IDEA FOR NEW SEARCH CRITERIA IN PKT QUERIES

[+StormBlue318]

I would like to propose another category for the pocket queries. It would be sweet if we could do a query by OWNER or tagname as well. There are many cachers out there these days that have made it a huge part of their lives and have devoted countless hours of their lives into not only finding but also hiding fun SUPER CREATIVE caches for all of us. Some have even HUNDREDS of hides they meticulously care for so that the rest of us can find them. Wouldnt it be nice to be able to have those hundreds of creative hides out there (ones we KNOW are there and in good condition) could be lumped into one query for us to find at our leisure? Its just one idea I would like to see implimented. Let me know what you think ....

 

~SB

[+Markwell]

Yep - it's been suggested numerous times.Here's my post in a recent discussion.

[+StormBlue318]

Yep - it's been suggested numerous times.Here's my post in a recent discussion.

 

Thank you. Didn't mean to beat a dead horse, I'm still new around here. I did figure out that I could do it painstakingly by bookmarking them all and making a query from that. What a pain, though! Thanx again,

~SB

[+Rattlebars]

I'd like to see no changes to Pocket Queries that involve changing the format thereof. It would (possibly) negate some dated & no longer supported software such as those for Pocket PC like GPXSonar and GPXview (and perhaps some others).

 

That's *IF* there is not already built into gpx files and/or software the capacity to ignore such additional data fields.

[+Beaverbeliever]

It would be nice to be able to run PQ's with who hid/found the cache, and to be able to select "Archived" caches. It would be nice to see if there was a cache in the place you are hiding one. It would also be nice to have that feature to see what the fate of the cache there before had (why it was archived).

[+Rattlebars]

It would be nice to see if there was a cache in the place you are hiding one.

Enter your coordinates into the Hide & Seek form and it will give you a list of the closest. If the one at the top is at least 0.1mi you are good to go (but that does not include stages of other caches which is discussed here)

 

I agree on Archivals.....

I'd like to see no changes to Pocket Queries that involve changing the format thereof. It would (possibly) negate some dated & no longer supported software such as those for Pocket PC like GPXSonar and GPXview (and perhaps some others).

 

That's *IF* there is not already built into gpx files and/or software the capacity to ignore such additional data fields.

I did a little testing of this. I added to a small gpx file the following between the <Groundspeak:terrain> and the <Groundspeak:country> fields:

 

<Groundspeak:attribute>0</Groundspeak:attribute>

<Groundspeak:attribute>1</Groundspeak:attribute>

<Groundspeak:attribute>2</Groundspeak:attribute>

<Groundspeak:attribute>3</Groundspeak:attribute>

<Groundspeak:attribute>4</Groundspeak:attribute>

<Groundspeak:attribute>5</Groundspeak:attribute>

<Groundspeak:attribute>6</Groundspeak:attribute>

<Groundspeak:attribute>7</Groundspeak:attribute>

<Groundspeak:attribute>8</Groundspeak:attribute>

<Groundspeak:attribute>9</Groundspeak:attribute>

 

and also:

 

<Groundspeak:attribute>0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9</Groundspeak:attribute>

 

The additions didn't phase GPSBabel, GPXView or GPXSonar... they worked fine. Other utilities I can't comment about.

[+alexrudd]

I'd like to see no changes to Pocket Queries that involve changing the format thereof. It would (possibly) negate some dated & no longer supported software such as those for Pocket PC like GPXSonar and GPXview (and perhaps some others).

 

That's *IF* there is not already built into gpx files and/or software the capacity to ignore such additional data fields.

 

The good thing about GPX is that software should just ignore anything it doesn't recognize. Normal GPS units and general purpose GPS software have no idea about the Groundspeak namespace, but it doesn't break anything for them. Adding more attributes wouldn't cause a problen.