Jump to content

Feature Request (DNF's on Maps)


MysticTutor

Recommended Posts

Wouldn't be cool when you log a Do Not Find it starts showing on your maps and seaches as a sad face?

 

Not only will this allow me to easily see my DNF's, but also easily spot caches I have not yet looked for. My map view shows tons of caches that are odviously lost or stolen. I have to take the time to look it over and try to remember if it's one I already looked for. With a sad face I would know at a glance.

Link to post

....My map view shows tons of caches that are odviously lost or stolen. .....

 

Really??!!?? And just how do you know that if you DNF'd the cache??

Certainly, you will agree that there are some DNF'd caches that you can identify as missing. Either way, what's the point of sidetracking this thread with a irrelevant issue?

 

I think that this would be an awesome idea as long as they turn into smilies once the 'found it' is logged.

Edited by sbell111
Link to post

Once again - you totally miss my point.

 

There is a hige logical leap from "I couldn't find it when I searched" - to - " I searched and did not find it therefore it is missing". I was simply trying to point that out.

 

If we want to show caches where I logged a DNF on the map - great - cool feature. But it is a whole other ball game to say I want to show all the "obviously missing/stolen caches" because I could not find them on the map. Subtle difference maybe but an important one.

Link to post
Once again - you totally miss my point.

That's directed at sbell obviously, but I think your original post leaves something to be desired. If you had posted what you did in the follow-up, it would have been much clearer what you meant, as well as more friendly. I guess the "DNF = lost / missing" issue is one that you feel strongly about, and you're questioning the OP's motive for the feature request. Though I agree that the motives are not well thought out, the feature is a good one. And as you know (but the OP doesn't, which is why I'm mentioning it here) it's been asked for in the past, and I don't believe Groundspeak has made any commitment to implementing it.

 

Anyway, I'm exploring work-arounds for this one.

 

With GSAK I can identify caches I've logged a DNF, have not found since, and are not archived easily enough.

 

I can create a list of bookmark for these caches, and a PQ from that. From there I can see on the google map view where my DNFs are.

 

However, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to get from the GSAK list to a bookmark. I found one macro to create bookmark from filter, but I need to click for every single cache. Fortunately, my DNF list is not huge right now. Once the list is created, any subsequent DNF can be easily added to a bookmark.

 

A follow-up feature that would be nice is to be able to add multiple GC ID into a bookmark in one shot. But I think that had been asked for as well in the past.

Link to post

Once again - you totally miss my point.

 

There is a hige logical leap from "I couldn't find it when I searched" - to - " I searched and did not find it therefore it is missing". I was simply trying to point that out.

 

If we want to show caches where I logged a DNF on the map - great - cool feature. But it is a whole other ball game to say I want to show all the "obviously missing/stolen caches" because I could not find them on the map. Subtle difference maybe but an important one.

Actually, it's a subtle difference and a completely unimportant one for the purposes of this thread.

 

People will find this suggested feature useful or not regardless of whether they believe that every unfound cache is UA.

 

Personally, I am sometimes not enthused about relooking for caches that I can't find, so I would use this feature to identify virgin areas.

Link to post
Wouldn't be cool when you log a Do Not Find it starts showing on your maps and searches as a sad face?

 

Not only will this allow me to easily see my DNF's, but also easily spot caches I have not yet looked for.

Excellent idea!

 

I'm glad everybody seems to like the idea. And as someone above pointed out I'm assuming it would go back to a smiley when and if you went back to it. It's just after two trips I just don't want to go back.

 

And to answer somebody else, if you look at the logs and for a year and a half it was an easy find for everybody then suddenly 6 or 7 people in a row log it DNF. It's missing!

Link to post

Not only would I love to see it on Google maps but i would also love to have something other than a closed treasure chest on my Colorado.

 

I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to program in a sad face icon for previously DNF'd caches but the switching of it to a smiley once found could be a little trickier (unless they just went by newest log when pulling the data for the map).

Link to post

Not only would I love to see it on Google maps but i would also love to have something other than a closed treasure chest on my Colorado.

 

I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to program in a sad face icon for previously DNF'd caches but the switching of it to a smiley once found could be a little trickier (unless they just went by newest log when pulling the data for the map).

I assume that currently they either use the newest log or query whether there is a found log. The second being the better option.

Link to post

All for it.

 

If we don't get this I will quit geocaching, throw my gps in the garbage, muggle caches, fling feces, quit my job and stop saying 'thank you' to people that hold the door open for me!

 

(do empty threats count?)

 

On a serious note though. Would it be retroactive for all the DNFs (not that I have tons of them :anibad: ) that I have already logged?

Link to post

Would it be retroactive for all the DNFs (not that I have tons of them :unsure: ) that I have already logged?

Could I have psychic entries for all the ones I didn't log, please.

 

No, but you will be banned until you log them. :D

Link to post

It would appear that there is consensus that this is a good idea (I also would like this feature).

 

In another feature request thread, in this post I asked how these ideas get implemented - but no one answered.

 

So I ask (again) - what will happen next if this is deemed (by TPTB) that this is feasible to implement?

 

EDIT: here's another post with the same sort of question, not answered.

Edited by frinklabs
Link to post
It would appear that there is consensus that this is a good idea (I also would like this feature).

 

In another feature request thread, in this post I asked how these ideas get implemented - but no one answered.

 

So I ask (again) - what will happen next if this is deemed (by TPTB) that this is feasible to implement?

 

EDIT: here's another post with the same sort of question, not answered.

Three threads, all asking the same thing, yet not answered. Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. TPTB rarely let us know what they are working on.

 

But they do read these threads. Occasionally they comment that they like the idea. But just because they don't comment doesn't mean they don't like the idea. Just keep posting and someday you might see a nice new feature introduced to the site.

Link to post

Best idea I have heard in a long time and it wouldnt be too hard to implement.

I'm not sure that it would be simple to implement. Certainly, it would not be as easy as marking your finds on the map because the mere presence of a DNF does not mean that you haven't yet found the cache. They would have to take that result and run it against your finds. I have no idea how bad this would affect site performance when long-time cachers pulled up their local maps. I suppose that it could cause significant drama.
Link to post

Well my redundant request was just locked down so I'll put my vote in here :D I didn't notice this one when I did my quick browse. I use the map a great deal and it's frustrating not being able to tell the difference (without having to click on everything) between DNF's and caches I've never attempted. Some days I'm in a mood to look for my DNF's and at just over 100 caches I'm already starting to forget which ones they were. I don't think I've ever missed logging a DNF, even if it's one that says "ran out of daylight only looked for 5 mins" so there are quite a few :)

Edited by Opalblade
Link to post

At worst it might limit how many caches you could view at any given zoom level. On their side it is hopefully as simple to tell if a cache is a Didn't Find as it is a Found It. I'm assuming that every time you pull up a segment of map it goes in from scratch to find out if any are logged as Found Its.

 

Best idea I have heard in a long time and it wouldnt be too hard to implement.

I'm not sure that it would be simple to implement. Certainly, it would not be as easy as marking your finds on the map because the mere presence of a DNF does not mean that you haven't yet found the cache. They would have to take that result and run it against your finds. I have no idea how bad this would affect site performance when long-time cachers pulled up their local maps. I suppose that it could cause significant drama.

Link to post

Best idea I have heard in a long time and it wouldnt be too hard to implement.

I'm not sure that it would be simple to implement. Certainly, it would not be as easy as marking your finds on the map because the mere presence of a DNF does not mean that you haven't yet found the cache. They would have to take that result and run it against your finds. I have no idea how bad this would affect site performance when long-time cachers pulled up their local maps. I suppose that it could cause significant drama.

At worst it might limit how many caches you could view at any given zoom level. On their side it is hopefully as simple to tell if a cache is a Didn't Find as it is a Found It. I'm assuming that every time you pull up a segment of map it goes in from scratch to find out if any are logged as Found Its.

It wouldn't be just as simple because a cache that has been found may have DNFs.

 

For the smilies to be on the map, you just have to check for a 'found' log. For DNFs to show on the map, you have to check for 'DNF' logs and then verify that no subsequent 'found' log exists.

Edited by sbell111
Link to post

Best idea I have heard in a long time and it wouldnt be too hard to implement.

I'm not sure that it would be simple to implement. Certainly, it would not be as easy as marking your finds on the map because the mere presence of a DNF does not mean that you haven't yet found the cache. They would have to take that result and run it against your finds. I have no idea how bad this would affect site performance when long-time cachers pulled up their local maps. I suppose that it could cause significant drama.

At worst it might limit how many caches you could view at any given zoom level. On their side it is hopefully as simple to tell if a cache is a Didn't Find as it is a Found It. I'm assuming that every time you pull up a segment of map it goes in from scratch to find out if any are logged as Found Its.

It wouldn't be just as simple because a cache that has been found may have DNFs.

 

For the smilies to be on the map, you just have to check for a 'found' log. For DNFs to show on the map, you have to check for 'DNF' logs and then verify that no subsequent 'found' log exists.

:grin: When drawing the map there is already an issue with the order you check for drawing icons. What happens if you found a cache that you also own (relax - perhaps you adopted the cache after you found it)? Or what if a cache you found in also disabled? The conditions are checked for in a certain order and the first one that is true determines the icon that is drawn.

 

if cache is owned by me then
  draw star
else if cache is found by me then
  draw happy face
else if cache has a DNF log by me then
  draw frowny face
else if cache is disabled then
  draw shaded cache type icon
else
  draw regular cache type icon
endif

 

Of course I would still prefer to see the cache type on caches I haven't found. I would imagine that there would be complaints if this information is taken away in order to provide the information that this is a cache I DNF'd some time in the past. And I'm sure that someone would want to see if the cache they DNF'd is disabled. Perhaps when it is re-enabled they will want to try looking for it again.

 

I maintain a bookmark list of caches I've DNF'd, so I can create a PQ and get a map of these caches whenever I want. I usually can remember if I had looked for some cache before so this addition to the map would not be very useful to me - even though it might not be difficult to implement.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to post

Great idea, but why not take it further and add other log types (e.g. Write Note)?

 

There are 2 ways you could do this, the algorithm should be fairly simply for both:

 

Method 1: Find your most recent log and display the approrpiate icon

 

Method 2: Decide on a hierarchy of log types (e.g. Found, DNF, Note), then check each in turn and display the appropriate icon. In theory this could be extended to include Needs Archived and Needs Maintenance, but I personally wouldn't write one of these without either a Found or a DNF as well.

 

I prefer the second method, but it does require a bit more programming and could slow down drawing the maps.

Link to post

How about this instead of the code snippet previously posted, it would make the icon shaded for disabled caches, regardless of the cache's found status:

 

if cache is owned by me then
  draw star
else if cache is found by me then
  draw happy face
else if cache has a DNF log by me then
  draw frowny face
else
  draw regular cache type icon
endif


if cache is disabled then
  draw shaded version of icon from above
endif

Link to post

What happens if you found a cache that you also own (relax - perhaps you adopted the cache after you found it)?

How about this instead of the code snippet previously posted, it would make the icon shaded for disabled caches, regardless of the cache's found status:

 

if cache is owned by me then
  draw star
else if cache is found by me then
  draw happy face

You'd think so, wouldn't you. But that doesn't even happen now. There are two caches that I found and then later adopted, and they show up on the GoogleMap as finds, not as owned. This is not wrong, but it feels wrong, and I like your pseudocode better.

[edited to acknowledge tozainamboku being ftf this aspect]

Edited by Cairngorm
Link to post

This is a great idea! The maps are the feature I use most on the website. It would be great to not have to remember the name's of caches or if I DNF'd it before or not. Also I don't have a GPS that holds this info either so this would be an awesome feature to add.

Edited by Hennessey's
Link to post

I think the frown is a great idea - I do this on my Garmin map software.

 

Another suggestion for geocaching.com - I would like to see a different icon for inactive (temporary or otherwise) caches - maybe a container with a red lid? This would make them so much easier to identify than the crossed out title.

Link to post

I think the frown is a great idea - I do this on my Garmin map software.

 

Another suggestion for geocaching.com - I would like to see a different icon for inactive (temporary or otherwise) caches - maybe a container with a red lid? This would make them so much easier to identify than the crossed out title.

Don't they already show up as gray? I mean on the GC GoogleMap? I can't check right now because where I am this morning they run Internet Explorer 6 B) .

Link to post

I like the idea too, but I'm pretty sure it is NOT simple.

 

Oh, I'd also like an option to show my DNFs on my public profile. But that gets me to thinking about how it's probably implemented. Thing is, at present, "I DNF-ed this cache" is not even a concept in the system. A DNF is just another log type, not distinguished form a note except by the log type and icon. It doesn't mean anything to gc.com.

 

There's probably a table of finds, keyed by cache code and user ID. And a similar table for ownership.

 

Or possibly that's just one table, the evidence being that gc.com generally doesn't recognize that you may have found a cache and also own it.

 

(Since multiple finds on a cache are counted, and a find on an owned cache is counted, the find counts probably come from a different source.)

 

So the difficult part of toz's algorithm is

 

else if cache has a DNF log by me then

because it's not a simple table lookup -- instead it requires possibly examining all the logs for the cache (or all the DNF logs attached to the user's profile). All the other tests in the algorithm involve only either testing a flag in the cache record, or doing a straight table lookup.

 

So adding this would probably require adding a new "DNF" table, or perhaps another status "not found" in the "found table". This table would have to be updated based on DNF logs and modifications and deletions. Likely a lot of code would have to be checked, since it's a new concept. The implementation would probably be trailed by a lot of loose threads that didn't get picked up on the first pass. The cost could escalate. How much do we want to pay for it? I'm certain it would cost thousands of dollars, and quite likely tens of thousands, just for implementation, plus a small increment to ongoing costs for servers and release verification.

 

I still like the idea, but I think it's more likely to happen if it's considered as part of a larger redesign rather than as a feature on its own.

 

Edward

Edited by paleolith
Link to post

I like the idea too, but I'm pretty sure it is NOT simple.

 

Oh, I'd also like an option to show my DNFs on my public profile. But that gets me to thinking about how it's probably implemented. Thing is, at present, "I DNF-ed this cache" is not even a concept in the system. A DNF is just another log type, not distinguished form a note except by the log type and icon. It doesn't mean anything to gc.com.

 

There's probably a table of finds, keyed by cache code and user ID. And a similar table for ownership.

 

Or possibly that's just one table, the evidence being that gc.com generally doesn't recognize that you may have found a cache and also own it.

 

(Since multiple finds on a cache are counted, and a find on an owned cache is counted, the find counts probably come from a different source.)

 

So the difficult part of toz's algorithm is

 

else if cache has a DNF log by me then

because it's not a simple table lookup -- instead it requires possibly examining all the logs for the cache (or all the DNF logs attached to the user's profile). All the other tests in the algorithm involve only either testing a flag in the cache record, or doing a straight table lookup.

 

So adding this would probably require adding a new "DNF" table, or perhaps another status "not found" in the "found table". This table would have to be updated based on DNF logs and modifications and deletions. Likely a lot of code would have to be checked, since it's a new concept. The implementation would probably be trailed by a lot of loose threads that didn't get picked up on the first pass. The cost could escalate. How much do we want to pay for it? I'm certain it would cost thousands of dollars, and quite likely tens of thousands, just for implementation, plus a small increment to ongoing costs for servers and release verification.

 

I still like the idea, but I think it's more likely to happen if it's considered as part of a larger redesign rather than as a feature on its own.

 

Edward

Since we do not know how the database is designed, nor how the feature is coded, it's pretty hard for you or I to determine if it is hard or easy. Actually, it could be extremely easy, depending on what logic they are currently using to determine if they should use a smiley face. I can think of at least a couple ways the database query could have been coded. One way would be quite easy to modify. The other, not so much, but still not requiring a total redesign.

 

I sorta doubt there is a separate table for just finds, unless the data was denormalized for performance reasons. If that's the case, it would not be that hard to do the same thing for DNFs. But all of this is pure speculation. I'd suggest letting the lackeys determine if it is hard or easy.

 

p.s. I'd like to see that feature also, provided it is not too difficult to implement.

Edited by jeanne123
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...