious, unexplained options.

We can consider this for V2.

Quote

4. The icons for the Difficulty rating aren't very good. They strongly imply that the route taken to a cache is a major factor in the difficulty rating, which it usually is not. To be honest, I'm not sure what would be better, but I can see these icons leading to a lot of mis-rated caches.

We had many, many, many discussions about these, too. In the end, though, no one could come up with a better design. I'd love to see something better than these and will let the geniuses out there in the community suggest improvements!

Quote

5. The sliders for the Size and D/T ratings seem a little faint. They might show up better if they were darkened a bit. Also, when you grab them, they turn white, which makes them even harder to see. Maybe make them really dark by default, and turn grey when grabbed.

I'll take a look at this and see about improvements in V2.

#30 User is offline   Moun10Bike 

  • Groundspeak Lackey
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 6143
  • Joined: 05-September 00

Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:11 PM

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on 24 April 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

If someone has started a cache submission process (using the old method) but has not yet submitted it review, I couldn't see a way to Edit the Listing using the new process.


This is a planned improvement for V2. Right now, the new cache submission process (CSP for short) does not commit the data you have entered to the database until you reach the last page and then select "Preview"; everything done via the wizard up to that point is stored in a separate process. We need to do some behind-the-scenes work to integrate the editing process with the cache database.

#31 User is offline   The A-Team 

  • Oh snap! ...now in HTML!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4390
  • Joined: 15-March 09

Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:11 PM

View PostMoun10Bike, on 24 April 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

Quote

2. In the Additional Waypoints section, there are presets for Parking, Trailhead, and Reference Point. When you pick one of these, it autofills the prefix and name, but if you then choose another preset, the previously autofilled information isn't replaced.

We had many discussions about this and left this functionality as By Design. We don't want anybody to lose any data by editing the contents and then selecting a new waypoint type.

I suspected that might be the case, but I thought I'd mention it in case it was a bug. Thanks for addressing the other points, and hopefully someone can come up with a really good idea for the Difficulty icons.

#32 User is offline   java.lang 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:36 PM

Does it make any sense that I can add the "Needs Maintenance" Attribute, when creating a new cache? ;)

#33 User is offline   The A-Team 

  • Oh snap! ...now in HTML!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4390
  • Joined: 15-March 09

Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:45 PM

View Postjava.lang, on 24 April 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

Does it make any sense that I can add the "Needs Maintenance" Attribute, when creating a new cache? ;)

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
I've seen some brand new caches that could probably use it!

#34 User is offline   Max and 99 

  • CONTROL's highest ranking agents
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1897
  • Joined: 18-October 06

Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:49 PM

View Postjava.lang, on 24 April 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

Does it make any sense that I can add the "Needs Maintenance" Attribute, when creating a new cache? ;)


Yes it does make sense. I wish the new cacher who placed a new cache would have used that attribute BEFORE my family made TWO trips and spent half an hour looking for a cache that hadn't been physically placed yet. IF they had used the NM attribute we could have saved ourselves the trouble! :rolleyes:

Just kidding. Of course it doesn't make sense. But my story is true!

#35 User is offline   Sandy 

  • Cacher from Down Under
  • Group: Guests
  • Posts: 932
  • Joined: 01-October 01

Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:52 PM

View PostMax and 99, on 24 April 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

So do I understand correctly that if I publish a new puzzle cache, I must tell the reviewer HOW to solve the puzzle? It's not enough that he/she has the final coords? I need to provide a step-by-step explanation of how to solve the puzzle?


Correct. The reviewer is not only assessing the location of the cache itself, but assessing that the puzzle is publishable.

#36 User is offline   Sandy 

  • Cacher from Down Under
  • Group: Guests
  • Posts: 932
  • Joined: 01-October 01

Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:52 PM

Added release notes for the guidelines here.

#37 User is offline   Max and 99 

  • CONTROL's highest ranking agents
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1897
  • Joined: 18-October 06

Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:54 PM

View PostSandy, on 24 April 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

View PostMax and 99, on 24 April 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

So do I understand correctly that if I publish a new puzzle cache, I must tell the reviewer HOW to solve the puzzle? It's not enough that he/she has the final coords? I need to provide a step-by-step explanation of how to solve the puzzle?


Correct. The reviewer is not only assessing the location of the cache itself, but assessing that the puzzle is publishable.


SO not happy about this. I think I'm done with puzzle caches, then.

#38 User is offline   Sandy 

  • Cacher from Down Under
  • Group: Guests
  • Posts: 932
  • Joined: 01-October 01

Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:54 PM

View PostMax and 99, on 24 April 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

View PostSandy, on 24 April 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

View PostMax and 99, on 24 April 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

So do I understand correctly that if I publish a new puzzle cache, I must tell the reviewer HOW to solve the puzzle? It's not enough that he/she has the final coords? I need to provide a step-by-step explanation of how to solve the puzzle?


Correct. The reviewer is not only assessing the location of the cache itself, but assessing that the puzzle is publishable.


SO not happy about this. I think I'm done with puzzle caches, then.

Understood.

#39 User is offline   jholly 

  • I like the smell of a cache in the morning
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7896
  • Joined: 16-August 02

Posted 24 April 2012 - 02:03 PM

View PostSandy, on 24 April 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

View PostMax and 99, on 24 April 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

So do I understand correctly that if I publish a new puzzle cache, I must tell the reviewer HOW to solve the puzzle? It's not enough that he/she has the final coords? I need to provide a step-by-step explanation of how to solve the puzzle?


Correct. The reviewer is not only assessing the location of the cache itself, but assessing that the puzzle is publishable.

I guess I need that clarified. A reviewer may decide that the puzzle can not be solved and refused to publish it. Yet accomplished puzzle solvers would find it challenging and fun but does not get the chance because in the reviewers opinion it is unpublishable. Sounds like a wow factor to me. And then we get into just how detailed does the explanation have to be? Seems like your trying to make publishing a puzzle cache a Sisyphean task.

#40 User is offline   MightyReek 

  • GeoPT Staff
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 228
  • Joined: 01-August 07

Posted 24 April 2012 - 02:04 PM

View PostSandy, on 24 April 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

Added release notes for the guidelines here.


Great, thank you very much.

#41 User is offline   Max and 99 

  • CONTROL's highest ranking agents
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1897
  • Joined: 18-October 06

Posted 24 April 2012 - 02:11 PM

Updated text about Challenge Cache logging.

Can someone elaborate on this change? I'm having trouble finding it. What is different about Challenge Cache logging?

Thank you!

#42 User is offline   BlueRajah 

  • Signals little Crony
  • Group: Site Wide Moderators
  • Posts: 739
  • Joined: 02-June 09

Posted 24 April 2012 - 02:32 PM

View PostMax and 99, on 24 April 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

Updated text about Challenge Cache logging.

Can someone elaborate on this change? I'm having trouble finding it. What is different about Challenge Cache logging?

Thank you!


Bold are the changes.

Quote

physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the challenge tasks have been met and documented to the cache owner as per instructions on the published listing. Other than documenting a Challenge Cache, physical caches cannot require geocachers to contact anyone.


#43 User is offline   The A-Team 

  • Oh snap! ...now in HTML!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4390
  • Joined: 15-March 09

Posted 24 April 2012 - 02:33 PM

View PostMax and 99, on 24 April 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

Updated text about Challenge Cache logging.

Can someone elaborate on this change? I'm having trouble finding it. What is different about Challenge Cache logging?

The relevant guideline is here. Here's the portion relating to challenge caches:

Quote

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the challenge tasks have been met and documented to the cache owner as per instructions on the published listing. Other than documenting a Challenge Cache, physical caches cannot require geocachers to contact anyone.

and here's the previous version:

Quote

Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed. An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the challenge requirements have been met and documented to the cache owner's satisfaction.


I think it's just clarifying that physical non-challenge caches can't require contacting anyone.

#44 User is offline   Max and 99 

  • CONTROL's highest ranking agents
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1897
  • Joined: 18-October 06

Posted 24 April 2012 - 02:59 PM

Thank you!

#45 User is offline   JesandTodd 

  • Restless Soul Syndrome...
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1783
  • Joined: 16-September 09

Posted 24 April 2012 - 03:13 PM

The update caused a bit of drama on the iPhone today (or perhaps it was coincidental)

The app couldnt search for caches, was taking several mins before saying "no caches found", wouldn't refresh caches in the PQ and basically wouldn't function.

After a reboot and check of the GC status page, the app suddenly forgot who I was, and made me re-login. But after my initial login, it wanted me to log in to FB. If I didn't log in to FB then it wouldn't log me in. I quick killed the app, was finally able to log in, and now it works fine.

If this is a result of the new upgrade (likely) it would be nice to let people know that they just have to log into the app again. If I knew this, I wouldn't have wasted several minutes trying to get my app to work, waiting for it to endlessly spin...


ETA: my iPad had no problems using the app today, so it must have been a strange fluke in my iPhone that coincided with the update.

This post has been edited by JesandTodd: 24 April 2012 - 03:35 PM


#46 User is offline   AZcachemeister 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 8035
  • Joined: 09-December 02

Posted 24 April 2012 - 03:47 PM

View PostThe A-Team, on 24 April 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

10. New "Event Cache Logging Guidelines":

Quote

An event cache can be logged online if the cacher has attended the event. Event cache owners can request that cachers sign a logbook, but this is optional and cannot be a requirement for logging an event cache.



This is just plain wrong.

According to this, any jacktard can claim an attended on any event.

Period.

No need to sign the logbook as proof of attendance? Redonkulous!

'Oh, I came in through the back door and I was only there for five minutes 'cause I had to go see me mum in hospital. I guess you didn't notice I was there, but I was!'

#47 User is offline   colin&daddy 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: 06-November 03

Posted 24 April 2012 - 04:06 PM

Can't wait to see what new barrels of worms this will open. Couple of quick thoughts:

Does the Needs Maintenance warning prevent cache submission or approval?

I am not deliberately being obtuse, but if a cache is supposed to be in place to be submitted, how does one put the corresponding GC code on the container prior to placement?

This post has been edited by colin&daddy: 24 April 2012 - 04:18 PM


#48 User is offline   The A-Team 

  • Oh snap! ...now in HTML!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4390
  • Joined: 15-March 09

Posted 24 April 2012 - 04:13 PM

View Postcolin&daddy, on 24 April 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

I am not deliberately being obtuse, but if a cache is supposed to be in place to be submitted, how does one plputace the corresponding GC code on the container prior to placement?

You can create a cache listing without enabling it. That generates a GC code. Once the container is in place, you can enable the listing, which submits it for review.

#49 User is offline   IkeHurley13 

  • The Math guy
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1223
  • Joined: 26-December 08

Posted 24 April 2012 - 04:25 PM

View Postjholly, on 24 April 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

View PostSandy, on 24 April 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

View PostMax and 99, on 24 April 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

So do I understand correctly that if I publish a new puzzle cache, I must tell the reviewer HOW to solve the puzzle? It's not enough that he/she has the final coords? I need to provide a step-by-step explanation of how to solve the puzzle?


Correct. The reviewer is not only assessing the location of the cache itself, but assessing that the puzzle is publishable.

I guess I need that clarified. A reviewer may decide that the puzzle can not be solved and refused to publish it. Yet accomplished puzzle solvers would find it challenging and fun but does not get the chance because in the reviewers opinion it is unpublishable. Sounds like a wow factor to me. And then we get into just how detailed does the explanation have to be? Seems like your trying to make publishing a puzzle cache a Sisyphean task.


I read that as basically: the reviewer needs to verify that the puzzle is solvable using the information provided. So if I tried to publish this puzzle: http://coord.info/GC225VQ I would need to say that each binary number can easily be translated by hand (or web) to a letter or base ten number.

#50 User is offline   J the Goat 

  • Pasture Dweller
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1395
  • Joined: 04-June 09

Posted 24 April 2012 - 05:44 PM

View PostAZcachemeister, on 24 April 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

View PostThe A-Team, on 24 April 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

10. New "Event Cache Logging Guidelines":

Quote

An event cache can be logged online if the cacher has attended the event. Event cache owners can request that cachers sign a logbook, but this is optional and cannot be a requirement for logging an event cache.



This is just plain wrong.

According to this, any jacktard can claim an attended on any event.

Period.

No need to sign the logbook as proof of attendance? Redonkulous!

'Oh, I came in through the back door and I was only there for five minutes 'cause I had to go see me mum in hospital. I guess you didn't notice I was there, but I was!'


I agree, the event log was essentially the only requirement before, now that that's gone there's no way to keep anyone from logging any event cache they decide want to say they attended. Is there a reason for this?

Share this topic:


  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked