Search for caches that were/are also on the Geocaching Site

[pond bird]

I see some caches also on the Geocaching.com site. I may have found some Opencaches without realizing it. My suggestion is to log geocaches you found listed on the geocaching.com site also on this site automatically, or at least search for the listings.. or something?

[Mr.Yuck]

I see some caches also on the Geocaching.com site. I may have found some Opencaches without realizing it. My suggestion is to log geocaches you found listed on the geocaching.com site also on this site automatically, or at least search for the listings.. or something?

If you do actually log a cache also listed on Geocaching.com here, there is a link to the Geocaching.com listing (or Terracaching, GPSgames.org or Navicache, if it's listed there).

As webmaster, I can do a database query with "GC%" (the percent being a wild card), and I return 506 caches that have a Geocaching.com waypoint name (in the format GCXXXX) associated with them. I'm not a coder, but I don't think it's above and beyond my abilities to have them in a list, possibly organized by State. But first:

1. DG and NT, do you approve of this?
2. We don't do this for a living, so do not hesitate to remind us.

[DudleyGrunt]

I wouldn't mind folks being able to search for caches with that are listed as being crosslisted on a specific site. Clearly, having folks log them automatically when they log it on GC.com would be beyond what we could do. If we can't add it to our search options, a static link for each site we have crosslisting fields for would be a decent option. This would even help us out in possibly checking the status of these caches.

Of course, personally, I only log a crosslisted cache as a "find" on one site (notes on other(s)) - generally OCNA or other alt site. This lets me know exactly how many unique caches I've found. Of course, my good friend sfcchaz logs them on each site they're listed on. That part is just up to each cacher to figure out how they want to go about it.

[TermiteHunter]

I too would NOT want automatic logging if it were possible.

I do as DG and log on one site and post notes on the others.

The more stunning news is that 1/3 of our active caches are cross listed on GC. Press tell me that your search included inactive and or archived caches. Then it would only be 1/4 ... still too many.

Of course this sure beats the usurper opencaching site

[Mr.Yuck]

I too would NOT want automatic logging if it were possible.

I do as DG and log on one site and post notes on the others.

The more stunning news is that 1/3 of our active caches are cross listed on GC. Press tell me that your search included inactive and or archived caches. Then it would only be 1/4 ... still too many.

Of course this sure beats the usurper opencaching site

Oh, I'm sorry, that absolutely included archived caches. I would also have to do a database query for "has a GC number associated with it", *AND* has a cache status of 1 (I believe it is), which means active caches.

Little known fact, I once did an audit of all cross-listed on Geocaching.com caches, and looked at them and their Geocaching.com listings one at a time. Within the last year, this was. I archived about 12 total, I believe. The OVERWHELMING majority of GC cross-listings, I believe over half, were 2010 submissions. When this site was the new kid on the block, and hundreds, if not thousands of cachers were trying it out, so to speak.

[R of JARS]

For x-listed caches, a static link to the GC site would be nice.

I currently have 4 OCNA caches. One started off as an OCNA-only cache, then the spot opened up after a GC cache was archived, so I posted it on the GC site too, to get more visitors and maybe make more people aware of OCNA caches. I think it worked, the GC basic members who were looking for GCs in the area found that x-listed cache and also searched for the 3 OCNA-only caches in the conservation area.

[DudleyGrunt]

For x-listed caches, a static link to the GC site would be nice.

I currently have 4 OCNA caches. One started off as an OCNA-only cache, then the spot opened up after a GC cache was archived, so I posted it on the GC site too, to get more visitors and maybe make more people aware of OCNA caches. I think it worked, the GC basic members who were looking for GCs in the area found that x-listed cache and also searched for the 3 OCNA-only caches in the conservation area.

Great! Good to hear that crosslisting can work in this fashion sometimes.