Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
Mineral2

Feature Request: Remove "Send to GPS"

Recommended Posts

I've brought this topic up in the past and was met with stiff resistance. With browsers tightening their tolerance for NPAPI plugins, I think it's time to revisit this.

 

Forum topics about how the "Send to GPS" button is no longer working correctly are on the rise again. It's only a matter of time before all browsers restrict the communicator plugins completely. Why not just get ahead of get of the game and do away with this feature altogether. Instead, enable "Save as GPX" for all users where basic members get a basic GPX (the same created with the 'Send to GPS' currently) and premium members get a GPX file with full info.

 

With this change, users will have to change their behavior (yes, there will be some pushback), but at least they can't complain about a feature that doesn't work properly or requires some security compromises to make it work.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know much about this stuff, having issues myself over the years, and being told by others I should be using pqs and/or gsak anyway...

- But yeah, I'd like to see something done, since many threads are started, asking about a plug-in that hasn't worked well in some time.

I don't see "work-arounds" (rigging it) as a fix.

 

I seriously thought a long while ago that after the last apps were done (intro/classic) there'd be something simple (that worked) on site for GPSr users not looking to load every cache in their state or country.

Fortunately the arthritis isn't bad enough yet to continue loading single caches manually. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Why not just get ahead of get of the game and do away with this feature altogether.

The button seems to be vanishing by attrition. It's notably absent in the "New Search Page", and various popups, when it was once pretty much all over the place. It's slowly going away, and the pace is just about right.

 

I'm pretty sure an "old" OS with an old browser still works just fine, except for the site warning that the browser is not supported. Many cachers use "Send to My GPS" (Garmin Communicator) specifically for its capability to do special downloads to old GPSrs that can't be loaded manually. Sure these users can go ahead and start doing it another way. But if the idea is to reduce forum topics about problems with the "Send to My GPS" button, immediately removing that button may not produce the desired result :anibad:. Leave it alone, and worse case scenario, when people ask what it's for (why it doesn't do anything), let them know it's for those who still have it working.

 

Some guidance from TPTB would be nice. "This button may stop working at any time, see [some link] for info." Or pin the info in the Forum. Or do most anything at all. :ph34r:

Edited by kunarion

Share this post


Link to post

You will see a replacement for this shortly (probably before the end of the month). We have been working with Garmin for months on a solution and it is finally coming to fruition. Unfortunately, the other GPS device manufacturers who previously made use of the Send to GPS function have all exited the playing field, so the replacement will be Garmin only.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

You will see a replacement for this shortly (probably before the end of the month). We have been working with Garmin for months on a solution and it is finally coming to fruition. Unfortunately, the other GPS device manufacturers who previously made use of the Send to GPS function have all exited the playing field, so the replacement will be Garmin only.

 

Thats great news! Go Garmin!!

Share this post


Link to post

You will see a replacement for this shortly (probably before the end of the month). We have been working with Garmin for months on a solution and it is finally coming to fruition.

 

Thanks for the information. Will be the replacement be accessible to basic members and do the same job as send to gps (i.e. transfer the additional waypoints)?

Share this post


Link to post

You will see a replacement for this shortly (probably before the end of the month). We have been working with Garmin for months on a solution and it is finally coming to fruition. Unfortunately, the other GPS device manufacturers who previously made use of the Send to GPS function have all exited the playing field, so the replacement will be Garmin only.

 

What about my excellent Magellan Explorist GC?

Share this post


Link to post

You will see a replacement for this shortly (probably before the end of the month). We have been working with Garmin for months on a solution and it is finally coming to fruition. Unfortunately, the other GPS device manufacturers who previously made use of the Send to GPS function have all exited the playing field, so the replacement will be Garmin only.

 

What about my excellent Magellan Explorist GC?

See sentence 2, and if that's not a good enough answer, go tell Magellan customer service they need to play ball.

Share this post


Link to post

You will see a replacement for this shortly (probably before the end of the month). We have been working with Garmin for months on a solution and it is finally coming to fruition. Unfortunately, the other GPS device manufacturers who previously made use of the Send to GPS function have all exited the playing field, so the replacement will be Garmin only.

 

What about my excellent Magellan Explorist GC?

See sentence 2, and if that's not a good enough answer, go tell Magellan customer service they need to play ball.

 

Wow, that's harsh. I was just askin'!

Share this post


Link to post

You will see a replacement for this shortly (probably before the end of the month). We have been working with Garmin for months on a solution and it is finally coming to fruition. Unfortunately, the other GPS device manufacturers who previously made use of the Send to GPS function have all exited the playing field, so the replacement will be Garmin only.

 

What about my excellent Magellan Explorist GC?

See sentence 2, and if that's not a good enough answer, go tell Magellan customer service they need to play ball.

 

Wow, that's harsh. I was just askin'!

 

Yes, an obsolete question. rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post

You will see a replacement for this shortly (probably before the end of the month). We have been working with Garmin for months on a solution and it is finally coming to fruition. Unfortunately, the other GPS device manufacturers who previously made use of the Send to GPS function have all exited the playing field, so the replacement will be Garmin only.

 

What about my excellent Magellan Explorist GC?

See sentence 2, and if that's not a good enough answer, go tell Magellan customer service they need to play ball.

 

Wow, that's harsh. I was just askin'!

And I was just pointing out that your question had already been answered in the post to which you were replying.

 

As your tone seemed to indicate that Groundspeak was somehow to blame for Magellan's failure to continue to support geocachers, I was not sugarcoating my reply, but I think you are interpreting hostility where there was only brevity. No hard feelings, I hope, as I don't have any toward you.

Edited by hzoi

Share this post


Link to post

You will see a replacement for this shortly (probably before the end of the month).

 

great, this will be an example of Groundspeak really paying attention to requests from their users.

I am not cynical, just glad. Good work.

Share this post


Link to post

You will see a replacement for this shortly (probably before the end of the month). We have been working with Garmin for months on a solution and it is finally coming to fruition. Unfortunately, the other GPS device manufacturers who previously made use of the Send to GPS function have all exited the playing field, so the replacement will be Garmin only.

Will there be an announcement of the release in the ground speak newsletter?

Share this post


Link to post

Will there be an announcement of the release in the ground speak newsletter?

 

Yes, the marketing team plans to communicate this out as soon as it is ready. Note that we are working on wrapping up a final few issues with Garmin and it looks like the release will be a bit later than we were planning - probably mid- to late-April.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, the marketing team plans to communicate this out as soon as it is ready. Note that we are working on wrapping up a final few issues with Garmin and it looks like the release will be a bit later than we were planning - probably mid- to late-April.

 

Let me ask again: Will the new tool have the same functionality, i.e. will it transfer all waypoints regardless of the membership status?

Share this post


Link to post

[...]

Let me ask again: Will the new tool have the same functionality, i.e. will it transfer all waypoints regardless of the membership status?

 

Just wait and then test it. rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Let me ask again: Will the new tool have the same functionality, i.e. will it transfer all waypoints regardless of the membership status?

Why should it? The ones paying for all this, should get access to more than the ones not paying...

 

That being said, my guess is that is simply transfer the file you can download anyway by clicking "GPX file".

Share this post


Link to post

Let me ask again: Will the new tool have the same functionality, i.e. will it transfer all waypoints regardless of the membership status?

Why should it? The ones paying for all this, should get access to more than the ones not paying...

[...]

 

You misunderstand cezanne. She meant all additional waypoints (children in GSAK's lingo) - not all caches.

 

Hans

Share this post


Link to post

Let me ask again: Will the new tool have the same functionality, i.e. will it transfer all waypoints regardless of the membership status?

Why should it? The ones paying for all this, should get access to more than the ones not paying...

 

They get more anyway, namely the description, the logs etc.

 

My question is whether the new tool offers the same the old tool has offered all these years (of course restricted to caches available to all cachers, not PM-only caches) - so something on the premises of which cachers have decided to hide their caches on this site and contributed to its success.

 

That being said, my guess is that is simply transfer the file you can download anyway by clicking "GPX file".

 

Basic members cannot click on this link, but they can use send to gps. My question is simply will the new tool provide the same service as the old one. It's not about any new bonus added.

 

I'd say that from continuing to offer the same functionality as has been present all these years also many PMs will profit. The new app restricts new cachers to simpletraditionals - the more important it becomes to make more complex cache types (like multi caches with many waypoints) available to new cachers so that some of them could get hooked before they leave geocaching again due to being frustrated about the drive in caches which are boring for them.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Let me ask again: Will the new tool have the same functionality, i.e. will it transfer all waypoints regardless of the membership status?

Why should it? The ones paying for all this, should get access to more than the ones not paying...

 

They get more anyway, namely the description, the logs etc.

 

My question is whether the new tool offers the same the old tool has offered all these years (of course restricted to caches available to all cachers, not PM-only caches) - so something on the premises of which cachers have decided to hide their caches on this site and contributed to its success.

 

That being said, my guess is that is simply transfer the file you can download anyway by clicking "GPX file".

 

Basic members cannot click on this link, but they can use send to gps. My question is simply will the new tool provide the same service as the old one. It's not about any new bonus added.

 

I'd say that from continuing to offer the same functionality as has been present all these years also many PMs will profit. The new app restricts new cachers to simpletraditionals - the more important it becomes to make more complex cache types (like multi caches with many waypoints) available to new cachers so that some of them could get hooked before they leave geocaching again due to being frustrated about the drive in caches which are boring for them.

 

The way see it is that GS offers two types of memberships, basic and premium. A basic membership is for those that only want to do basic geocaching. I'd argue that the ability to hide and find more complex caches types like multi caches with many waypoints is more than basic geocaching. If someone wants to do more than basic geocaching, then fork out the cache to help support the site that provides premium features.

Share this post


Link to post

 

The way see it is that GS offers two types of memberships, basic and premium. A basic membership is for those that only want to do basic geocaching. I'd argue that the ability to hide and find more complex caches types like multi caches with many waypoints is more than basic geocaching. If someone wants to do more than basic geocaching, then fork out the cache to help support the site that provides premium features.

 

I do not see it that way as in many urban areas the only interesting caches for those who are not interested into special containers are non traditionals. If people never will get to see/visit them, they will leave before they got started. I know cachers who are PMs meanwhile who got hooked only by more complex caches (e.g. a couple told me that without my caches they never would have stayed). For example, I would have a really hard time cannot to come up with recommendable traditionals in my home town (farther away of course such caches exist).

Have a look at

https://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx?lat=47.06687&lng=15.44468#?ll=47.06688,15.44472&z=14

(and then check the FPs for the green caches)

That does not look like

https://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx?lat=42.43137&lng=-76.46337#?ll=42.43134,-76.46338&z=14

 

Moreover, a lot of the money (I'd say that meanwhile the majority) does not go into the site itself (servers, programmers and the like) but into many other sources (layout, public relations, marketing, mega events, souvenirs, travelling of lackeys to events etc).

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

My question is whether the new tool offers the same the old tool has offered all these years (of course restricted to caches available to all cachers, not PM-only caches) - so something on the premises of which cachers have decided to hide their caches on this site and contributed to its success.

I guess Groundspeak need to answer this. But if we look at the app, that changed from providing every cache type, to only traditional, I will expect that they at least have considered making this a premium feature.

 

Basic members cannot click on this link, but they can use send to gps. My question is simply will the new tool provide the same service as the old one. It's not about any new bonus added.

Sorry, I didn't know that. I've never been a basic member.

 

I'd say that from continuing to offer the same functionality as has been present all these years also many PMs will profit. The new app restricts new cachers to simpletraditionals - the more important it becomes to make more complex cache types (like multi caches with many waypoints) available to new cachers so that some of them could get hooked before they leave geocaching again due to being frustrated about the drive in caches which are boring for them.

My experience is that a (too) high number of new cachers find long descriptions, multiple waypoints etc. both confusing and boring. They don't even read the description. So as a cache owner, I really appreciate that my earthcaches, multi caches and mystery caches aren't available unless you either pay or visit the actual website.

 

The way see it is that GS offers two types of memberships, basic and premium. A basic membership is for those that only want to do basic geocaching. I'd argue that the ability to hide and find more complex caches types like multi caches with many waypoints is more than basic geocaching. If someone wants to do more than basic geocaching, then fork out the cache to help support the site that provides premium features.

Well said. If you want access to everything, you pay the same as everyone else supporting this site.

 

I do not see it that way as in many urban areas the only interesting caches for those who are not interested into special containers are non traditionals. If people never will get to see/visit them, they will leave before they got started. I know cachers who are PMs meanwhile who got hooked only by more complex caches (e.g. a couple told me that without my caches they never would have stayed). For example, I would have a really hard time cannot to come up with recommendable traditionals in my home town (farther away of course such caches exist).

Seeing how many multi caches you have in your area, I get why you see it this way. When basic members only see easy traditionals, and there's almost none of them, of course they enjoy it more when they get access to everything... But if they like the traditional caches they can find, it's not that expensive for the shortest premium membership offered (three months, is it?). If they don't like it after three months, they can just cancel.

 

I usually compare this to gym memberships. Here in Norway you have to pay around the same as one year premium membership costs for one month at a gym club. You can't just expect to be able to go in there, and say that you want to try everything they have, indefinitely, for free, and expect them to be okay with that.

 

Moreover, a lot of the money (I'd say that meanwhile the majority) does not go into the site itself (servers, programmers and the like) but into many other sources (layout, public relations, marketing, mega events, souvenirs, travelling of lackeys to events etc).

Marketing and community involvement is important. So even though it may seem like a waste of money to send lackeys around the world, I don't think it is. It's important for Groundspeak to get out, see the different local communities. Listen to people, see how their decisions affect us.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess Groundspeak need to answer this.

 

Of course only they can know. That's why I asked a lackey.

 

But if we look at the app, that changed from providing every cache type, to only traditional, I will expect that they at least have considered making this a premium feature.

 

It could be, yes. The same happened also for the new search too.

 

It would however be a rather mean way of dealing with the old promise of Jeremy back then. Essentially they could recast the site completely and then make the site unusable by basic members - but that's not a fair way to deal with the promise back then which goes in its importance much beyond money issues. For me it never has been about the amount of money the PM ship costs but always about the fact that I think geocaching belongs to the community and not to a company.

The concerns back then raised when there have been threats of law suits, the copyright discussion etc have led to Jeremy's promise and without the latter many cachers would never have offered their caches to this site and it never would have grown into what it has grown into.

 

 

 

My experience is that a (too) high number of new cachers find long descriptions, multiple waypoints etc. both confusing and boring. They don't even read the description. So as a cache owner, I really appreciate that my earthcaches, multi caches and mystery caches aren't available unless you either pay or visit the actual website.

 

I did not have any issues of this type at all. There have been some almost newcomers who got hooked by my caches and had much less difficulties with some of my hardest caches than experienced cachers with thousands of finds. Those who do not like to read long texts, do not visit my caches and in particular not alone.

 

I could never ever see any difference in the behaviour just based on the membership status. That might be different in other areas.

 

If you want access to everything, you pay the same as everyone else supporting this site.

 

Actually the PMs support much more than the site and much more than what I want to use. I do not care about PQs, FPs (I would detest to have them available), paperless caching and many other things and I'm strictly against every sort of marketing initiative that goes towards growth of geocaching.

 

I do not see it that way as in many urban areas the only interesting caches for those who are not interested into special containers are non traditionals. If people never will get to see/visit them, they will leave before they got started. I know cachers who are PMs meanwhile who got hooked only by more complex caches (e.g. a couple told me that without my caches they never would have stayed). For example, I would have a really hard time cannot to come up with recommendable traditionals in my home town (farther away of course such caches exist).

Seeing how many multi caches you have in your area, I get why you see it this way. When basic members only see easy traditionals, and there's almost none of them, of course they enjoy it more when they get access to everything...

 

There are enough easy traditionals in my opinion. What I'm saying is that none of them is interesting to a certain sort of cacher type. Why should they try out a PMship if everything they can see or reasonably access is boring in their eyes?

 

I usually compare this to gym memberships. Here in Norway you have to pay around the same as one year premium membership costs for one month at a gym club. You can't just expect to be able to go in there, and say that you want to try everything they have, indefinitely, for free, and expect them to be okay with that.

 

The difference is that the gym offers the equipment. In case of caching the cache hiders offer the most essential part.

I have no issue at all with gyms asking for fees. I have an issue however if cachers should pay a fee to get reasonable access to the caches I have hidden - I hide them for the local community and not for a company to make a living out of it.

 

 

 

Marketing and community involvement is important. So even though it may seem like a waste of money to send lackeys around the world, I don't think it is. It's important for Groundspeak to get out, see the different local communities. Listen to people, see how their decisions affect us.

 

I do not agree when it comes to my personal interests which are niche interests. Groundspeak has never seemed to care much about the interests of this nice communities which are not interested into mass caching.

Marketing is important for a business - not for geocaching with the growth it has already reached and which endagers its further existence in many cache dense areas.

Share this post


Link to post

The difference is that the gym offers the equipment. In case of caching the cache hiders offer the most essential part.

I have no issue at all with gyms asking for fees. I have an issue however if cachers should pay a fee to get reasonable access to the caches I have hidden - I hide them for the local community and not for a company to make a living out of it.

What Groundspeak offers is a hosting platform, which integrates geocaches from all over the world.

 

You are free to publish your caches wherever you like. You can register, say, "cezanne-caching.org", and publish all you caches there. Or as downloadable PDFs on a free document hoster. And so can other cache owners. Of course, these caches will hardly ever be found. Therefore, the integrated listing service, which GS is offering, is a very essential part of the geocaching community, and an absolute necessity for the way many (most?) geocachers play the game. I.e., wherever they want to go caching, have a look at one map or site to see every cache in that area at a glance (and then choose from the selection).

 

Therefore, like it or not, GS has a monopoly on one of the core needs of today's geocachers. They make money out of that? Fine, I don't blame them.

Share this post


Link to post

 

What Groundspeak offers is a hosting platform, which integrates geocaches from all over the world.

 

If they were just concentrating on hosting cache listings, much less money and staff would be needed. Most of the effort goes meanwhile into something else.

 

There has been a time when in my area about every third cache was crosslisted somewhere else. The situation changed considerably with the growing trend that find counts are scores and only a find on gc.com is valuable. It was not the worldwide character of gc.com that played the key role in this development.

 

It is not so much about whether Groundspeak makes money, but rather that I think that geocaching is something not owned by a company and that most of the things Groundspeak promotes nowadays are things which I do not appreciate (power caching, app development, marketing et) including further growth into directions which I regard as very unhealthy and not sustainable in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post

As a reminder, this is the Website bug reporting and feature suggestion forum. Please limit comments to the subject, i.e., removal of the "Send to GPS" feature and the announced forthcoming replacement that Geocaching HQ is collaborating on with Garmin. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

[...]

Let me ask again: Will the new tool have the same functionality, i.e. will it transfer all waypoints regardless of the membership status?

 

Just wait and then test it. rolleyes.gif

 

I guess you know that I have been aware of this option before you suggested it. Knowing the answer in advance would however be helpful for me to know whether I should hurry up with entering and doublechecking all waypoints for my newest cache.

Share this post


Link to post

[...]

Let me ask again: Will the new tool have the same functionality, i.e. will it transfer all waypoints regardless of the membership status?

 

Just wait and then test it. rolleyes.gif

 

I guess you know that I have been aware of this option before you suggested it. Knowing the answer in advance would however be helpful for me to know whether I should hurry up with entering and doublechecking all waypoints for my newest cache.

 

Why would that make any difference at all?

Wouldn't you have them all set and verified before publication?

Share this post


Link to post

Let me ask again: Will the new tool have the same functionality, i.e. will it transfer all waypoints regardless of the membership status?

Why should it? The ones paying for all this, should get access to more than the ones not paying...

 

That being said, my guess is that is simply transfer the file you can download anyway by clicking "GPX file".

 

That's all that the first one did. Sent a single GPX file to the attached device.

Share this post


Link to post

Why would that make any difference at all?

Wouldn't you have them all set and verified before publication?

 

Yes, but I have not sent it for publication as I still have to do quite some work on it. The container is out there and I have collected all waypoints but the description is far from finished and I have not yet uploaded all waypoints (that's quite tedious and time consuming as it needs to be done one by one).

Share this post


Link to post

[...] (that's quite tedious and time consuming as it needs to be done one by one).

 

You could save a lot of time by less posting the same sermon again and again in the forums. blink.gif

 

Hans

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure how the "Send to GPS" feature has *anything* to do with entering waypoint information on a new multicache being submitted....

 

Colour me utterly confused.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure how the "Send to GPS" feature has *anything* to do with entering waypoint information on a new multicache being submitted....

 

Colour me utterly confused.

 

I use it for doublechecking for what I entered. After having uploaded all waypoints (could be more than 30 points) I download them by using send to the GPS and then check whether the points match with the original points on the map. It's just a further test for me.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure how the "Send to GPS" feature has *anything* to do with entering waypoint information on a new multicache being submitted....

 

Colour me utterly confused.

 

I use it for doublechecking for what I entered. After having uploaded all waypoints (could be more than 30 points) I download them by using send to the GPS and then check whether the points match with the original points on the map. It's just a further test for me.

 

You can see all the visible waypoints on the map on the cache page.

 

You can also click the map icon next to each waypoint to view each location individually, although admittedly this is useless because it brings up the geocaching.com map that shows other caches, but *not* your waypoint.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure how the "Send to GPS" feature has *anything* to do with entering waypoint information on a new multicache being submitted....

 

Colour me utterly confused.

 

I use it for doublechecking for what I entered. After having uploaded all waypoints (could be more than 30 points) I download them by using send to the GPS and then check whether the points match with the original points on the map. It's just a further test for me.

 

You can see all the visible waypoints on the map on the cache page.

 

You can also click the map icon next to each waypoint to view each location individually, although admittedly this is useless because it brings up the geocaching.com map that shows other caches, but *not* your waypoint.

 

I know this all. It does not help me to do what I want to do namely to check on a reasonable topographic map whether the waypoints I saved on my GPS coincide with the waypoints I entered manually. On the gc.com map I can only see whether the point is somewhere in the correct area and sometimes not even that (if the cache spans a large distance). There are alternative platforms with better maps which show all waypoints on the large map however for this sort of doublechecking I still resort to the method I described (in addition to checking everything manually).

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure how the "Send to GPS" feature has *anything* to do with entering waypoint information on a new multicache being submitted....

 

Colour me utterly confused.

 

I use it for doublechecking for what I entered. After having uploaded all waypoints (could be more than 30 points) I download them by using send to the GPS and then check whether the points match with the original points on the map. It's just a further test for me.

 

You can see all the visible waypoints on the map on the cache page.

 

You can also click the map icon next to each waypoint to view each location individually, although admittedly this is useless because it brings up the geocaching.com map that shows other caches, but *not* your waypoint.

 

I know this all. It does not help me to do what I want to do namely to check on a reasonable topographic map whether the waypoints I saved on my GPS coincide with the waypoints I entered manually. On the gc.com map I can only see whether the point is somewhere in the correct area and sometimes not even that (if the cache spans a large distance). There are alternative platforms with better maps which show all waypoints on the large map however for this sort of doublechecking I still resort to the method I described (in addition to checking everything manually).

 

Actually you can zoom right in with that map. You can also copy and paste your coordinates to Google Maps or OSM or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure how the "Send to GPS" feature has *anything* to do with entering waypoint information on a new multicache being submitted....

 

Colour me utterly confused.

 

I use it for doublechecking for what I entered. After having uploaded all waypoints (could be more than 30 points) I download them by using send to the GPS and then check whether the points match with the original points on the map. It's just a further test for me.

 

You can see all the visible waypoints on the map on the cache page.

 

You can also click the map icon next to each waypoint to view each location individually, although admittedly this is useless because it brings up the geocaching.com map that shows other caches, but *not* your waypoint.

 

I know this all. It does not help me to do what I want to do namely to check on a reasonable topographic map whether the waypoints I saved on my GPS coincide with the waypoints I entered manually. On the gc.com map I can only see whether the point is somewhere in the correct area and sometimes not even that (if the cache spans a large distance). There are alternative platforms with better maps which show all waypoints on the large map however for this sort of doublechecking I still resort to the method I described (in addition to checking everything manually).

 

Actually you can zoom right in with that map. You can also copy and paste your coordinates to Google Maps or OSM or whatever.

 

I think everyone's missing the point. I think what she's trying to do is to load up a cache with a mess of waypoints, then get one collective GPX file to download. She'll probably open that in a text editor and compare all the waypoint coords to what she input on the website. Double-checking is easier if they're all in one download. Then, display them on whatever map resource she has (she mentioned a 'reasonable topo map') and see if they resolve reasonably well.

 

I think the fear is that in whatever new version is coming, Groundspeak will limit what gets loaded into the GPX file, or that as with the phone app, basic members (of which she is one of) will only see 1.5/1.5 trads.

 

Now, I'm a PM so I'm not sure, but isn't it currently limited? Can BMs get GPX files at all, or are they limited to LOC files?

 

Anyway, I think that's what Cezanne is up to. Makes sense, and not an irrational concern.

 

This all sound right, Cezanne?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure how the "Send to GPS" feature has *anything* to do with entering waypoint information on a new multicache being submitted....

 

Colour me utterly confused.

 

I use it for doublechecking for what I entered. After having uploaded all waypoints (could be more than 30 points) I download them by using send to the GPS and then check whether the points match with the original points on the map. It's just a further test for me.

 

You can see all the visible waypoints on the map on the cache page.

 

You can also click the map icon next to each waypoint to view each location individually, although admittedly this is useless because it brings up the geocaching.com map that shows other caches, but *not* your waypoint.

 

I know this all. It does not help me to do what I want to do namely to check on a reasonable topographic map whether the waypoints I saved on my GPS coincide with the waypoints I entered manually. On the gc.com map I can only see whether the point is somewhere in the correct area and sometimes not even that (if the cache spans a large distance). There are alternative platforms with better maps which show all waypoints on the large map however for this sort of doublechecking I still resort to the method I described (in addition to checking everything manually).

 

Actually you can zoom right in with that map. You can also copy and paste your coordinates to Google Maps or OSM or whatever.

 

I think everyone's missing the point. I think what she's trying to do is to load up a cache with a mess of waypoints, then get one collective GPX file to download. She'll probably open that in a text editor and compare all the waypoint coords to what she input on the website. Double-checking is easier if they're all in one download. Then, display them on whatever map resource she has (she mentioned a 'reasonable topo map') and see if they resolve reasonably well.

 

I think the fear is that in whatever new version is coming, Groundspeak will limit what gets loaded into the GPX file, or that as with the phone app, basic members (of which she is one of) will only see 1.5/1.5 trads.

 

Now, I'm a PM so I'm not sure, but isn't it currently limited? Can BMs get GPX files at all, or are they limited to LOC files?

 

Anyway, I think that's what Cezanne is up to. Makes sense, and not an irrational concern.

 

This all sound right, Cezanne?

 

I may very well be missing the point. I have done in the past and I will do again in the future. But, "open that in a text editor and compare all the waypoint coords to what she input on the website"? Why? They're already there in text on the website? I still don't get it. Seems like there's a dozen ways to check waypoint coords without having to use "Send to GPS".

 

And of course, this is all panicky conjecture that a change in the "Send to GPS" function will mean a change to what data is delivered.

Share this post


Link to post

Incidentally, "Send to GPS" works perfectly for me on Windows 10 with latest Firefox. Maybe I'm one of the exceptions, I don't know...

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure how the "Send to GPS" feature has *anything* to do with entering waypoint information on a new multicache being submitted....

 

Colour me utterly confused.

 

I use it for doublechecking for what I entered. After having uploaded all waypoints (could be more than 30 points) I download them by using send to the GPS and then check whether the points match with the original points on the map. It's just a further test for me.

 

You can see all the visible waypoints on the map on the cache page.

 

You can also click the map icon next to each waypoint to view each location individually, although admittedly this is useless because it brings up the geocaching.com map that shows other caches, but *not* your waypoint.

 

I know this all. It does not help me to do what I want to do namely to check on a reasonable topographic map whether the waypoints I saved on my GPS coincide with the waypoints I entered manually. On the gc.com map I can only see whether the point is somewhere in the correct area and sometimes not even that (if the cache spans a large distance). There are alternative platforms with better maps which show all waypoints on the large map however for this sort of doublechecking I still resort to the method I described (in addition to checking everything manually).

 

Actually you can zoom right in with that map. You can also copy and paste your coordinates to Google Maps or OSM or whatever.

 

I think everyone's missing the point. I think what she's trying to do is to load up a cache with a mess of waypoints, then get one collective GPX file to download. She'll probably open that in a text editor and compare all the waypoint coords to what she input on the website. Double-checking is easier if they're all in one download. Then, display them on whatever map resource she has (she mentioned a 'reasonable topo map') and see if they resolve reasonably well.

 

I think the fear is that in whatever new version is coming, Groundspeak will limit what gets loaded into the GPX file, or that as with the phone app, basic members (of which she is one of) will only see 1.5/1.5 trads.

 

Now, I'm a PM so I'm not sure, but isn't it currently limited? Can BMs get GPX files at all, or are they limited to LOC files?

 

Anyway, I think that's what Cezanne is up to. Makes sense, and not an irrational concern.

 

This all sound right, Cezanne?

 

I may very well be missing the point. I have done in the past and I will do again in the future. But, "open that in a text editor and compare all the waypoint coords to what she input on the website"? Why? They're already there in text on the website? I still don't get it. Seems like there's a dozen ways to check waypoint coords without having to use "Send to GPS".

 

And of course, this is all panicky conjecture that a change in the "Send to GPS" function will mean a change to what data is delivered.

 

Well, probably a need to see what actually GETS THERE. Data can be changed when being moved around; formats, datum, which standard they decide to use, etc. So, she probably just wants to actually see the correct data pop out the other end of the process.

 

And yes, you're right, it's panicky conjecture.

Share this post


Link to post

I think what she's trying to do is to load up a cache with a mess of waypoints, then get one collective GPX file to download. She'll probably open that in a text editor and compare all the waypoint coords to what she input on the website. Double-checking is easier if they're all in one download. Then, display them on whatever map resource she has (she mentioned a 'reasonable topo map') and see if they resolve reasonably well.

 

Yes, I want to download all the waypoints (including not only the stage waypoints but often also a lot of reference points).

I do the text double check already directly on the gc.com site or rather with a printout of the waypoint section.

 

However for the check with a good topographic map I use the downloaded waypoints. This also allows me to see if I missed out any auxiliary waypoints - whenever my map shows only one and not two points on the map to which I uploaded both all the coordinates I took for the cache and the ones from the cache page.

 

That's quite convenient if the number of waypoints is large.

 

Now, I'm a PM so I'm not sure, but isn't it currently limited? Can BMs get GPX files at all, or are they limited to LOC files?

 

BM cannot use the download gpx file from the cache page. That link would transfer the full gpx files including also the cache description, logs etc.

If BMs use send to gps however, a limited gpx file is sent to the gps which contains all additional waypoints but not the description and the logs. For PMs send to gps sends a full version of the gpx file.

 

It has been suggested by some people that Groundspeak could make available to BM the same limited version of gpx file send to gps sends. However I was told that they have no plans to do so. So it again boils down to what the replacement tool for send to gps will provide and to whom the tool will be available. Somehow I think that if the tool will be available to everyone it would be very easy to answer yes to my question.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Having been on receiving end of intermittent ability to "send to my gps", will some one please explain in simple terms how I can load gps dat to my gps hand help, I have Garming etrex (not 10) which works fine, my pc is either windows 8 or 10 depending which machine I am on.

HELP please

Abigailsdad

Share this post


Link to post

Having been on receiving end of intermittent ability to "send to my gps", will some one please explain in simple terms how I can load gps dat to my gps hand help, I have Garming etrex (not 10) which works fine, my pc is either windows 8 or 10 depending which machine I am on.

HELP please

Abigailsdad

It's tough to advise, based on which device you don't have. :anicute:

 

But here's some info on how to load a typical modern Garmin GPSr: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=340902&view=findpost&p=5604059

Share this post


Link to post

for the check with a good topographic map I use the downloaded waypoints. This also allows me to see if I missed out any auxiliary waypoints

 

 

This is not what you are looking for, but maybe useful for others:

 

The new GC little helper II (v0.7 2017-04-08) generates a map (Google & OSM) with all waypoints and a gpx-file (without notes).

 

Info: https://github.com/2...gelog.md#readme

 

v0.7_Screen12.jpg

Edited by wilmaed

Share this post


Link to post

I use a Garmin GPSmap device and "Send to GPS". "Send to GPS" works on my laptop (Windows 8.1 and latest Firefox) and I don't want to see it removed.

Share this post


Link to post

And of course, this is all panicky conjecture that a change in the "Send to GPS" function will mean a change to what data is delivered.

 

I was finally correct (I would have wished to be wrong however).

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=343784

 

Actually it is even worse than what I guessed would happen as basic members cannot even transfer the waypoints of traditionals via this new method as they cannot use lists.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

This is not what you are looking for, but maybe useful for others:

 

The new GC little helper II (v0.7 2017-04-08) generates a map (Google & OSM) with all waypoints and a gpx-file (without notes).

 

I guess this tool only downloads the public waypoints, right? send to gps also transferred the hidden waypoints of my owned caches.

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

×
×
  • Create New...