Why on the Hidden date report do I see results for caches I've already found?

Question

Running the Report - Hidden Date with the parameters

• Cache location: United Kingdom
• Profile name: mcaddy
• Center location: N 52° 14.266 W 000° 57.126
• Max distance (km): 65
• Loop: 2

I'm getting suggestions for caches I've already found.

Why?

Comments

I don't see that. Did you find them recently? You can also filter out the found caches by clicking on the geocaching icon and then the smile icon.

---

I get the same with some caches and it is not caused by what Jukuje is suggesting because it are caches which I have found as far back as 3 year ago. The filter already shows them since it was introduced. There are always some and they are the same caches.

In the First loop there are non. In the other loops they are appearing.

---

Cache was found back in 2013.

I get that i can filter them out but the point of the report is to identify new caches to help fill subsequent grids, it seems odd for them to be there in the first place.

---

Using your figures it shows (as at today) 42 caches in the selected area. does your problem still exist?If so, which of those 42 have you already found? a couple of examples would be sufficient.

---

The bug is still there I loaded 102 caches in the VGPS and 7 of them I have already found but I still have to find a cache hidden on that date for my third loop.

My way of dealing with this problem is just cancelling them out of my VGPS before downloading the file

---

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC38TMV_woughton-park appears in the 42 caches but was found by me back in 2013

Answer 1

I am seeing the same problem, that caches I have found many months ago show up in the list.

Answer 2

Because you're searching for a second loop, caches found which were used for the first loop will be found when searching for the gaps in the second loop.

The tool only claims to show you which caches will fill spots in the calendar. The fact that you've already used those caches to fill those spots on previous loops doesn't change the fact that they will fill those spots.

Comments

that seems to be correct, but is NOT what I believe people are expecting! We can't ( or at least I wouldn't) go back and claim those same caches for the second loop, so they should be excluded from the subsequent loops.