Missing information in PQ

[+henning.jakobsen]

For a better planning I realy want to have *personal notes' and 'favorite procent' in the .gpx file.  This will save a lot of API traffic on the servers too.

The HTML / XML  standard allows for new tags. Receiving programs should ignore unknown tags.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

3 hours ago, henning.jakobsen said:

For a better planning I realy want to have *personal notes' and 'favorite procent' in the .gpx file.  This will save a lot of API traffic on the servers too.

The HTML / XML  standard allows for new tags. Receiving programs should ignore unknown tags.

The XML standard allows for new tags (the X stands for eXtensible) but they are defined in a schema file.  The current Groundspeak extensions (v1.0.1) does not describe elements for personal notes or favorite points.  Ideally, client programs *should* validate against the schema and ignore unknown tags but in the real world there have been known examples of clients that made assumptions about the contents of elements (assuming an element contains one of a specific list of values rather than "any String") that have broken applications.   I'd be surprised if we see any updates to the Groundspeak extensions for GPX files.  The've focused on using the API for system to system data transfer for several years now.

 

[+NanCycle]

Some time ago GS put out the question of what additional info we would like to see in PQs.  What I want(ed) is the personal notes.  Nothing ever came of this and by now, I don't think anything ever will.  As NYPaddleCacher said, "I'd be surprised if we see any updates to the Groundspeak extensions for GPX files.  The've focused on using the API for system to system data transfer for several years now."

[+van der Decken]

I don't think that there's any need to define new tags (or change existing tags) in the Groundspeak extensions. Tags to handle user notes, # favourite points, premium status, and much much more already exist in the GSAK GPX extensions. Why not use them?

[+The A-Team]

6 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I'd be surprised if we see any updates to the Groundspeak extensions for GPX files.  The've focused on using the API for system to system data transfer for several years now.

They'd still need some kind of file format to use for data transfer. With the exception of the Garmin Oregon 700, handheld GPS devices can't be directly loaded via the API. Since the GPX file format will need to be kept (perpetually?), it makes sense to tweak it to improve the data that it contains.

Edited February 10, 2018 by The A-Team

[+Harry Dolphin]

6 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 I'd be surprised if we see any updates to the Groundspeak extensions for GPX files.  The've focused on using the API for system to system data transfer for several years now.

Perhaps not on topic...  Eight new caches popped up today in my e-mail.  Sounds good for a rainy weekend!  Reran the PQ for 'Placed between February 2 and February 9.'  Nothing!  Ran it again.  Still not there!  Had to create a 'list' and create a PQ from that.  Something wrong here.

[Keystone]

35 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

Perhaps not on topic...  Eight new caches popped up today in my e-mail.  Sounds good for a rainy weekend!  Reran the PQ for 'Placed between February 2 and February 9.'  Nothing!  Ran it again.  Still not there!  Had to create a 'list' and create a PQ from that.  Something wrong here.

What are the "date placed" values for those eight caches?  The listings may be newly published today, but the CO may have placed the caches three weeks ago.  The review process may have delayed publication, or the owner asked for them to be kept on hold for a few weeks before they were published today.

[+NanCycle]

41 minutes ago, Keystone said:

What are the "date placed" values for those eight caches?  The listings may be newly published today, but the CO may have placed the caches three weeks ago.  The review process may have delayed publication, or the owner asked for them to be kept on hold for a few weeks before they were published today.

Unless the CO changes the "Date placed" it will show the date the cache page was created. I always change it to the date I actually placed the cache, but in some cases I didn't submit it until days later. 

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Keystone said:

What are the "date placed" values for those eight caches?  The listings may be newly published today, but the CO may have placed the caches three weeks ago.  The review process may have delayed publication, or the owner asked for them to be kept on hold for a few weeks before they were published today.

One of my hides took almost four months from the time I created the cache page until it was finally published, most of that time was waiting to get National Parks permission, but even when that came through and I updated the "placed" date to reflect when I'd actually put the container out there, it still took another eleven days for the review process as our regular reviewer was on leave and there was a backlog for the other ones to work through.

Edited February 10, 2018 by barefootjeff

[+Mineral2]

On 2/9/2018 at 4:42 PM, Harry Dolphin said:

Perhaps not on topic...  Eight new caches popped up today in my e-mail.  Sounds good for a rainy weekend!  Reran the PQ for 'Placed between February 2 and February 9.'  Nothing!  Ran it again.  Still not there!  Had to create a 'list' and create a PQ from that.  Something wrong here.

Perhaps the Placed On date was earlier than Feb. 2. Not all cache owners submit their caches right away.