Enchanted Shadow
-
Posts
166 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Enchanted Shadow
-
-
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 just added an "ignore_gs_name" suboption to the GPX reader to let you give preferecne to <desc>. You can get it now from the CVS tree if you can build from source or it'll be in the next beta. No, I don't have a schedule for that yet.
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?
-
Style files let you control the mappings for something-separated data such as tab separated or comma separated. The input data in question is GPX which isn't an xsv format.
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?
-
...and if GSAK were GPSBabel's only user, it really would be as simple as you describe.
But as long as Groundspeak is glomming five different fields into <desc> while using a sensible name in <Groundspeak:name> and GSAK is allowing you to modify <desc> but not <Groundspeak:name> there is ambiguity.
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?
-
"Correctly" is in the eye of the beholder. There are multiple names given to GPSBabel and they're different. It has to pick one. It's just a "too many watches" problem and we have to figure out how to decide either which is the most correct or give you the option of telling it which you want.
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.
-
We can rail against the machine, or we can try to change people's thinking. I've tried both over the years and found the latter more effective at promoting change!
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.
-
Problem #1 is becuase Groundspeak:name is preferred as a "stronger" name over desc which is what he's modifying. I can't recall the precise closure on this, but I think I recall the OP walking away happy once it was analyzed.
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.
-
My point is that you never advocated for individual responsibility - just against any form of guidelines. It's the distinction between libertarianism and anarchy.
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...
Actually, I advocate voluntary compliance with guidelines developed for and by geocachers (not a listing site or government agency), as a means to avoid more regulation and roll back some that are already in place.
Since taking that sheepish position, I've been blasted by pseudo-libertarians because I advocate freedom and personal responsibility, while some among the geocaching.com "powers that be" have taken cheap shots at me, presumably because voluntary guidelines developed by the geocaching community threaten their monopoly on deciding what's good and right. Makes one's head spin.
I take no issue with voluntary responsibility. I only take issue with mandatory enforced responsibility (in this particular set of circumstances).
In working with Park Supervisors and other land managers, I've found them to be very reasonable people willing to bend or change the rules to the benefit of responsible geocachers. We have to be careful not to use too broad a brush to tar the "bureaucrats".
I also witnessed New York Admin's successful advocacy with NYS DEC earlier this year that resulted in DEC reversing it's de facto ban on geocaching and return to allowing unregulated geocaching on most DEC lands.
The evidence shows that vilifying and dehumanizing land managers doesn't reduce regulations - but educating and working with them does.
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?
That Partiot Act mentality really is insidious - it has people arguing for and against free speech in the same post!
As was said in Law & Order... "Ah, the Patriot Act. I read that under it's original title - 1984."
-
You're not the first to launch this pseudo-libertarian diatribe. It's pseudo-libertarian because your argument is all "freedom" and no "responsibility". The lack of common sense and responsible behavior (the "all freedom and no responsibility" attitude) is one reason for the increased regulation of geocaching.
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)
If you want to reduce regulation, consider promoting responsible geocaching and working with land managers to educate them about geocaching. Be an example of a friendly, helpful, responsible geocacher with good common sense - never fails to win them over in my experience.
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.
Since geocaching in its present form depends on the use of public websites, it will be hard for it to go "underground" (if we can find geocaches, so can the authorities). It's more likely to simply cease to exist if the "anything goes" attitude prevails and the banning of geocacing grows.
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?
You've invoked Godwin's Law - by tradition, you've lost the argument and a useful thread for exchanging information about NYS policy is now over.
Cute. But calling an adage a "law" doesn't make it so.
And the flaws in that "law's" logic are obvious.
Also not an original thought - others have tried, without much success thus far for reasons that have been debated at length in these forums (do a search). For examples of exsiting alternate sites, see Terracaching, Navicache or Moving Cache (this is not a criticism of these alternate sites - merely a statement that starting an alternate site that has a critical mass of cache listings is easier said than done). I also don't agree with every policy at geocaching.com, but I do tire of these rants against any form of guidelines.
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...
Give yourself more than 4 months of geocaching experience and 10 finds and your opinions might change.
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)
-
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.
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.
-
Let's see, if you weren't paying for a membership, you'd be able to download zero caches in that pocket query. Because you are paying for it, you get 500 in each of 5 queries a day. THat's pretty generous of Groundspeak when you consider how many caches that is:
In one week, you could download the nearest 17,500 caches!
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.
Surely you don't need all of those to be updated daily? Sure, sometimes you'll ome across an archived cache because your query is a few days old, but that can happen even if you downloaded your pocket query today. The owner might not have updated the cache page until after your query.
I've got nothing against you going out "on a whim" and wanting to have your GPS loaded with caches. At 17,500 caches a week, you can already do that.
*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.
-
its not my data it belongs to Groundspeak.
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.
-
In 5 months you've found 10 caches. Tell me why you need to download more than 2500 caches per day?
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?
-
Its not your data - that is the main issue. Do you think it wise of any business venture to give away all of its data easily???
If you have come up with new and interesting searches - share - let us know and maybe they can be incorporated into the site for all to use.
Just isn't real feasible to share the entire database daily to you so that you can weed down to the 20 or so you want to go to on a whim. Sure I'd like to have the ability to do that too but point is - its not my data it belongs to Groundspeak. I think it is might generous already for them to share 2500 PER DAY everyday!! (seriously - how many do you really go to....) Assuming you could keep up with the record pace that is 10 days before you would need to PQ some more.
Just don't see the need for 1000.
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.
-
That's just it though, pocket queries aren't designed for you to download the entire database. The pocket query limits are there to allow you to go caching with the data, not sit at home and manipulate it on your PC.
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?
-
Right now, how many geocachers have GPSrs that can take 1000 waypoints? How many cachers really have a need for that many everyday? Considering the record number of caches found in a day was 242 (that's still the record, right?) even the 500 limit is more than enough.
You already have the option to download 2500 caches in a day, why not just filter them based on what you really expect to do in a day rather than "just get more because they fit in my GPS"?
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.
-
No, we'll just use municipal and county parks more if regulation at state parks gets too onerous.
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.
-
I haven't come across a list of caches like that. You'll just have to read cache descriptions.
You can try this cache on Long Island, for instance. (However, even if it's not raining in there, you may still need wading boots.)
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.
-
I think the problem is that there are very, very few of these. Probably a handful spread throughout the entire country. Perhaps what you need to do on those days is to stick with easy urban caches.
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?
-
1. They're not regulating geocaching .... "only" placement of caches on land that is maintained by the agency. Land is already regulated for use by hunters, snowmobilers, bicycles, and in most cases, for good reason. You may argue that geocaches are unfairly treated, as they generally have much less impact that any of the other activities I mentioned, but hopefully that's just an education matter.
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.
2. Sure. Just ask how that worked out for napster.
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.
-
This is not really what you are refering to but....How about putting together a list of puzzle caches you would someday like to tackle. You could then use your bad weather days to do any decoding or internet research to solve the clues, If you travel on vacation or for work you could PQ puzzle caches hoping to have some brainwork done ahead of time for the actual outdoors caching. I hope ya'll think of this as a good idea?? Diane
Can't spell..
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.
-
Rain shouldn't be a major problem for many caches. In my experience caching on rainy days, there'll be periods of light rain and periods of heavy rain. If you can time it so that you go and grab the cache in a light rain period, it shouldn't be that bad. I'd avoid any caches that require crossing streams on stepping stones (because the water level may be higher than usual) or caches in areas that may become waterlogged. Of course, you may be able to do a cache that's near parking even during heavy rain. Just bring it back to the car to sign in.
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.
Help With Geocaching Math
in General geocaching topics
Posted
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!!!!!