Search not working properly?

[+TyroneShoelaces 10]

Anybody else having a problem with the Waymarking.com search feature?  I am trying to narrow down searches to within a search radius of my zip code, but I still get results from all over the world.  This was working just a couple days ago.

Edited September 19, 2017 by TyroneShoelaces

[vulture1957 87]

I just checked, and it's working for me.

[+Tuena 9]

It works for me providing I also include my State eg 2541,NSW. If I just use the post code (zipcode) I get a cemetery in Ohio plus 7490 other waymarks with none in Australia. 

[+TyroneShoelaces 10]

Not sure what happened, but it is working today.  Thanks for the replies.

[+NCDaywalker 0]

This is hit or miss for me, sometimes it gives me a location in Germany or the Netherlands. Getting worse for locations not entered into the search bar. Helps occasionally when I add town name, completely type out state full name (no abbrevations) and add USA (as I live there). 

[WalksfarTX 2]

Search is not working for me.  I entered a nearby town by name and get all the newest waymarks, not those I wanted.

[+RakeInTheCache 7]

I am trying to search for waymarks in Madrid, Spain and the result is incomprehensible. The first waymark is in Oklahoma, the second in Germany, the next in London, all with seemingly no connection to Madrid, Spain. 

 

I do think something is seriously broken.

Edited September 13, 2018 by RakeInTheCache
.

[+jiggs11 6]

Have had this problem for a couple of weeks now...enter the place name and get a list of the latest waymarks published. Have had success using GPS coords from the area, but I agree, something is really wrong here.

[+T0SHEA 154]

See the newer thread by jiggs11.

Keith

[+kJfishman 1]

It doesn't work for me very often. And when you do mange to do a search it doesn't list all the waymarks in the area.

[+dave-harris 0]

Searching for a location is nigh on impossible. Once searched it brings up random waymarks from all around the globe. This is deffo a poor mans page. I have to do a co-ordinate search to get anywhere. To do that i find a cache on geocaching.com and take a set of co-ords from a random cache in the area i want to visit and put these in the co-ordinate search box. Thats the only way it'll work for me. Long winded and not really user friendly. Come WM, get your finger out and sort these probs out, or are you just winding this feature down 😞

[+PISA-caching 155]

12 hours ago, dave-harris said:

To do that i find a cache on geocaching.com and take a set of co-ords from a random cache...

 

When you open the listing of that geocache, you will find a link to "all nearby waymarks on Waymarking.com". That is much easier than copying the coordinates to use them in a search on Waymarking.com.

[+takeabrake 3]

I contacted geocashing.com about this problem, but, they said they were too busy taking of geocashing to bother with Waymarking - but they are too happy to take my money each year.

 

[+T0SHEA 154]

3 hours ago, takeabrake said:

but they are too happy to take my money each year.

 

We also pay our money each year, though we rarely geocache.  

Edited December 16, 2018 by BK-Hunters

[+PISA-caching 155]

We are (paying) waymarkers and geocachers, but even if some of the improvements on the geocaching side are nice to have, I could make a list of improvements that I would gladly trade for some important updates/bugfixes on the Waymarking side.

[vulture1957 87]

did anyone else notice the search function is now working?? Not sure how long it has been working, as I gave up on trying long ago. But I just tried and it worked!

[+T0SHEA 154]

On 4/15/2019 at 5:33 PM, vulture1957 said:

did anyone else notice the search function is now working??

 

I tried after reading your post and it did not work for us.

Just tried it again a few minutes ago and still not working. 

I just get three waymarks with the identical coordinates: 00° 00.000 000° 00.000

[vulture1957 87]

4 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

 

I tried after reading your post and it did not work for us.

Just tried it again a few minutes ago and still not working. 

I just get three waymarks with the identical coordinates: 00° 00.000 000° 00.000

I just went and re-checked. Just to make sure I wasn't pulling up something from computer cache, I kind of randomly chose Measurement Standards and put in my local zip code. It came up with Benchmarks 8, 8.8, 11, 13.5 miles away; and listed 139 waymarks on 6 pages.

I guess I'm holding my mouth right.  🙂

 

[+T0SHEA 154]

21 minutes ago, vulture1957 said:

put in my local zip code.

 

Okay if I use a USA zip code it works. If I use the coordinates it only brings up the same three waymarks as above. 

If I use a Canada Postal Code it does not work. Results were for North Carolina, not even close to where i was searching.

Keep holding that mouth right... 

 

[+PISA-caching 155]

What exactly are we talking about here? I tried the following situations:

 

1. I start at www.Waymarking.com and click on the link "additional search options". Then I click on "coordinate search" and enter the coordinates I want to start from. That works.
2. I start at www.Waymarking.com and enter the coordinates in the "near" field, following the pattern [lat:xx.xx,lon:yy.yy] where xx.xx is the N coordinate and yy.yy the E coordinate (add a "-" for South and West coordinates). That works also.
3. I start at www.Waymarking.com and click on the link "additional search options". I then click on "manage my saved searches", enter name and coordinates of a location I plan to use more than once and save it. Go back to www.Waymarking.com, click on "additional search options", choose one of my saved searches (or I could just write [zzzzz] where zzzzz is the name of my saved search) and that works also.

 

ZIP-codes from Austria never have or will ever work.

 

Entering the name of a town in the "near" field, doesn't work either. Instead I enter the town's name in the "Search for" field, if that makes sense in the actual situation. For example, if you enter "Excalibur" in the Search field and "Las Vegas" in the 'near' field, you won't find anything, but if you search for "Excalibur las vegas" you will get some good results.

 

So, if I missed any special search situations that don't work, please give me the details.

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by PISA-caching

[+T0SHEA 154]

On 4/24/2019 at 6:03 AM, PISA-caching said:

I start at www.Waymarking.com and enter the coordinates in the "near" field, following the pattern [lat:xx.xx,lon:yy.yy] where xx.xx is the N coordinate and yy.yy the E coordinate (add a "-" for South and West coordinates). That works also.

This is the one I've been using ever since XX.YYYYY -XXX.YYYYY alone quit working. I have never EVER had any trouble with this method {[lat:xx.xx,lon:yy.yy]) and have recommended it more than once on these forums.

I've never tried "saved searches" as it seems I seldom do an actual repeat of a previous search. I've discovered it usually to be more efficacious to search on keywords in "My Waymarks" for a WM near, or at, the place I want to go.

Keith

[vulture1957 87]

if I am going to Biloxi, Mississippi, it is easier to just query Biloxi, MS than going to a mapping program, find the lat & long, write it down, then go to Waymarking.com and then put those coords into search. It used to work.  Now, it's hit or miss. Zip Code works most of the time. (But I do have to go somewhere to find the zip code.)

 

[+T0SHEA 154]

On 4/26/2019 at 5:38 AM, vulture1957 said:

if I am going to Biloxi, Mississippi, it is easier to just query Biloxi, MS than going to a mapping program, find the lat & long, write it down, then go to Waymarking.com and then put those coords into search. It used to work.  Now, it's hit or miss. Zip Code works most of the time. (But I do have to go somewhere to find the zip code.)

 

Yes, I realize it's easier, but it's still useless if it doesn't work. This is why I gave up even trying years ago and only use the cords method. Of course, I've gotten used to the circuitous method, so it no longer seems a chore. Mebbe someday Groundspeak will surprise us all and fix a few things. Hope Springs Eternal!  

Keith

[+Lynx Humble 172]

17 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

(...) Mebbe someday Groundspeak will surprise us all and fix a few things. Hope Springs Eternal!  

Keith

I wouldn't hold my breath with the current issues with the map on the geocaching side but we may never know they talked about an update to the Waymarking site later this year during a podcast done earlier this year.

[+T0SHEA 154]

14 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

I wouldn't hold my breath with the current issues with the map on the geocaching side but we may never know they talked about an update to the Waymarking site later this year during a podcast done earlier this year.

True - but I'm still (probably naively) holding my breath waiting for the results. 

Keith