Jump to content

Bug? GPX & LOC files invalid for unpublished caches


sandvika
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

I'm in the process of publishing a night cache where I've added all the night markers as reference points. I wanted to check my input of waypoints into the listing was correct by generating a GPX or LOC file and comparing it side-by-side with the GPSr waypoints in GSAK.

 

Unfortunately, it seems that the GPX and LOC files generated from the buttons on the download panel on the listing are of invalid format prior to a cache being published, as GSAK was unable to parse them. It would be great if this could be investigated and fixed at some point.

 

Thanks. Roderick

Link to comment

I seriously doubt it's a bug.

 

Since the only one able to 'see' a non-approved/published cache is the owner (and reviewers of course), who would it benefit?

 

The owner and the reviewers would benefit! I wanted to compare the data I'd entered onto the listing with what I'd recorded on site. It would have allowed me to spot the errors I'd introduced and the cache could have been published on first review.

 

If you're only ever setting traditional caches perhaps this makes no difference to you. However, if you're entering 40+ waypoints for a cache it makes a significant difference.

Link to comment

Since the only one able to 'see' a non-approved/published cache is the owner (and reviewers of course), who would it benefit?

 

It sounds like the OP/cache hider would benefit. :unsure:

 

I wanted to check my input of waypoints into the listing was correct by generating a GPX or LOC file and comparing it side-by-side with the GPSr waypoints in GSAK.

 

It could be intentionally broken as a security feature. I've always wondered (but I don't have the skills or desire to try) if it were possible to use some creative javascript to trick the site into letting you download gpx data for an unpublished cache. This is probably a way to prevent such a thing from being a possibility.

Edited by DavidMac
Link to comment

As a reviewer, there's at least one or two caches a week that are so complex that I download a GPX file of them, and of nearby caches, to do a complete review. I've never had a problem getting MapSource or ExpertGPS to load these files. Perhaps that inferior GSAK thingy has a bug?

Link to comment

As a reviewer, there's at least one or two caches a week that are so complex that I download a GPX file of them, and of nearby caches, to do a complete review. I've never had a problem getting MapSource or ExpertGPS to load these files. Perhaps that inferior GSAK thingy has a bug?

 

Interesting. It doesn't appear to work for us mere mortals though. :lol: I tried downloading a .gpx and .loc file for an archived, unpublished cache listing of mine. Clicking the gpx button returned a completely blank page. Clicking the loc button returned an 85 byte file with the following contents:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<loc version="1.0" src="Groundspeak">
</loc>

Link to comment

As a reviewer, there's at least one or two caches a week that are so complex that I download a GPX file of them, and of nearby caches, to do a complete review. I've never had a problem getting MapSource or ExpertGPS to load these files. Perhaps that inferior GSAK thingy has a bug?

 

Interesting. It doesn't appear to work for us mere mortals though. :lol: I tried downloading a .gpx and .loc file for an archived, unpublished cache listing of mine. Clicking the gpx button returned a completely blank page. Clicking the loc button returned an 85 byte file with the following contents:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<loc version="1.0" src="Groundspeak">
</loc>

Yep, that's the same thing I got when I tried it.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...