Zip Code search no longer from post office

[+BullRit]

I have windows XP and IE 7.0 at home. I have access to multiple computers at work but I'm not sure what systems but they're tied to a statewide system and I'm guessing XP also. What I am experiencing below is happening both at home and work.

 

Before the upgrade, when I searched by my zip code (81212) caches were listed starting from the post office (Grab the Brass Ring was first) which is less than 1 mile SE from my home. When I searched by my zip code the first few days after the upgrade, the "closest" cache (Swiss Colony) listed showed .3 miles when it is 7.1 miles west of my home coordinates. Caches close to the post office were showing on Page 3, 7+ miles away from the zip code. I figured it was a glitch and was very delighted to see a few days later that it was again listing caches from the post office. Unfortunately, it did not last long and again the closest cache via zip code is Swiss Colony. When I search for caches from my home coordinates, Swiss Colony is on page 3, 7.1 miles west. I had two other people outside of my area, who each have Vista operating systems, search by 81212 and they also get Swiss Colony as first listed. I tried searching a friend's zip and actual address in Denver Metro area and the zip code search works fine so I'm thinking it's just the particular zip code. Anyone else have zip code issues of this nature?

 

I have no way to get my bearings anymore because 7 miles west of here is in the mountains in the middle of nowhere. Yes, I can search by my home coordinates for myself personally but when introducing people to GC.com website to show then what’s in our zip code, it's not a positive introduction when the website says the closest cache is .3 miles away when in actuality 7 miles.

 

Sorry for length of my post but the instructions said you need to be able to recreate the situation. Hopefully this will be sufficient.

[+Prime Suspect]

ZIP Code databases have to be updated from time to time. I imagine that's what happened. Don't see that it matters much. They were an approximation to begin with.

[+wandering4cache]

There are a type of puzzle cache here in MA / New England called "ground zero" caches. They required you entering the towns zipcode, and figuring out what coordinates were being used by gc.com as that zipcodes ground zero, then usually using the info in a calculation.

 

Sometime in June 2008, what gc.com used to determine a towns "ground zero" changed, thus making the puzzles unsolvable UNLESS you knew an alternate method to finding the old methods results.

 

So, to some, mainly ANYONE in our area who owns or solves such caches, it does matter. The problem is that everyone knew the easy zipcode search method which no longer gives the answers needed to find the caches.

 

Here are some notes, I made from the June 2008 Ground Zero thread.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...p;#entry3514243

 

NOTES: "Finding Ground Zero by "My Account", "update home coords", "zip code", no longer gets you the correct coords needed to find the cache.

 

One way to get the same coords you used to from the above method is to:

Put zip code in on home page, on results page, click google maps link, take coords from URL & convert them to correct datum.

 

Another method that also works is:

Go to "Set Up Notifications," "Create a New Notification," and "Look up Postal Code." This seems to be the easiest.

 

It seems there are about 4 different answers for Ground Zero depending on what page you ask from. The above 2 give the correct answers to find the old caches.

 

As a result, some owners have added geochecker to their pages, some haven't. Do yourself a favor & ask owner if you have right ones before heading out for nothing."

 

Not really anything GC can do about it. Its more of a problem just for those solving the caches.

[+Prime Suspect]

That's the fault of people basing puzzles on dynamic information. It's like basing a puzzle on the price of an item at Sonic. It's just a matter of time before it changes.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Who can explain it? Wise men never try.

I started off using the zip code search. That put me about six miles (and two zip codes) north. That's when I decided to put in home coordinates. Even stranger are the mapping programs like MapQuest. If I ask them to start from my home zip code, they start me off in a condo complex up by the mall. (We used to call that Frog Town, from the swamps.) At least, that was only three miles north. That is also a different zip code.

I've given up wondering where these bizarre beginning points come from. For GC, I use home coordinates. For mapping programs, I use the intersection down the street.

[+wandering4cache]

That's the fault of people basing puzzles on dynamic information. It's like basing a puzzle on the price of an item at Sonic. It's just a matter of time before it changes.

 

Hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure not everyone knew that info was dynamic. I didn't at the time those types of caches were created.

 

Still solvable, just differently now.

[+TotemLake]

That's the fault of people basing puzzles on dynamic information. It's like basing a puzzle on the price of an item at Sonic. It's just a matter of time before it changes.

 

Hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure not everyone knew that info was dynamic. I didn't at the time those types of caches were created.

 

Still solvable, just differently now.

PS had it right.

 

In this day and age not considering a website to being dynamic is myopic. This site during the five years I've been on it has never been static. GS has always been busy with upgrades and changing formats. The last major format change was in 2006 with minor upgrades and changes happening all the time.

 

It's a chance you take when you depend on a specific format to do a job. Since the early 90's this should have been a lesson learned through all the software updates and upgrades most of us has gone through.

[+tozainamboku]

PS had it right.

 

In this day and age not considering a website to being dynamic is myopic. This site during the five years I've been on it has never been static. GS has always been busy with upgrades and changing formats. The last major format change was in 2006 with minor upgrades and changes happening all the time.

 

It's a chance you take when you depend on a specific format to do a job. Since the early 90's this should have been a lesson learned through all the software updates and upgrades most of us has gone through.

I think the idea of using a specific geocoding as part of a puzzle in not a bad idea at all. I would not accuse anyone of being myopic in using this idea for a puzzle. However, it is just like a puzzle that requires you to get information off of specific signs in the field. The signage could change or be removed and you'd have to fix your puzzle if you wanted people to be able to keep solving it. If the website changes something you may just need to modify the puzzle slightly for it to continue to work.

 

An old virtual that had you get information off a sign would also have a problem if the sign disappeared or was replaced by a new sign with different wording. Even a traditional cache could be in a guardrail that gets replaced or a lamppost where the property owner decides to later bolt down the skirt. Any cache could require maintenance (or archiving if it can't be fix) when the situation under which is was hidden changes.

[+TotemLake]

PS had it right.

 

In this day and age not considering a website to being dynamic is myopic. This site during the five years I've been on it has never been static. GS has always been busy with upgrades and changing formats. The last major format change was in 2006 with minor upgrades and changes happening all the time.

 

It's a chance you take when you depend on a specific format to do a job. Since the early 90's this should have been a lesson learned through all the software updates and upgrades most of us has gone through.

I think the idea of using a specific geocoding as part of a puzzle in not a bad idea at all. I would not accuse anyone of being myopic in using this idea for a puzzle. However, it is just like a puzzle that requires you to get information off of specific signs in the field. The signage could change or be removed and you'd have to fix your puzzle if you wanted people to be able to keep solving it. If the website changes something you may just need to modify the puzzle slightly for it to continue to work.

 

An old virtual that had you get information off a sign would also have a problem if the sign disappeared or was replaced by a new sign with different wording. Even a traditional cache could be in a guardrail that gets replaced or a lamppost where the property owner decides to later bolt down the skirt. Any cache could require maintenance (or archiving if it can't be fix) when the situation under which is was hidden changes.

You read more into my statement than was there. I never called it a bad idea. In fact, it's very creative. However, (and this reinforces what I said) to believe the site would stay static, is myopic.

[+tozainamboku]

You read more into my statement than was there. I never called it a bad idea. In fact, it's very creative. However, (and this reinforces what I said) to believe the site would stay static, is myopic.

To believe the city never replaces guardrails is myopic. To believe WalMart never replaces lightpole skirts is myopic. To believe the park never replaces or updates a descriptive sign is myopic. To believe the gardeners never trim bushes is myopic. To believe a business that gave permission for placing a cache never rescinds its permission is myopic. I think people who put out puzzles that depend on a specific geocoding of zip codes are no different from any one else who hides a cache that depends on the situation when they hid it not changing. Yes, the people who hid these should not whine to Geocaching.com for making a change that affects their puzzle. But instead of telling then "It's your fault for placing a cache like this in the first place" I think it is more productive to tell them to react as they would in all those other cases. "Do the necessary maintenance for you cache to still be viable and, if you can't, archive the cache and hide a new one elsewhere."

[+TotemLake]

You read more into my statement than was there. I never called it a bad idea. In fact, it's very creative. However, (and this reinforces what I said) to believe the site would stay static, is myopic.

To believe the city never replaces guardrails is myopic. To believe WalMart never replaces lightpole skirts is myopic. To believe the park never replaces or updates a descriptive sign is myopic. To believe the gardeners never trim bushes is myopic. To believe a business that gave permission for placing a cache never rescinds its permission is myopic. I think people who put out puzzles that depend on a specific geocoding of zip codes are no different from any one else who hides a cache that depends on the situation when they hid it not changing. Yes, the people who hid these should not whine to Geocaching.com for making a change that affects their puzzle. But instead of telling then "It's your fault for placing a cache like this in the first place" I think it is more productive to tell them to react as they would in all those other cases. "Do the necessary maintenance for you cache to still be viable and, if you can't, archive the cache and hide a new one elsewhere."

When my wife can manage to tell me what to say and how to say it, I'll let you in on the big event. Until then, don't even begin to think you can do any different.