k6ccc

I would also like to know the cache owner's name in the publish E-Mail. I am a somewhat active FTF hunter and there are certain people who's caches have lousy co-ords and/or descriptions and I generally don't bother rushing out for. On the other hand there are cachers who place great caches and I will be more likely to drop everything and run right out.

9:33 PM Pacific time and it's working now...

9:18 PM Pacific time and I'm still getting a 500 error to any sort of search or cache page. So still not back up for me. Jim

I virtually NEVER go to the home page. I always go directly to the "My Profile" page. The home page does need to be geared for new people. Jim - K6CCC

Nope, not just you. It's a bug that we all are seeing. Read this whole thread and you will see some of the history. I agree that the new route generation is great, the bug needs to get fixed. The workaround is to use a short distance off-route, but that pretty much makes it useless. Jim - K6CCC

Nope, not just you. It's a bug that we all are seeing. Read this whole thread and you will see some of the history. I agree that the new route generation is great, the bug needs to get fixed. The workaround is to use a short distance off-route, but that pretty much makes it useless. Jim - K6CCC

If you have a BlackBerry, you can use CacheBerry. Works great! http://cacheberry.com/ Jim

Yes, it does behave differently when the width is narrower. However that makes the query somewhat useless. And the real point of the post is that the results are behaving VERY differently depending on how the route was created. Raine has stated that the PQ creation is the same, only the route creation method is different. This is clearly not the case. Something changed. May not have been intended, but something is different. Jim - K6CCC

I guess I should point out that the two results shown in my previous method were both generated this evening - less than 1 minute apart. Jim - K6CCC

First of all Raine, thanks for all the effort to make a better CAaR. The intent of the new version is really great. Just wish it worked right. From various messages, it has been stated that the process that generates the PQ has not changed, only the way that the route is created. I beg to differ. Warning, this will get a bit long... I took an existing about 90 mile route generally along Interstate 10 in the Southern California desert that I created about a month ago using the Google Earth method. I created a PQ using that route about a month ago. This evening I used the new CAaR method to create a new route that exactly matches the previous route (or at least really darn close - the only difference is at the very east end where it is off-road). I then created a second PQ that uses the new route with exactly the same parameters. I show a couple of graphics here. The first is the parameters of one of the PQs (they are both the same). Here is the result of the PQ that used the old method of generating the route: And here is the result of the PQ that used the new method of generating the route: You'll notice that they look quite different. Shortly after the new route creation method was introduced, I created a route in the Southern California high desert that radically did not work (I mentioned it in my previous post on this subject). Even with absolutely no filters of any kind, the result was quite different than expected and the way it would have been with the old route creation method using Google Earth. There is definitely something amiss with the PQ along a route using the new route generation method. Jim - K6CCC

I just tried the new CAAR and am seeing the same problem. I created a 96 mile route out in the desert north of Los Angeles. When I previewed the PQ it only had 33 caches. I do have a little filtering, but it should have removed very few caches. I was looking for active caches that I have not found (I only have a few finds out there), and all cache types. So then I previewed it Google Maps and saw that I just had a 5 mile radius from the starting point. I am very familiar with how large route PQs have operated in the past, and this is definitely NOT the same. I just tried it again with absolutely no filters at all, and got 37 caches all clustered around the starting point. Jim - K6CCC

Add me to the list. I have 3 PQs that run every Friday. I received them at 0101, 0102, and 1350 today. This evening I manually selected another one to run. According to the PQ page it ran at 1957. A while later it dawned on me that I had not seen it. I am a little unusual in that I run my own mail server so I checked the server logs. Plenty of activity from other E-Mail sources, but nothing from GeoCaching.com As a further test, I just posted a note to one of my caches, and promptly received the owner message... Obviously therefore, the GeoCaching E-Mail system is able to connect to my server and deliver messages. Looks like it's only affecting PQs... Jim - K6CCC

Check to see if you have too many saved PQ's. Thanks! That was it. I had never noticed that there was a limit of 40. Deleted a few that I don't need and was able to create the 2 PQs for today's drive. Jim - K6CCC

Is the Create a Pocket Query along a route function down tonight? I'm trying to create a PQ for tomorrow's drive while on a driving vacation. Created two route2 in Google Earth and uploaded them (had to break it into two segments because the overall all drive exceeds 500 miles). When I try to create a PQ for either of those 2 routes I get the usual "We had a problem with that page" error page. I then tried using a previous route that worked in the past, and created a new PQ (with a different name tghat the existing one for that route), and get the same error, so I think it's a GC.com problem. Any info??? Jim - K6CCC

I discovered this on Sunday evening out in the field on my BlackBerry Called a friend at home and he was able to see it right on a PC and gave us the hint. Not exactly convenient! I have not personally observed the problem on a PC. Jim - K6CCC

OK, that was it. Yes, I am using html in the TB description (specifically a couple < b r > commands). Thanks. If I re-activate a TB, will it kill the existing logs for it? Jim - K6CCC

I would hate to have the events sorted by distance! That would make it VERY hard to see events that are coming up soon. I also tend to ignore events that are a long ways away, but it's very easy to skip those when scanning the E-Mail. It I miss an event that comes the weekend after the weekly E-Mail, I can't go back in my way-back time machine so I can attend... Just my 2 cents worth...

I had a problem activating the last bunch of TBs that I bought, but did not report it. I just tried activating a new batch of TBs and had the same problem, so this time I am reporting it. The problem is that on Step 2 of the activation process (where you enter the TB name, description and goal), I ALWAYS get an error message that states: Sorry! We encountered an error when requesting that page! Now the workaround is to go back to the TB listing and edit the page, however you never get to enter a launch date, and it's a pain in the neck. I have tried this on Internet Explorer, FireFox, and Opera, using 4 different computers, so I really don't think it's a problem with my configuration. It used to work correctly. Anyone aware of a fix for this?

Only problem with that is it's not accurate enough. From my house, a few miles NE could be in metro area, or a serious hike. I'm a pretty serious FTFer so seeing the map on my BlackBerry is very useful to determine if I am going to rush off for an attempted FTF. I miss the maps. Jim

I have recently discovered an issue with Pocket Queries along a route. The issue is that lots of caches within the area of the route do not show up. Let me give an example. First of all, comparing to a pocket query for a specific location, if you specify a radius and a max number of caches, you will get the closest ones up to the max number of caches. For example, I have a pocket query called "500 caches near home". It specifies an 11 mile radius with the maximum number of caches as 500. Now as it turns out at this time there are 795 caches within the 11 mile radius of home, so the pocket query gives me the 500 closest ones. All fine and as I expect it to work. With a query along a route it does not seem to work that way. I have a route from home to work with a max of 500 caches and a distance of up to 5 miles off the route. What I would expect it to do is to go as far off the route (up to 5 miles) to get the closest 500 caches. What I get is caches up to 5 miles off the route, but lots of missing caches that are closer than 5 miles. Yesterday morning I ran that query and loaded it into my GPSr. I discovered the issue last night while driving home from work and noticed that a cache that is within a hundred yards or so of my route that I have looked for but not found was not showing up on my GPS. When I got home, checked the query and sure enough it was not there. Previewed the query again with the same result. As far as I could tell, it was the same ones that did not show up so it's not just a random collection that fail to show up. I then modified the query to allow caches up to 2 miles off the route and ran it again, and it showed a bunch of close to the route caches that had not shown up with the 5 mile limit.