Additional Waypoints With Wrong "name"

[+beejay&esskay]

I know this has been posted in other threads, but I've never seen a Groundspeak response, so I making a separate thread for more visibility.

 

It appears that all the additional waypoint names from a PQ may be (erroneously) based on one cache ID.

 

This is part of what I received this evening for PQ 402568.

 

GCT3WD did have some additional waypoints in the file, but this isn't one of them. This waypoint is actually associated with GCT2ZZ (which was, of course, in the PQ).

 

  <wpt lat="40.05975" lon="-82.4958">

    <time>2006-01-21T08:23:19.6400000-08:00</time>

    <name>PKT3WD</name>

    <cmt>Closest, but limited parking, at the end of Clouse Rd</cmt>

    <desc>Closest</desc>

    <url>http://www.geocaching.com/seek/wpt.aspx?WID=297e197a-6427-4b9c-a3e8-2701c6ec31e9</url>

    <urlname>Closest</urlname>

    <sym>Parking Area</sym>

    <type>Waypoint|Parking Area</type>

  </wpt>

 

Until this is corrected, there is really no way to trust the additional waypoints in PQs.

[+Marcus in Kerry]

Just got a PQ and this is still a problem. The following are two waypoints associated with two different caches of mine, but the waypoint code looks as if they belong to GCQ8A7. This is not my cache at all, but it's part of the PQ.

  <wpt lat="51.88585" lon="-10.4250166666667">

    <time>2006-01-20T08:34:51.0600000-08:00</time>

    <name>T1Q8A7</name>

    <cmt>Optional Walk to Bray Head</cmt>

    <desc>Bray Head</desc>

    <url>http://www.geocaching.com/seek/wpt.aspx?WID=86df1fb8-c5f5-4162-9616-f3c25d0af863</url>

    <urlname>Bray Head</urlname>

    <sym>Trailhead</sym>

    <type>Waypoint|Trailhead</type>

  </wpt>

  <wpt lat="52.0589166666667" lon="-9.51705">

    <time>2006-01-24T06:32:23.3230000-08:00</time>

    <name>P1Q8A7</name>

    <cmt />

    <desc>Free Parking</desc>

    <url>http://www.geocaching.com/seek/wpt.aspx?WID=04d28927-317f-4e38-9f1b-8d055a8d4af9</url>

    <urlname>Free Parking</urlname>

    <sym>Parking Area</sym>

    <type>Waypoint|Parking Area</type>

  </wpt>

[+wildlifewriter]

I'm becominging increasingly concerned about this, too.

 

At present, my new multi-cache is delayed in the approval queue because the Reviewer - quite reasonably - would like to see its intermediate waypoints being input using the new facility, rather than just listed on the cache page.

 

For my part I'm unwilling to do this, because - also quite reasonably - I don't want searchers to get the information, scrambled in a faulty PQ file.

 

-Wlw.

[+Marcus in Kerry]

For my part I'm unwilling to do this, because - also quite reasonably - I don't want searchers to get the information, scrambled in a faulty PQ file.

I don't think your waypoints will be in any PQ or GPX file as long as they are marked private. As a test, you could try to get waypoints off my cache GCJA0W (Beginish Island) in a PQ or GPX file from the cache page. I did enter waypoints for this cache, but I'm not making them public until this problem with the "wrong names" has been solved.

[+Prime Suspect]

I'm becominging increasingly concerned about this, too.

 

At present, my new multi-cache is delayed in the approval queue because the Reviewer - quite reasonably - would like to see its intermediate waypoints being input using the new facility, rather than just listed on the cache page.

 

For my part I'm unwilling to do this, because - also quite reasonably - I don't want searchers to get the information, scrambled in a faulty PQ file.

 

-Wlw.

If they're marked private, that shouldn't be a concern.

[+wildlifewriter]

If they're marked private, that shouldn't be a concern.

It is the usual language problem, I see.

 

My concern does not relate to the privacy or otherwise of the waypoints - it relates to the fact that the PQs aren't working properly.

 

-Wlw

[+beejay&esskay]

I think (and hope) that the marking private was suggested as a temporary workaround to the PQ error.

 

Additional waypoints are almost completely useless if the naming is not correct.

[Jeremy]

I just updated the Pocket Query generator to correct the naming issue. Additionally I now remove the hidden waypoints from being listed for anyone in pocket queries. We'll remove them from being downloaded directly from the cache page as well. In the future we'll allow complete downloads from the add/edit waypoints page.

 

Let me know if you are still experiencing issues. In all cases unless you are the owner, hidden waypoints will not show up in Pocket Queries.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I'm becominging increasingly concerned about this, too.

 

At present, my new multi-cache is delayed in the approval queue because the Reviewer - quite reasonably - would like to see its intermediate waypoints being input using the new facility, rather than just listed on the cache page.

 

For my part I'm unwilling to do this, because - also quite reasonably - I don't want searchers to get the information, scrambled in a faulty PQ file.

 

-Wlw.

Is this now GC.com policy? You have to use the feature for additional coords?

[+wildlifewriter]

Is this now GC.com policy? You have to use the feature for additional coords?

Nope. What I wrote was "would like to see..."

 

Here in the British Isles, our reviewers are extremely good guys. If they would like to see something included on a cache page, we don't like to disappoint them if it's at all avoidable.

 

Aside from which, first indications are that the issue with PQs is resolved, so we're good to go.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Is this now GC.com policy? You have to use the feature for additional coords?

Nope. What I wrote was "would like to see..."

 

Here in the British Isles, our reviewers are extremely good guys. If they would like to see something included on a cache page, we don't like to disappoint them if it's at all avoidable.

 

Aside from which, first indications are that the issue with PQs is resolved, so we're good to go.

I realise that your reviewers are well liked and good at their job. Just didn't hear anything about it being a new guideline so I felt it pertinent to ask. Having a cache delayed (or denied) being published for something that is not in the guidelines comes up once in a while and sometimes creates a bit of an uproar. Glad it didn't in this case.

[+Lil Devil]

I would bet that after all the bugs are worked out and the feature settles down that the guidelines would be updated to require use of the additional waypoints feature. It would make the reviewer's job much easier in the long run.