Www.geochecker.com

June 27, 2006

I've just set up a new geocaching resource for free use.

http://www.geochecker.com

It may take another day or so for the address to propogate to the whole web, but otherwise it's up and running.

From the site, here is part of the intro/instructions:

Welcome!
Welcome to Geochecker, a simple tool to check coordinates for geocaching puzzle caches. It's completely free, and it's very easy to use! Since you either requested help, or visited this site without coordinates to check, here are some simple instructions.

Purpose

This tool is used to check coordinate solutions, generally from a puzzle cache.

Usage for Cache Owner

If you are a puzzle cache owner, and you would like to use this site to let solvers check their solutions, it's very easy. Simply enter the cache name, waypoint, and coordinates to be checked in the boxes below and submit the data. The next page will present you with the HTML code for a hyperlink to be inserted into the cache description. It's important to use the complete link for the checker to work properly. It's also a good idea to make sure that the link works properly and that the correct coordinates return a positive result.

Usage for Puzzle Solver

On various puzzle caches, you will find a link to this site, with some encoded information. You simply follow the link to this site and enter the coordinates and submit the form. You will then be told if the coordinates entered match the code in the link. If you don't find a link to this site on your puzzle nemesis, contact the cache owner and suggest this site.

The operation is similar to a combination of Evince and a coordinate checker used on the New Mexico geocaching web site. Aside from various visual and security refinements, GeoChecker has an easy-to-remember web link (just this simple: geochecker.com), and is expressly intended for public use.

I welcome your feedback, and you're welcome to start using this service.

3.3k · June 28, 2006

Very neat; thanks!

14.3k · June 28, 2006

Very neat; thanks!

Ditto!

June 28, 2006

Very nice, Goldenhawk!

Does it have any "fuzz factor" for geo-calculations that might lead a successful solver to slightly different coordinates?

Here's an example.

June 28, 2006

Does it have any "fuzz factor" for geo-calculations that might lead a successful solver to slightly different coordinates?

Not at this time. I'll look into adding that over time.

7.2k · June 28, 2006

Nice!

1.4k · June 28, 2006

really cool, ive been wonderng if theres something like this, and it just popped up!

9.2k · June 28, 2006

Very nice, Goldenhawk!

Does it have any "fuzz factor" for geo-calculations that might lead a successful solver to slightly different coordinates?

Here's an example.

You'll need evince for those soft and "fuzzy" caches.

June 28, 2006

Did you use CR's script to do that, and if so, did you give him credit for it?

7.2k · June 28, 2006

Did you use CR's script to do that, and if so, did you give him credit for it?

A derivative of it, yes, and it's at the bottom of the page.

Conversely, he gave me some ideas to upgrade my script. I'm still going to keep with my goals of being a lightweight, easy to install script for whomever wants to host it, but with a few tweaks for ease of use, some nifty add-ons, and better security. The trick is not breaking any present links!

14.3k · June 28, 2006

Couldn't someone use "Horseshoes & Atom Bombs" to deduce the cache location? Maybe you could provide an option for us to hit a checkbox to not allow use of the "Horseshoes & Atom Bombs" method for certain puzzle caches! But this cool tool has just given me an idea for a new puzzle cache! I'll name it "Horseshoes & Atom Bombs!"

Edited June 28, 2006 by TrailGators

9.2k · June 28, 2006

Did you use CR's script to do that, and if so, did you give him credit for it?

A derivative of it, yes, and it's at the bottom of the page.

Conversely, he gave me some ideas to upgrade my script. I'm still going to keep with my goals of being a lightweight, easy to install script for whomever wants to host it, but with a few tweaks for ease of use, some nifty add-ons, and better security. The trick is not breaking any present links!

Couldn't someone use "Horseshoes & Atom Bombs" to deduce the cache location? Maybe you could provide an option for us to hit a checkbox to not allow use of the "Horseshoes & Atom Bombs" method for certain puzzle caches! But this cool tool has just given me an idea for a new puzzle cache! I'll name it "Horseshoes & Atom Bombs!"

You're replying to CR, but the "Horseshoes & Atom Bombs" reference makes me think your question is actually about evince. The confirmation mode ("exact" or "fuzzy", to keep it short) is set by the cache owner, not by the person checking their guess. The vast majority of uses (84% last time I looked) were for the "exact" mode, which isn't surprising. Most puzzles are designed to resolve to an exact set of coordinates. For those cache owners who do need the "fuzzy" option, they also have the ability to set the "fuzziness". Setting it to only cover a reasonable area, instead of the maximum, also cuts down on the ability of people to guess. And thanks to a suggestion a couple of week ago, a pacing function was added, in addition to the lock-out function already in place. If you make a wrong guess, you'll need to cool your heels for 10 minutes before you can make another try. I'd suggest using that time to get a nice, cold Shiner from the fridge, or rechecking your arithmetic. But not both.

14.3k · June 28, 2006

Couldn't someone use "Horseshoes & Atom Bombs" to deduce the cache location? Maybe you could provide an option for us to hit a checkbox to not allow use of the "Horseshoes & Atom Bombs" method for certain puzzle caches! But this cool tool has just given me an idea for a new puzzle cache! I'll name it "Horseshoes & Atom Bombs!"

You're replying to CR, but the "Horseshoes & Atom Bombs" reference makes me think your question is actually about evince. The confirmation mode ("exact" or "fuzzy", to keep it short) is set by the cache owner, not by the person checking their guess. The vast majority of uses (84% last time I looked) were for the "exact" mode, which isn't surprising. Most puzzles are designed to resolve to an exact set of coordinates. For those cache owners who do need the "fuzzy" option, they also have the ability to set the "fuzziness". Setting it to only cover a reasonable area, instead of the maximum, also cuts down on the ability of people to guess. And thanks to a suggestion a couple of week ago, a pacing function was added, in addition to the lock-out function already in place. If you make a wrong guess, you'll need to cool your heels for 10 minutes before you can make another try. I'd suggest using that time to get a nice, cold Shiner from the fridge, or rechecking your arithmetic. But not both.

Thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure how I did that but I deleted the incorrect reference....

Thanks to the creators for making this!

The other thing I was wondering is what stops a saboteur from overwriting my numbers?

Edited June 28, 2006 by TrailGators

June 28, 2006

The other thing I was wondering is what stops a saboteur from overwriting my numbers?

I'm guessing you're asking about Evince, but that's not possible with GeoChecker, because all the information is stored in the link a cache owner creates with the tool, and posts on his own cache listing. Nothing is dependent on the geochecker.com web site storing any information - when you check a coordinate, the data you enter is hashed and this hash is compared to the link's hash - if they match, you're a winner.

I believe Evince's exact coords tool works the same way. It's only the Horsehoes option that stores data on the server, and I'll let Prime Suspect answer those details.

9.2k · June 28, 2006

The other thing I was wondering is what stops a saboteur from overwriting my numbers?

In evince, there is no overwrite function. My models for this were TinyURL and ImageShack, two of the more useful site on the web, in my book. There's no account to set up*, no passwords, no updating. You just give it the info it needs, and it sends you back the URL to use. If something changes, you simply generate a new one, and forget about the old one.

evince works the same way. The only way someone could mess with your evince link was if they had access to edit your cache page. And if they had that, obviously they can do a lot more damage than just messing with the confirmation link.

*ImageShack does allow you to set up an account, to get some extra features, but it's not a requirement to use the service.

14.3k · June 28, 2006

The other thing I was wondering is what stops a saboteur from overwriting my numbers?

In evince, there is no overwrite function. My models for this were TinyURL and ImageShack, two of the more useful site on the web, in my book. There's no account to set up*, no passwords, no updating. You just give it the info it needs, and it sends you back the URL to use. If something changes, you simply generate a new one, and forget about the old one.

evince works the same way. The only way someone could mess with your evince link was if they had access to edit your cache page. And if they had that, obviously they can do a lot more damage than just messing with the confirmation link.

*ImageShack does allow you to set up an account, to get some extra features, but it's not a requirement to use the service.

Thanks! Now that I understand how it works I can see that there is no need to worry about that! For some reason I thought they used the GC number to reference a database. Anyhow, both sites are a great idea! They make checksums archaic!

July 3, 2006

FYI, GeoChecker has a few new features and improvements. :huh:

Basic link statistics are now logged. When you create a link for a set of coordinates, you'll be given two URLs. One is for "public consumption", which you would post on the web site for solvers to follow. The other is for your use as the cache owner; you can see how many visits, and how many good or bad solution attempts, have been made for your cache coordinates. It's very simple logging - only the hash and visit counts are logged; as always, no coordinates will ever be recorded.

When you create a link, the form now returns not only the link, but a suggested bit of HTML code you can cut-n-paste directly into your cache listing (make sure you enable HTML format in your descriptions to do this).

Also, the FAQ has a couple answers now, including a slightly expanded discussion of the security. As questions arise, the FAQ will continue to be improved.

A rudimentary comment/feedback form has also been added.

Your suggestions are certainly welcome!

14.3k · July 3, 2006

FYI, GeoChecker has a few new features and improvements.

Basic link statistics are now logged. When you create a link for a set of coordinates, you'll be given two URLs. One is for "public consumption", which you would post on the web site for solvers to follow. The other is for your use as the cache owner; you can see how many visits, and how many good or bad solution attempts, have been made for your cache coordinates. It's very simple logging - only the hash and visit counts are logged; as always, no coordinates will ever be recorded.

When you create a link, the form now returns not only the link, but a suggested bit of HTML code you can cut-n-paste directly into your cache listing (make sure you enable HTML format in your descriptions to do this).

Also, the FAQ has a couple answers now, including a slightly expanded discussion of the security. As questions arise, the FAQ will continue to be improved.

A rudimentary comment/feedback form has also been added.

Your suggestions are certainly welcome!

Sounds great! So do I have to resumbit my puzzles or is there a way to check the stats without doing so?

July 3, 2006

I think this is so cool. I love to set up puzzle caches but I worry about people going out on wild goose chases. This should help out quite a bit.

July 3, 2006

So do I have to resumbit my puzzles or is there a way to check the stats without doing so?

You'll be happy to know that you won't have to regenerate your links. Here's the trick: if you add the following:

&visitcount=1

to the end of your existing links, you can see how many visits and good and bad solution attempts have been made. (Don't add that to the public URL, just use it for your own purposes). It's going to start incrementing as of yesterday, so it's not retroactive from the original link creation. Therefore you'll probably see a lot of zeros initially, even if those links have been used already.

Please note that number of visits can be increased by things other than people clicking the link - I suspect that search engine robots following the link may also increment the counter. The number of solution attempts is probably more accurate.

7.2k · July 3, 2006

I think this is so cool. I love to set up puzzle caches but I worry about people going out on wild goose chases. This should help out quite a bit.

Well, part of caching is ending up in surprising places. Many times we've been on the road and a puzzle has taken us places where it just didn't seem right. We re-check the puzzle and see we've transposed digits or brain-farted a clue. We re-group and go to the right spot.

BTW, this is why it is the responsibility of the seeker to be aware of their surroundings at all times and to watch out for dangers and legalities the hider may not know about. Because you may be somewhere the hider never intended you to be!

Anyway, the tool which is the subject of this thread is simple reality check for those who rather not have these fun little side trips.

The addition of the audit log is an excellent tool to determine if your puzzle is confusing or easily understood. We've seen even hard puzzle that when inspiration hit we knew we had the right solution. OTOH, we've seen puzzles that could go a multitude of ways and had no real way of checking without a lot of work, maybe even field work.

Dont' be afraid of putting out a puzzle cache, because of possible errors. Always double check your work with a fresh look. Look for multiple possible solutions. While making the solver use intuition is good, don't require leaps of faith. Very subtle hints to a key are helpful.

Hope this helps.

7.2k · July 3, 2006

I suspect that search engine robots following the link may also increment the counter.

Thought about using rel="nofollow" in the HTML link to reduce the number of spider hits?

Edited July 3, 2006 by CoyoteRed

14.3k · July 3, 2006

So do I have to resumbit my puzzles or is there a way to check the stats without doing so?

You'll be happy to know that you won't have to regenerate your links. Here's the trick: if you add the following:

&visitcount=1

to the end of your existing links, you can see how many visits and good and bad solution attempts have been made. (Don't add that to the public URL, just use it for your own purposes). It's going to start incrementing as of yesterday, so it's not retroactive from the original link creation. Therefore you'll probably see a lot of zeros initially, even if those links have been used already.

Please note that number of visits can be increased by things other than people clicking the link - I suspect that search engine robots following the link may also increment the counter. The number of solution attempts is probably more accurate.

Thanks! I'm :laughing: I don't have to go back and edit the cache pages!

July 3, 2006

You'll be happy to know that you won't have to regenerate your links. Here's the trick: if you add the following:

&visitcount=1

to the end of your existing links, you can see how many visits and good and bad solution attempts have been made.

And the the seekers can add it to see how many other people are have problems :laughing:

Edited July 3, 2006 by AllenLacy

July 7, 2006

Another minor security improvement has been made to GeoChecker.

The "throttling" feature was refined to two levels: the existing 10 visits in 10 minutes, plus a new maximum 25 visits in one hour. There was some evidence of one user trying to brute-force a particular cache, and the regular throttling just wasn't deterring them. The second level of throttling now includes a warning that GeoChecker is intended to check a solution, not to find it. Hopefully this security tweak will help prevent abuse.

As far as I can tell, there are at least 60 caches currently linked to GeoChecker.

7.2k · July 7, 2006

Another minor security improvement has been made to GeoChecker.

The "throttling" feature was refined to two levels: the existing 10 visits in 10 minutes, plus a new maximum 25 visits in one hour. There was some evidence of one user trying to brute-force a particular cache, and the regular throttling just wasn't deterring them. The second level of throttling now includes a warning that GeoChecker is intended to check a solution, not to find it. Hopefully this security tweak will help prevent abuse.

As far as I can tell, there are at least 60 caches currently linked to GeoChecker.

Just how many times should a single pair of coordinates be checked by one person?

Heck, crank it up to once an hour. The intent is to only check to see if you've gotten the right coords. The hour will give them enough time to check their work. There are 6 input boxes for a reason and there is plenty of back end checking to make sure the coords are entered correctly and there are no false negatives on leading zeros and such.

Just don't penalize them for entering the captcha incorrectly.

I've got an hour delay on our personal checker and not a single complaint.

July 7, 2006

Well, as an author of puzzle caches, I am not sure I would object to having a person use an unexpected way to solve it - even brute force - we all use the tools we know and understand first :anicute:

I had a look - and entered a cache - then went back to check (making sure it works, right?) and it hangs - now I don't know if this is a function of your limit on how many times you can check or not, but if it is, it presents a problem for someone like me who wants to make sure things work before letting them out for public consumption

Edited July 7, 2006 by OHMIKY

July 7, 2006

I had a look - and entered a cache - then went back to check (making sure it works, right?) and it hangs - now I don't know if this is a function of your limit on how many times you can check or not, but if it is, it presents a problem for someone like me who wants to make sure things work before letting them out for public consumption

You make a good point - people need flexibility to play around a little bit. CoyoteRed's solution is great for a private tool, where you have complete confidence in your own software, but didn't seem appropriate for something released for broad public use. You're absolutely correct - I was similarly dubious about using such a tool before trying it out various times.

The "throttle" is set to track all visits, not just the solution check, because it would otherwise be possible to brute-force a solution by creating a link multiple times and seeing if the resulting link matches the cache listing link. So it must be throttled on both ends. Because of these considerations, it seemed like 10 page views per hour was reasonable. I could refine it to only track creation or solution checks, but this was simple and effective.

Send me an email thru my profile, and I'd be happy to discuss the problem you saw - I don't see any problems in the server log, and of course I can't tell what you were trying. The usage logs seem to show a lot of good activity and no obvious failures. Obviously I'd like to resolve any issues so that nobody is left out in the cold.

July 10, 2006

color me embarrassed!

I just checked the site again and had the same problem - then I realized that I am running software which prevents scripts from running until I ok them for a site. Once I did that, the site worked great!

(should I say Success!?)

I apologize profusely for casting any aspersions - and I fully intend to implement this check on all of my puzzle caches.

thanks, Goldenhawk!

July 10, 2006

I just checked the site again and had the same problem - then I realized that I am running software which prevents scripts from running until I ok them for a site. Once I did that, the site worked great!

Thanks for the update. This is a good point - I added a note to the FAQ about this possible problem.

Also - sneak preview - in the next day or two a "fuzzy" solution will be available to cache owners. It will allow two possible ranges - +/- 0.005 or 0.017 minutes (roughly equivalent to 25 and 100 ft at average latitudes). All existing links will still work, and unlike Evince, there's NO registration or login required - it just works.

If you want a preview, I could use a couple more testers to confirm things are ready to go. If so, contact me ASAP thru the Geochecker contact form (http://www.geochecker.com?action=contact) and I'll send you a test link.

July 10, 2006

I just checked the site again and had the same problem - then I realized that I am running software which prevents scripts from running until I ok them for a site. Once I did that, the site worked great!

Thanks for the update. This is a good point - I added a note to the FAQ about this possible problem.

Also - sneak preview - in the next day or two a "fuzzy" solution will be available to cache owners. It will allow two possible ranges - +/- 0.005 or 0.017 minutes (roughly equivalent to 25 and 100 ft at average latitudes). All existing links will still work, and unlike Evince, there's NO registration or login required - it just works.

If you want a preview, I could use a couple more testers to confirm things are ready to go. If so, contact me ASAP thru the Geochecker contact form (http://www.geochecker.com?action=contact) and I'll send you a test link.

Good job!

July 11, 2006

Just a note: as mentioned above, Geochecker has now been updated to allow "fuzzy" solutions - the cache owner can create a link that optionally allows solutions within about 100 ft or about 25 ft of the exact solution. I hope this will provide a useful new tool for cache owners.

3.9k · July 11, 2006

Just a note: as mentioned above, Geochecker has now been updated to allow "fuzzy" solutions - the cache owner can create a link that optionally allows solutions within about 100 ft or about 25 ft of the exact solution. I hope this will provide a useful new tool for cache owners.

Neat! I will pass the word to my wife Sue, who is addicted to creating puzzle caches! She will like this feature!

September 5, 2006

I just completed a small update to Geochecker. The security code (a CAPTCHA image) was very small, leading to some complaints about it being hard to read. Also, it was causing some problems when people used the Back button to try another solution. The CAPTCHA software was updated to one with a larger font, and a minor tweak was made which may help with the Back button issue.

September 5, 2006

Very, very cool! I just submitted a cache that, if approved, will work well with this. Thanks!

September 5, 2006

Would it be a good ideato "force" puzzle cache setters to include geochecker?

5.3k · September 5, 2006

Would it be a good ideato "force" puzzle cache setters to include geochecker?

Since I find the user interface for geochecker unacceptable, I wouldn't ever ask a seeker for one of my caches to use it.

September 6, 2006

Since I find the user interface for geochecker unacceptable, I wouldn't ever ask a seeker for one of my caches to use it.

That's a good point. So how about going offline and giving me some feedback in a private message? Perhaps some of your concerns can be addressed easily, thus making a more useful tool for everyone.

5.3k · September 6, 2006

So how about going offline and giving me some feedback in a private message?

Because I'm tired of beating my head against that particular wall? It isn't going to change.

And it's not like it's a secret that I think forcing the user to enter 8 values where only 1 is required makes for a very poor user interface.

Edited September 6, 2006 by fizzymagic

September 6, 2006

If a solver of one of my puzzles doesn't know for sure that they got the right answer, then I didn't design the puzzle well enough.

1.4k · September 6, 2006

Looks good to me! Of course if it didn't look good to me, I would just keep my mouth shut rather then insult the creator, and then complain about how "nothing is the way I want it to be, why isn't anyone doing it for me". Keep up the good work

3.7k · September 6, 2006

And it's not like it's a secret that I think forcing the user to enter 8 values where only 1 is required makes for a very poor user interface.

I don't follow - what 8 values? There appears to be more than 8. The keying-in of coordinates is necessary as far as I can see, and is only for confirmation purposes (to save wasting time and money on a futile mission).

It has worked well for my purposes - many thanks.

15.3k · September 6, 2006

And it's not like it's a secret that I think forcing the user to enter 8 values where only 1 is required makes for a very poor user interface.

I don't follow - what 8 values? There appears to be more than 8. The keying-in of coordinates is necessary as far as I can see, and is only for confirmation purposes (to save wasting time and money on a futile mission).

I went to the confirmation page for the imaginary test cache. Instead of being able to copy-paste the coordinates from my notes ("N 38° 00.000 W 76° 00.000"), I would need to copy-paste each piece separately ("38", "00", "000", "76", "00", "000"), or type them in again (risking typos if they were real, non-trivial coordinates). And after I do that, and after I type in the text from the captcha, I discover that the form doesn't work without JS enabled.

September 6, 2006

Instead of being able to copy-paste the coordinates from my notes ("N 38° 00.000 W 76° 00.000"), I would need to copy-paste each piece separately ("38", "00", "000", "76", "00", "000"), or type them in again (risking typos if they were real, non-trivial coordinates). And after I do that, and after I type in the text from the captcha, I discover that the form doesn't work without JS enabled.

Thanks for the great discussion. Perhaps some explanation is in order.

It's great to be able to enter "N 38° 00.000 W 76° 00.000" as one block - if any of your solution methods created that perfectly formatted string every time. But if you're using any common methods, like a bit of paper, or Excel, I doubt you have that perfect text on screen to cut-n-paste in one chunk, and HOW it's formatted is not going to be consistent anyway. (Do your notes include those degree symbols, for example?) I hope that the only time this complaint is really an issue is when you test it using our (hopefully) convenient test link.

Having specific blocks eliminates confusion, for both the software and for the user. For the user, "Do I enter DD MM.mmm or DD.ddddd? Do I enter W76 or W 76 or West 76 or -76...? Do I need the degree symbol?" and for the software, "The entry was ambiguous... what does N3819.234W77.23456 mean?" Even Google Maps in all its glory isn't that intelligent - you have to enter the coords in certain ways. So a very clearly defined entry method is a good thing for almost everyone.

As to the javascript requirement, that's a security measure. I realise that highly security-minded individuals may disable JS to reduce browser problems (like popups). However, the vast majority of users have JS enabled (and often use Firefox which is less vulnerable anyway). The JS serves to force a 15-second "timeout" in the solution entry page - one of several methods to keep people from guessing solution-after-solution-after-solution.

In the end, which would you rather have - a secure tool that you as a cache owner are confident cannot be abused, or a super-convenient tool for the cache seeker which lets some less principled cacher hack into a solution for your super-hard, carefully-designed puzzle? I think the balance should fall towards security, at the risk of a little less convenience.

Bottom line, I love this kind of feedback, and contrary to FizzyMagic's grousing, I do take it into account and make appropriate changes when they're justified (just like I updated the CAPTCHA security image after some complaints about small text and older eyeballs). But as JuicePig pointed out, you're certainly welcome to create an alternate checking solution... I don't claim any corner on the market.

3.2k · September 6, 2006

I just completed a small update to Geochecker. The security code (a CAPTCHA image) was very small, leading to some complaints about it being hard to read. Also, it was causing some problems when people used the Back button to try another solution. The CAPTCHA software was updated to one with a larger font, and a minor tweak was made which may help with the Back button issue.

First, thanks, I use this now with my puzzle caches. On one of my caches I got a log that included:

"<snip>.... tried using the coordinates checkder with our cell phones but it kept saying that we did not enter the validation codes correctly. I'm assuming the reason for the validation code is just to add frustration because we all know ..<dry humor snipped>..."

I am not sure if there is anyway with this to accomodate the WAP users, but wanted to pass this along. This latest may already solve the issue, i have not tried it myself since you made the change.

Thanks for saving me and others a ton of time hinting in the wrong area.

September 6, 2006

Looks good to me! Of course if it didn't look good to me, I would just keep my mouth shut rather then insult the creator, and then complain about how "nothing is the way I want it to be, why isn't anyone doing it for me". Keep up the good work

Ditto for me! Looks like a fine, long-needed addition. Thanks!

9.2k · September 6, 2006

And after I do that, and after I type in the text from the captcha, I discover that the form doesn't work without JS enabled.

No javascript required.

5.3k · September 6, 2006

It's great to be able to enter "N 38° 00.000 W 76° 00.000" as one block - if any of your solution methods created that perfectly formatted string every time. But if you're using any common methods, like a bit of paper, or Excel, I doubt you have that perfect text on screen to cut-n-paste in one chunk, and HOW it's formatted is not going to be consistent anyway.

I apologize for the tone of my comments. However, they were in response to a suggestion that puzzle-cache hiders be required to use geochecker. Normally I wouldn't comment, but that struck me as a bad suggestion for the reason I gave.

This strikes me as being the same as if Microsoft Word required you to enter every character of a word one at a time in a separate box before it would spell-check it for you. They might try to justify it by claiming it "reduces confusion" when all it really does is reduce the amount of work the programmer has to do. And the claim that "it's the way the geocaching.com site does it" doesn't fly, either, since the geocaching.com interface for coordinate entry is very poor.

Having specific blocks eliminates confusion, for both the software and for the user. For the user, "Do I enter DD MM.mmm or DD.ddddd? Do I enter W76 or W 76 or West 76 or -76...? Do I need the degree symbol?" and for the software, "The entry was ambiguous... what does N3819.234W77.23456 mean?" Even Google Maps in all its glory isn't that intelligent - you have to enter the coords in certain ways. So a very clearly defined entry method is a good thing for almost everyone.

There is no reason that coordinates need to be entered in any single exact format in order to be checked, especially since you allow "fuzzy" checking. It would seem to me that the coordinates should be allowed to be entered in a variety of formats. If the application can't parse them, it should just say so.

For those who think I am just griping without offering any constructive solution, please note: I have not only written a very flexible coordinate parser, but I have released it as GPLed source code, available to everybody. That's why I get so snarky; everybody says it's really hard, but it already exists!

Edited September 6, 2006 by fizzymagic

September 6, 2006

I use Fizzy's Geocalc and Goldenhawk's Geochecker

To me they are both invaluable.

With all due respect I would think that those of us who are into puzzles, (I do ones I can never go to find), can cope with might be deemed "problems". I'm rather amused that what is mentioned are seen as problems at all, in view of the self inflicted torture we happily endure.

For the record I have been in touch with both Fizzy and Goldenhawk and they both come across as extremely helpful and patient guys.

"Geochecker" Best thing since sliced bread, only problem for me is that it is not yet used widely enough.

September 6, 2006

What was the coolest thing BEFORE sliced bread?

Www.geochecker.com

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment