Feature request: unique names for LOC downloads

[marnen]

I have a feature request for LOC file downloads. At the moment, the downloaded file always gets the name geocaching.loc, which means it's hard for me to tell which waypoint's data it contains, and causes problems with overwriting on my Palm. I am requesting that the file have a unique name, probably the waypoint code -- GC1234.loc is so much more informative than geocaching.loc . Thanks!

[+LastGrape]

Yes I totally agree, was actually going to suggest this myself when I saw this topic.

[+Miragee]

If you use helpful software like GSAK (Geocaching Swiss Army Knife), you can specify the name that goes to your GPSr and Palm.

 

If you become Premium Members, then you can get the .gpx files in pocket queries. With those, you can even put the hint on your GPSr, if you want to.

[marnen]

If you use helpful software like GSAK (Geocaching Swiss Army Knife), you can specify the name that goes to your GPSr and Palm.

I know I can rename the files after download, and that is suitable as a workaround, but it adds an extra step in the process which shouldn't really be necessary. Besides, it doesn't fix the root problem, which is that the name of the file as first downloaded is completely uninformative regarding its contents. It would be trivial for the application to be modified to use the waypoint name as a filename, which is why I suggested it. (As a developer myself, I would expect to spend no more than 5 minutes implementing a change like this.)

 

Anyway, GSAK is of no use to me since I don't use Windows and have no interest in using Windows.

 

If you become Premium Members, then you can get the .gpx files in pocket queries. With those, you can even put the hint on your GPSr, if you want to.

I know that. But I'm not a premium member yet, so I can't take advantage of this feature.

Edited May 12, 2007 by marnen

[+trainlove]

Not only can you rename the file after you download it, you can change it before you download it.

The idea for GCasdf.LOC is good but what happens when you click 'check all' and download all 20 caches on that search page? Search5.LOC if you are on the 5'th page? But what kind of a search did you do? SearchP5Zip02124.LOC or SearchP5StateMass.LOC.........

Much too complicated for the dozens of servers at geocaching.com to try to think of for you.

Just do it yourself.

[marnen]

But what kind of a search did you do? SearchP5Zip02124.LOC or SearchP5StateMass.LOC.........

Much too complicated for the dozens of servers at geocaching.com to try to think of for you.

Just do it yourself.

I write applications that do things like this all the time. It's not complicated in the least. The search form has access to the criteria I searched on, so actually a name like SearchZip12601.loc would be extremely easy to construct. But if that's too much stress on the servers (which I doubt), even just using the process ID or other meaningless unique ID -- such as Search123454321.loc -- would be preferable to calling everything geocaching.loc .

[+StarBrand]

But what kind of a search did you do? SearchP5Zip02124.LOC or SearchP5StateMass.LOC.........

Much too complicated for the dozens of servers at geocaching.com to try to think of for you.

Just do it yourself.

I write applications that do things like this all the time. It's not complicated in the least. The search form has access to the criteria I searched on, so actually a name like SearchZip12601.loc would be extremely easy to construct. But if that's too much stress on the servers (which I doubt), even just using the process ID or other meaningless unique ID -- such as Search123454321.loc -- would be preferable to calling everything geocaching.loc .

Seriously - spend the $2.50 permonth to be a premium member (yearly avg) and you can do Pocket Queries - I think you would be much more happy with those and the expense is less than the gas it takes to drive to a cache or 2.

[marnen]

Pocket Queries are irrelevant to my current feature request. I'm asking for a simple enhancement to .LOC files, which have nothing at all to do with Pocket Queries. In my opinion, this "enhancement" (such as it is) should have been incorporated in the first place. If you don't like .LOC files, you don't have to use them, but there are those of us who do use them, and I believe it's not out of order for us to ask that .LOC download should work a little better.

 

In other words: I believe that part of GC.com's .LOC download functionality is broken. There are workarounds, to be sure, and I am using them for the moment, but it would be better if what was broken was actually fixed.

[+Miragee]

Interesting, back when I first started, and I used the .loc files, I learned quickly to rename them myself as I downloaded them. I never would have thought to ask the site to do something I could easily do.

 

But, once I learned how much more information the .gpx files had in them, and how efficient Pocket Queries were, I didn't have to do that anymore.

[marnen]

I hope that post wasn't meant to be as condescending as it seems.

Interesting, back when I first started, and I used the .loc files, I learned quickly to rename them myself as I downloaded them.

I believe I have stated that I am currently doing this. I just don't believe I should have to.

I never would have thought to ask the site to do something I could easily do.

I take the opposite approach: when I write a Web application, I never ask the user to do something that the app can easily do. That's just not good UI design. After all, the purpose of a well-designed application is to help the user, not to burden the user with extra administrative tasks ("excise tasks", in UI jargon). Generating a meaningful, or at least unique, filename is something that the app can easily do, but is nothing but extra work for the user.

[+StarBrand]

Pocket Queries are irrelevant to my current feature request. I'm asking for a simple enhancement to .LOC files, which have nothing at all to do with Pocket Queries. In my opinion, this "enhancement" (such as it is) should have been incorporated in the first place. If you don't like .LOC files, you don't have to use them, but there are those of us who do use them, and I believe it's not out of order for us to ask that .LOC download should work a little better.

 

In other words: I believe that part of GC.com's .LOC download functionality is broken. There are workarounds, to be sure, and I am using them for the moment, but it would be better if what was broken was actually fixed.

broken - not really - just implemented different then you would have done it.

[+StarBrand]

Ok - .loc is vastly inferior to the .GPX file from a PQ - so maybe the difference is that you get what you pay for.

[marnen]

broken - not really - just implemented different then you would have done it.

It's not simply the fact that it was done differently than I would have done it -- everyone will do things slightly differently, and I have no problem with that. What makes me characterize this feature as "broken" is that, for no obvious reason, it is implemented in such a way as to make the user's life (almost) maximally difficult, when an almost trivial enhancement would result in a significant gain in ease of use. There is no good reason at all that I can see to justify this aspect of the current implementation.

Edited May 16, 2007 by marnen

[+StarBrand]

broken - not really - just implemented different then you would have done it.

It's not simply the fact that it was done differently than I would have done it -- everyone will do things slightly differently, and I have no problem with that. What makes me characterize this feature as "broken" is that, for no obvious reason, it is implemented in such a way as to make the user's life (almost) maximally difficult, when an almost trivial enhancement would result in a significant gain in ease of use. There is no good reason at all that I can see to justify this aspect of the current implementation.

Gee I don't know - back when I used .loc files - I can't remember EVER changing the name of the file - of course I got them in .loc files of 10 or more caches off the search pages. Used software to load a bunch of them together. Just my way though.

[+tozainamboku]

There is no good reason at all that I can see to justify this aspect of the current implementation.

What would you name the file if the user has checked multiple caches on the search page and asked for the .LOC that contains the coordinates of all the caches you checked? Certainly clicking on Download .LOC from the cache page, the file could be named with the GC number as the .GPX file is, but when downloaded from the search page the name geocaching.loc is as good as any other. I suspect it is implemented the way it is because the same code is used to generate the .LOC file whether it is for one cache or for several. Given that, it may not be as trivial a fix as you think. However, I'm sure Raine and Jeremy have seen your suggestion and its probably now on their list to fix after all the other items they feel have a higher priority.

[marnen]

What would you name the file if the user has checked multiple caches on the search page and asked for the .LOC that contains the coordinates of all the caches you checked?

Well, that's perhaps outside the scope of my original feature request (because at the time I didn't realize that it was possible, and so did not address it), but you'll note that I already answered that question in this post.

Certainly clicking on Download .LOC from the cache page, the file could be named with the GC number as the .GPX file is, but when downloaded from the search page the name geocaching.loc is as good as any other.

My feature request is certainly less urgent in this case, but it would still be preferable to have a unique filename, as I explained in the post cited above.

I suspect it is implemented the way it is because the same code is used to generate the .LOC file whether it is for one cache or for several. Given that, it may not be as trivial a fix as you think.

No, even in this case, it would be a near-trivial fix -- particularly if the filename need only be unique, not meaningful.

However, I'm sure Raine and Jeremy have seen your suggestion and its probably now on their list to fix after all the other items they feel have a higher priority.

Do you speak for Raine and Jeremy, then? That's good to know.

[+FireRef]

I am a premium member, but would like to download large batches of benchmarks. There is a way around this problem with typing, I'll admit that. I'd prefer to have the .loc files change names, or be able to do a PQ for them. Anyone's opinion on these?

 

Note added later - I did find that I can DL most of a search in one batch - but the .loc file is still irritating. PQ's anyone?

Edited May 17, 2007 by FireRef

[+Markwell]

Take a read here and follow the link to BMGPX.

[+trainlove]

Ok - .loc is vastly inferior to the .GPX file from a PQ - so maybe the difference is that you get what you pay for.

 

Yes LOC are much inferior to GPX, I don't do either and won't go into the reason I let me Premium Membership lapse. The reason I don't download either type of file is that I currently only do what I come to call 'Other Than Traditional', and in most cases those are not at the posted coords which are therefore meaningless.

 

But to go along with the original intention of this question, but pushed on to the Pocket Querry side, why does the pocket Query of all 'My Finds' have such a meaningless, and consistant, name of something like 52637.ZIP? I'll have to check into it, but I think that 5 digit number, which never changed for any of 'My Find queries', is not even the system ID/database Key of my Username.

[+StarBrand]

Ok - .loc is vastly inferior to the .GPX file from a PQ - so maybe the difference is that you get what you pay for.

 

Yes LOC are much inferior to GPX, I don't do either and won't go into the reason I let me Premium Membership lapse. The reason I don't download either type of file is that I currently only do what I come to call 'Other Than Traditional', and in most cases those are not at the posted coords which are therefore meaningless.

 

But to go along with the original intention of this question, but pushed on to the Pocket Querry side, why does the pocket Query of all 'My Finds' have such a meaningless, and consistant, name of something like 52637.ZIP? I'll have to check into it, but I think that 5 digit number, which never changed for any of 'My Find queries', is not even the system ID/database Key of my Username.

Unless I am mistaken - the name is something like the 52 thousand six hundred and thirty seventh PQ that was built and stored.......

[ChrisPHL]

I have a feature request for LOC file downloads. At the moment, the downloaded file always gets the name geocaching.loc, which means it's hard for me to tell which waypoint's data it contains, and causes problems with overwriting on my Palm. I am requesting that the file have a unique name, probably the waypoint code -- GC1234.loc is so much more informative than geocaching.loc . Thanks!

Even if this topic was more than a year inactive but it is still newsworthy.

 

I got it work, having the right information in the right tag of the xml file. I posted the solution here recently. May be this helps you getting further with that.

[+mtn-man]

Please don't bump multiple topics. I've closed the three topics you bumped to avoid confusion.

Edited October 23, 2008 by mtn-man