Standardisation Of Additional Waypoints

[+wigglesworth]

I welcome the additional waypoints on the cache pages making it easy to down load car parks etc.

 

When downloading lots of caches and waypoints however it is sometimes difficult to determine if there is a car park because the naming convention seems to differ by cache owner. It is not easy to search for car parks on the GPS because you do not know the starting characters. The last four characters are typically the end of the GC label (good idea) but the first two letters vary.

 

Would it be better for everyone to use CP (for carpark) followed by the last four characters of the GC?

 

Peter

[+Silver-Fox]

Good point will amend mine.

[davester]

I personally hate the idea of car park waypoints. I rarely approach a cache from the car and quite often the placer will assume that I am doing so when they get the chance to put co-ordinates in. That means descriptions and clues can start to lose meaning.

[alistair_uk]

What if you give an option of 2 parking places as I do on one cache?

[NickPick]

 

Would it be better for everyone to use CP (for carpark) followed by the last four characters of the GC?

 

 

That's a good idea. You should suggest this in the 'suggestions' forum, and they might put a note on the submission page which should encourage everyone to use the same convention.

[+Kryten]

The two letter prefix is the only part of the name of an additional waypoint that you actually get to choose. Although you also enter another 4 characters, Jeremy has admitted that they no longer serve any purpose and are ignored by the site, which automatically inserts the last 4 characters from the cache name instead.

[Lactodorum]

 

Would it be better for everyone to use CP (for carpark) followed by the last four characters of the GC?

 

 

That's a good idea. You should suggest this in the 'suggestions' forum, and they might put a note on the submission page which should encourage everyone to use the same convention.

 

I think this is a great idea but I doubt you'll get a lot of support in the "Suggestions" forum. The Americans would probably prefer PL - Parking Lot !

[+wigglesworth]

Lacto - I guess you kinda have a point!

 

Perhaps we can start a UK standard which the mods can influence - I don't mind what the code is as long as we are all consistent! Perhaps we can get European Funding for a research project.

 

Glad to see that I have support for the principle!

 

Peter

[+Alibags]

A UK standard? I shall propose MP for Maes Parcio to be adopted then!

[alistair_uk]

What about PK that works for the UK and US.

[+Munkeh]

What about PK that works for the UK and US.

 

I think thats nuts

 

sorry! TAXI!!!!!

[alistair_uk]

I think thats nuts

[+Learned Gerbil]

What is wrong with P1 for the first parking point, P2 for the second etc. Few caches will have more than ten parking coordinates!

[+Moote]

I really think Groundspeak should have given us a drop down option of common types and if you selected other this would allow adhoc ones to be created. But it was rushed in without ant thought

[+mongoose39uk]

Would rather not see them at all to be honest.

[+Haggis Hunter]

Would it be better for everyone to use CP (for carpark) followed by the last four characters of the GC?

I hadn't really thought about it, but this does make sense. I have now changed my carparking WP's to CP.

 

I really think Groundspeak should have given us a drop down option of common types and if you selected other this would allow adhoc ones to be created.

This is a good idea, I suppose it's not completely too late to suggest this and see if they can implement it?

[+The Hokesters]

I would definitely vote for a standardisation and could not really care what it is - as long as there is standardisation!