Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Alan White

Additional Waypoints

50 posts in this topic

It seems that if an additional waypoint is "Show the details of this waypoint but hide the coordinates" then the details of the waypoint are shown online but the coords are replaced with "???". Just as you'd expect.

 

But a waypoint like this doesn't appear in a PQ or an individual GPX. At all.

 

So if the owner puts the question for a Question To Answer in the comment of an additional waypoint with hidden coords then the offline copy is incomplete and the paperless cacher is a bit stuck :P

 

Surely waypoints like this should still appear in PQs etc?

 

See GCX3VD for an example.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Short answer: the cache description is wrong.

And the long answer is? (Since I don't understand the short answer :P )

0

Share this post


Link to post

Short answer: the cache description is wrong.

And the long answer is? (Since I don't understand the short answer :P )

For the coordinates and questions to appear as part of the description, they need to be written into the description. The additional waypoints should be in addition to, not in place of, this information in the cache write up.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Correct FamilyDNA.

 

Here is an example of a cache that is properly done. They have their questions in the description and added them to the waypoints too. It is a nice cross reference if you print the page out, but PDA users must have the information on the cache description itself.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...14-289e946bbfdd

 

(I emailed the reviewer for the cache so they could nudge the owner to add the questions to the description. Thanks for the heads up!)

Edited by mtn-man
0

Share this post


Link to post

For the coordinates and questions to appear as part of the description, they need to be written into the description. The additional waypoints should be in addition to, not in place of, this information in the cache write up.

And this rule is stated where, and enforced how? And why should cache owners duplicate this information just because the system can't handle it properly?

 

You may realise that I'm playing devil's advocate here, as I too think that the way that particular cache is laid out is "wrong". Nevertheless, the system allows, and arguably even encourages, that.

 

However, this is OT. My original point was that waypoints with hidden coords only are visible on the online page but aren't included in GPX files.

0

Share this post


Link to post

My original point was that waypoints with hidden coords only are visible on the online page but aren't included in GPX files.

You are incorrect.

 

When you get a pocket query (PQ), you will get two files if there are additional waypoints. One is the large, main GPX file with the typical information we are used to. There is also a second file that comes with the PQ. That second file has all of the additional waypoints.

 

From my standpoint regarding the issue with the cache you linked, the system is not broken, but instead it is just a simple mistake by the cache owner and the reviewer. The reviewer should have caught this, but since the system *is* new there will be problems that will creep up. That is why I noted that I wrote the reviewer who listed the cache. They probably were not aware of the potential problem. In essence, I would bet is was an honest mistake and not malicious intent. I don't see that the system encourges this either.

 

The box above the text entry area says "Description (UBB Code Allowed)". It is intended to describe the waypoint if a description of what is at that location is needed. I have never seen that as "Enter Multistage Waypoint Questions Here". I have seen that as simply a place to describe the waypoint if needed, like saying "The bridge for question 2", etc. The cache description should be used to describe the cache and to explain any puzzle that is part of the cache, not the waypoint tool. The description is the description for the cache -- additional waypoints are simply tools so cachers do not have to manually enter these coordinates from the description any more.

 

I will have to look at one when I get home, but the information in the waypoint description may very well be in the additional waypoints GPX file. If you use a third party piece of software to upload cache information into your PDA, it might just upload it. You just have to use the third party application on *both* files and add them *both* to your PDA or laptop database. Then again, maybe not. I'll try it later. I personally don't want that. I don't want to go back and forth on my PDA between files. It is not explained well on the waypoints screen, no, so the reviewer must notice this problem and work with the cacher to get the page changed as needed. That is how it is enforced.

 

Again, this is a new tool. As with anything new, some shakeout is needed. Topics such as this are good in helping to identify issues if they are there and to educate other on how to use these new tools. Thanks!

0

Share this post


Link to post

As the cache owner of the linked cache by the WHITE family, I would like to make the following observation:

 

Firstly, my layout of the cache was done that way for simplicity with no duplication. Secondly, the additional waypoints thing was forced upon us with no explanation as to how it should be used. therefore, these so called errors were bound to appear. Thirdly, as has been stated, the way you say it should be done is just duplication of data already placed elsewhere on the cache page.

 

Can we be honest here and admit that the Add Waypts are a little bit more useful than a chocolate fireguard? I don't like them and don't want to use them but as our reviewers say we have to - it does make their job easier - then surely the info that goes in there should be available to the whole system. there should be no necessity to repeat this info in the cache description itself.

 

Comments...

:unsure:

0

Share this post


Link to post

Comments...

:unsure:

 

IMHO All information required to find a (Multi-) cache should be in the (so-called) additional Waypoints. Leave the cache description field for information about the history etc of the place. I find this separation very practical and am very grateful for the introduction of the AWP. I realise that there are teething problems (such as the problem mentioned by the OP - one of my caches has the same problem), but I am hopeful they will be fixed eventually.

 

Roolku

0

Share this post


Link to post

Comments...

:unsure:

 

IMHO All information required to find a (Multi-) cache should be in the (so-called) additional Waypoints. Leave the cache description field for information about the history etc of the place. I find this separation very practical and am very grateful for the introduction of the AWP. I realise that there are teething problems (such as the problem mentioned by the OP - one of my caches has the same problem), but I am hopeful they will be fixed eventually.

 

Roolku

I humbly disagree, and prefer all the information I need to find the cache (any type) be included in the description. This is what is downloaded to cachemate in my PDA and carried with me. I don't want to have to look in multiple places for the information I need.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I agree. I would like all the information for a Multi-cache to be in the cache description.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I would also agree that all of the information should be in the description. The added waypoints should be just that -- waypoints. I think you should give the description of what they are in the description.

 

Keep this in mind. The applications that you use to take GPX files and convert them into a format or data that can be read via a PDA or a computer are third party applications and are not from Groundspeak. Groundspeak will provide a file that can be read by a "reader", but the best applications have been developed by your fellow geocachers. I think it is a tremendous service for Groundspeak to give us a way to not have to manually enter this data. They are additional waypoints to make life easier. They are not another field for the cache description.

 

In addition, reviewers only require hidden waypoints so they will be in the system for us to use for cache review. Adding public waypoints to a cache page is *your choice*. If you don't like them, then don't add them. They do help your fellow cachers though, so you must decide if helping some of your fellow cachers is worth it. I think it is.

 

The text entered into the "Description (UBB Code Allowed)" field do come in the GPX file. When I uploaded the additional waypoints into my GPS, the notes displayed in my "note" field. I have a Garmin 60CSx though. Many GPS devices do not display notes. Maybe some of the third party application developers will make a way to integrate this into their programs. It is up to them to do that. GPXSpinner is what I use. It will not accept the new additional waypoints file. When I tried to open it with Watcher (by ClayJar), I got an error also. I opened it in notepad to view the notes. I am not sure, but I don't think the intention was that we would have to look at two separate files to get the cache description. Jeremy would have to answer that. I personally don't want to have to do GPX file conversions on two files anyway when I can get it all in one file like I have been since the PQ was created for us.

0

Share this post


Link to post

As the reviewer involved in publishing this particular cache I now realise that I didn't understand the implications of the new Additional Waypoints as much as I thought :unsure:

 

I'd like to thank everyone involved in this discussion for both raising the issue and helping my understanding. I feel better placed now to deal with similar situations in the future. In mitigation I would state that the tools I use (GSAK and Memory Map) DO use all the information provided by the cache setter and therefore I see all the details as they intended. I can now see that this extra information might not be visible in other circumstances.

 

Anyway we all live and learn :(

0

Share this post


Link to post

My original point was that waypoints with hidden coords only are visible on the online page but aren't included in GPX files.

You are incorrect.

 

When you get a pocket query (PQ), you will get two files if there are additional waypoints. One is the large, main GPX file with the typical information we are used to. There is also a second file that comes with the PQ. That second file has all of the additional waypoints.

Sorry, it is you who is incorrect. I suggest you read my carefully-worded statement above again.

 

There are three options available to a cacher creating a waypoint:

1. Show all information for this waypoint, including coordinates

2. Show the details of this waypoint but hide the coordinates

3. Hide this waypoint from view except by the owner or administrator

 

1. are visible on the online page and are sent in GPX files.

2. are visible on the online page but are not sent in GPX files.

3. are not visible on the online page and are not sent in GPX files.

 

1 and 3 are absolutely fine and sensible. 2 is inconsistent because the information is only available online.

 

It's a moot point (and wasn't my point) whether the example cache is "right" or "wrong". I quoted it merely as an example of a cache that displays the inconsistency.

0

Share this post


Link to post

In mitigation I would state that the tools I use (GSAK and Memory Map) DO use all the information provided by the cache setter and therefore I see all the details as they intended.

No need for mitigation. No-one is on trial here :laughing:

 

GSAK does not show all the additional waypoints for the example cache. It can't, because the waypoints with hidden coords aren't in the PQ. GSAK shows only four AWs whereas there are actually nine.

 

There is one caveat to that. If you populate GSAK using a GPX file from the cache page then all the waypoints are shown, not because they're in the AW section but because they're in the long description which, as I reported here is no longer sent in PQs.

0

Share this post


Link to post

There is one caveat to that. If you populate GSAK using a GPX file from the cache page then all the waypoints are shown, not because they're in the AW section but because they're in the long description which, as I reported here is no longer sent in PQs.

 

Blimey, I missed that. That of course makes my statement above somewhat problematic. I hope the issue gets fixed asap as there are now caches that can not be found just using the pq data.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, it is you who is incorrect. I suggest you read my carefully-worded statement above again.

Yes, you are correct. I misread that. Apologies!

 

I just hope we get awareness out about the additional waypoints feature. I think it can be a very helpful tool. It has already helped me out on a cache hunt.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, it is you who is incorrect. I suggest you read my carefully-worded statement above again.

Yes, you are correct. I misread that. Apologies!

 

I just hope we get awareness out about the additional waypoints feature. I think it can be a very helpful tool. It has already helped me out on a cache hunt.

Someday Jeremy will introduce a feature that actually helps you beat me to a cache find. :laughing:

0

Share this post


Link to post

Someday Jeremy will introduce a feature that actually helps you beat me to a cache find. :laughing:

Na, invented it myself.

 

182e39f9-a384-45c6-a565-192b182869d3.jpg

 

Next time, when you least expect it, while you are looking at those additional waypoints and trying to figure out what "BR" means...

 

bangouch.gif

0

Share this post


Link to post
So if the owner puts the question for a Question To Answer in the comment of an additional waypoint with hidden coords then the offline copy is incomplete and the paperless cacher is a bit stuck

 

I am not working paperless! I still use the "Print PDF: No Logs" ... In that case I am missing in this print-out the waypoints AND the questions! I am stuck!

Edited by Barontoo
0

Share this post


Link to post
So if the owner puts the question for a Question To Answer in the comment of an additional waypoint with hidden coords then the offline copy is incomplete and the paperless cacher is a bit stuck

 

I am not working paperless! I still use the "Print PDF: No Logs" ... In that case I am missing in this print-out the waypoints AND the questions! I am stuck!

 

We're late on the PDF addition. It's at the top of our list.

 

Also, I'm still looking into the descriptions not showing the waypoint names at the end. I used to have it show up in the long description but for some reason it was lopped off at some point. It's a tough one to sort out so bear with me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
We're late on the PDF addition. It's at the top of our list.

Thanks for your quick reply Jeremy! Hope you will soon find a solution

0

Share this post


Link to post

There are three options available to a cacher creating a waypoint:

1. Show all information for this waypoint, including coordinates

2. Show the details of this waypoint but hide the coordinates

3. Hide this waypoint from view except by the owner or administrator

 

1. are visible on the online page and are sent in GPX files.

2. are visible on the online page but are not sent in GPX files.

3. are not visible on the online page and are not sent in GPX files.

 

1 and 3 are absolutely fine and sensible. 2 is inconsistent because the information is only available online.

I've just glanced at the AWP interface but that was the first thing that struck me as odd. I'm not sure why you would really want option 2 but it does seem a bit odd. Either you want to hide the AWP or not... why the half hidden? I'm not exactly sure the reason for it. Isn't the hidden AWPs for the ones the user has to figure out or obtain as part of doing the cache? Which would be why they don't get included in a GPX file because... uh... that would defeat the purpose of having them hidden. So why have a half hidden AWP to let you know there is a set of final coords? Don't all caches have a set of final coords? I don't think I need to be reminded of that... even if they are hidden.
0

Share this post


Link to post

why the half hidden? I'm not exactly sure the reason for it.

 

Question to answer.

 

So why have a half hidden AWP to let you know there is a set of final coords? Don't all caches have a set of final coords?

 

That was an owner decision so I don't understand the justification of showing it either, unless the user just wants to let you know how many stages there are in a multi or puzzle. Since they did it that way they probably have their own reason for doing it.

0

Share this post


Link to post

LOL... good one. But I wasn't really addressing any particular cache page... but the feature itself.

 

Perhaps the person(s) that coded the feature could clue us in to their thought process when they decided to even put that option in. I'm not convinced it need be there... but I'm also not convinced it need not be there. (not that I need to be convinced either) I'm actually just more curious at why it is an option... what was the intended use?

Edited by mini cacher
0

Share this post


Link to post

Is there a way to download the additional waypoints? Like in a LOC or GPX file? Or have I just missed something?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Is there a way to download the additional waypoints? Like in a LOC or GPX file? Or have I just missed something?

 

If you download a PQ of caches the additional waypoints come zipped in your PQ as a separate file.

0

Share this post


Link to post

When a PQ is run, the output consists of the original gpx file plus a secondary gpx file containing the additional waypoint data. To handle this properly utilities like GSAk and CacheMate need to read both files.

0

Share this post


Link to post

No. The GPX file(s) can be loaded by several pieces of popular software and the waypoints can then be downloaded directly to your GPS.

 

You could *also* download the cache descriptions and hints and stuff to a PDA, but that's a separate function.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Also, I'm still looking into the descriptions not showing the waypoint names at the end. I used to have it show up in the long description but for some reason it was lopped off at some point. It's a tough one to sort out so bear with me.

 

Has their been any progress with this or in getting the Additional Waypoints without co-ords included in PQ's?

 

Cheers,

 

Jon

0

Share this post


Link to post

Also, I'm still looking into the descriptions not showing the waypoint names at the end. I used to have it show up in the long description but for some reason it was lopped off at some point. It's a tough one to sort out so bear with me.

Has their been any progress with this or in getting the Additional Waypoints without co-ords included in PQ's?

 

 

The owner does not want users to see the coords for those particular waypoints. What coords would they be assigned in the PQ? ?? ??.??? would not be valid and would likely break many programs... Coords of the main cache page?

0

Share this post


Link to post

The owner does not want users to see the coords for those particular waypoints. What coords would they be assigned in the PQ? ?? ??.??? would not be valid and would likely break many programs... Coords of the main cache page?

Indeed. The problem is that the owner does want me to see the question, but the question won't appear either.

 

The difficulty is this half-way house of showing the waypoint but hiding its coords. It's encouraging owners to inadvertently hide some information.

 

But anyway, my original point was that waypoints with hidden coords only are visible on the online page but aren't included in GPX files. If the waypoint wasn't visible at all (or, better, the option didn't exist) then owners would realise the problem.

0

Share this post


Link to post

But anyway, my original point was that waypoints with hidden coords only are visible on the online page but aren't included in GPX files. If the waypoint wasn't visible at all (or, better, the option didn't exist) then owners would realise the problem.

If a cache owner has not yet done paperless caching chances are good that he is not aware of the problem. A warning message that appears when someone creates a visible additional waypoint with hidden coordinates where the comment contains text could help.

 

I personally would prefer if these waypoints would be included in the PQs. If the gpx file format does not allow Waypoints without coordinates the cache listing coordinates should be assigned to them by default.

0

Share this post


Link to post

But anyway, my original point was that waypoints with hidden coords only are visible on the online page but aren't included in GPX files. If the waypoint wasn't visible at all (or, better, the option didn't exist) then owners would realise the problem.

If a cache owner has not yet done paperless caching chances are good that he is not aware of the problem. A warning message that appears when someone creates a visible additional waypoint with hidden coordinates where the comment contains text could help.

 

I personally would prefer if these waypoints would be included in the PQs. If the gpx file format does not allow Waypoints without coordinates the cache listing coordinates should be assigned to them by default.

Maybe the reviewers should be aware of this problem, and ask the owner to put all information in the Cachedescription an not only in "half visible" waypoints.

0

Share this post


Link to post

In the early days of additional waypoints, the "questions" were added to the end of the description in the GPX file. I'd like to see this feature come back, which would fix the problem debated in this thread.

0

Share this post


Link to post

In the early days of additional waypoints, the "questions" were added to the end of the description in the GPX file. I'd like to see this feature come back, which would fix the problem debated in this thread.

this would be the best solution. even gpxsonar could so be useful again

0

Share this post


Link to post

In the early days of additional waypoints, the "questions" were added to the end of the description in the GPX file. I'd like to see this feature come back, which would fix the problem debated in this thread.

this would be the best solution. even gpxsonar could so be useful again

I very much agree. I mean how stupid does this look:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...96-16f2ba191553

 

The first copy is completely redundant. I only put it there when the waypoints where removed from the description field in the gpx.

0

Share this post


Link to post

The first copy is completely redundant. I only put it there when the waypoints where removed from the description field in the gpx.

I'm grateful that you did so, stupid-looking or not. I wish that all owners appreciated the defects in AWs and took action like that.

0

Share this post


Link to post

In the early days of additional waypoints, the "questions" were added to the end of the description in the GPX file. I'd like to see this feature come back, which would fix the problem debated in this thread.

this would be the best solution. even gpxsonar could so be useful again

Yes please put it back to how it was.

This came as quite a surprise when out caching the other day came to listing that had worked previously but we had decided not to bother when we returned we were unable to do the cache.

PLease please please put it back how it was. It was'nt broken then.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry to bump an old thread, but does anyone know if this ever got sorted? There are a number of good issues raised in this discussion, and it doesn't look like any of them got resolved!

 

Oh, and I'd like to see the questions back in the main description in a PQ. I too have a number of caches where the questions are only listed in the AWs, and at no point was it ever pointed out that they need to be duplicated in the description. I would imagine there are many many caches like this.... All of them not achievable by a paperless cacher...

0

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, and I'd like to see the questions back in the main description in a PQ. I too have a number of caches where the questions are only listed in the AWs, and at no point was it ever pointed out that they need to be duplicated in the description.

 

Because initially (when the additional waypoint feature was introduced) it wasn't neccessary.

 

I copy and paste the html for the table in the long description as an ugly work-around: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...96-16f2ba191553 but this shouldn't be neccessary and and wastes ink and paper for people who still print their sheets. Also there is the danger the information gets out of sync when things need updating.

0

Share this post


Link to post

The owner does not want users to see the coords for those particular waypoints. What coords would they be assigned in the PQ? ?? ??.??? would not be valid and would likely break many programs... Coords of the main cache page?

Indeed. The problem is that the owner does want me to see the question, but the question won't appear either.

 

The difficulty is this half-way house of showing the waypoint but hiding its coords. It's encouraging owners to inadvertently hide some information.

 

But anyway, my original point was that waypoints with hidden coords only are visible on the online page but aren't included in GPX files. If the waypoint wasn't visible at all (or, better, the option didn't exist) then owners would realise the problem.

 

I'm not too happy that this small problem, so clearly defined here by Alan, still exists. Of course I only found out in the field at the last stage of an otherwise fine cache...

 

Any change this will be solved now, since you guys are working hard at the website these days?

 

rgrds, Marcel.

Edited by Mars Express
0

Share this post


Link to post

I read this thread with interest when trying to solve a related problem; Why can't I see additional waypoints in the .loc file that I download as a non-premium member?

 

As has been pointed out several times, when setting up a cache (I set up my first just recently) you are actively encouraged to use the AW feature for puzzle or multi caches.

 

This is fine as long as a/ they are available to the general public to download. It appears that you have to be a paying site member for this to happen, and b/ that the information is correctly downloadable when it is available. IMHO, making people pay to play the game is sort of against the spirit. No problem with Groundspeak making dosh to run things on ancillary services, but not to play.

 

Clearly the programming team and/or management need to sort this one out PDQ 'cus else I'd recommend everyone ignores the active encouragement to use AWs and reverts back to the old method of listing them in the description

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Clearly the programming team and/or management need to sort this one out PDQ 'cus else I'd recommend everyone ignores the active encouragement to use AWs and reverts back to the old method of listing them in the description

 

Cache owners are welcome to list the coordinates for stages of Multi or Puzzle caches in their description. But if you submit the cache without Additional Waypoints for all stages [visible or hidden] the Reviewer looking at your cache will ask you to add them before carrying on the review of your cache. The use of them is part of the guidelines

 

Please provide the coordinates of all stages of the multicache. The posted coordinates are for the first stage. Use the “Additional Waypoints” feature when submitting the multi-cache coordinates for the other stages. If you don't want the coordinates for the rest of the stages displayed, be sure to mark them as “hidden”. Doing this will hide the coordinates from view by anyone except the owner and website volunteers.

 

By encouraging people to ignore the use of Additional Waypoints, you are affectively encouraging a delay to the publication of their cache.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I read this thread with interest when trying to solve a related problem; Why can't I see additional waypoints in the .loc file that I download as a non-premium member?

 

As has been pointed out several times, when setting up a cache (I set up my first just recently) you are actively encouraged to use the AW feature for puzzle or multi caches.

 

This is fine as long as a/ they are available to the general public to download. It appears that you have to be a paying site member for this to happen, and b/ that the information is correctly downloadable when it is available. IMHO, making people pay to play the game is sort of against the spirit. No problem with Groundspeak making dosh to run things on ancillary services, but not to play.

 

Clearly the programming team and/or management need to sort this one out PDQ 'cus else I'd recommend everyone ignores the active encouragement to use AWs and reverts back to the old method of listing them in the description

They're only downloadable if they're not hidden. AWs for mystery and multis are hidden, so no one gets them in their downloads. The only waypoints that are included in downloads are for trail heads, parking, etc., non-hidden stages you might go to for puzzle answers (and those are rare).

 

The main purpose for entering AWs are to prevent collisions with existing cache stages. Before AWs there was no searchable database of where stages and mystery caches were that reviewers could use during the review process.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Cache owners are welcome to list the coordinates for stages of Multi or Puzzle caches in their description. But if you submit the cache without Additional Waypoints for all stages [visible or hidden] the Reviewer looking at your cache will ask you to add them before carrying on the review of your cache. The use of them is part of the guidelines

 

The point that I think everyone has been making is that 'the system' as it currently stands is causing people to duplicate effort to get around the inadequacies of the system. That's what needs addressing. Not the reiteration a set of rules, which we all knew about anyway.

 

Perhaps you'd care to comment on the other point I make about .loc files and having to pay in order to get the full waypoint list?

0

Share this post


Link to post

They're only downloadable if they're not hidden.

 

Not true. If you are a Joe Public member you can only download the.loc file and that only contains the main cache listing coords, which may or may not be part of the multi cache. To get a download of all the visible waypoints you need to be a paying member to get access to the .gpx file.

 

AWs for mystery and multis are hidden, so no one gets them in their downloads.

 

Many multi and puzzle caches use the waypoints (have to) to give the end user the places to get the next part of the puzzle or mini cache containing part of the final clue.

 

The main purpose for entering AWs are to prevent collisions with existing cache stages. Before AWs there was no searchable database of where stages and mystery caches were that reviewers could use during the review process.

 

If this is the case, then the system needs to be made a whole lot simpler for people to add them - i.e. just a list will do, rather than the tedious way in which you currently have to do each one, one by one. If the main purpose is to help the reviewer, then all the additional information is not required - does it really matter to them that what a waypoint is, if the purpose of the exercise is to avoid duplication? Actually I'd go further and say that if this really is the case, then people don't need to describe trail heads, car parks et etc because they are not actually part of the cache and may be duplicated by other cache listings

 

If this is the case, then why present them at all on the cache listing?

Edited by AshleyK
0

Share this post


Link to post

Cache owners are welcome to list the coordinates for stages of Multi or Puzzle caches in their description. But if you submit the cache without Additional Waypoints for all stages [visible or hidden] the Reviewer looking at your cache will ask you to add them before carrying on the review of your cache. The use of them is part of the guidelines

 

The point that I think everyone has been making is that 'the system' as it currently stands is causing people to duplicate effort to get around the inadequacies of the system. That's what needs addressing. Not the reiteration a set of rules, which we all knew about anyway.

 

Perhaps you'd care to comment on the other point I make about .loc files and having to pay in order to get the full waypoint list?

Premium members aren't getting anything extra that you can't get off the cache page. What they get is the convenience of not having to do it manually, and it's a convenience they've paid for.

 

Entering additional waypoints benefits the cache owner, regardless of whether or not they are a premium member, because it helps ensure that no one else will encroach on their cache's territory.

 

If you think entering waypoints is cumbersome, that can be fixed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4