Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
K is for Crazy

Attribute: Power Trail

Recommended Posts

Also some of us use Mac's and GSAK does not work for Mac's.
And in addition to those of us who use Macs or other computers that run non-Microsoft operating systems, some of us don't want to add yet another step to the process of getting cache data on our devices. It's nice to be able to download the cache data in a PQ and go geocaching, without needing to filter it through GSAK (or any other third-party software) first.

Also some of us use Mac's and GSAK does not work for Mac's.

 

Would the functionality of GSAK be more palatable if it were platform-agnostic, perhaps by being integrated by GS into their site?

 

[FEATURE] Hosted GSAK

 

 

The only problem I see with this suggestion is what is the definition of power trail?

 

I think that any collection of caches where the CO tolerates container fungibility would definitely be a candidate for the power trail attribute.

Share this post


Link to post
Would the functionality of GSAK be more palatable if it were platform-agnostic, perhaps by being integrated by GS into their site?
The "functionality" of GSAK isn't what makes it unpalatable to some. It's GSAK's dependency on a separate system running MS Windows. Sometimes, it's the "separate system" that is unpalatable. Sometimes it's the "MS Windows" that is unpalatable. Sometimes it's both.

 

But yes, it would be nice if the functionality were platform agnostic, perhaps web based. Before I used Neongeo (which allows me to enter corrected coordinates in the Personal Cache Note field), I used a third-party web-based system to edit the coordinates in my "solved unfound puzzles" bookmark list PQ. I had to download my "solved unfound puzzles" PQ in a different way from my other PQs, but I could still just download my PQs from the web directly to my device and go.

 

And yes, it would be better if it were integrated into the geocaching.com site somehow, either as part of the PQ system, or as an API-based alternative to the PQ system.

 

The only problem I see with this suggestion is what is the definition of power trail?
I think that any collection of caches where the CO tolerates container fungibility would definitely be a candidate for the power trail attribute.
Yeah, I agree with L0ne.R that there will be sufficient peer pressure to encourage owners of modern numbers run trails to use the attribute. That pressure is likely to come from both those who want to ignore such caches and those who want to log them.

 

And while it's possible that some cache owners might use the attribute for caches on old-school power trails, I think peer pressure will tend the other way, mainly from fans of modern numbers run trails who find their numbers run PQs cluttered with non-fungible, non-identical, non-PNG caches.

Share this post


Link to post
Would the functionality of GSAK be more palatable if it were platform-agnostic, perhaps by being integrated by GS into their site?

It'd also be nice if it were free or part of the premium membership fee.

Share this post


Link to post

For those of us who are able and willing to run GSAK, I'm perfectly happy that it isn't hosted or even touched by gc.com. Not only is Clyde, a solo operation, far more responsive to user requests, if you don't see what you like, the world of macros combined with the API makes for quite the platform from which to work. Comparable flexibility that included what GSAK is capable of doing would require a monumental overhaul of the whole gc.com front-end and database. I've given up asking for those kinds of features from gc.com, even when they would serve a fair bit of the community.

 

More to the point, a lot of what Clyde is doing is only realistically performed locally using local resources. The kinds of slice and dice and sort and move that it affords would bring those poor gc.com servers to their knees if more than a handful of folks started to make use of such features. It's pretty hard to beat pulling down only the necessary information and dealing with it in a local database using local horsepower to manipulate it.

 

It also allows us to violate certain well-intentioned policies with unintended consequences. TECHNICALLY, you can't share a PQ with another user. However, if multiple members want to make a run at only caches that two or more people haven't found, gc.com doesn't facilitate that now (it's been lauded as a potential feature even by the lackeys, but never implemented), while GSAK allows the loading of each of the individuals' PQs for comparison purposes so you can again slice and dice the lists any way you like.

 

Let Clyde do what Clyde does. If anyone else wants to try to support platforms other than Windows, I'm sure he'd be happy to work with them.

 

To those who argue for incorporating it all into the gc.com site as a reason to avoid another program, I'd argue that when you're all ready to toss your Garmin (or other) mapping software to do a decent route and leave that to gc.com as well, we can talk.

Share this post


Link to post

For those of us who are able and willing to run GSAK, I'm perfectly happy that it isn't hosted or even touched by gc.com. Not only is Clyde, a solo operation, far more responsive to user requests, if you don't see what you like, the world of macros combined with the API makes for quite the platform from which to work. Comparable flexibility that included what GSAK is capable of doing would require a monumental overhaul of the whole gc.com front-end and database. I've given up asking for those kinds of features from gc.com, even when they would serve a fair bit of the community.

 

More to the point, a lot of what Clyde is doing is only realistically performed locally using local resources. The kinds of slice and dice and sort and move that it affords would bring those poor gc.com servers to their knees if more than a handful of folks started to make use of such features. It's pretty hard to beat pulling down only the necessary information and dealing with it in a local database using local horsepower to manipulate it.

 

It also allows us to violate certain well-intentioned policies with unintended consequences. TECHNICALLY, you can't share a PQ with another user. However, if multiple members want to make a run at only caches that two or more people haven't found, gc.com doesn't facilitate that now (it's been lauded as a potential feature even by the lackeys, but never implemented), while GSAK allows the loading of each of the individuals' PQs for comparison purposes so you can again slice and dice the lists any way you like.

 

Let Clyde do what Clyde does. If anyone else wants to try to support platforms other than Windows, I'm sure he'd be happy to work with them.

 

To those who argue for incorporating it all into the gc.com site as a reason to avoid another program, I'd argue that when you're all ready to toss your Garmin (or other) mapping software to do a decent route and leave that to gc.com as well, we can talk.

 

Absolutely agree. It is especially great with Clyde being an Aussie. All of us over here in the colonies can make comments, requests etc while he is asleep. Then we go to sleep and when we wake up Clyde has done it. Updates are actually to often for me several times a week. With GS you make a request and hope it is ready when your children grow up (just kidding moderators). It is windows only but many people run it on their macs using emulation software.

 

My point in previous posts is that there are solutions available each individual can choose. Do I use current technology to accomplish what I want or do I demand that it be fixed by others the way I want it. While many comment on the complexity of GSAK that is kind of a misstatement. While it will do many complex things if you want it (and I don't use much of that) it does many useful things forever. Like letting you add all of a power trail or caches by a single owner to your ignore list in just a few minutes thereby solving the problem..

 

As to buying the program let's think about it for a few minutes. Lets say he has about 10000 users which i don't think is unreasonable since almost everybody I ask says yes. They pay him $30 every couple of years or so when he makes a major upgrade (the API interface was the last one). That's $150,000 a year. How much would GS have to pay for that program seems way out of their budget.

 

In addition to his quickness to respond he has had a very good group of volunteers who have flocked to his side to site. One of the top used macros (Gen Stats) has something like 25,000 lines of code. Macros are often written overnight or less.

 

Why would anybody want to give up this service?

 

So it is individual choice. Do I want the problem solved or would I rather keep complaining and get all stressed out. If it is the latter please see signature.

Edited by Walts Hunting

Share this post


Link to post

Can any of the naysayers explain why such an attribute would be a bad idea? I don't want to hear about flawed alternatives such as third party software, or "just look at a map". How can such an attribute harm the geocaching experience?

 

When this first came up I thought it was a good idea but I really had no stake in it because there were no power trails here. Things have changed dramatically in the past two years thanks to the explosion in power trails.

 

Since the thread was bumped, I don't think that anyone has said that it is a bad idea. In fact, it's a great idea, and it should have been implemented years ago. The fact that it hasn't been leads most of us to believe that it will never be implemented, therefore, I'll use what you call a flawed alternative to do exactly what I need to do.

The only problem I see with this suggestion is what is the definition of power trail? I sure briansnat would consider any two caches within half a mile of each other along a bike trail by the same CO to be a power trail. And there is a good point. Over time along bike trails a nice collection of caches can evolve that one could consider to be a power trail. Except they are hidden by 20 different CO's. Others would not want to consider anything less than Route 66 a power trail. I've never seen anyone give a really good definition of a power trail. Until such a definition can be given some CO's won't use the attribute because what they have is not a power trail while others will argue the 5 or 8 caches do comprise a power trail and should be so labeled.

 

Most people that place power trails, know that they are placing power trails and are proud of it. I'm sure that you would be proud to add the attribute as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Would the functionality of GSAK be more palatable if it were platform-agnostic, perhaps by being integrated by GS into their site?

It'd also be nice if it were free or part of the premium membership fee.

 

It would be nice if gasoline was free as well.

Share this post


Link to post

And chocolate.

 

Free chocolate is always good.

 

While we're dreaming, we might as well dream big.

Edited by TriciaG

Share this post


Link to post

And chocolate.

 

Free chocolate is always good.

 

While we're dreaming, we might as well dream big.

don't forget free chocolate vodka

Share this post


Link to post

I love GSAK as-is -- the only reason I would use a hosted version was if it had no limitations around the API that using the standalone one does.

 

And for the record, GSAK is free. But still worth every penny (plus more) for all the reasons mentioned previously. I can't think of a better "killer app" that is more perfectly suited to its task than this one.

 

Meanwhile, on-topic, I would use the negative-option version of this attribute on my series, so that people know for sure it isn't OK to play games with the containers or logs (although it is not an issue in this case because each is unique).

Share this post


Link to post

 

And for the record, GSAK is free. But still worth every penny (plus more) for all the reasons mentioned previously. I can't think of a better "killer app" that is more perfectly suited to its task than this one.

 

For the record GSAK is *NOT* free. You can evaluate it for 21 days before the nag screen kicks in. The longer you use it the longer the nag screen time. If your really determined, it starts nagging on every thing you do. The price asked though does make it practically free.

Share this post


Link to post

 

And for the record, GSAK is free. But still worth every penny (plus more) for all the reasons mentioned previously. I can't think of a better "killer app" that is more perfectly suited to its task than this one.

 

For the record GSAK is *NOT* free. You can evaluate it for 21 days before the nag screen kicks in. The longer you use it the longer the nag screen time. If your really determined, it starts nagging on every thing you do. The price asked though does make it practically free.

 

Well if the product's website is "the record" then it is free:

 

GSAK is FREE to download and use, but after 21 days of unrestricted use you get a nag screen. You can keep using GSAK after the 21 days, but if you want to remove the nag screen you will need to register the program

Share this post


Link to post

I see your point but wouldn't take more than a couple of minutes in gsak to make sure they never show up in a pq again. Pretty simple really.

 

As it has been mentioned many times, GSAK only works on a PC. Although it's theoretically free, anyone that uses it for more than a month will find it impractical without paying for it to eliminate the nag screen. Explicitly excluding or including power trails in a pocket query does not address the issue that they're still going to show up in instant notifications. In addition to getting 200 caches that you are not interested in finding you're getting 200 email messages for caches you have no interest in finding. The addition of a power trail attribute and the ability to filter notifications based on the existence of an attribute would solve that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I see your point but wouldn't take more than a couple of minutes in gsak to make sure they never show up in a pq again. Pretty simple really.

 

As it has been mentioned many times, GSAK only works on a PC. Although it's theoretically free, anyone that uses it for more than a month will find it impractical without paying for it to eliminate the nag screen. Explicitly excluding or including power trails in a pocket query does not address the issue that they're still going to show up in instant notifications. In addition to getting 200 caches that you are not interested in finding you're getting 200 email messages for caches you have no interest in finding. The addition of a power trail attribute and the ability to filter notifications based on the existence of an attribute would solve that.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps Groundspeak will use their experience with the new Giga-Event type to sort out what would be required to add a new attribute for Numbers Run Trails.

Share this post


Link to post

I see your point but wouldn't take more than a couple of minutes in gsak to make sure they never show up in a pq again. Pretty simple really.

 

And as people keep saying it would be really nice if Groundspeak could provide a single solution that meets the needs of the community rather than endlessly relying on third party software to do the job properly.

Share this post


Link to post

A smaller company will always be more nimble than a large one. I would imagine that the list of "simple solutions" is extremely long and many of the requests are not as simple as thought.

 

I guess my point is that there is an available solution and whether people choose to use it or just keep shouting in the wilderness for GS to do it is up to them.

Share this post


Link to post
I guess my point is that there is an available solution and whether people choose to use it or just keep shouting in the wilderness for GS to do it is up to them.
I don't mind responses that point out GSAK as a workaround until Groundspeak implements a solution (assuming Groundspeak ever implements a solution). But some of the "use GSAK" posts come across as saying that there is no need for the requested feature, because everyone can/should use GSAK instead. I think that's where much of the frustration with the "use GSAK" posts comes from.

Share this post


Link to post
I guess my point is that there is an available solution and whether people choose to use it or just keep shouting in the wilderness for GS to do it is up to them.
I don't mind responses that point out GSAK as a workaround until Groundspeak implements a solution (assuming Groundspeak ever implements a solution). But some of the "use GSAK" posts come across as saying that there is no need for the requested feature, because everyone can/should use GSAK instead. I think that's where much of the frustration with the "use GSAK" posts comes from.

I wouldn't want my comments to come across that way, but I would emphasize that from an efficiency standpoint, it actually makes sense for some of this kind of processing to be done locally vs. on the gc.com server. Whether that local processing comes as a function of a gc.com app or a 3rd party app like GSAK, that's really still where some of this belongs. I'm pretty sure that MANY of us are using a 3rd party app of one kind or another for caching, even if it's something as mundane as Mapsource or Basecamp. You'll note that none of that sort of functionality is available at gc.com, either, but you don't see anyone clamoring for that because they already have the package from Garmin. Granted, I get pretty OCD about route planning for a big cache day, but what I do shouldn't become a function for the gc.com server, nor do I expect that it would. That would require that gc.com retain routable vector maps and a full routing engine. Not gonna happen.

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 4

×