Jump to content

Additional Waypoints


Recommended Posts

Why do so many people not use the additional waypoint feature when placing a cache, especially when the waypoints are for recommended parking areas?

 

Lots of people seem to put this info on the cache page but don't set up the additional waypoints.

 

Not a major problem, but when the parking coordinates are put in as additional waypoints and I feed the cache through GSAK onto my tomtom it's ideal, as I can use the tomtom to navigate by road to the parking area.

 

When they are just written in the text I have to manually put them into tomtom while out and about - I know, poor me :rolleyes:

 

I must admit when we set up our first cache I didn't put the additional waypoints in straight away, as I got confused with having to put a code in. I didn't know what code to put in, and it said something about the codes being there for something GS have planned for the future (from memory). Presumably something they have yet to implement.

 

I certainly think the Additional Waypoints section could be simplified so it doesn't look so confusing at first glance, then maybe more people would use it. They obviously have the coordinates to hand (to put them in the cache description), and want to include them. So if there was a simple box to put them in, without having to input codes, I am sure more people would put them in correctly.

 

Or is it nothing to do with the online form, and perhaps people don't realise how much easier it is for everyone (ok, me) when the waypoints are entered 'correctly'.

 

A brilliant example of the additional waypoints being used correctly and to very good effect is Chimney Rock Ramble, where the car parking waypoint is attached to cache 1 and the route you need to take is signposted using additional waypoints on the bonus cache which made following the right path straight forward, allowing us to concentrate on enjoying the surroundings and finding the caches.

I won't quote any that I think are badly done :)

 

Hope everyone manages to get out and about on what looks like being a lovely sunny Bank Holiday weekend for once (at least here in the SW)

Lovejoy

Link to comment

Why do so many people not use the additional waypoint feature when placing a cache, especially when the waypoints are for recommended parking areas?

 

 

Additional waypoints are a relatively recent feature - perhaps there should be more peer pressure put on the owners of older caches to add additional waypoints (even when they are non-obligatory waypoints put in solely as a curtesy to finders - such as parking co-ords) to add them as additional waypoints ??? :)

Link to comment

 

I think reviewers should send new cache pages back, to have Additional Waypoints and Attributes added when they are not included!

 

New caches will get a reviewer note from me explaining how to add them but it does not stop them getting published. At the moment they are nice to add but not essential. Groundspeak may change their view in the future.

Link to comment

GSAK has a macro to sort it!

I found that this week as it happens and tried running it today.

Obviously what it can't do is recognise what it's finding - is it amended coordinates suggested by a finder, or is it a parking waypoint written in the text, or is it coordinates linking one cache to another in the series.

Can't expect it to know really.

 

And for the tomtom macro to work properly, parking coordinates do have to be entered as a parking waypoint, then I get the nice little 'P' icon on tomtom to search by.

 

The other thing is, the macro never completed, it crashed out with an error message, something to do with not being able to access the clipboard.

 

I think reviewers should send new cache pages back, to have Additional Waypoints and Attributes added when they are not included!

I hesitated to suggest that as I know the reviewers have enough on their plate already, without more things to watch for.

 

But if a cache is submitted with parking or other coordinates listed in the text instead of in the proper place that's provided then it's not correct and could perhaps be thrown back.

Only that way will CO's be forced to find out how it's meant to be done and what facilities are there for them to use.

 

It might help to raise the standards a bit overall.

 

But I don't think the reviewers would appreciate having more reasons not to publish and the inevitable complaints they would get from frustrated people who want their new cache published 2 days before they submit it :)

Edited by Lovejoy & Tinker
Link to comment

And for the tomtom macro to work properly, parking coordinates do have to be entered as a parking waypoint, then I get the nice little 'P' icon on tomtom to search by.

Must admit, it's not as handy as I would like!

 

However.

'Child Waypoints' in the edit part of GSAK (Sorry not on that computer at the moment) does give you the option to add your own, and mark them as Parking, so export to TomTom -and Memory Map- with the correct icons.

Link to comment

However.

'Child Waypoints' in the edit part of GSAK (Sorry not on that computer at the moment) does give you the option to add your own, and mark them as Parking, so export to TomTom -and Memory Map- with the correct icons.

It's a lot of faffing about though isn't it, because you then have to manually go through the caches and see which waypoints are parking, which are user submitted suggested alternative cache coordinates etc. Kind of defeats the object of the macro. Unless I am missing something.

 

I think the problem is perhaps a combination of people not understanding how to use the additional waypoints section and those not understanding how much better it makes things if they input them correctly. They obviously don't use these waypoints in the same ways as we do or they would understand.

But that's me all through - misunderstood :)

Link to comment

I think reviewers should send new cache pages back, to have Additional Waypoints and Attributes added when they are not included!

I hesitated to suggest that as I know the reviewers have enough on their plate already, without more things to watch for.

 

But if a cache is submitted with parking or other coordinates listed in the text instead of in the proper place that's provided then it's not correct and could perhaps be thrown back.

Only that way will CO's be forced to find out how it's meant to be done and what facilities are there for them to use.

It would be nice if the reviewer could send a standard note to point out these features, after revieweing the cache. But with Additional Waypoints, I don't think it's right to reject the listing. After all, you have the option of not mentioning parking at all - perhaps deliberately - so it would be a bit harsh to punish someone who mentions the parking area but not in the preferred way.

Link to comment

It would be nice if the reviewer could send a standard note to point out these features, after revieweing the cache. But with Additional Waypoints, I don't think it's right to reject the listing. After all, you have the option of not mentioning parking at all - perhaps deliberately - so it would be a bit harsh to punish someone who mentions the parking area but not in the preferred way.

Oh I don't know, harsh punishment can be good for one - didn't do me any harm :rolleyes::(

 

Seriously though, I take your point, it is not an essential part of the cache details and folk may delete coordinates completely rather than have to figure out how to put them in the preferred proper way :)

 

I'm just thinking, a good narrative or description is not a requirement, nor is good spelling or grammar on the cache page, any more than listing additional waypoints. But, when done properly it does make the whole experience of finding a cache so much more enjoyable.

It frustrates me when I see opportunities for generating great cache pages (and caches) thrown away for the lack of just a little bit more thought, effort and perhaps understanding what's available and what can be done.

That's why if it was easier and more obvious how to put coordinates in, more people would do it.

 

Sometimes I have seen caches with details about short detours that can be taken on a walk to visit interesting features. But it's really awkward when you have to read the cache page and transfer the waypoints of the 'interesting feature' onto the gps while standing in the rain.

Much nicer to have those coordinates already in the gps, go off to find them then back onto the original route.

This game's all about using technology but people don't seem to be using it to its full potential.

 

But I know a lot of this is to do with me being a perfectionist I suppose. And before you all point out errors in my text or problems with my own caches, I will admit to rarely achieving perfection, I just aim vaguely in its general direction :lol::)

Link to comment

Trouble is, reading the getting started threads demonstrates that people don't read what's there to be read. People don't look for information, especially in the heat of trying to get a brand new cache published.

 

I have to admit I have never seen those pages before.

I worked out the attributes pretty easily (with some help from some friends as we were quite new).

The additional waypoints were more tricky and only after our 1st cache was published it took me a week or so to realise what I was meant to do.

 

I wonder if all these codes and abbreviations of codes are necessary. Could the same be achieved with just a drop down 'type' box followed by the coordinates boxes.

Link to comment

It would be nice if the reviewer could send a standard note to point out these features, after revieweing the cache. But with Additional Waypoints, I don't think it's right to reject the listing. After all, you have the option of not mentioning parking at all - perhaps deliberately - so it would be a bit harsh to punish someone who mentions the parking area but not in the preferred way.

We do. This is the standard note I put on a cache if I see parking in the description but no waypoint. It generates a log which is deleted when the cache is then published but the CO gets an email with it in. I don't hold up publication. We do the same where the terrain rating suggests the cache is suitable for disabled cachers asking that attributes are added. Again we don't hold up publication. The only waypoints that we do insist on are the final cache location and physical stages. A cache won't be published without these.

By the way did you know..... additional waypoints are sorted on the cache page by the Prefix code. So waypoint prefix CP (car parking) comes before S1 (for a stage 1 container) but would have Q2 (for stage 2 question) in between them!

 

I've published your cache but you should add an additional waypoint for the Parking Area which you refer to in the description. These are helpful to geocachers as they can be downloaded directly to a GPS and don't have to be entered by hand. The waypoints can be added from the list on the right of the cache page. You can do this now even though the cache has been published.

Here's a little tip when you write coordinates in the description. If you want them to have the ° symbol then all you need do is copy the coordinates from the top of the cache page and then paste them into the description and just edit the actual numbers - like this N 51° 12.345 W 002° 34.567.

 

But how many people will actually go and edit their cache to do this? I don't know as I don't go back and check :unsure:

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer - geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources site http://www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books http://support.Groundspeak.com//index.php

Link to comment

Why do so many people not use the additional waypoint feature when placing a cache, especially when the waypoints are for recommended parking areas?

 

 

Additional waypoints are a relatively recent feature - perhaps there should be more peer pressure put on the owners of older caches to add additional waypoints (even when they are non-obligatory waypoints put in solely as a curtesy to finders - such as parking co-ords) to add them as additional waypoints ??? :unsure:

 

Their only recent if you think four years and eight months is relatively recent B) . Oh and they became Mandatory for Multi and Puzzle caches, around four years ago here in the UK ;) .

 

Deci

Link to comment

Back in the old days :lol: all you got were the co-ords to find a given spot on the face of the earth how you got to that point was down to you, you might even have to use a map. :wub:

 

I remember them days well, heh-heh!

 

What I DO remember when additional waypoints came out, was just switching the GPSr on a mile from the cache, and spending AGES looking for the cache.....only to realise I was looking in the "parking area"....D'oh! I hadn't looked properly at the GPSr.......just looked at the "nearest" waypoint :ph34r:

Link to comment

Since I've been-a-caching I have presumed that part of the fun (difficulty) is actually trying to find the correct route in. After all, we're almost handed the cache most of the time with coords and size and hints and logs given to us beforehand. :ph34r:

I don't think adding a parking place spoils that aspect if someone wants to make it part of the hunt. Finding a place to put the van is often not the same as finding the start of a footpath, or the best route to the cache. But it is often the most frustrating part, especially if you don't know the area at all.

 

And driving round narrow, twisty country lanes trying to find a footpath sign is not great fun.

Once the van is safely parked up (whether that's a mile down the road in the nearest village or in a pull in at the side of a road), that, for me, is when the navigational fun can begin.

 

I think a lot of people put caches reasonably close to home on a favourite dog walk route for them. So they either walk from their hose or park their car in a handy little grassy pull off area that they know.

They forget that others will most likely be coming in by car and won't necessarilty know the area at all.

 

But even if that is not other people's way of liking to play, my original post was based on people who do give you the coordinates, so they obviously want you to have that information, but they put them in the text.

Link to comment

"Back in the old pre paperles finding three caches in a day was a good haul days" I used to have a folder with a printout of todays caches in, so I would tend to read each cache page before I visited.

Now of course I dump everything onto my GPSr and my Sat Nav and head off (often without reading the cache page) so, yes it would be loads easier if Parking coordinates were entered as an Additional Waypoint. I'd also request that a "Parking Waypoint" is a place suitable to park a normal car safely - not a bit of verge you can park your 4x4 on.

 

Goes off to add Parking Waypoints to his caches so the locals don't whinge!

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...