MnGCA Home MnGCA
Minnesota Geocaching Association
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   User listUser list   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

MN cache reviewing
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    MnGCA Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Boreal Walker
Geocacher


Joined: 14 Aug 2008

Posts: 228

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BobboTeam wrote:
What I really meant to be asking is: Why on earth would anyone report a Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived log for a cache they had not actually visited?


You are looking at caches to do over the weekend and notice a 1.5/1.5 PnG has ten DNFs. One might log a NM log to get the attention of the CO without actually visiting the physical site.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BobboTeam
Geocacher


Joined: 11 Jun 2006

Posts: 29

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Boreal Walker wrote:
BobboTeam wrote:
What I really meant to be asking is: Why on earth would anyone report a Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived log for a cache they had not actually visited?


You are looking at caches to do over the weekend and notice a 1.5/1.5 PnG has ten DNFs. One might log a NM log to get the attention of the CO without actually visiting the physical site.

To be honest, that is what I had been thinking. In my own case, I visited all the caches I listed here, but I can actually conceive of circumstances when I might not. Based on your earlier (and appreciated) comment, I'm fairly certain you and I have a similar attitude toward how and when to log a Needs Maintenance log.

However, the notes from MN.Fruitcake in this thread seemed to imply that Needs Archived logs under those circumstances would not be treated as seriously by the reviewer(s).

I'm genuinely trying to puzzle this out here, because your logic appears sound.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
knowschad
Geocacher


Joined: 20 Jun 2005

Posts: 470

PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the last couple of pages could probably be spun off into a thread of its own. Good stuff!

I tend to lean more to the side of BobboTeam here, in so far as I have been seeing a serious reluctance to post NM logs on caches that obviously need it. Minnesota "nice" doesn't work here. If you see a cache in need of maintenance, log it as such. That is what that option is there for! I have found caches with a half dozen or more logs mentioning soaked containers and unsignable logs without as much as a single NM log being posted.

While it isn't require of them, at least one of our reviewers has been doing searches for caches with ignored NM logs and disabling them with a warning of archival. Post your NM logs!

And (to state the obvious) NA logs do not mean that you are demanding that a cache be archived. All it means is that you feel that you have sufficient reason to let the reviewers know about the cache. They are the ones that will make the decision to archive, and they won't do it simply because you said so. So, if you see a problem that probably won't be addressed by the cache owner, by all means, post an NA.

Now, I will add that you may occasionally be mistaken. Just because a cache owner hasn't logged in for a year or two does not mean that they are not watching their emails. Case in point, see my log dated today on this cache: http://coord.info/GC1WPZK I guess I could have used a bit more "Minnesota nice" in my log, but it had been two years since the cache owner had logged in.
_________________
Alcohol & calculus don't mix. Don't drink & deriv
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gat R Done
Minnesota Reviewer


Joined: 29 Dec 2011

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As you most likely have seen, Groundspeak introduced a new planning map: http://www.geocaching.com/hide/planning.aspx

To help improve the information for non-Traditional cache placements, Groundspeak is asking that an Additional Waypoint (AW) is included with the following cache types when submitting for Review.

While this may sound complicated, all you are doing is making it apparent whether posted coordinates for your cache are physical or virtual.

The important thing to remember is if your starting location is a 'Physical' placement or 'Virtual' location. If there is anything placed at the location (i.e. not pre-existing) that location would be a 'Physical' waypoint. If you are using something what was already there (sign, counting something, etc), the location would be 'Virtual'.

- Multi - Include a 'Question to Answer (QtoA) waypoint at posted coordinates if the location is virtual or a 'Stage of a Multicache' (SoaM) waypoint at posted coordinates if there is a physical placement.
- Puzzle/Mystery (Unknown) - Include a QtoA hidden 'Reference Point' waypoint if the posted coordinates are virtual/bogus or a SoaM waypoint at posted coordinates if there is something physical placed at that location. As always, a Final waypoint will be needed for the location of the actual cache container.
- Challenge cache - If true location is at posted coordinates, use a Final waypoint at that spot. If true location is elsewhere, then a Reference Point waypoint should be created at the posted coordinates and a Final waypoint for the location of the actual cache container.
- Letterbox Hybrid - Same rules as a multi.

The only reason these waypoints should be visible if they contain information needed or useful for finders. Otherwise, the waypoints should be hidden.

When you're finished adding all the waypoint information, press the "Create Waypoint" button. Do not press the "Archive Waypoint" button, that will make the waypoint disappear!

There may be some minor additions or revisions to the above as questions arise or clarification is needed. If any are made, I'll include a note as to what changed.

And one last thing: It would be very helpful if you go through any of your published caches and make the above updates.

Thanks!

Edited Unknown to agree with Groundspeak's Knowledge Book


Last edited by Gat R Done on Sun Mar 30, 2014 7:40 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pfalstad
Geocacher


Joined: 02 Feb 2006

Posts: 1011

PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wait, so if we have published puzzles where the posted coordinates are bogus (as they almost always are), we need to go to each one and create a new QtoA waypoint with the same coordinates as the posted coordinates for each one? It does look like mystery cache posted coordinates are already being handled properly (they're not showing up on the planning map)...?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Gat R Done
Minnesota Reviewer


Joined: 29 Dec 2011

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent question. I'm looking into it and will post an answer as soon as I find out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gat R Done
Minnesota Reviewer


Joined: 29 Dec 2011

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The answer is that for Puzzles and Letterbox's, physical waypoints currently do not display red circles on the planning map. But those waypoints will be used for future updates to the planning map.

One thing I found out about Multi's; If you use a SoaM waypoint for a physical hide at the posted coordinates, it will display a red circle even when the waypoint is hidden.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gat R Done
Minnesota Reviewer


Joined: 29 Dec 2011

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2014 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since the newest Cache Submission form now asks if your posted coordinates are 'virtual' or 'physical', it is no longer necessary to include an additional waypoint.

I want to Thank those of you who added waypoints the their during this transition.

At this point (and this may change in the future) you can go to the 'edit' screen for your puzzles, multis, etc. and identify the posted coordinates as 'virtual' or 'physical'. Remember: The location is 'virtual' only if nothing was placed there. IE: The location is 'bogus' or finders use something pre-existing to solve a puzzle or find coordinates for the next location. If you placed anything there it is a 'physical' location.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AustinMN
Geocacher


Joined: 21 Mar 2012

Posts: 110

PostPosted: Fri Aug 15, 2014 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is there a new MN reviewer? Or maybe covering for reviewers on Vacation? I just got notice of a cache in Anoka County, and the reviewer is someone I've never heard of before.

http://coord.info/GC59JJT

The reviewer's profile mentions New Mexico and Colorado, but not Minnesota.

Austin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AerosmithPA
MnGCA President


Joined: 19 Nov 2005

Posts: 1094

PostPosted: Fri Aug 15, 2014 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Appears to me another reviewer covering for our reviewer's vacation, backlog, whichever. The reviewers seem to do a good job of covering areas outside of their home area so everyone can enjoy their life outside volunteering once in awhile.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
XHawk
Geocacher


Joined: 30 Oct 2007

Posts: 53

PostPosted: Fri Aug 15, 2014 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've noticed Lord Stirling filling in as of late, but Alpine Reviewer is new to me too.
There is a challenge(s) for finding caches by a certain number of different reviewers. So this is a chance to get one step closer to a goal. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
schmittfamily
Geocacher


Joined: 21 Sep 2012

Posts: 113

PostPosted: Fri Aug 15, 2014 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So now that cache helps with two challenges....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grey Wolf and Wild Rice
Geocacher


Joined: 31 May 2005

Posts: 380

PostPosted: Fri Aug 15, 2014 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I heard the gator was hungry and in search of fish on some pond up north.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    MnGCA Forum Index -> General All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Page 8 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Geocaching Cache Icons, Copyright 2009, Groundspeak Inc. All rights reserved. Used with Permission.