Jump to content

PN-40 Cache Register issue


2outforfun

Recommended Posts

I searched and found no recent topics on this so I have started a new one

 

I created a new PQ yesterday and when it was imported with cach register to my pn-40 it showed up as Push pins. All the Geo caches from a different earlier PQ still show correctly. Has anyone else experienced this issue recently and if so have you found a solution?

Link to comment

I have been following a topic in the delorme forums that seems related

 

See below

 

Re: CR PQ unavailable

by Robert Shelley » Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:18 pm

 

Well, it looks like you are on to something I just reran 4 PQs that I hadn't run since early January. CR claims they are all a few minutes old now, but they are unavailable. When selecting a new unavailable PQ the Sync button remains gray, so the Sync function doesn't do anything. Three PQs that I ran last week are still available and can be Sync'd.

 

I just took a look at the GPX files that came zipped in the emails. The January PQ starts out with:

 

Code: Select all

<gpx xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" version="1.0" creator="Groundspeak Pocket Query" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0 http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0/gpx.xsd http://www.Groundspeak.com/cache/1/0 http://www.Groundspeak.com/cache/1/0/cache.xsd" xmlns="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0">

 

The new PQ from today (2/26/'10) starts out with:

 

Code: Select all

<gpx xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" version="1.0" creator="Groundspeak Pocket Query" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0 http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0/gpx.xsd http://www.Groundspeak.com/cache/1/0/1 http://www.Groundspeak.com/cache/1/0/1/cache.xsd" xmlns="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/0">

 

Note that they both have version="1.0" in the first line in accordance with my GC.com preferences. But on the third line the old PQ has .../cache/1/0, whereas the new PQ has .../cache/1/0/1 (twice on that line).

 

The last time GC.com put out PQs like that, it broke CR and a few other things. A workaround used the last time was to extract the zip files, then use a text editor to do a global replace of all occurrences of /1/0/1 with /1/0 (there are a lot of them). Then you can import the edited up GPX files into CR. Just remember to select the cache GPX and its associated child waypoint GPX as a pair when you do each import.

 

I wonder if DeLorme tech support knows about this yet Bob... Team Serious

Topo 2—8, XMap 5—7, PN: 20, 40SE

Robert Shelley

Trailmaster

 

Posts: 1205

Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 3:46 am

Location: San Diego

 

I searched and found no recent topics on this so I have started a new one

 

I created a new PQ yesterday and when it was imported with cach register to my pn-40 it showed up as Push pins. All the Geo caches from a different earlier PQ still show correctly. Has anyone else experienced this issue recently and if so have you found a solution?

Link to comment

This was not a problem last weekend. My PQ files imported fine thru cache register. I have not yet started to use GSAK. I guess I will have to add another couple of steps to this mess now.

 

 

This is a known problem. Download macro from GSAK: DelormeGpxFix.gsk. Run this macro for the file that you will be downloading to PN-40. Best Regards, Peoria Bill :>)

Link to comment

Being a fairly new premium member who paid for the services provided by Geocaching.com this incident prompts me to ask the question. Does GC acknowledge these types of issues officially anywhere or is the only source of information on such items come from the dedicated user comunity?

 

I think there may have been some tinkering going on. Some folks whos' earlier PQs showed evidence of 1.0.1 have now run PQs that are back to 1.0. Things may be working now. I know PQs I ran in the last couple hours are working fine.

Link to comment

As of today 17:12 EST this is still an issue. There is a partial fix using Notepad to Replace all occurrences of "/1/0/1" with "/1/0" in the GPX files and then use CR to send the edited GPX file to PN-XX. However, this works only to a point. Import of the subsequent file shows the cache OK but does NOT properly show the cache name! It is not clear if the associated waypoints are imported.

 

This appears to be an issue of lack of communication between Delorme and GC. Does anyone have any insight if there is a fix in the works by one or both?

Link to comment

It now appears that the "tinkering" affected the GPX setting in our personal accounts. Even though the setting may have said you were set to GPX 1.0 format, the site was still sending GPX 1.0.1 format.

It seems that if you go to your account settings and change the preference back and forth between 1.0 and 1.0.1 three or four times (saving each time) and then finally leave it set and saved to 1.0, things may start working again. Of course you'll have to resend your PQs after the final save to 1.0. This is working for a number of people.

 

A case of "What you see isn't neccessarily what you get".

Link to comment
Being a fairly new premium member who paid for the services provided by Geocaching.com this incident prompts me to ask the question. Does GC acknowledge these types of issues officially anywhere or is the only source of information on such items come from the dedicated user comunity?

If you go to the Geocaching.com Website forum there is a thread after each site update called "Release Notes" where you can post issues related to the latest updates. The Groundspeak folks monitor the thread and do their best to respond.

Link to comment

Here's a head-scratcher.

 

I have not had the problem referenced. At all. I have not used GSAK to reprocess the PQ files. I have not "tinkered" with my account settings. For the past 3 days, my PQs have been loading to my PN-40 via CR perfectly fine.

 

It was mentioned in the Web Site forum that one of the 2 PQ generators (2 servers, one handles the odd-numbered PQs, the other handles the evens) was having trouble after the last site maintenance. Is it possible that one of them was causing this issue and the other was not?

 

Nevermind - I just checked my last 3 PQs run and 2 were odd, one was even.

Link to comment

As of today 17:12 EST this is still an issue. There is a partial fix using Notepad to Replace all occurrences of "/1/0/1" with "/1/0" in the GPX files and then use CR to send the edited GPX file to PN-XX. However, this works only to a point. Import of the subsequent file shows the cache OK but does NOT properly show the cache name!

I was getting the cache IDs, GCXXXX, instead of the cache names as previously.

However, I do not use CR to send PQ results to my PN-XX.

I have installed FW 2.7 on my PN.

I perform the character string subsitution noted above.

I then use Topo USA 8.0 to Export the modified GPX files to the SD card in my PN.

In that fashion, I again have caches identified with their names.

Link to comment

I could never get Cache Register to work in any fashion. I was really disappointed.

Must be that time of the month again. Here you are taking your regularly scheduled shot in multiple threads at Delorme. You, yourself, said in another thread it was time to move on but you just can't seem to follow your own advice. We all get it....really! You had problems with your PN-40 and you were upset about it but rather than listen to any suggestions or even Delorme's offers to help, you just wanted to vent.

 

4405042743_8f71886f0c_o.gif

Edited by Pax42
Link to comment

It now appears that the "tinkering" affected the GPX setting in our personal accounts. Even though the setting may have said you were set to GPX 1.0 format, the site was still sending GPX 1.0.1 format.

It seems that if you go to your account settings and change the preference back and forth between 1.0 and 1.0.1 three or four times (saving each time) and then finally leave it set and saved to 1.0, things may start working again. Of course you'll have to resend your PQs after the final save to 1.0. This is working for a number of people.

 

A case of "What you see isn't neccessarily what you get".

I ran a PQ last night and loaded my PN-40. It only shows the cache name and no description. Now I was trying something today and it sends the caches as waypoints. What did I do wrong. I have never had a problem with CR before.

Thanks

Edited by The Yinnie's
Link to comment

You have probably done nothing wrong.

This has happened to many others through no fault of their own.

I might suggest two things things.

 

1. To correct the current PQ:

1) unzip the GPX files that you received via email

2) open the cache file (the one does not end with -wpts.gpx) in a text editor (notepad will do)

2a) do Edit -> Replace...

2b) Find what: /1/0/1

2c) Replace with: /1/0

2d) Click on Replace All

2e) When it is finished, do a Save As using a different file name (e.g., 3549687.gpx => PQ3549687.gpx)

3) Rename the associated child waypoint file so that it also starts with the same new name (e.g., 3549687-wpts.gpx => PQ3549687-wpts.gpx)

4) In CR, do Import Pocket Query

4a) Select both modified files (use Ctrl or Shift to select both at the same time)

4b) Click Open

 

Repeat the above for each PQ.

 

2. To prevent this with future PQs:

1- go to GC.com and click on YOUR PROFILE

2- then click on Your Account Details

3- scroll to the bottom of that page to Your Preferences

4- if it is set to 1.0.1, skip to step 10

5- click on change

6- find GPX Version Preference and change it to 1.0.1

7- click on Save Changes

8- click on change again

9- if the GPX Version Preference setting now says 1.0, go back to step 6 (yes really)

10- find GPX Version Preference and change it to 1.0

11- click on Save Changes

12- re-run the PQs that have the version problem, the new PQs should be OK

(you may need to do this several times for it to take)

Edited by Team CowboyPapa
Link to comment

 

I ran a PQ last night and loaded my PN-40. It only shows the cache name and no description. Now I was trying something today and it sends the caches as waypoints. What did I do wrong. I have never had a problem with CR before.

Thanks

 

I might add that I had a problem a PQ last week.

I applied the fix in the first patch that I post above and it corrected the PQ results.

 

I subsequently applied the preventive fix above and just now had two PQs generated that look OK.

Edited by Team CowboyPapa
Link to comment

I could never get Cache Register to work in any fashion. I was really disappointed.

Must be that time of the month again. Here you are taking your regularly scheduled shot in multiple threads at Delorme. You, yourself, said in another thread it was time to move on but you just can't seem to follow your own advice. We all get it....really! You had problems with your PN-40 and you were upset about it but rather than listen to any suggestions or even Delorme's offers to help, you just wanted to vent.

 

4405042743_8f71886f0c_o.gif

No, actually my response was about Cache Register, the software. That's what this post was about also. Yes it's true that I had many problems with the PN-40 but this person was having issues with Cache Register. Two different issues.

Just trying to help a guy out.

Link to comment

No, actually my response was about Cache Register, the software. That's what this post was about also. Yes it's true that I had many problems with the PN-40 but this person was having issues with Cache Register. Two different issues.

Just trying to help a guy out.

Oh yes, your post was extremely helpful. :D

Edited by Pax42
Link to comment

I could never get Cache Register to work in any fashion. I was really disappointed.

Must be that time of the month again. Here you are taking your regularly scheduled shot in multiple threads at Delorme. You, yourself, said in another thread it was time to move on but you just can't seem to follow your own advice. We all get it....really! You had problems with your PN-40 and you were upset about it but rather than listen to any suggestions or even Delorme's offers to help, you just wanted to vent.

 

4405042743_8f71886f0c_o.gif

No, actually my response was about Cache Register, the software. That's what this post was about also. Yes it's true that I had many problems with the PN-40 but this person was having issues with Cache Register. Two different issues.

Just trying to help a guy out.

I would hate to see if you were not helping someone out.

Link to comment

No, actually my response was about Cache Register, the software. That's what this post was about also. Yes it's true that I had many problems with the PN-40 but this person was having issues with Cache Register. Two different issues.

Just trying to help a guy out.

Oh yes, your post was extremely helpful. :D

Wow! Not sure why the DeLorme apologist group gets so upset each time I point out a flaw in the system. The response was not directed at you. I don't want people to go through the same problems I had to deal with.

I point out a problem with the software or a problem with the hardware and you people proceed with your personal attacks on me.

I thought we had put this behind us. It just makes me curious why you two are so adamant about trying to discredit me personally.

If you are thrilled with your DeLorme experience (or employment?) that's great. But by the looks of this post and hundreds of others and countless other blogs, I'm not alone in my dissatisfaction.

Please, let's keep this forum clean. Comments about "that time of the month" and other derogatory remarks are not welcome here.

Link to comment

No, actually my response was about Cache Register, the software. That's what this post was about also. Yes it's true that I had many problems with the PN-40 but this person was having issues with Cache Register. Two different issues.

Just trying to help a guy out.

Oh yes, your post was extremely helpful. :D

(or employment?)

And this is just as uncalled for. This is rumor mongering. Is this the direction you really want to go in? Try practicing that which you preach.

...other derogatory remarks are not welcome here.

As for your original remark. I took it as a complaint and left it at that. A helping hand is providing a solution. Your comment didn't do that.

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment

I had some discourse pertaining, but alas the irony, the help it could have provided

was not directed towards the OP, . . . so in the spirit of staying OT, I'm pre-retracting any

statements about not availing oneself of, or giving positive advice.

 

Norm

Link to comment

I could never get Cache Register to work in any fashion. I was really disappointed.

How is this helping out? I have had a few Garmins (Colorado 300, Oregon 300, Dakota 20 and just sent back my Oregon 450) and I always went back to the PN-40. You do not see me bashing any other units. Most of my comments are Pro PN-?? But I also recommend the Dakota 20. To me there are a lot of things about all the units that are disappointing but you have to buy what is the best for you. These forums are for helping not bashing a brand. If you notice most of the people that give advice and help on the forums about Delorme products do not go to anther forum and bash it. We all know you had problems with your unit, but you did not take any advice and just bash the unit. I along with others have had problems and we take the advice of these very nice people here, the Delorme forums and from Delorme them selves and it is usually taken care of. I see a lot of problems with Garmin also, why are not bashing them?

I apologize for this post but enough is enough. If you don't like a restaurant you don't go there do you? Same here if you don't like the topic don't post. These very nice people are doing us a solid by helping anyone out who has a question.

Thanks

And a very big thanks for all of you who help us out.

Link to comment

I guess I didn't understand the purpose of the forums. I thought it was to offer advice about products pro and con. If this forum topic were "nothing but good things to say about DeLorme" I would have known.

 

For your post to be helpful you need to explain exactly what the problems were and what steps you took to try and rectify them. This would give others some direction to look and see where to offer meaningful help. Just saying you could never get it to work without an explanation of what was tried is like telling a chef that the food taste bad and expect him to know what needs to be done to improve the taste.

 

What were the exact problems that you could not get resolved? And what steps did you take to try and get the program to work?

 

John

Link to comment

I guess I didn't understand the purpose of the forums. I thought it was to offer advice about products pro and con. If this forum topic were "nothing but good things to say about DeLorme" I would have known.

I get it now. Your advise was to return it. Thanks for the helping advisement. Sorry your post was misunderstood.

 

Have a great day!

Link to comment

I guess I didn't understand the purpose of the forums. I thought it was to offer advice about products pro and con. If this forum topic were "nothing but good things to say about DeLorme" I would have known.

 

For your post to be helpful you need to explain exactly what the problems were and what steps you took to try and rectify them. This would give others some direction to look and see where to offer meaningful help. Just saying you could never get it to work without an explanation of what was tried is like telling a chef that the food taste bad and expect him to know what needs to be done to improve the taste.

 

What were the exact problems that you could not get resolved? And what steps did you take to try and get the program to work?

 

John

John, Thanks for your civil response. It is refreshing. My problem with Cache Register has already been hashed over several times so I will give you the readers digest version. It crashed every time it was launched.

DeLorme told me to reinstall and I did six different times. They then told me it must be my computer. I tried loading it on three other computers with the same results. I became frustrated and asked for my money back. A forum member told me DeLorme would not refund my money but they did.

Link to comment

What were the exact problems that you could not get resolved?

John

Apparently, we'll never find out; sometimes it is hard to determine which cure is applicable when the symptoms cannot be analysed for the cause and effect diagnosis.

And what steps did you take to try and get the program to work?

 

John

Whatever they were, they seem to have been ineffective as success was never obtained.

 

Might have been a corrupted download, however.

Like the time that I bought this song,

http://www.amazon.com/Highwayman/dp/B00137...N2YTN13JJMXPH9F

but when I played it, it sounded like Alfred & The Chipmunks.

Link to comment

What were the exact problems that you could not get resolved?

John

Apparently, we'll never find out; sometimes it is hard to determine which cure is applicable when the symptoms cannot be analysed for the cause and effect diagnosis.

And what steps did you take to try and get the program to work?

 

John

Whatever they were, they seem to have been ineffective as success was never obtained.

 

Might have been a corrupted download, however.

Like the time that I bought this song,

http://www.amazon.com/Highwayman/dp/B00137...N2YTN13JJMXPH9F

but when I played it, it sounded like Alfred & The Chipmunks.

Please don't have my comments erased and then post that I did not respond. I took the time to respond to every question and detail of Johns and you not only erase my comments but then post your own to make it look like I would not respond? This reminds me of our current administration. If you don't like the message, eliminate the messenger.

If you are going to erase my comments at least have the guts to say you didn't agree with my comments so you erased them. This is just cowardly.

People come to these forums for advice from all sides, not just your opinion. If that's not the case, change the name of the forum. You are a coward!

Link to comment

Moderator note:Once again, we have a Delorme topic dragged into the land of disrespect and way off topic by the same people that have been repeatedly asked to quit doing that. Please return this thread to the original topic as it's not clear if that problem has actually been solved or not and cool it with the name-calling and general sniping.

Link to comment

Moderator note:Once again, we have a Delorme topic dragged into the land of disrespect and way off topic by the same people that have been repeatedly asked to quit doing that. Please return this thread to the original topic as it's not clear if that problem has actually been solved or not and cool it with the name-calling and general sniping.

 

I agree. Thank you.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...