Jump to content

Query All Caches Found?


GeoLobo

Recommended Posts

I dont know if this topic has ever been discussed, however, I was wondering if there was a way to Query all Caches Found? I am interested in getting a listing emailed to me weekly of all the caches I have found.

 

When I set up a query, I only get 123 when I should get all 135. I set the distance to 9999 miles which would clearly pick them all up

 

any type

any container

I have found

from origin postal code 12992

within radius of 9999 miles

Link to comment

With respect to the archived caches which aren't getting passed in the PQ, maybe there's another way to get what you need.

 

I don't know what is it that you are trying to do that requires you to get all your found caches sent to you each week, but since the archived caches aren't going to be changing each week (presumably), couldn't you just download details for those 12 caches just one time and then append that information to your weekly PQ to get what you need?

Link to comment

That is the current workaround, involving paging through all of your finds. This is relatively easy at the OP's level, but for someone with thousands of cache finds there will be hundreds of archived caches to be downloaded. From personal experience, it takes awhile to do this, and one or two inevitably slip through the crack. I am currently a bit "off" between my find count and my master GPX file of found caches, because of a few caches that got archived between the time I found them and the time I updated my master file. Which ones? hmmm, I dunno. I would like an "all finds" pocket query to do that work for me.

Link to comment
With respect to the archived caches which aren't getting passed in the PQ, maybe there's another way to get what you need.

 

I don't know what is it that you are trying to do that requires you to get all your found caches sent to you each week, but since the archived caches aren't going to be changing each week (presumably), couldn't you just download details for those 12 caches just one time and then append that information to your weekly PQ to get what you need?

I am writing a application for my self and others in our GeoCaching organization which allows us to track our finds. It will allow importing of GPX files (generated by GeoCaching.com queries) , which checks the log section for a Found It reference and adds the record to the list. It will highlight those memorable finds (1, 100, 250, 500, 1000, 5000, 10000), and will allow you to export it as HTML to post memorable files to the internet or as signatures for your current forums you use. Thats the skinny - however, I have many, many other features as id like to implement as well. It is not designed to compete with GSAK or any other software, since it will only be used to track finds.

 

<SMILE>

Link to comment

SEEMS THEY WONT BE ADDING THIS FEATURE AFTER ALL.....

 

" they will never be included in Pocket Queries"

 

 

Hi geolobo

 

You can download archived caches individually from search results

pages, however, they will never be included in Pocket Queries. Please feel

freeto post your request in the forums. Thanks!

 

Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.

 

Cheers,

 

Kerry

Groundspeak, Inc. - The Language of Location

 

Original Message Follows:

------------------------

Subject: Re: [#225747] Finds Query?

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:54:11 -0700 (PDT)

 

Thank you for replying, however, what about the sensitive nature of

those who like to keep track of the caches they have found - surely you would

understand that.

 

What do you have in the works in the future for geocachers to keep

track of those caches they have found other than your website?

 

Do you envision offer some other way to get this info rather than a PQ?

 

Thanks!

 

geolobo

 

"Geocaching.com" <contact@Groundspeak.com> wrote:

Hi

 

Unfortunately, we do not include archived caches in the PQ results. We

do not like to draw attention to archived caches due to the possible

sensitive nature of their archival. Thanks for your understanding!

 

Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.

 

Cheers,

 

Kerry

Groundspeak, Inc. - The Language of Location

 

Original Message Follows:

------------------------

Subject: Finds Query?

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:30:52 -0000

 

I am interested in getting a weekly (or daily) Query of all found

caches. Can you help me?

 

Please see thread in forumn related to this.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=109926

 

I currently do a query, but it seems that if a cache was archived, it

wont show up in my found query (I think locationless caches do not show up as

well)

 

Example:

 

I currently have 135 finds. But my query only returns 123.

 

See the link to the forum thread for more info On how I do my query

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=109926

 

geolobo

Link to comment

I think you're reading too much into the response. The response you received from Groundspeak's wonderfully nice customer service expert is accurate with regard to *today* and also with regard to your question which was about standard pocket query GPX files. To learn a little bit more about the future plans on the "to-do" list, read this post by Jeremy a few months ago. If you asked about the status of that idea, the answer may very well be different.

Link to comment
I think you're reading too much into the response.  The response you received from Groundspeak's wonderfully nice customer service expert is accurate with regard to *today* ...

errr... I hardly think it's "reading too much" into things when the (no doubt otherwise most polite and kindly) "customer service expert" rather dogmatically stated the "never" word, as in:

 

"they will never be included..."

 

That sure doesn't sound like said expert is merely talking only "with regard to *today*".

 

And as far as reading further threads on the "future plans on the 'to do' list" - purely an exercise in futility. These forums are verily chock full of such futuristic conjecture. Bottom line: Don't hold your breath / Believe it when you see it.

Link to comment

You've crapped all over my advice in two different threads. It's really not worth the bother to provide all the links, only to have them dismissed out of hand as an exercise in futility. Proper Markwelling takes time, both to read the forums as the threads unfold over the years, and to recall the posts through using the search feature. I hardly regarded it as futile to try and assist you and the OP in this thread. I deleted the contents of my other post so as not to bother you further.

Link to comment
Pardon me for trying to be helpful.  I'll be sure not to bother you again.

Geesh! You disagreed with GeoLobo. I disagreed with you. No need to take it personally.

You were being a wise a**. I have a lot of experience on this subject. Lep was offering good advice. Kerry was referencing the general response of why we don't have archived listings in Pocket Queries. However, the "all finds" feature, which Lep had kindly linked to and you smacked down, will contain this data. So chill. Your "Don't hold your breath / Believe it when you see it" comment is annoying and unhelpful and unproductive.

Edited by Jeremy
Link to comment

I also want to note that for the most part if you do have a feature request, this is the place to do so and generally the contact address will direct you here. Everyone at Groundspeak does not have godlike powers and may not know every possible feature in the works for the web site. They work with the current policies of the site and the way the site runs now.

Link to comment
Pardon me for trying to be helpful.  I'll be sure not to bother you again.

Geesh! You disagreed with GeoLobo. I disagreed with you. No need to take it personally.

You were being a wise a**. I have a lot of experience on this subject. Lep was offering good advice. Kerry was referencing the general response of why we don't have archived listings in Pocket Queries. However, the "all finds" feature, which Lep had kindly linked to and you smacked down, will contain this data. So chill. Your "Don't hold your breath / Believe it when you see it" comment is annoying and unhelpful and unproductive.

First, thanks to everyone who responded - secondly, thanks to Jeremy for clearing some issues up, however, I still don't get why archived caches cannot be included in queries when querying by (that....I have found).

 

I can't seem to find this feature: the "all finds" feature, which Lep had kindly linked to"

 

am I missing something....?

 

Thanks!

 

GeoLobo

Link to comment

near the top of Your Account page in small bold print it says My logs (last 30 days)

Show all logs for: Caches, Bugs, or Benchmarks

 

If you click on "caches" you'll be taken to a page with : Show: Archive (show), Attended, Didn't find it, Enable Listing, Found it, Needs Archived, Post Reviewer Note, Temporarily Disable Listing, Webcam Photo Taken, Will Attend, Write note, All Logs

 

if you click on Found it - you'll get a page with just your Found it logs - from there you could individually load the GPX files for the archived

Link to comment
Your "Don't hold your breath / Believe it when you see it" comment is annoying and unhelpful and unproductive.

Perhaps my choice of quips could have been less flippant (something you have a lot of experience in as well), but the question remains (and remains, and remains) - when will PQs include the option to pluck archived caches, if ever?

Link to comment
Your "Don't hold your breath / Believe it when you see it" comment is annoying and unhelpful and unproductive.

Perhaps my choice of quips could have been less flippant (something you have a lot of experience in as well), but the question remains (and remains, and remains) - when will PQs include the option to pluck archived caches, if ever?

In May :laughing:

Edited by WildGooseChase
Link to comment
Your "Don't hold your breath / Believe it when you see it" comment is annoying and unhelpful and unproductive.

Perhaps my choice of quips could have been less flippant (something you have a lot of experience in as well), but the question remains (and remains, and remains) - when will PQs include the option to pluck archived caches, if ever?

In May :laughing:

Cute WGC. But I dare say, likewise unhelpful and unproductive.

Link to comment
Your "Don't hold your breath / Believe it when you see it" comment is annoying and unhelpful and unproductive.

Perhaps my choice of quips could have been less flippant (something you have a lot of experience in as well), but the question remains (and remains, and remains) - when will PQs include the option to pluck archived caches, if ever?

In May :laughing:

Cute WGC. But I dare say, likewise unhelpful and unproductive.

Perfect, I aim to please. :ph34r:

 

Asking when something will be done is purely an exercise in futility. Jeremy probably won't give a definite answer and most of us have realized things will get done when they get done.

Link to comment

Jeremy, I had some questions about the idea to offer downloads of a truncated file for "just my found caches, including archived caches." I understand the reasoning for not including cache descriptions, ratings, etc. But will the file include country and state? Will it include either the cache coordinates or "fuzzy" coordinates? This info. would aid those who wish to plot their list of found caches using mapping software, either by coloring in countries or states where they've found caches, or by constructing a detailed map with "pushpins" showing the general location of each find.

Link to comment
Asking when something will be done is purely an exercise in futility. Jeremy probably won't give a definite answer and most of us have realized things will get done when they get done.

Precisely. Thus my...

 

...Believe it when you see it

...would seem neither unhelpful nor unproductive after all. But rather, just an alternate way of saying...

 

Asking when something will be done is purely an exercise in futility.

And furthermore, I fail to see how/why one might be construed as somehow more "wise a**" than t'other.

 

Nonetheless, speaking of "exercise in futility", I do believe this thread tangent has now come full circle, and further mot bickering here is neither helpful nor productive (read: b-bye!)

Link to comment
when will PQs include the option to pluck archived caches, if ever?

Okay, at the risk of stepping out of turn into an... er... passionate discussion with my first post ever on these forums, it sounds to me like Jeremy stated it pretty clearly. PQs are not going to allow searching for archived caches. There is a plan to address the particular request, for finding all found caches including archived caches, but it's not going to be via a PQ. Am I missing something?

Link to comment
when will PQs include the option to pluck archived caches, if ever?

Okay, at the risk of stepping out of turn into an... er... passionate discussion with my first post ever on these forums, it sounds to me like Jeremy stated it pretty clearly. PQs are not going to allow searching for archived caches. There is a plan to address the particular request, for finding all found caches including archived caches, but it's not going to be via a PQ. Am I missing something?

What a brilliant first post! That is pretty much exactly correct.

 

Please post more often.

Link to comment
when will PQs include the option to pluck archived caches, if ever?

Okay, at the risk of stepping out of turn into an... er... passionate discussion with my first post ever on these forums, it sounds to me like Jeremy stated it pretty clearly. PQs are not going to allow searching for archived caches. There is a plan to address the particular request, for finding all found caches including archived caches, but it's not going to be via a PQ. Am I missing something?

Not a "normal" PQ anyway. I'm thinking it will just be an option (button somewhere) to get a .gpx file of all found caches. Probably some limits on what info is included.

 

Just my take on it. I could be wrong and frequently am when guessing.....

Link to comment
near the top of Your Account page in small bold print it says My logs (last 30 days)

Show all logs for: Caches, Bugs, or Benchmarks

 

If you click on "caches" you'll be taken to a page with : Show: Archive (show), Attended, Didn't find it, Enable Listing, Found it, Needs Archived, Post Reviewer Note, Temporarily Disable Listing, Webcam Photo Taken, Will Attend, Write note, All Logs

 

if you click on Found it - you'll get a page with just your Found it logs - from there you could individually load the GPX files for the archived

Yeah, thanks, I figured that much, unfortunately that is not going to help me. I need a gpx files witht he list and data. Clicking each cache and downloading the Gpx files is not an answer either.

 

First of all, the GPX file you get from clicking on the individual cache is not the same schema as the gpx file you get from a PQ.

 

Snipplet from PQ

_______________________________

 

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

<gpx xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" version="1.0" creator="Groundspeak Pocket Query" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0 http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0/gpx.xsd http://www.Groundspeak.com/cache/1/0 http://www.Groundspeak.com/cache/1/0/cache.xsd" xmlns="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0">

<name>New Query</name>

<desc>Geocache file generated by Groundspeak</desc>

<author>Groundspeak</author>

<email>contact@Groundspeak.com</email>

<time>2005-09-23T10:28:48.1810986-07:00</time>

<keywords>cache, geocache, Groundspeak</keywords>

<bounds minlat="45.045217" minlon="-73.547917" maxlat="45.080083" maxlon="-73.391683" />

<wpt lat="45.047683" lon="-73.450967">

 

Snipplet from individual cache

_________________________________________

 

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

<gpx xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" version="1.0" creator="Groundspeak, Inc. All Rights Reserved. http://www.Groundspeak.com" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0 http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0/gpx.xsd http://www.Groundspeak.com/cache/1/0 http://www.Groundspeak.com/cache/1/0/cache.xsd" xmlns="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0">

<name>Cache Listing Generated from Geocaching.com</name>

<desc>This is an individual cache generated from Geocaching.com</desc>

<author>Account "Justin of Team Slacker" From Geocaching.com</author>

<email>contact@geocaching.com</email>

<url>http://www.geocaching.com</url>

<urlname>Geocaching - High Tech Treasure Hunting</urlname>

<time>2005-09-29T16:09:05.7705520-07:00</time>

<keywords>cache, geocache</keywords>

<bounds minlat="44.5561833333333" minlon="-75.6843333333333" maxlat="44.5561833333333" maxlon="-75.6843333333333" />

<wpt lat="44.5561833333333" lon="-75.6843333333333">

 

 

Notice the

 

<url>http://www.geocaching.com</url>

<urlname>Geocaching - High Tech Treasure Hunting</urlname>

 

I have email admin and the response i got was it was a bug and it was on the list to fix

Link to comment
First of all, the GPX file you get from clicking on the individual cache is not the same schema as the gpx file you get from a PQ.

Looks like the exact same schema to me. A couple of fields are in one that are not in the other, but that is perfectly consistent with the schema. I don't understand why that would give you any kind of problem at all, unless you are writing a program that expects the exact fields in the exact order. But that program would be pretty seriously broken in any case, since that's not how XML works.

Link to comment
First of all, the GPX file you get from clicking on the individual cache is not the same schema as the gpx file you get from a PQ.

Looks like the exact same schema to me. A couple of fields are in one that are not in the other, but that is perfectly consistent with the schema. I don't understand why that would give you any kind of problem at all, unless you are writing a program that expects the exact fields in the exact order. But that program would be pretty seriously broken in any case, since that's not how XML works.

Thanks for replying....

 

"unless you are writing a program that expects the exact fields in the exact order."

 

I am!

 

Thanks for the education...but i am aware how XML works!

Link to comment
First of all, the GPX file you get from clicking on the individual cache is not the same schema as the gpx file you get from a PQ.

Looks like the exact same schema to me. A couple of fields are in one that are not in the other, but that is perfectly consistent with the schema. I don't understand why that would give you any kind of problem at all, unless you are writing a program that expects the exact fields in the exact order. But that program would be pretty seriously broken in any case, since that's not how XML works.

Thanks for replying....

 

"unless you are writing a program that expects the exact fields in the exact order."

 

I am!

 

Thanks for the education...but i am aware how XML works!

:P

Sic 'em, Fizzy! B)

Link to comment
"unless you are writing a program that expects the exact fields in the exact order."

 

I am!

 

Thanks for the education...but i am aware how XML works!

Then in that case, I suggest you write a program that works properly.

 

There is no guarantee that the number or order of fields in geocaching.com gpx files are going to remain the same. Instead of complaining that they have "bugs" when they don't conform to your (broken) program, fix your program.

Link to comment

Not to split hairs with Fizzymagic, but sometimes there is a guaranteed of order of fields in the GPX schema. Since I won't get away with just saying it, here's proof in case there are any budding GPX/XML developers soaking up the educational value in this. Given two files, good and bad:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<gpx
version="1.0"
creator="GPSBabel - http://www.gpsbabel.org"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xmlns="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0 http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0/gpx.xsd">
<url>blah</url>
<urlname>blah</urlname>
</gpx>

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<gpx
version="1.0"
creator="GPSBabel - http://www.gpsbabel.org"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xmlns="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0 http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0/gpx.xsd">
<urlname>blah</urlname>
<url>blah</url>
</gpx>

 

The files are identical; only the order of the two are changed.

 

(robertl) rjloud:/home/robertl/src/gpsbabel.virgin

$ SAX2Count /tmp/good.gpx ; SAX2Count /tmp/bad.gpx

/tmp/good.gpx: 300 ms (3 elems, 3 attrs, 3 spaces, 8 chars)

 

Error at file /tmp/bad.gpx, line 10, char 7

Message: Element 'url' is not valid for content model: '(name?,desc?,author?,email?,url?,urlname?,time?,keywords?,bounds?,wpt*,rte*,trk*,()*)'

 

However, to Fizzymagic's more fundamental point, the two fields in question are listed as optional in the GPX spec. A consumer of that data must be prepared for url and urlname to be in the header (or wpt or trkpt or rtept...) or not.

 

Pocket Queries from this site are GPX 1.0. The spec for GPX 1.0 is a little hard to find, but it is at http://www.topografix.com/gpx_manual.asp

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...