What do you wish you saw on gc.com?

[sweech]

How about this one…email notifications set up to notify by hider. For instance, I would set one up to notify me when marc places a cache so I knew when new 900s come out.

[-cheeto-]

After speaking with others this weekend, I have decided one of the things I would like is to clearly delineate between a multi cache that has something to solve — kinda like a ahem, puzzle (math involving a plaque, math involving a headstone, some sort of offset navigation, etc) versus a multi cache where you find a container with coords to another container. Whether it was a mandate on switching all the multi’s like this to puzzle or whether it would be the ability of categorizing multi’s, that could be debated but some indication for those doing caches in an area would be helpful to many. Especially those who are newer.

I have more but wanted to share this one since it was fresh in my memory banks.

[gotta run]

Yes, cheeto, that would be very helpful. We’ve had newer people get stuck on offset WSQs b/c they were looking for a container. So we’ve started to put “offset” in the title.

The problem is offsets are clearly deliniated as multis, but sometimes people (including us) publish them as puzzles, particulary if they are more involved/difficult.

It seems we could really use a traditional multi (w/containers) and an offset multi. Or maybe you could have “Multi,” “Field Solve” and “Mystery”

On the Left Side of the Road...

[Barry Butrymowicz]

How about a simple ZIP code the cache is in

Would be nice to center a hunt around a cache

(and before you all say it I know you can center it on a cache

[Sparse Grey Hackle]

@RSplash40 wrote:

brain with a question mark in it: A “Try and figure out what I’m thinking to solve this!” Puzzle

Ditto.

Or, how about a symbol for, “my final coords are still going to be 70 – 150 feet off from GZ (plus or minus) one you do get that solved.”

Maybe something like a GPSr that is split in half with jagged edges or something. Just a thought.

Then again, I like that animated head banging graphic in front of the computer.

[gotta run]

@Sparse Grey Hackle wrote:

Or, how about a symbol for, “my final coords are still going to be 70 – 150 feet off from GZ (plus or minus) one you do get that solved.”

We’ve seldom seen any caches that far off. Usually they’re right on the marc.

On the Left Side of the Road...

[JimandLinda]

Nice bookends! 😉

[benny7210]

@gotta run wrote:

We’ve seldom seen any caches that far off. Usually they’re right on the marc.

OMG How true!! 😳 😳

[seldom|seen]

@benny7210 wrote:

@gotta run wrote:

We’ve seldom seen any caches that far off. Usually they’re right on the marc.

OMG How true!! 😳 😳

If the reviewers would give me a small degree of latitude on the 528′ guideline (read “rule”) then maybe my cords could have a much higher degree of accuracy. Until then you’ll have to take what you can get or just ignore mine altogether. If it bothers you that much, don’t do em…

[seldom|seen]

I digressed…

Came in to suggest adding some function to cache listings that would allow an owner to download a “Current HTML” file for backups. I recently overwrote a listing by accidentally copy/pasting and had nothing to fall back on. Would have been nice to simply reload the listing with an archived file. Not sure how this would be accomplished with all of the listing components, but it sure would make me feel better. With 204 complicated listings, I sometimes lie awake wondering when the GC server is going to go down and loose everything. I do hope there is a STRONG and reliable backup strategy in place…

[K0rpl]

@seldom|seen wrote:

@benny7210 wrote:

@gotta run wrote:

We’ve seldom seen any caches that far off. Usually they’re right on the marc.

OMG How true!! 😳 😳

If the reviewers would give me a small degree of latitude on the 528′ guideline (read “rule”) then maybe my cords could have a much higher degree of accuracy. Until then you’ll have to take what you can get or just ignore mine altogether. If it bothers you that much, don’t do em…

I guess, I am not sure why the reviewers should bend the rules for certain cachers, and not others. I guess, I don’t see why a cache would need to be placed if it is not 528 Feet or more from another cache…… Rules are rules

[gotta run]

@K0rpl wrote:

Rules are rules

This is getting OT and I can’t speak for s|s, but I believe the point is that the guidelines state: “The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 m) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline.”

It is also a guideline that is and has been bent for others.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled “What do you wish you saw on gc.com?” thread…

On the Left Side of the Road...

[seldom|seen]

@K0rpl wrote:

I guess, I am not sure why the reviewers should bend the rules for certain cachers, and not others. I guess, I don’t see why a cache would need to be placed if it is not 528 Feet or more from another cache…… Rules are rules

And just to clarify, we’re not talking about a huge derivation either. I often find myself working around the 500-528′ range and when a cache doesn’t get published because it’s 510 or 514′ from the next one, that just seems a little stringent, particularly when the placement of the cache is predetermined. If it’s less then 500′ I’ll concede to the reviewers, but a difference of 28’… is it really that critical to abide by the 528 guideline?

[-cheeto-]

Most geocaches have coords that are not really exact anyway… I don’t see any issues with the 20 feet of “cushion” Alex is asking for.

There was a similar thread on the main geocaching forum about “what would you like changed about the website” and I posted (a rare occurrence for me on those threads as it’s usually not a worthwhile endeavor) that I would like the .1 rule to be modified to something lower. There was an immediate rush of negative posts saying quite the opposite. Some wanted it RAISED to .5!!

The main reason I stated this opinion was because it would allow new and creative hides in places that could hold a geocache and still not impact or disrupt another nearby geocache. 528 feet? Why so much??

There were 2 temp caches at the WGA camp-out (I hid one and Brian hid one) that were like 150 feet apart. 2 totally different environments and 2 totally different items being highlighted. You would never stumble on the one searching for the other (unless you are Sagasu or perhaps Marc searching for a puzzle that you don’t know the exact coords for)

Now I am not saying allow 150 feet apart. I am just saying that if you took the limit even down to 350 – 400 feet it would allow more creative hides in certain areas and it would certainly not overcrowd anymore in the crowded areas anyway. Most of those overcrowded areas it wouldn’t matter because if you cover every .1 circle in the park, lowering won’t matter. However, it would allow for an additional hide here and there that could be a great caching experience.

I am all for change that benefits someone. This type of rule change would hurt almost no one and benefit the community as there would be a few more to hunt near home.

Some on the other forum argued “show me a location that you can’t place another cache with the existing .1 rule”… I never replied but I would like to say that you are missing the point of my post if this is your knee-jerk response. It’s not about me “finding a spot for a cache”. It’s about cache owners and hiders being able to hide some additional caches in certain locations and the whole community benefiting from more caches to find. Yeah you might get more lamp skirts and guard rails and garbage cans but you will also get more COTM’s and creative fun containers and challenging puzzles along with those.

Some cache owners know how to slightly bend the rules. For instance, make a puzzle cache that forces you to go to that location you want to bring them to and get some piece of information. If the “view” was so great they will still get the view while getting that bit of info from the plaque there as well. Then just hide the cache somewhere else.

However, this doesn’t necessarily work if you A. You don’t want to publish puzzles. B. The spot you have picked to hide a physical container is so awesome but its 429 feet from a lame guard rail cache owned by someone who’s no longer active on the website.

One great thing we are doing as a group (thanks to Deejay and the helm) is making sure that caches owned by inactive owners and need maintaining eventually go away and make room for others to hide new caches in the area.

[-cheeto-]

I would like to see the ability for a cache owner to set an expiration date on a new cache to change the game around a little bit.

Folks would then be competing for LTF and FTF.

Keep the same stance on “cache permanence” as we do today for new hides but have an additional field (a date and time) that can be entered at the publish of a new cache that allows the owner to start a ticking clock. The clock shows on the cache page in your local time if you visit the page.

This would be especially fun on tough to solve puzzle caches.

The owner would be notified when the cache expires and sent a link to archive the cache or “make the cache permanent” if they so choose.

[Author]

Posts