Downloadable Geocache File Format

[+c1954m]

 

VISITED BUT UNATTEMPTED

This one is a bit hard to explain, but it can have an influence on the GPX file content.

 

Presently on my OREGON 450 I have 4 choices to log a cache. Presently, when I push the UNATTEMPTED button, it's like pushing a cancel button, nothing happen, no trace. That would be nice, when I log a "unattempted", to have an icon on the GPS screen and also on geocaching.com site. That way when loading our field notes, we will have a trace that we have visited the cache. Adding this option, it will show in the right corner of the cache page where there is a big yellow smiley or the blue frown. I let you choose the smiley as long as the color is different and it is not a "?". Also, it would be possible to filter the caches with the tab on the left side of the screen and (or) while doing a pocket querry by adding a new box in the category WHO (AND). The goal is not to log a "Didn't find" just to a have a trace and then scare (or discourage) the others geocachers who would like to visit the cache. When I just put a note, it doesn't show in the top right corner of the page.

 

TKS

c1954m

 

So you're asking for a brand new log type?

 

And what's the difference between that, a DNF and a write note?

 

Also, I agree that additional waypoints should be kept separate from the cache waypoints. Some people do like to keep their GPS map clear of the additional clutter, and I don't see any problem with having to put two files onto a GPS.

 

I'll try to explain

Yes, that will be a new category. Unless they can find a way to leave a note and it would show on the web site and on my GPS and can be filtered when doing a PQ.

Say that I visit a cache and the vegetation is too thick or the surrounding area, ex: a school, dirty place, etc. is not interesting. I don’t want to put a DNF because I didn’t try the cache and it can discourage others to go, but I would like to have a trace to remember not to go back. I know, there is an IGNORE list but it is useless with the GPS unit. Like I said, this demand is in the category “ Nice to have” and I understand there is a lot of programming behind this request.

[+cerberus1]

"Say that I visit a cache and the vegetation is too thick or the surrounding area, ex: a school, dirty place, etc. is not interesting..." with Visited, But Unattempted, sounds (to me) like more of a rating system for hides and I'd bet that's what it'd be used for.

- No thanks.

I'd think most cachers look at why there's a DNF and wouldn't be discouraged simply because you chose not to attempt it.

[+dprovan]

Say that I visit a cache and the vegetation is too thick or the surrounding area, ex: a school, dirty place, etc. is not interesting. I don’t want to put a DNF because I didn’t try the cache and it can discourage others to go...

Why don't you want to discourage others to go? Vegetation too thick, too near a school, dirty place? Sounds like you should be posting a Needs Maintenance. But if you consider the faults to be a matter of taste, a DNF is an excellent way to express your displeasure in a way that warns others with similar tastes not to bother investigating for themselves. It would be a good idea to make clear that you rejected the area without actually looking for the cache, but the fact is you didn't find the cache whether you looked for it or not.

[+C3GPS]

Add me to the list that would like to see corrected coordinates included in addition to the originals already included.

[+WellAwayGang]

Most important to me would be corrected coordinates and personal notes.

[+ngrrfan]

Most important to me would be corrected coordinates and personal notes.

These two things are the most important to me as well.

Along with corrected coords I want the original coords also, and on a multi I want the intermediate coords too.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

In the above discussion, there has been talk of implementing a version 1.0.2. This implies that the new GPX file will be based on version 1.0. Has anyone looked at version 1.1? Does it offer anything that might be of interest? Version 1.0 has been out since 2002, and 1.1 since 2004.

 

If memory serves, a GPX file from GS only contains WPT type data. What about adding RTE or TRK type data, say based on a bookmark list?

 

Thanks, Skye.

[jholly]

In the above discussion, there has been talk of implementing a version 1.0.2. This implies that the new GPX file will be based on version 1.0. Has anyone looked at version 1.1? Does it offer anything that might be of interest? Version 1.0 has been out since 2002, and 1.1 since 2004.

 

If memory serves, a GPX file from GS only contains WPT type data. What about adding RTE or TRK type data, say based on a bookmark list?

 

Thanks, Skye.

The thing of interest in version 1.1 is that it does not work with most GPS units. So this will probably be a bad choice at this time.

[+MaliBooBoo]

How about adding the coordinates from if/when a finder has bothered to "Add a coordinate to this log"

[+Corfman Clan]

How about adding the coordinates from if/when a finder has bothered to "Add a coordinate to this log"

There's no telling what the coordinates in a log are for. For example, I'll add coordinates to a log for things I've found along the way, such as a ruin or petroglyphs.

[+niraD]

How about adding the coordinates from if/when a finder has bothered to "Add a coordinate to this log"

There's no telling what the coordinates in a log are for. For example, I'll add coordinates to a log for things I've found along the way, such as a ruin or petroglyphs.

True, but if a previous finder does include coordinates, then it would be nice to be able to see them. Maybe they're better coordinates for the cache. Maybe they're a point of interest, like a ruin or petroglyphs. But if they aren't included, then they're useless.

[+dprovan]

How about adding the coordinates from if/when a finder has bothered to "Add a coordinate to this log"

There's no telling what the coordinates in a log are for. For example, I'll add coordinates to a log for things I've found along the way, such as a ruin or petroglyphs.

True, but if a previous finder does include coordinates, then it would be nice to be able to see them. Maybe they're better coordinates for the cache. Maybe they're a point of interest, like a ruin or petroglyphs. But if they aren't included, then they're useless.

Wait a minute: are you guys saying that coordinates attached to a log are not currently included in the PQ file? I always thought they must be there, but my GPSr just wasn't showing them to me. Yeah, I think this would be very important and useful. It drives me crazy to read a log saying "coordinates way off: I've attached better ones" only to not be able to see those coordinates.

 

One hopes that if the logger attaches coordinates other than improvements for the final location, they're clear about it in their log, otherwise those coordinates would be confusing and annoying whether in a GPX file or on the web. (In fact, I'd claim that it would be confusing and annoying to attach any other coordinates to a log. If the coordinates aren't about where the cache is, they should just be put into the text of the log, not attached to it.)

[+p2tek]

Posted by mistake.

Edited September 11, 2014 by p2tek

[+p2tek]

Here it is 9-11-14 and I just now noticed that your cutoff date is 9-10-14. How about letting me squeeze in one suggestion. Please add, if you can, County/City to the cache page.

[Jayme H]

Wow, time flew, huh? Even with that extra half day.

 

Thanks for sharing your ideas with us, everyone! We'll be excited to bring this feedback with us into conversations, both here at HQ and with our partners.

 

Have an awesome rest of your week! Thanks again!