Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
RACooper

The unofficial HEY JEREMY & ELIAS thread -suggestions, requests, bugs for the GC.Com Benchmark

Recommended Posts

?_? What do the numbers & letters in the benchmarks mean?

(parkerrrr, have you watched veggitales in your signi???)

This should be posted as a new topic, not under "suggestions, requests and bugs," but your answer can be found here.

Share this post


Link to post

Wish list item:

 

Of all the benchmark goodies I'm hoping will be included someday, the one I'm most interested in is to have the map on the benchmark page have benchmarks on it, not just caches.

 

This feature would be an extremely useful tool in planning benchmark hunting expeditions!

 

----------------

Specific checkboxes:

 

A checkbox for benchmark icons ON (this one could bring up a separate benchmark checkboxes menu if it doesn't fit somehow)

 

A checkbox for cache icons OFF. (Sometimes, we might want Both the benchmarks switch and the caches switch on.)

 

A checkbox for PIDs marked 'found it' by one of us.

 

A checkbox for PIDs marked destroyed by one of us.

 

A checkbox for PIDs marked with a note by one of us.

 

A checkbox for PIDs marked 'didn't find it' by one of us.

 

A checkbox for 'not yet logged'.

 

A checkbox for 'may be missing' (a not-found in the NGS data; the old skulls, now marked with a question mark icon).

 

A premium feature checkbox for YOU Found/Didn'tFind/marked Destroyed/Noted (this one would be an 'overlay' type like the last 3 on the current map legend)

---------------

 

If all these checkboxes wouldn't fit well with all the present cache checkboxes, I'd definitely go for: no cache checkbox menu, and benchmark checkmark menu instead, when accessing the map from a benchmark page.

 

(It seems strange that the present really cool map isn't currently available from cache pages - only benchmark pages.)

Share this post


Link to post
Wish list item:

 

Of all the benchmark goodies I'm hoping will be included someday, the one I'm most interested in is to have the map on the benchmark page have benchmarks on it, not just caches.

 

This feature would be an extremely useful tool in planning benchmark hunting expeditions!

 

----------------

I like this suggestion as well, as I often download the benchmark waypoints to my GPS, then upload them back to the laptop to display graphically on MapSend Streets and Destinations.

 

I'd also REALLY like to see a Benchmarking WAP portal so that accidentally found benchmarks or elusive benchmarks can be researched at the site by cell phone, as can be done with geocaches.

Share this post


Link to post

I know this isn't a new request, but I just want to reiterate it: PocketQueries for benchmarks, with complete GPX files. That way I would have geocachers' logs for benchmarks, not just the information from the official NGS datasheets.

Share this post


Link to post

A driving directions feature would be useful :D . For example if somone is going on a trip, they could enter the starting address, the ending address, and a max diversion distance (say 5, 10, 15, or 25 miles off the main road). The site would calculate directions between the two points and offer benchmarks and caches within a certain distance of that route. For Example driving from NJ to Ohio on Interstate 80, it would list all the caches within 10 miles of the highway. <_<

Share this post


Link to post

My suggestions:

 

Show complete list of reference marks for stations from the data sheet that may not have a PID.

 

For the following three suggestion apply to disc benchmarks entries:

 

When a user posts a 'found it' log entry, have a check mark that says "I was able to read the designation on the benchmark and it matches the station designation" (or something to that effect) which must be checked before completing the entry, then suggest an alternative entry type if left unchecked.

 

When a user posts a 'destroyed' log entry, have a check mark that says "I have personal knowledge or strong evidence that this station was destroyed and not probably destroyed" (or something to that effect) which must be checked before completing the entry, then suggest an alternative entry type if left unchecked.

 

Suggest to users posting 'found it' log entries that they take a photo of the imprint and/or take a rubbing of the imprint to verify the station designation when they get home.

 

Have volunteer moderators review 'found it' and 'destroyed' benchmark log entries. Let the log entries be immediately posted, but moderators could question the evidence that the station was actually found or destroyed. For instance, i've seen a few entries where the log poster posts 'found it' for a described geographical landmark, where I know it is not feasable to access the station marker itself. Start moderation soon before the number of already logged benchmarks gets out of hand.

 

Direct link to current data sheet at NGS website.

 

Update the database on a frequent basis - especially for NGS events like the new commerative Lewis & Clark benchmarks.

Share this post


Link to post

I think I found a minor bug in the benchmarks search page. I searched for my zip code (78749) and about half way down the page I see that benchmarks A 1307 and B 1307 show that they were originally found on 11/16/2002 and that I found both on 11/17/2002. However, I though I was the first to find these, so I looked at each of the two benchmark pages and my log is the only one (i.e. no logs for 11/16/2002).

 

This is not a big deal to me, but I just thought you might want to know about this bug.

 

Scott of Team GeoDillo

Share this post


Link to post
However, I though I was the first to find these, so I looked at each of the two benchmark pages and my log is the only one (i.e. no logs for 11/16/2002).

I've seen that a number of times with my own logs. When looking at a list of marks generated by a search (for example, a zip code search), it seems that the date I submitted the log appears, rather than the date I actually found the mark. But when I click to view the benchmark page, the correct Found date appears on my log.

 

There's also still a problem with the order in which logs appear on the benchmark pages. For example, take a look at LY2724. My March 9, 2003 log appears after (or before, depending on how you look at it) the April logs. Either way, it's not in the right spot.

 

~Zhanna

Share this post


Link to post
My suggestions:

 

Show complete list of reference marks for stations from the data sheet that may not have a PID.

 

For the following three suggestion apply to disc benchmarks entries:

 

When a user posts a 'found it' log entry, have a check mark that says "I was able to read the designation on the benchmark and it matches the station designation" (or something to that effect) which must be checked before completing the entry, then suggest an alternative entry type if left unchecked.

 

When a user posts a 'destroyed' log entry, have a check mark that says "I have personal knowledge or strong evidence that this station was destroyed and not probably destroyed" (or something to that effect) which must be checked before completing the entry, then suggest an alternative entry type if left unchecked.

 

Suggest to users posting 'found it' log entries that they take a photo of the imprint and/or take a rubbing of the imprint to verify the station designation when they get home.

 

Have volunteer moderators review 'found it' and 'destroyed' benchmark log entries. Let the log entries be immediately posted, but moderators could question the evidence that the station was actually found or destroyed. For instance, i've seen a few entries where the log poster posts 'found it' for a described geographical landmark, where I know it is not feasable to access the station marker itself. Start moderation soon before the number of already logged benchmarks gets out of hand.

 

Direct link to current data sheet at NGS website.

 

Update the database on a frequent basis - especially for NGS events like the new commerative Lewis & Clark benchmarks.

I have thought long and hard about trying to get people to be more accurate in their logging of benchmarks. I have even thought about having a moderated review system similar to what is suggested here. In the end, I have rejected it because the bottom line of this site is to get people out, have something to look for and to log, and to have fun doing it. If people are forced to answer questions and go thru a review process, they won't bother to log them at all, not willing to log something that will be reviewed and possibly questioned. Leave it the way it is, some mistakes will be made, but everyone is out there having fun.

Share this post


Link to post

SUBJECT CONCERNS THE BENCHMARK GALLERY WHERE THE LATEST 1000 PICTURES ARE DISPLAYED.

I'm hoping that the next time the programmers cycle back around to the benchmarking section, they will go ahead and make not only the geocacher's name and PID be automatically attached to the picture, but the Designation, State, and County as well.

(But be sure to include the date and PID as well!)

Hello???

 

Testing???

 

Is anyone listening out there???

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post

:D There seems to be a bug on the Searching Benchmarks page. If you delay entering a log, i.e., not the same day as found, the Found column gives the date it was found and then lists You:date of log entry. Both dates should be the same if you were the original finder.

 

See this Searching Benchmarks page as an example. In this particular case, it should give the date of the original find 7/20/2003!

Edited by Colorado Papa

Share this post


Link to post
:D There seems to be a bug on the Searching Benchmarks page. If you delay entering a log, i.e., not the same day as found, the Found column gives the date it was found and then lists You:date of log entry. Both dates should be the same if you were the original finder.

You are 100% correct! BUG ALERT!! :D

 

Even if you are not the first finder, the date shown next to "YOU" should be the date of the find not the date of the log.

 

We need Jeremy back here for a bit to fix some of the things mentioned in this thread, specifically this bug and the Gallery issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Is anyone listening out there???

 

:o

Since the topic has been pinned, it's dang near invisible to me by becoming as much of a fixture on the page as the logos. It's placement and lack of "new" logo makes it easy to miss.

Edited by GeckoGeek

Share this post


Link to post
Since the topic has been pinned, it's dang near invisible to me by becoming as much of a fixture on the page as the logos. It's placement and lack of "new" logo makes it easy to miss.

I hadn't thought about it before, but this is very true. By forcing it to be permenently at the top makes it a part of the stuff that I always tend to skip over. I think we should unpin it, reply to it often and if we mention Jeremy's name often enough, maybe he'll try to handle at least some of the important issues.

Share this post


Link to post

I have to take back some of what I said - It does seem that the icons that signify "new" do work. Just something about the placement makes me skip over it.

 

I don't know how much control over the forum software they have. If it could be made bold only if new, that might help.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to see the listing of who is on the Benchmark Hunting forum page ("3 User(s) are browsing this forum (0 Guests and 1 Anonymous Users)") moved from the bottom of the list of subjects to the top.

Share this post


Link to post

I still can't access the geocaching.com WAP portal with my Samsung E715 cell phone because of perpetual "Forbidden" messages but I can forgo the cache info where I still have M Lord's WAP portal.

 

What I'm most hoping for is a Benchmarking WAP portal so that accidentally found benchmarks or elusive benchmarks can be researched by Zip Code or PID at the site by cell phone, as can be done with geocaches.

Edited by Wreck Diver

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to see a "zip code look up" link on the benchmark page near the search box like there is on the geocache search page.

 

I also agree with the many others that the map needs to at least contain all the other benchmarks within its limits, just as geocache maps do, if not on the geocache map itself.

 

An "edit this log" and "upload photo" link on the bottom of a post without having to view it on a separate page (like geocaches, again) would also be great.

 

I would like to see more results of a search than just the ones in the zip code I enter (or however they are limited). A detailed search (like geocaches) that allows a radius limit to be given would be perfect. I have heard that pocket queries are in the works, and that would be my next request if they are not. That would help a lot of these search problems, but the search page would still need to be there.

Share this post


Link to post

A couple of minor items -

 

On the main search page ("Benchmark Hunting"), there is a link labeled "Other search options" that brings you to a page with some more search options ("Searching Benchmarks"). This is the same page you get to when you click on "Start a new search" in any PID's page. The trouble is - there's no link to the "Benchmark Hunting" page from the "Searching Benchmarks" page.

 

When you log a benchmark, one of the choices is "Didn't find it". When you look at PID's logs they say "(User) couldn't find (PID)". It seems better to have both say "Didn't".

 

When the datasheets were imported, the "STAMPING" field wasn't imported. Usually, this is the same as the designation, but not always. The STAMPING field is more accurate and often more informative than the Designation, so it would be better to include it next time the NGS data is imported.

 

Continuing on with data imports, once in a while there is a PID that only has coordinate information on the NGS database. (See below for an example.) Some of these are reference marks. GC.com didn't import these, but I think it would be better if they did. Some of these could be logged since we have found them.

 

It might be a good thing to include on the PID page the link:

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=aa0001

where the aa0001 would be replaced by the PID. This would allow one to take a quick look at the current NGS datasheet for any newer logs, etc.

Share this post


Link to post

my latest unreasonable demands (some of which are not new or original):

 

i want the "new search" page to contain a field to search by PID so i don't have to go back to the main BM page.

 

i want BM PQ's.

 

if you do not give me what i want i will continue to insist that i want it. this is not an idle threat.

 

thank you.

Share this post


Link to post

SERVER ERROR on PID=HU1241

 

When I try to access the datasheet for PID=HU1241, I get the following message:

 

Server Error in '/' Application.

 

Index was outside the bounds of the array.

Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code.

 

Exception Details: System.IndexOutOfRangeException: Index was outside the bounds of the array.

 

Source Error:

An unhandled exception was generated during the execution of the current web request. Information regarding the origin and location of the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below.

 

Stack Trace:

[indexOutOfRangeException: Index was outside the bounds of the array.] Groundspeak.Web.CustomWpt.Benchmark.ParseSheet() +10626 Groundspeak.Web.CustomWpt.Benchmark..ctor(String PID) +432 Geocaching.UI.benchmark_details.Page_Load(Object sender, EventArgs e) +383 System.Web.UI.Control.OnLoad(EventArgs e) +67 System.Web.UI.Control.LoadRecursive() +35 System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain() +753

 

Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:1.1.4322.573; ASP.NET Version:1.1.4322.573

 

I would like to log this find - am I doing something wrong. I have no problem accessing any other datasheet.

 

Thanks

seventhings

Share this post


Link to post
When I try to access the datasheet for PID=HU1241, I get the following message:

 

Server Error in '/' Application.

I agree. Found BMs near N 38° 22.750 W 075° 35.350. Would display details for others but got an error message for HU1241.

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to see a 'quick link' to the Benchmarking section, not halfway down the main page, but right underneath the tab that reads "Track Travel Bugs"...I think Benchmarking should get more up-front exposure!

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to be able to read all logs for a range of PIDs on one page. Each log would include PID, logger and date entered. This would make it easier to search PIDs for unusual or questionable entries.

Share this post


Link to post

Just found my first Benchmark, but was unable to log my entry.

 

Has anyone else had trouble logging an entry to the website?

I received an error message.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Just found my first Benchmark, but was unable to log my entry. 

 

Has anyone else had trouble logging an entry to the website?

I received an error message.

 

:)

They might have started this earlier than posted.

 

Kenneth

Share this post


Link to post

Jeremy -

 

Check out this current topic. The database is (is getting?) rather strange.

 

When I looked at some beacon benchmarks several months ago when there were some active topics on them, no one noticed anything unusual like there is now.

Share this post


Link to post
I had an additional thought, but it would take the cooperation of DaveD's office, and probably rebuilding the querys into the NGS database...<BR><BR>If there was a way to directly query a specific PID in the NGS database, the GC.com details page for a marker could be dynamically updated with the latest info in the NGS files. However, I haven't found any way to query the NGS data without using <A HREF="http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_pid.prl" TARGET=_blank>this form (ds_pid.prl)</A> on their site. I guess it's really a lot to ask to have NGS recode their site just for GC.com's benefit...

I haven't finished reading thru the thread yet, but at one point, earlier this year, I actually had a little PHP script where I could just type in the PID, and I'd get back the results straight from the NGS site.. It effectively 'copies' the form they use (except with 'hidden' fields and all) and submits it to their Perl scrips. It was messy, but it worked..

 

If anyone's interested, I'll see if I can dig it up or recreate it if I lost it..

 

Me.

Share this post


Link to post

Something that just occured to me today, while bored at work.. On the cache page, we have a list (and a history page) of the last x caches found.. Could we have something like that for Benchmarks? (If we *DO*, I couldn't find it easily..)

 

Gratzi!

Me.

Share this post


Link to post

First, I agree with all of those who request a direct link to the Benchmarking section at the top left of the home GC.com page. There are (percentage wise) probably more paying members who benchmark than who cache, so we deserve at least that modicum of recognition.

 

Second, and this may be beyond the capability of the PTB, I would like to see the capability of adding benchmarks that are NOT in NGS's database. If anyone can create and add a cache, and then that cache can be claimed as found, and will show up on searches of area caches, why can't benchmarks be entered as well? There are several in my immediate area that are not in NGS listings, but they are there and could be readily found and claimed by others if there was some place I could list them. Maybe there should be a cache designation added: benchmark. Then if someone is searching for benchmarks, they could search on caches in the area they are going to, with the Type of Cache being searched for as Benchmark. This should be quite easy, as it would only entail adding one type of cache to the cache section.

Edited by catcher24

Share this post


Link to post

i'd just like to reiterate my periodic request for BM PQ's.

Share this post


Link to post

Flask,

 

I am just trying to get my mind around the PQ concept for benchmarks. Perhaps you can help.

 

In Caching, as I understand it, there are always new Caches being introduced in any given area, so as a paying member you will always be getting new PQ's to hunt. The PQ is the membership way of getting the new stuff. But the Benchmarks are all old, everything is public domain data, all laid out for free, even for the newest monumentation. There is nothing new in the way of Benchmarks coming to add to the cumulative total. Most are either Cooperative CORS stations or part of a HARN network and are basically owned and operated privately on a 24/7 realtime basis. Further, there are already programs and methods for re-parsing the NGS data so that it can be used by other programs, loaded in a GPSr or palm device, and you can do as much or as little of this as you like, all for yourself in house.

 

So how would PQ's for benchmark hunting be of benefit? Just Curious.

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
So how would PQ's for benchmark hunting be of benefit?  Just Curious.

For me, it would be convenience. Plain and simple. Example: I live in the Phoenix area but decide to take a day trip to Prescott or Sedona, maybe even Flagstaff or perhaps Tucson in the other direction. I can run a PQ of benchmarks and copy it to my PocketPC so I can see the page information. Then, load it into EasyGPS to upload into my GPSr. Total time? Less than 15 minutes.

 

Without PQ's? I would have to configure multiple searches, download the results, then use some program (GSAK perhaps?) to combine them before loading to my PocketPC and GPSr. Time spent? Don't know but it would be much longer and tedious than using a PQ. Most of the time spent doing the searches.

 

Along with PQ's, I would really like to be able to get benchmark files in GPX format. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, I think I see where you are going but you nearly have it that easy now.

 

Google the city you will be in to learn which county it is in, (unless you already know) and then download that county's data from the NGS website, They are set up for county by county data drops. Then covert it to the preferred format you like using BMGPX for your pocket PC then use EasyGPS for your GPS. It is still a 15 minute task and you have total control as well as all the candy. You don't even need the Geocaching website to accomplish this. It works 24/7. Like Caches are to geocaching, it is proprietary information from NGS so why not use the source? To have geocaching do it for us would be redundant and the info would be dated.

 

To be sure, you could archive your entire state in the background while you were surfing in a different browser window so see, if you plan it out ahead it would not be a bother. Beyond that, you would have the latest data from NGS, the data that resides here in geocaching is almost 3-4 years old and would not show all the new stuff or the many recoveries that geocachers have accomplished already. This will help you know where the FTF action is as well.

 

Maybe you still want the PQ's but the way I just outlined gets you the freshest meat at the market, and probably just as fast. More than that if you know how to read a datasheet!

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post

Rob,

 

Perhaps you do not realize how large the counties are here in Arizona. Coconino County where we live has over 1900 benchmarks. Yavapai County (Prescott area) has 1381 benchmarks. and Pima county in southern AZ. has over 2100 benchmarks.

 

If your GPSr only holds 500 waypoints then you need to spend a lot of time sorting out the ones you will be close to. This is why a pocket query would be so nice. You could select a city or general area and get benchmarks in a radius of, say 25 miles which would keep anyone busy for quite a while.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post

John,

 

Thanks, That makes sense. That was the sort of answer I was looking for.

 

I know how it is, Here in the Puget Sound area, being a coastal area and pretty mountainous, the amount of Leveling and Triangulation is cumulatively enormous. Further, a lot of the Stations are gone. So in that frame of reference the PQ would make total sense, in that you can pare it down to a manageable size.

 

I hate to keep falling back to work around scenarios, as I try to find a way to help, somehow. For now, in lieu of a better solution, would the county file in a pocket pc still seem doable? It is really just txt file so it would not be a memory problem. One could feasibly have all the data in there. I suppose it would not be as easy to be sure, but one could add way points to the GPS if need be. I only fly stations in by hand which were triangulation type into my GPS, and only if I arrive on scene and find them to be super obscure or buried. I never add Leveling (vertical stations) in as a waypoint as it is all scaled data, since my finding it and making a waypoint of that station on location will always improve the quality of the data. A GPS Fix on a Horizontally scaled station is an improvement any day. But again I digress, The PQ would narrow it down. On the other hand, the GPS is not necessary to find every benchmark either, so one could just use the data in the pocket PC to hunt.

 

Will one of the popular programs allow people to select only the horizontal stations for waypoints? Meaning can the end user determine how they want to parse the data? That would narrow the field by half. There is no good reason to make a waypoint of a scaled station, so those would be seemingly easiest to hunt right from the narrative data. If one could choose accuracy orders. Another way would be to choose only Station disc types, landmarks of various types, or only hydrants, rivets or bolts. If you are seeking the very old, you could search for drill holes and as you know, cairns are always a very cool find. Nails and wooden object would almost always be a bad hunt. Third order horizontal would include all landmarks, but would rarely include stations with established azimuth marks. In fact in my area, Third order disc stations will more rarely have RM's when compared to First and Second order stations, however this may not be so in every locale. So if we could sort this way, all First and Second order Horizontal stations will always be ground stations, not landmarks, and may often have RM's and sometimes Azimuths. Bench Marks, meaning Vertical Stations of any order will rarely if ever have RM's and never an Azimuth Mark, but will often be on bridges, near water, and can be rivets or fire hydrants and other sorts of objects that Triangulation will never be. As a common naming convention they will most usually have a letter followed by three numbers and are often sequentially because leveling is most commonly done in lines of sequential numbers. This practice is used because optical leveling is path dependent and so the numbering kept track of the path. In some cases I have found RM's which have been leveled and so contain Vertical Data, they will have their own PID. Those are generally not always part of a level line. A and B order stations of horizontal or vertical data are GPS derived Data. Some may be old stations which have been updated, or newly monumented. First order stations were the most highly triangulated and are most often found in high places, or on view property as such. Another point you made once is that many PID's starting with A, AA-AI most commonly, but not in all cases, may have an affiliation with airports and are known as Primary or Secondary Airport Control Station PACS or SACS. One could parse those out if they didn't want to bother hunting on an airport. CORS and HARN stations will most often be realtime GPS stations. Maybe the most important way to parse the data for those who wanna play the game is to sort for those that are GOOD and POOR, while not fooling with the MARK NOT FOUND field... Going on and on, there are many ways to sort if you wanna, and I hope this helps to sort out what is what.

 

Ok, so my idea is not a perfect fix, but it is a way to sort or narrow things down if you know what you want to hunt. It is just an effort to help. I would have to agree with you though, PQ's in the way you would have them function would help narrow the data into usable chunks. I just wonder if there isn't a private sector way of doing it, like a Radial search or Rectangular search of a given area. There is a website that gives latitude and longitude of any zip code, as in the post office's location as starting point, so that coordinate could be used to begin any given search. Another way to search is to download all the stations in a USGS Quad which is a method available on the NGS website, so theoretically you have a map and all the stations that should reside within it.

 

I guess at this point I would ask, who wants to write the next cool program to do all this? It's all on the NGS Datasheet, you just have to parse out what you really want. :-) Thanks again John, that was the direction I was hoping for.

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post

John, you hit the nail on the head with the amount of benchmarks in the AZ counties. That was what I was referring to about the amount and time spent searching. Just never said it. :blink:

 

Rob, thanks for the alternate suggestions. I had thought of going that route before but blanched when I saw how many BM's would be involved. However, you do have me re-thinking it. Especially if I can figure out how to get them as pushpins in MS Streets & Trips on my PocketPC. Memory is not a problem there. If you have further suggestions, email me through the site so we don't derail the purpose of this thread.

 

AJ

Share this post


Link to post
So how would PQ's for benchmark hunting be of benefit? Just Curious.

I haven't gotten to the end of this thread yet (I review it periodically) but I haven't seen this yet:

 

To me the benefit of having PQs for BMs is that I'd be able to see the other people's logs while I'm actually out caching. If I put the NGS info onto my Palm (using BMGPS) I only get their data, which tends to be outdated or incomplete. For instance there are some BMs around here which have been destroyed or become inaccessible and I wouldn't know this unless I could read the logs of the others around here.

 

So I join in the chorus for benchmark PQs. As I have in the past.

Share this post


Link to post

On a cache page, just above the logs, there is a link to view the gallery of images that have been posted by cachers for that cache. I think a similar link would be helpful to see the entire gallery of posted images for a particular benchmark. For most marks, there may only be a few images, but there are some popular marks, like many of those in Washington DC, some National Parks, or some near caches, that get a high number of visits with the corresponding logs and posted images. A 'Visit the Gallery' link would make it easier to view them all.

 

- Kewaneh

Share this post


Link to post

Something that I would like to see is the ability to search by PID on the "another search" link page. I can search by PID on the main benchmarking page, http://www.geocaching.com/mark/

but when I go to

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/nearest.aspx

or some variation on that page I can't search by PID. I find myself searching by PID more than rarely, especially if I'm working from county BM spreadsheets. This feature wouldn't take much and would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post

BuckBrooke,

 

The capability you ask for is already available on the NGS website. It would be a convenience, but perhaps redundant to do it here. Besides, the NGS website offers the most up to date information, and it may be much more helpful to most people to have the latest data. Further, the NGS site offers a number of search capabilities that the geocaching site does not have. Using both sites all at once seems to

 

You can access the information you are looking for, Here:

 

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/datasheet.prl

 

Enjoy,

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post

Just because I'm ingorant, where does the information on the benchmark page come from? Does it search the USGS database based on your inquiry on the geocaching page?

Share this post


Link to post

Limax, The data on Geocaching is NGS data that is a couple of years old. It will not have the latest recoveries for some of the benchmarks, but it will have accurate data as to where and how the mark was set (see the 'written descriptions' on each benchmark page.).

 

Not knowing is not the same as ignorant. :rolleyes:

 

evenfall, I believe what BuckBrooke was asking for is to have the PID search function on both benchmark pages (the Homepage and the "other search options" page. The reason is because when you do a search, check the results and then hit the "New Search" button it takes you to the "other Search Options" page and you can not do a PID search from there, you have to return to the homepage for that.

 

If you feel the need for the latest data on a particular benchmark you can click on the "view original datasheet" button on the individual benchmark pages.

 

Hope this makes things a little easier to understand.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post

Hi John,

 

I considered that when I mentioned my workaround. A lot of cool functionality would be and is possible for the benchmark hunting community here on Geocaching, alas, it has been ages since anything has been done. Apparently no one is "Workin on it". In any case, as time goes by the data here on this site will continue to age and become more stale, and currently there is no easy way to refresh the geocaching version of the NGS Data. The Benchmark Hunters have been seemingly orphaned for quite some time now. Though you can click the link on the Geocaching site to View the NGS Datasheet, this is a 5 year old datasheet and does not contain the latest recoveries and updates as seen on the NGS website. The link does not link to NGS itself. Just an archived copy here at Geocaching.

 

As I have looked through this thread from time to time I have seen a number of opportunities which could be taken by Groundspeak to enhance this aspect of geocaching and market them as "Niceties and Conveniences" which could be offered to paying members. Of course the symbiotic nature of accomplishing some of these would mean that Benchmark hunters would gain access to handy functionalities and Groundspeak would have a few carrots to toss in front of Benchmark hunters to encourage paid memberships. I see Geocaching as being able to add paid memberships from this aspect of it's gaming business, but I unfortunately don't see them taking advantage of it. I see a lot of interest, as well as some disenchantment from the lack of response to requests, and some of the people who don't Benchmark hunt could benefit from having these conveniences and may then choose to start hunting them. Again I digress. Nothing much really ever seems to come forth from the requests on this thread.

 

While you are likely correct in your interpretation of what Buck was asking for, My thinking was a way to give him similar functionality with frankly, better, more up to date info. In addition, it was something he could start using immediately, if he finds it convenient and useful. Maybe someone will get around to some of this stuff we would like someday, but in the meantime, we have to use what we've got, and I am all for bringing any tool to the table that works and is helpful.

 

Thanks John,

 

Rob

Edited by evenfall

Share this post


Link to post

Rob,

 

Try and remember the name of this site......"GeoCACHING". The primary function of this site is to supply the players with a listing of Geocaches, first and foremost (Care to guess what brings the money in?). Benchmarking was added later as a side game to caching.

 

We have plenty of threads explaining how to get new data from the NGS and how to download a full county's worth (but it is a Whole year old though, aw gee :D ).

 

We have seen some pretty good adjustments to the benchmark side of Geocaching in the past 2 years. Some folks would like to see benchmark Pocket Queries, though.

 

Currently the folks here at Geocaching have their hands full getting the new server on-line.

 

I guess there is an opportunity here for someone to start up a benchmark hunting site and include benchmarks from all agencies. Any Takers?

 

John

Share this post


Link to post

Hi John,

 

As you may be aware, I recently started a thread in the general benchmark Forum. I spoke of Camps and as you may have guessed, I am in one of them. I reckon you may be in a different one. I like to think of myself as being in the third one. I think I see you as a person who would like to place limits, I am someone who would like to see less limits. I am all inclusive, I like the ideas of share the road and space enough here for all.If it were not for the NGS and Their data, you would have no game to cherish and enjoy. Since you hunt Benchmarks more than you GeoCACHE, I'd say you too ride just a little bit for free eh? Fortunately, I want the best for you and those in your camp. I Have proposed a tenable solution for this dilemma, and I would love to see you show support for it. I am asking for this in part to accommodate us both. Your Camp and Mine.

 

I am not interested in limits. I am also all for Geocaching increasing it's Market Share and I believe it is possible for them to create money making schemas from benchmarking. In fact I have been working to accomplish just exactly that. But it is not my business, It belongs to someone else and so I cannot act in it's interest to create these possibilities. (care to guess why Benchmark Hunting has not been included in the means of bringing money in, though it could have been some time ago?) I can only offer suggestions and support. Perhaps in time Geocaching will increase it's profitability from the Benchmark aspects of it's business. I am all for it.

 

Are you proposing all those people who want to hunt Benchmarks for the NGS go away? Many new people have come to the Forum since the first of the year with questions and the desire to help out and have fun. Many want to do NGS recovery, and I feel it is right minded to help them as they ask. Are you saying that you feel that they are not welcome here and that you feel that the way they want to hunt for benchmarks is inappropriate to the way you like to? I think I see the possibility of NGS recovery as a part of the Benchmark Hunting FAQ John, and therefore those who want to discuss this in the forum are within their right to do so.

 

I am just trying to clarify what you want John. Myself I would like to see all inclusiveness and I feel we can share this space and get along, but I think I have a workaround. If the workaround does not come to pass, I feel we all can still coexist. Are you saying that People should not play this game in any other way that the way you like?

 

I feel we get what we negotiate John, and so I am Negotiating.

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post

I notice a new bug in the benchmark logs page. If you are looking at a log, the links at the top used to be user and PID. It looks like a change went in recently that changed the link from PID to the designation, and following the designation is "(waypoint)". If you click on the designation, it takes you to an error page. Clicking the PID used to take you to the GeoCaching datasheet.

 

To demonstrate the error, go to the benchmark gallery page and click one of the thumbnails. When the log page is displayed, click on the designation at the top.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

×