Enchanted Shadow

Thank you, everyone, for your help and advice! To clarify, I am looking for the mathematics that will yield the greatest precision. I don't like methods that end up rounding, or making approximations. So, none of the "assume the world is flat" methods will work for me. Robert Lipe's link has been the most helpful so far. With it, I was able to grab formula to calculate the exact distance between two points, as well as the exact coordinates of a third point at any percentage of distance between two other points. I'm in the process of making a central set of geocaching tools in a VBA Excel spreadsheet, and I've implemented what I've found so far. (And this way, I never have to do them by hand again! ) But that being said, of the examples I gave in my original post, the second and third items are still unresolved. i.e.: ----------------- 2. Finding the coordinates of a point equidistant from three other points. 3. Finding the coordinates of the intersecting point of three circles, where the circles are of *differing* radiuses centered on three seperate sets of coordinates. ----------------- I'm not sure if the formula I need are actually on the Aviation Formulary page. If they are, I'm not immediately discerning them. Does anyone know if they're there? Or if not, then where I might find the formula in question? I'm continuing to search for them, but coordinate geometry ON a sphere is tricky to find, needless to say. p.s. Thanks again for all your help!!!!!

I have a specific need at the moment, which has led to a general question as well. To start with the specific - I need to calculate the exact coordinates of a point halfway between two other points. I've tried searching through Google for help with this (since the board's Search function is disabled at the moment), but the few answers I found were not written very clearly. Since this involves somewhat complex calculations (Great Circle Formula, etc...), clarity is vital. Does anyone have a good reference for the mathematics needed for this type of calculation? Now, that being asked, that leads me to a more general question... Are there any good references or programs for GPS coordinate based mathematics in general? For example: 1. Finding the coordinates of the midpoint between two points 2. Finding the coordinates of a point equidistant from three other points. 3. Finding the coordinates of the intersecting point of three circles, where the circles are of *differing* radiuses centered on three seperate sets of coordinates. 4. Etc... I must admit, I was a little surprised to find so few resources along these lines... But then again, it's always possible that I hadn't yet been working with the right search terms... Any help that can be provided (either with my specific or general question), would be appreciated!

I think that *both* numbers should be listed, as they both have their uses.

I noticed that there have been new releases of GPS Babel (1.2.7) as well as GSAK (6.0.2) since you mentioned this. Do the new versions of both have the ability to correctly deal with this issue?

Right, but the GPX file is fine - it contains the data I want mapped to the Description field. The problem is *not* in transferring the data to a GPS. The problem is when GPSBabel is converting that GPX file to a CSV file. Which means the problem is exactly that GPSBabel is mapping the wrong tag into the Description field of the CSV file. Shouldn't we be able to workaround this problem via the Style File?

I just took a look at a sample GPX file that GSAK generates during a Custom Export, and what I found is that there is one "<desc>" tag used in the header, which is <desc>Geocache file generated by GSAK</desc> And after that, the <desc> tags are used only once per Waypoint - and is correctly set from the "Waypoint description" field within GSAK. And if there's only one <desc> tag per waypoing, I wouldn't think that there would be a problem with GPSBabel parsing this properly. Am I missing something?

I have to admit, I don't really see a whole lot of ambiguity here - insofar as doing a Custom Export from within GSAK. When you do any export from GSAK, one of the fields in the dialog box is "Waypoint description format". When you export via any of the other formats (the ones I've tested, anyway), that "Waypoint description format" field maps directly to the Description field in the export file. However, when doing a Custom Export, the "Waypoint description format" field is effectively ignored and is replaced with a second copy of the Cache Name - even though the information does exist within the GPX file that GSAK generates for GPSBabel to process. To the point of view of a GSAK user trying to export, that seems to be a pretty clear bug.

I don't see why the two have to be mutually exclusive. In the annals of history, the desire to change people's thinking without the passion to fuel it, and the intellect to temper it - rarely survived long enough to do any good.

Actually, I still do need GPSBabel to process the Waypoint Description (as entered through GSAK) correctly. As we discussed it, you were going to "think on that one to come up with an appropriately brilliant solution". You also discussed the possibility of adding an option for a future version to not favor the Groundspeak names - but I never heard anything further, so I don't know what you decided or when you might be making any changes.

You never specifically advocated for not slaughtering puppies and kittens just for fun - but I didn't make any assumptions just because it wasn't stated... I take no issue with voluntary responsibility. I only take issue with mandatory enforced responsibility (in this particular set of circumstances). I never vilified and dehumanized the land managers. But it's not the individual park rangers that set this permit system in place, is it? Heck, they didn't even know what people were talking about until they were sent the formal notification from those who did implement it. As for the Park Supervisors - yes it's possible that they might bend the rules. But that doesn't negate the fact that these rules were set up in the first place. It's like saying "Well, citizens are no longer allowed to enjoy ice cream - but if you're really good, your local beat cop *might* make an exception." Well, that's nice - but it's not really good enough, is it? As was said in Law & Order... "Ah, the Patriot Act. I read that under it's original title - 1984."

I never advocated a lack of responsibility and common sense. However, you fulfill the definition of sheep very well, if you believe that only regulation can bring about these qualities. (not meant as harsh as it may sound) That is not going to reduce regulation. Once it's in the beaurocracy, it becomes *very* difficult to remove. And although the NYS permits are currently free of charge, I am not naive enough to believe that no one has intentions of enforcing a fee once the practice of permits has become commonplace. It's not difficult to circulate cache info among private circles. Like any underground activity, this would restrict it's size from what it otherwise could be publicly - but it's not difficult at all. Honestly, what does it take for you to email 50 people you know personally with your own cache info, and for them to do the same in return? Cute. But calling an adage a "law" doesn't make it so. And the flaws in that "law's" logic are obvious. I agree with you wholeheartedly that it is definitely easier said than done. I never said it would be easy. But if enough people tire of the regulation and enforcement, it will come about. History is ripe with such events. As for the rants - I realize that things may be changing due to the Patriot Act. But at least in theory, we still have freedom of speech - so you should get used to it. Although I'm sure that many people spoke your very words about those pesky King speeches... And what gives you the idea that I have only 4 months and 10 finds worth of experience? Simply because that's all that I've logged *here*? Tsk, tsk. Put a copyright and trademark on a new name of "hide and go seek" if you will - but it's still "hide and go seek". (Not meant as a direct analogy to geocaching - although the similarity is striking)

Dead in the black! Thank you. So then all those cache owners gave YOU the data to play with?? No they listed it on Groundspeak - it is GC.com data - read the user license....... All those cache owners gave the data to ALL of us. Not specifically to Groundspeak. They SHARED it. Geocaching.com just lists them. It's the cache owners who find the spot, it's the cache owners who front the money and supplies. It's the cache owners who maintain their property. And it's the cache owners who decide to share their time and efforts with other *people* with like interests. So, yeah, as far as I'm concerned, GC.com doesn't own the data - the cachers do.

That's right, I *am* paying for it. And that gives me the right to state my opinion on the value of what I'm getting for my money. Just as it gives you that right as well. *Maybe* if I could get 17,500 caches in one shot, it would be better. But right now, in order to get a simple 100 mile radius, I need TEN queries! Not only that, but I had to take the time and effort to figure out how to divide up that simple 100 mile radius into ten queries so that I wouldn't get any overlap. I *should* be able to do a simple query like that in ONE shot. *Not* ten. And since there are always new caches coming up, I have to periodically go back and tweak all ten queries so that I'm getting the full coverage of that particular set with no overlap. I don't call jumping through hoops like that in order to deal with this system's deficiencies which I'm paying for, generous.

i think you will find the cache owners own the caches and give the data on there position to Groundspeak for hosting / sharing with other cachers. So the cache owners own the source data. Dead in the black! Thank you.

Just because I've found 10, doesn't mean that I've only looked for 10. Just because I've logged 10, doesn't mean that I've only found 10. Just because I've found 10 doesn't mean that I don't play a part on helping others select what caches *they* might be interested in. And just because I've found 10 doesn't mean that those were 10 *random* choices. (Moral: Don't judge someone by an online stat) I like a large selection from which I can choose based on whatever criteria may apply at the time. I *don't* always know where I'm going to be. I can, and have, traveled 300 miles away on whim, and I need offline access. Therefore, I have every right to claim what *my* needs are. If yours are different - that's fine. But *you* don't create the standard for everyone else, just as *I* don't do the same. Can you not respect different needs and a different way of doing things?

It would be generous if they were giving it away for free. I'm *paying* for it. Therefore, as a paying customer, I think I have the right to use the data for personal purposes however I feel like. Just as you do. If you don't have the need for more than 500 per day - hey, that's okay. But don't use that as an excuse to tell me what *I* do or don't need. That's all.

Screwdrivers aren't *designed* to be hit with a hammer either - but mechanics and engineers have found it very useful to do so in certain circumstances for over a hundred years. I'm not a sheep to only do what someone tell me to. I experiment, I learn, and I find the best way to do things given my goal, tools, and circumstances at hand. *You* may directly go caching with the data. *I* don't. And there's nothing wrong with that. I don't just sit at home and manipulate it on my PC. I bring my database with me on my laptop. And at any point, no matter where I travel, I can do a custom search on my laptop and load a new and unique set of waypoints on to my GPS. On the fly. Perhaps even in my car. I can also pre-plan at home, or in a hotel room. I can use GSAK to do Full Text searches - something that Geocaching.com does NOT support. Or all sorts of other custom searches that you can't do on geocaching.com. And when I decide that - just for the heck of it - I'm going to drive 200 miles in a particular direction, I know that I've got the data on my own PC to support that choice, insofar as geocaching goes. You try all that with your method. You won't get very far. So what's so inferior about my own methodology?

I could certainly use more, and it has nothing to do with how many I can get in a day. I have my own offline database which I use for various reasons. (i.e. don't always have an internet connection, Geocaching.com isn't always up and/or running at an acceptable speed, I can do more complicated and in depth searches offline than through Geocaching.com, etc...). Restricting the number of waypoints for non-paying members is understandeable. But as a paying member, I shouldn't need 4-5 days to update my information. I understand if you do things differently, but please understand that not everyone Geocaches in the same way - and there's nothing wrong with that.

Unfortunately, with rare exceptions, local and county parks don't offer the terrain, scenery and large, unbroken swaths of land that many of us geocachers enjoy. Not only that, but it's also a matter of logistics. Parks don't get created overnight. On the other hand, people can switch how or where they are performing an activity at a moment's notice. Path of least resistance means that it's more likely that geocachers will simply start congregating elsewhere, where they aren't being as strictly regulated. If working with Geocaching.com became that difficult, I would certainly switch to a site that emphasized individual freedoms and less enforcement where it wasn't their job to do so.

You know, that wouldn't be bad for a last resort, if it weren't for the fact that cache descriptions frequently don't list things like indoor locations because they want it to be a surprise.

Oh, I realize that they're definitely on the rare side. But I think more of them exist than you might realize - admittedly, depending on where in the country we're talking about. But aside from that, if they were that easy to find, I wouldn't have posted a thread asking for recommendations, would I?

How many people here have agreed with the current limitations? The "no more than 20 ft from a trail" rule? The "no more than 5 caches per region" rule? And all the others? Regulating the placement of caches IS regulating geocaching to a large degree. And after all, we're not talking about private property. We're talking about *public* parks. Public means open to everyone. And as such, as long as we're not making a negative impact, they should just leave us be. If a ranger *does* see a cache that is making a negative impact, they are free to remove it and contact the owner. But otherwise, the whole permit system is ridiculous. That type of reasoning doesn't fly. You can always find good and bad examples of everything. If you want to bring in the world of P2P, than I would say consider what's happening in the French courts. The president of the french magistrates union is openly advocating decriminalizing online trading. Saying effectively "look what happened to napster", you might as well say "look at what happened when Jews fought against Hitler" - and argue that therefore you shouldn't fight back against an oppressive and evil regime. Sorry, but just because a fight happens to be an uphill battle doesn't mean that it shouldn't be fought.

It's not a bad idea, and I already do that to an extent. But sometimes you just have the itch to go out and bag some, you know? And it's specifically because I *have* seen appropriate caches, that I'm asking if anyone else knows of any that they'd like to list.

Well, I'll just state a few opinions here, and we'll see how much flaming comes up for it... 1. I personally do not believe that Geocaching should be regulated by any Government Agency (Federal, State, City, etc...). I see it as a private interest and activity of the people - NOT as a city/state/federal *sanctioned* activity. In my personal opinion - it's none of their flipping business. 2. I personally do not believe that Geocaching.com should be enforcing any such regulations. I think that Geocaching.com should state clearly that each person to place a cache is responsible for making sure that they are following any applicable laws, and that all Geocaching.com is doing is simply listing coordinates and info. Because what is the eventual fallout? There will be more and more regulation. More and more cachers will say "screw it, this is too much flipping effort, and I'm tired of people telling me I have to follow increasingly restrictive rules that *make no sense*." More people will be inclined to follow their own common sense of where to place caches that will not get in the way of the environment - but if Geocaching.com is enforcing every beaurocrat's wishlist of what NOT to allow us to do, geocaching as an activity will simply go more and more underground - and some other website will become the new standard. Precisely because they will say "you are all responsible for making sure you're in the clear. We just list 'em". Flame away.

Most of the time, I can dive into the nasty stuff along with everyone else. But every now and then, it's not such a great idea. I wanted to find out which caches could be done during those times.