Problem In Creating Waypoints On New Cache Page

[+Mr'D]

I am currently working on a new cache and creating the webpage.

 

I have an error message appear that I have never seen before and cannot see what I have done wrong?

 

 

The coordinates are valid. What am I doing wrong?

 

Thanks,

 

Jon

[+The Leprechauns]

This error message occurs when you try to create an "Additional Waypoint" having coordinates that are identical to the coordinates posted at the top of the page. The concept of an "Additional Waypoint" is that it is provided in addition to the coordinates already given, and already included in downloadable files.

 

May I ask why you are duplicating the posted coordinates as an Additional Waypoint? There are some possible exceptions; for example, a puzzle cache that solves to the posted coordinates.

Edited July 26, 2006 by The Leprechauns

[Alan White]

Other exceptions:

 

Puzzle/Multis where the main coords are the parking or first stage (i.e almost all Puzzles/Multis). These need to be in the AWs so they can be correctly typed.

 

So, given that there are at least three obvious exceptions the restriction is pointless.

 

Presumably it only checks that the coords are identical, so changing the last digit will allow it to be added without affecting the functionality. A daft thing, but stupid restrictions require stupid workrounds.

[+The Leprechauns]

I notice you're quite fond of the words "daft" and "stupid."

 

If the posted coordinates of a puzzle cache are for parking, SAY SO in the cache description. If the first stage of the multicache is at the posted coordinates, that's how multicaches work. Then, the second and third and succeeding stages are additional waypoints.

 

Absolutely no added information or value is provided by squirting a redundant waypoint at me. An error message guarding against this is not daft or stupid at all.

 

So, we're back at one obvious exception, as far as I'm concerned: A puzzle whose solution is the posted coordinates, and the cache owner wants to tell this to the cache reviewer in a hidden Additional Waypoint. For that narrow purpose, adding .001 to the latitude works fine. The confusion which may result from the 1 in 2000 caches where applicable is, in my mind, outweighed by the elimination of many Additional Waypoints which are redundant copies of the posted coordinates.

[Alan White]

We'll clearly have to agree to disagree. The purpose of the so-called Additional Waypoints (which are only so called in one of the many places they're named, so let's not get into semantics) is to provide structured data and so enable classification of the waypoints. This means that the data can then be effectively processed.

 

Since the advent of additional waypoints it is the main coordinates which are redundant, as there's no way to classify them.

[+Mr'D]

May I ask why you are duplicating the posted coordinates as an Additional Waypoint? There are some possible exceptions; for example, a puzzle cache that solves to the posted coordinates.

Yes the additional waypoint I was trying to create is the same coordinate as the 'to be published' cache coordinate. This is because the cache coordinate is the starting point of a mystery and also the recommended parking spot.

 

I understood that it now recommended to keep waypoints out of the cache description and use the additional waypoint function, but I must be mistaken.

 

Jon

[+tozainamboku]

My understanding is that additional waypoints serve two purposes.

 

1) In cases where caches had additional waypoints in the description, users were asking for a way to get these waypoints in the GPX file as a way to get the coordinates into their GPS. (Manually entering waypoints into a GPSr seems to be the equivalent of setting the clock on a VCR ). Several third party apps were already available for grabbing coordinates from the cache page, so I never quite understood this need for additional waypoints.

 

2) Reviewers wanted a way to check the intermediate waypoints in a multi or the true coordinates for a puzzle. I suspect they had tools to grab this from the reviewer notes, so again this wasn't really needed. The reviewers have gained a new tool now in that addtional waypoints are kept by Geocaching.com so they can check if a new cache is too close to and existing stage of a multi or a puzzle so long as additional waypoints were entered for that cache.

 

I don't believe that addtional waypoints were ever meant to replace the cache description.

[+The Leprechauns]

May I ask why you are duplicating the posted coordinates as an Additional Waypoint? There are some possible exceptions; for example, a puzzle cache that solves to the posted coordinates.

Yes the additional waypoint I was trying to create is the same coordinate as the 'to be published' cache coordinate. This is because the cache coordinate is the starting point of a mystery and also the recommended parking spot.

 

I understood that it now recommended to keep waypoints out of the cache description and use the additional waypoint function, but I must be mistaken.

 

Jon

You are correct in stating that waypoints should be kept out of the cache description, and that additional waypoints should be used now for locations that you previously would have just typed into your cache description. But the posted coordinates are a data field. The waypoint is already there. All you need to do is say that the posted coordinates are for parking. There is no need to repeat that waypoint.

 

By repeating that waypoint, users are loading redundant information onto their GPS receivers. Most GPS receivers have limitations on how many waypoints can be stored at one time. I'd rather have 500 unique waypoints (450 caches plus 50 meaningful additional waypoints) than a lot of redundant information that means fewer caches to look for (400 caches plus 50 meaningful additional waypoints plus 50 waypoints that are identical to the posted coordinates).

[+alexrudd]

By repeating that waypoint, users are loading redundant information onto their GPS receivers. Most GPS receivers have limitations on how many waypoints can be stored at one time. I'd rather have 500 unique waypoints (450 caches plus 50 meaningful additional waypoints) than a lot of redundant information that means fewer caches to look for (400 caches plus 50 meaningful additional waypoints plus 50 waypoints that are identical to the posted coordinates).

Also, I've heard that having multiple waypoints with the same coordinates causing undesired results with both software and GPS units.

 

Please explain a specific case where you need additional waypoints with exactly the same coordinates as the main coordinates. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

[+Mr'D]

I am still a little confused over this.

 

For the cache page coordinate of a multi for instance, I would normally give the recommended parking coordinate. I could also make this WP1 to collect a clue, say a date off the parking conditions board. Thus the cache page coordinate also becomes WP1.

 

Then say I have another 4 coordinates at which one needs to visit and collect clues. Making a listing of these additional waypoints would then have to exclude WP1, which would then mean having to give WP1 instruction in the main body of text?

 

What would be the correct (or new...) way of doing this?

[igreen66]

There seems to me to be only one reason why they want you to put waypoints in this way and that would be to hide the coordinates from anyone who isn't signed up to the site. When I originally started geocaching everything on the site was visble - now it's not. They started by removing the cache coordinates. However this didn't work for multis where the description would still get you there. If you now don't put coords in the description then non-signed up people won't be able to see them.

 

Personally I can't see it being because people can't "set their VCRS" being the reason since it's got to be a darn sight harder to work out how to transfer/download coords to your GPS than do it manually.

[+FamilyDNA]

I am still a little confused over this.

 

For the cache page coordinate of a multi for instance, I would normally give the recommended parking coordinate. I could also make this WP1 to collect a clue, say a date off the parking conditions board. Thus the cache page coordinate also becomes WP1.

 

Then say I have another 4 coordinates at which one needs to visit and collect clues. Making a listing of these additional waypoints would then have to exclude WP1, which would then mean having to give WP1 instruction in the main body of text?

 

What would be the correct (or new...) way of doing this?

What I would like to see, as a seeker, is all the locations I must visit, together with the task at each, listed in the description. That way everything I need to complete the cache is in one place in cachemate on my Palm. If parking is at the first point, no need to list it twice. People will probably figure it out. Or just say to park near stage one. Separate parking coordinates I only find helpful whan parking is not obvious, such as parking for a trailhead, etc.

 

The new requirement is that any coordinates in addition to the posted be listed in additional waypoints. This is mostly to help the reviewers. Some cachers also like to have them downloaded. For a multi or puzzle, I prefer to enter the handful of coordinates by hand. That way there not there if I'm not working on that cache, and I can recognise what they are for.

[+dino-irl]

To be honest I tend to do both. I put the additional waypoints in the body of the cache page and also create the AW as requested by our reviewer. This makes it easier for everyone involved, paperless cachers, those who prefer the printout and of course the reviewer.

 

As to the OP. If it's a Puzzle cache then just pick different coords for the start point. They can be anywhere close by the beginning. If it's a Multi then the cache coords should be the first point anyway.

[+Mr'D]

If it's a Multi then the cache coords should be the first point anyway.

 

Agreed, but we are no longer allowed to call it WP1..?

[+Jeremy]

If it's a Multi then the cache coords should be the first point anyway.

 

Agreed, but we are no longer allowed to call it WP1..?

 

Kind of redundant isn't it?

[+Mr'D]

Kind of redundant isn't it?

Yes I can see that the new implementation removes duplication of 2 same coordinates on the cache page Jeremy, but I still don't undestand how to create a multi where the parking/cache page coords are the same as WP1? (see my previous post).

[+Lil Devil]

I still don't undestand how to create a multi where the parking/cache page coords are the same as WP1?

And I still don't understand why you think you need to create this duplication

[+Jeremy]

Kind of redundant isn't it?

Yes I can see that the new implementation removes duplication of 2 same coordinates on the cache page Jeremy, but I still don't undestand how to create a multi where the parking/cache page coords are the same as WP1? (see my previous post).

 

You've been around a while, right? Before the additional waypoints feature was added the start of a multicache was always the coordinate listed on the cache page. From there you went to stage 2 and so forth.

 

So I'm trying to get a grasp of why this doesn't make sense to you now. If there isn't anything particularly useful at the parking coordinates, it seems to me that you could either

1. Post a message that parking is available at the listed coordinates for the cache, or
   
2. Have a stage 1 that actually has information that brings you to stage 2
   

If you went with the second option your parking coordinates would be different from the physical object, sign, or whatever you use. In that case there would be no issue with duplicating coordinates.

 

Duplicating is, well, duplicating. Redundancy can be redundantly redundant and uselessly useless.

Edited July 27, 2006 by Jeremy

[+Markwell]

There seems to me to be only one reason why they want you to put waypoints in this way and that would be to hide the coordinates from anyone who isn't signed up to the site.

 

Not necessarily true.

 

Right now, my standard load for caches to my GPS contains about 539 caches, and there are 95 of them that have parking coordinates. Now with these coordinates entered in this fashion, I can automatically have these coordinates upload directly, and not have to hand enter 95 ADDITIONAL points.

 

And there's also caches like my Herrick Lake Audio Exchange, where all of the waypoints, including the final box, are visible. I've made it so that people hunting for my cache could get all of the waypoints and manually input them, without having to worry about whether they transposed a digit or dropped a leading zero.

 

I think that the thought that GC.com is trying to make it so that no one can see ANY coordinates is a little conspiracy-minded. If that were true, every reviewer would be editing out ANY coordinates in the descriptions. There's nothing in the guidelines that says if you want people to find your caches without having to login, that you can't place ALL of the coordinates to find your cache in the description of the cache page.

 

But all of this is far off topic.

[+The Leprechauns]

One of my former forum signature lines:

 

I was formerly employed by the Department of Redundancy Department, but I don't work there anymore.

[+Mr'D]

I suppose the easy around this is not to make WP1 the same as the cachepage coordinates.

 

Thanks all.

[igreen66]

I think that the thought that GC.com is trying to make it so that no one can see ANY coordinates is a little conspiracy-minded. If that were true, every reviewer would be editing out ANY coordinates in the descriptions. There's nothing in the guidelines that says if you want people to find your caches without having to login, that you can't place ALL of the coordinates to find your cache in the description of the cache page.

Well if that's your view why on Earth did they make it impossible to see the starting coordinates. You may well be able to put all your coords in your descriptioon (and I do) but there removal may well be in the future. I certainly think it's coming.

[Alan White]

The reason for what some are calling duplication and others are calling essential information is classification. It is much easier and more accurate for a program to be able to read and process structured data than it is to try to interpret text.

 

The solution to this "problem" is simple: remove the need for the main coords, as they are now redundant. The workround is even simpler but less elegant: add .001 to any waypoint which needs to be "duplicated". (I notice that people have started doing this already, even before this discussion.)

[+alexrudd]

The solution to this "problem" is simple: remove the need for the main coords, as they are now redundant. The workround is even simpler but less elegant: add .001 to any waypoint which needs to be "duplicated". (I notice that people have started doing this already, even before this discussion.)

The main coordinates are redundant and unnecessary?

[+Jeremy]

The solution to this "problem" is simple:

 

There's no problem. You have a solution that is trying to find a problem.

[+Bob Smith]

Instead of all the arguments and point scoring how about if some thought was given to solving the missing ??? waypoint information on the current GPX downloads?