user13371
-
Posts
4331 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by user13371
-
-
Actually, I don't use GSAK myself, I use other tools on the iPhone and Mac. But from experience I know GSAK and several of these tools can answer to this purpose on the user's end.... I'm tired of seeing GSAK suggested as the solution to everything. ...
I've thought about this a few times. I agree it seems like it would be a simple feature to add to the PQ generator. I really don't know why it's not in there. Groundspeak might have a business reason not to, or there might be some technical/performance issue that isn't obvious to an outsider.But ignoring a CO? Come on, that's basic stuff, probably one of the most requested features overall. -
I don't use GSAK either. On my iPhone I use Geosphere - and when I want to load caches onto my Garmin I export the subset I want as a GPX file from the phone....My primary gps remains my iPhone4, and I don't want, use, or need, GSAK for that. ... -
So... a few weeks later and I haven't personally had a chance to do side-by-side comparisons of an iPhone 4S against a 4. Anybody else have comparisons?
-
PQ space is a limited and valuable resource that I want to get the most of...since I'm paying for it.
I kinda feel the same way and do indeed "budget" my PQ usage. But whenever I put more thought to it, I feel a bit silly. PQ space is limited to 35000 caches per week, per premium membership. If I was really caching so much that this wasn't enough, and I was spending too much time trying to work around limits, I'd just buy a second premium membership.
-
Because it's the easiest way to get around the exact kind of GC.com limitations this thread was talking aboutwhy on Earth do you download 2000-3000 caches everyday?
IF the GC.com pocket query generator had more precise filters, and if I could run/download any number of queries any time I wanted, I'd just do that. But the PQ machine is limited to 5 per day and the parameters are relatively coarse.
So what's easiest for me is to run a set of 3 queries that say "Show me active traditionals which I haven't found, within 10 miles of home." I don't download them every single day, just the days I decide to go caching. Then I download the whole batch and sift it to my needs of the moment. With only 3 PQs scheduled per day, I still have a couple open spots to compose & run new a one if something different strikes me.
-
Just to qualify, roughly how many caches do you want to ignore? I think it's important to clarify the effort using the current method.
Well, I hardly ever do ignore by user, but I usually mark and segregate a few of them into a separate group that I may or may not look at on any given day. Typically download between 2000-3000 daily, and the ones I sort of ignore account for around 400-500. The numbers and specific caches do change daily.
-
Nah, I wouldn't do that...Come on, really, you knew what the answer was when you asked dfx in the first place right? You just asked to keep the argumeent going, didn't you? That's a rhetorical question, btw. I already know your answer will be started with "nah..." followed by an explanation of how you are jsut curious about how people think.
No, I really couldn't make sense of his initial remark or the ongoing complaint from DFX. There's more than one place where we can discuss "How can I accomplish this task" as well as "Shouldn't GC.com bolt this feature into the website." Threads drift all the time. What's the point of complaining about people offering ways of getting the thing done?
-
DFX & FobesMan: In this forum questions about missing features tend to be met with folks offering solutions and work arounds. But if you really want the conversation to stay strictly on the theme of "why won't the website do this for me?" the best bet would be to ask in the Geocaching Website forum.
---
Edit: Oops. Asked and answered. I typed this before reading HighHeeled Dutchess pointer to the suggestion in that forum. We now return to our scheduled program of solutions, work arounds, and people complaining that they don't want to do that.
-
That's not the point, of course there are options. But the OP isn't asking how to do it with GSAK or how to do it with any other application, the OP is asking for the feature to be implemented on the website
A valid observation, sure -- but most of the replies here have been highly relevant:
1) The feature has been asked for by users many times but GC.com hasn't implemented it.
2) In the absence of that feature, some folks might find it helpful to hear how others deal with the problem.
I'm still curious about your earlier remark that GSAK "is a non-answer for many of us." Is it really the the case that you can't run it or some other client-side filtering program? Or just that you want GC.com to offer all of GSAK's capability online (and all other options are "not the point")?
-
The (lack of) problem with my method is that I can choose to ignore or not ignore them whenever I want. I *want* all of the local/active caches in my database, even if there are some I don't care to look at today. Making my selections of the day is not such an onerous task that I'm gonna ask GC.com (or GSAK) to do it for me one time and never look at it again myself.
-
Beaverma: For reasons you've already pointed out, the eTrex 30 would make more sense. Only point the Oregon 450 has going for it is a larger screen, but touchscreen won't be as readable in some lighting conditions. Display usability is subjective, differs from one person to the next. If you can go someplace to try them both out before you buy , that's the best way to go. Alternately, if you can find a seller with a liberal return policy, buy both and return the one you don't like.
-
I an going to have to point out the erroneous info from the previous two posts. Filtering after is a waste of time. Use GSAK to fetch just the caches of the person you want to ignore and only them. After they are loaded run the ignore macro and they are added to your ignore list and will never bother you again.
Maybe we're just talking different terms or using different applications. I don't use GSAK but the end result is the same:
- Download all of the caches in my area to Geosphere on the iPhone.
- Search (filter) by cache owner/placed by names or other criteria.
- Highlight or set the ignore flag on the resulting list as needed.
My iPhone can hold thousands of caches but my eTrex 10 only holds 500. So on any given caching day I'll sift my database for just a few hundred in a given area and export that the the GPS.
-
Call Garmin again. They won't sell you one, but I betcha if you ask the right way they'll send you one for free.
Don't say you dropped it while changing batteries. Maybe the latch broke and it flew out of your hand while putting it on and you nearly fell into a canyon... etc...
-
Even for someone who says "GSAK isn't an option" -- filtering after you get the PQ is the only way to go. Whether GSAK on PC, Geosphere on iOS, iCacher on Mac, iGeoKnife with Android, etc... there ARE options.
But AZcachemeister: You're concerned that downloading caches you're gonna filter out later will take up too much space in your PQs? I'd have to see an example because I haven't got that problem (yet). I only download/refresh about 3000 a day, and the two folks I filter to ignore only take up about 450 of those spots. You could theoretically download and refresh 35000 caches over a week's time -- shoot, there's fewer than 23000 caches in the whole state of Arizona! Are there really some hiders so prolific (and ignore-worthy) that they'd be crowding out usable PQ space for you?
-
...That was my point, exactly...
Sorry, I'm not getting your point at all. Is raising a question in the forum about cache descriptions & listing practices a problem? I haven't proposed a course of action at all; just posed the question to see what other think. Why does this bother you?
-
Well, to be honest, the examples that you cited are what caused me to make that assumption.
The examples I mentioned were just ones that come to mind as potentially troublesome. Some you just wouldn't care about.
-
Well, it's just a hypothesis, nothing more. To prove it false or true, more tests needs to be done. I can post some images of tracks from last testing.
Posting "some images of tracks from last testing" will be interesting only if your testing included some scientific rigour:
- Acquire at least two identical GPS units, let's call them A & B
- Have someone else, out of your sight, put "white" batteries in unit A and "black" batteries in unit B.
- Go on a long hike carrying both.
- Copy the tracks to a computer.
- Repeat several times, with the batteries being changed by someone other than you, sometimes switching which GPS gets the black or white batteries, and keeping track of which runs were made with which batteries.
- Analyze the tracks
It's important that YOU personally don't know which battery type is in which unit while in use OR while initially analyzing the tracks. Then if you -- or even better, someone else -- can analyze the tracks later, and consistently identify which tracks were recorded using which battery type, then you might be approaching proof. Be prepared to have other scrutinize your methodology and results.
Got anything like that?
-
Still policing caches, huh?
Not at all, just raising the question about what others do. I know the predictable responses (Ignore it, log a note, email the CO, email the reviewer, insult the questioner); but I'm more interested to see if there's any majority view on it.
-
I have the issue with white eneloops...
Paint them black.
Aarrghh! We have gone beyond silly and are now well inside the borders of cuckoo land. Show me proof that the brand of battery - or even color of the casings of a given brand of battery - makes a difference in how often your GPS updates its position, and I'll buy you a 4-pack of your favorite AA cells. Thing is, most of the people claiming this wouldn't know what real proof was if it jumped up and bit them on the nose. "It seemed to work better with brand X batteries" is not proof, that's wishful thinking and selective observation. Not eligible for this offer, void where prohibited by law.
-
What do you do when you come across a cache that has incorrect attributes in the listing, particularly some that could get someone hurt or in trouble? Examples I can cite locally would be the "24/7" attribute caches in a park with posted hours, or "Recommended for kids" in what's actually bad location.
-
Perhaps at the margin, but with a decent constellation providing decent PDOP, which is the case most of the time, I don't see GLONASS improving on the accuracy.
Chris, that's what I thought at first too. After using the eTrex 10 for a few weeks while, I've concluded otherwise.
I don't think it's the GLONASS by itself makes much of a difference; the system isn't fully populated yet. But I do think using the combination of both GPS and GLONASS pretty much ensures you always have a large set of satellites in view with a favorable, well-placed geometry. I'm seeing a lot more fixes with accuracy figures in the single digits than I used to on my eTrex Legend HCx or my DeLorme PN-40. Both in geocaching and visits to previously marked, known locations.
On the down-side, I have noticed the ocassional slowness to update while moving (what some folks have called "stickiness"). Sometimes you can "unstick" it by asking it to average a waypoint
Expect this will eventually improve with firmware updates.Also, the screen is a bit on the small side. Not problem for me but may bother some.
Relevant to the OP's question, this is certainly on of the most accurate handhelds I've ever had, and with paperless caching at MSRP of $119 I think it's the best low-end entry for geocacaching.
-
Robert: Big improvement on rendering GPX into KML in Google Earth - thanks. I replaced the gpsbabel resource in my copy of Google Earth and it's snazzy!
-
Track amazon sales history at CamelCamelCamel. Like this, and you can also compare Amazon historical pricing to other vendors and used trends.
-
...the one that went to the Apple Store ... was told it was no charge.
Good to know!
The cheap DIY work well for the older 3 series, but on the 4 & 4s I believe you also have to replace the display as well as the glass/digitizer as they are 1 piece.Yeah, that one is a little more expensive. And even at that I myself would opt to let the Apple store repair a newer one, because it's trickier to take apart now. Even the screws are funky -- pentalobe on newest ones, instead of just 000 tiny phillips head.
if you own one, get a cover, a screen protector and the "Find My iPhone" app.I go one step further: My "lock screen" says "If found, please call ..." and lists an alternate phone number for me, and also says "This device tracked using Find my iPhone".
should we have a ignore all caches by x
in General geocaching topics
Posted · Edited by Portland Cyclist
To me the "plain" (new? naive?) user is ready for 3rd party tools at about the same time they start realizing the limitations of the built-in PQ generator. No matter how much GC.com builds in, someone is going to want some other feature and the answer is still gonna be "Here are some additional tools you can run on your own computer to do that..."
I like some of NorthernPenguin's example -- an "ignore user" feature does seems simple enough. And if/when GC adds it, next week someone will be asking "Why can the 'caches along a route' generator be expanded to also do 'caches within a polygon'?". I guarantee you that the first person to ask will hear "Well, GC.com won't do that for us yet, but for now there's this nifty tool called GSAK..."