Personal Cache Note not part of PQ

[+DragonsWest]

I did a couple searches but other than GC considering the feature, back in 2014, there's not much about it.

 

Over the past several days I solved a large number of puzzles and posted the hint - which came from Certitude, as the cache page hit is not a hint at all -  in the Personal Cache Note space.  Once, about 60 miles from home I started consulting my GPSr device (Oregon 600) I found it was quite spartan on the topic of my personal cache notes, so I was out caching like back in the old days, sans hint.  Let me say, that's not very easy and we've become quite accustomed to having a nudge when we needed one (assuming the CO was feeling generous the day cache was authored.)

 

After returning home I examined the contents of the GPX file and found zilch nada of any personal notes.  Did GC give up on this or do they expect me to fork over $$ to get their app, which I have no intention of doing?

 

Honestly, the personal note could have been placed in the Log space, why hasn't it been?

[+Viajero Perdido]

There are some awkward differences between the info provided in PQs, vs that provided to apps via the API. Case in point, personal cache notes.

 

I think they added a few useful things to the API, but neglected to update the PQ spec. Bummer.

 

Groundspeak now gives away their app for free, but I'd still recommend shelling out for a good 3rd party app like Locus or Cachly.  Just checked, yep, Locus shows the personal note after an API update.

[+thebruce0]

11 hours ago, DragonsWest said:

Did GC give up on this or do they expect me to fork over $$ to get their app, which I have no intention of doing?

 

The app is free. If you use PQs you already pay for an account. Download the app (or another app), use the API.

[+IceColdUK]

If you use GSAK then you can enter Notes there.  These will be transferred to a Garmin Oregon - they show up as a pseudo-log.

[+DragonsWest]

Well, dang.  All the "fresh and dynamic" user experience work these people do and they can't get around to something genuinely useful.  I guess it's true, they probably don't play the game as much as most geocachers, so the passion to make it better isn't strong.

[Keystone]

2 hours ago, DragonsWest said:

Well, dang.  All the "fresh and dynamic" user experience work these people do and they can't get around to something genuinely useful.  I guess it's true, they probably don't play the game as much as most geocachers, so the passion to make it better isn't strong.

Feel free to criticize the choice not to implement the feature; that's fair game.  Avoid criticizing the people personally, especially when your grounds are shaky.

 

Recently I enjoyed celebrating with a Lackey friend who achieved their quadruple Jasmer.  Come back and criticize his geocaching experience once you've done that.

[+DragonsWest]

8 hours ago, Keystone said:

Feel free to criticize the choice not to implement the feature; that's fair game.  Avoid criticizing the people personally, especially when your grounds are shaky.

 

Recently I enjoyed celebrating with a Lackey friend who achieved their quadruple Jasmer.  Come back and criticize his geocaching experience once you've done that.

 

I'll feel free to criticize the Powers That Be in decision making, where a tool can be made so much better.  I'll also feel free to prod people who work for the Powers That Be who do not take it upon themselves to fight for better choices in development paths.

 

Where I work we very nearly discarded a key data element for data planning and reporting.  Why was it considered for phasing out?  Not as shiny as Google Maps with KML boundaries.  Doesn't make for a pretty presentation.  Unglamourous as it was, it was still a very fast and simple data element to reference to find if someone was withing a region or outside of it.  Take a gerrymandered region in KML and try to figure if a point is within it or not, not with this IS and not with all these other metrics in the IS to consider - classic nightmare scenario if we abandoned it for flashy.  So I stood up and fought for what I believe in and we are keeping that element - we are also preserving it as the de facto standard.

 

All things have a usefulness, but the ability to put in a Personal Cache Note and not have it come out in a PQ, one of the bonafide advantages of having a Premium Membership, it feels half finished.  People like me can whine and moan about it, but it takes an employee within GC to pick it up and push it forward because they believe in it, rather than redesign of a web page which already works fine because it isn't pretty enough.

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, DragonsWest said:

People like me can whine and moan about it, but it takes an employee within GC to pick it up and push it forward because they believe in it, rather than redesign of a web page which already works fine because it isn't pretty enough.

 

...and also takes a balance of a whole lot of other factors, not the least of which is convincing decisions makers that the cost of development and testing is worth the end result.  If you worked at GS, you could feel free to be that activist fighting for the cause - unfortunately we do not know what happens behind closed doors, and while a feature may seem like a simple, quick addition, the fact of the matter is we don't see the hidden hurdles, and ultimately we don't make the final decision; regardless of whether programmers and lackeys may agree. And their decision not to stand up and fight for it like you claim you would is also affected by factors we do not know about, the worst of which could be losing their job. So, rather than claiming there's some drastic failure on the part of anyone who has a remote say in promoting or developing feature, be reasonable and choose to rather than whine and moan, accept that we can't always get what we want after a reasoned presentation and explanation.  And the result of the choices of TPTB will reflect back on the product.

[+fizzymagic]

I do have some insight here, as I have discussed this matter with GS a little.

 

It would be awesome to have the cache note and favorite points in the PQs, but there are some unexpected complications.  The last time that  they added info to PQs it broke a whole bunch of GPS units that had buggy firmware that relied on details of the GPX that they should not have.  So adding a new field to the GPS, even though it would be correct according to the standard, would likely break some GPS units.

 

So the true cost of implementing this feature would not be the development, which is trivial, but the pain of supporting old GPS units.  And even though the new format could be optional, there are a lot of people who would still try it and break their units.

 

I have proposed some alternatives, such as appending the user note and the favorites to the end of the long description, but those are not particularly "clean."

 

So I think GS deserves a break on this one.  I would still love to see the personal notes work in the apps, though, and I would still love to be able to filter PQs based on favorite points even if they don't show up in the GPX data.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

17 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

I do have some insight here, as I have discussed this matter with GS a little.

 

It would be awesome to have the cache note and favorite points in the PQs, but there are some unexpected complications.  The last time that  they added info to PQs it broke a whole bunch of GPS units that had buggy firmware that relied on details of the GPX that they should not have.  So adding a new field to the GPS, even though it would be correct according to the standard, would likely break some GPS units.

 

So the true cost of implementing this feature would not be the devIn elopment, which is trivial, but the pain of supporting old GPS units.  And even though the new format could be optional, there are a lot of people who would still try it and break their units.

 

I have proposed some alternatives, such as appending the user note and the favorites to the end of the long description, but those are not particularly "clean."

 

So I think GS deserves a break on this one.  I would still love to see the personal notes work in the apps, though, and I would still love to be able to filter PQs based on favorite points even if they don't show up in the GPX data.

 

I remember that incident when GS changed the contents of the GPX data.  If I recall, they didn't actually add any elements, but changed the value of one of the elements (cache size).  I looked at the schema file for the Groundspeak extension to the GPX file and the specification indicated that the value for the the cache size (Groundspeak:container) could be "any string".   Because that field traditionally only contained a fixed set of values, some GPS software/firmware developers assumed it would always be one of those values (presumably to display a specific icon on the display).  The fault was entirely on the GPS developers as GS made a change that was in compliance with their published spec.

 

There already exists a mechanism for supporting older GPS devices.  In the preferences section of the account settings one can set the GPX version.  Adding the cache notes, corrected coordinates and favorite points to a new version of the GPX spec for Groundspeak extension (perhaps 1.0.2) would allow those that use a GPS which complies with that version access to those elements, while those that use an older GPS would just leave the GPX version setting as 1.0.1 or 1.0.  

 

 

[+thebruce0]

And those that don't abide by version standards (though I don't know if any devices ignore the GPX version) would break

Basically, bad developers' work would stop working.

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

The fault was entirely on the GPS developers as GS made a change that was in compliance with their published spec.

An excellent example of how useful blaming people is. It makes no difference to GS who is at fault, all they care about -- quite rightly -- is how many of their customers are affected. Pointing fingers doesn't help the person who's GPSr isn't working. It doesn't even help identify who has to fix the problem: I have a PN-60, so there's never going to be another firmware update because Delorme doesn't exist anymore.

 

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

There already exists a mechanism for supporting older GPS devices.  In the preferences section of the account settings one can set the GPX version.  Adding the cache notes, corrected coordinates and favorite points to a new version of the GPX spec for Groundspeak extension (perhaps 1.0.2) would allow those that use a GPS which complies with that version access to those elements, while those that use an older GPS would just leave the GPX version setting as 1.0.1 or 1.0.  

The version number is interesting, too. While you're right that the technical mechanism would work, here it's the user himself that causes the trouble. He sees a higher version file offered, so, of course, he wants "that latest". Once he asks for it, it doesn't make much difference whether his GPSr elegantly rejects the file or crashes miserably because it doesn't check the version: either way, the PQ doesn't work, and, as likely as not, the user's not going to recognize his own culpability in the problem.

 

I do think it's a shame GS can't update the PQ format, but I have to admit I think they're right not to. Using XML was a good idea, but there are definitely some oversights in the data design as well as in most GPSr code that make it impractical to make changes even though they're theoretically possible.

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

And those that don't abide by version standards (though I don't know if any devices ignore the GPX version) would break

Basically, bad developers' work would stop working.

This is pretty complex stuff. I think "inexperienced" would be a better term than "bad". It's not as if GPSr code was being written by XML experts when all this was invented. Things like forward and backward compatibility of really hard to get right even with years of experience dealing with them.

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

I think "inexperienced" would be a better term than "bad".

 

Sure, I'd include both terms

 

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

It's not as if GPSr code was being written by XML experts when all this was invented. Things like forward and backward compatibility of really hard to get right even with years of experience dealing with them.

 

Well, XML experts existed. So not using proper expertise in creating such tools isn't just "c'est la vie", it's still a failure on the manufacturers' parts if they have bad code. And backward compatibility of code and data is far from a recent concept too.  So I'd still chalk up malfunctioning devices due to data mismanagement as "inexperienced and/or bad" coders.

 

Now, on the other hand, is it really an "error" if a programmer follows the standards that are current, and then the standards change?  That typically happens when someone uses a code package, then the creators of the code package realize their code is not optimized, and they hit a wall where they HAVE to make changes that could break older software. That happens all too often, but typically ends up teaching people how to better be ready for the unexpected, and trap legitimately unexplained errors gracefully.  I wouldn't call that bad code, but a learning experience.

*shrug* for all we know that could have been the issue with older devices.  And that's sort of the way browsers evolved with HTML standards and all that segmentation over the years. And at some point the older browser are simply no longer supported, with known bugs and holes.

 

At some point the older GPS devices will simply have to 'break'.  (at least, once the old formats, assumedly unchanged, are no longer offered - though at that point there may be people willing to create parsers that take new data formats and recreate the obsolete old format, losing much in the process, just for people who insist on remaining with obsolete tech )

[+DragonsWest]

21 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

I do have some insight here, as I have discussed this matter with GS a little.

 

It would be awesome to have the cache note and favorite points in the PQs, but there are some unexpected complications.  The last time that  they added info to PQs it broke a whole bunch of GPS units that had buggy firmware that relied on details of the GPX that they should not have.  So adding a new field to the GPS, even though it would be correct according to the standard, would likely break some GPS units.

 

So the true cost of implementing this feature would not be the development, which is trivial, but the pain of supporting old GPS units.  And even though the new format could be optional, there are a lot of people who would still try it and break their units.

 

I have proposed some alternatives, such as appending the user note and the favorites to the end of the long description, but those are not particularly "clean."

 

So I think GS deserves a break on this one.  I would still love to see the personal notes work in the apps, though, and I would still love to be able to filter PQs based on favorite points even if they don't show up in the GPX data.

 

Understood, but the addition of a checkbox in the PQ to opt-in the Cache Notes should (assuming the opt-out results in identical output as present)  would spare people and their dodgy GPSr units from encountering borked GPX data.

 

There are possibly more options, but the opt-in for Personal Cache Notes seems the cleanest solution.  At the very worst someone with a highly suspect GPSr, which already plays nice with GSAK could further finagle the data to their GPSr's liking.

 

Back in 2014 there was considerable interest in adding the Personal Cache Note, but I never saw any exploration (let alone a summary of which requested features rated most highly) from GC at the end of Jayme's request for feedback.

[+dprovan]

23 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Well, XML experts existed. So not using proper expertise in creating such tools isn't just "c'est la vie", it's still a failure on the manufacturers' parts if they have bad code.

Of course, you're right. It's just that I don't think that anyone saw this as a serious development effort at the time. I suspect it was closer to a guy coding it up in his spare time. My guess is that the software development budget was near zero, it was just done by the guy that joined the company to set up the servers or some such. If they held themselves to a standard where they had to hire a top flight XML expert, they wouldn't have had the money to start the website. Besides, I seriously doubt anyone beyond the people already hired to do the work had any idea what XML was, so the people doing the hiring would have no idea they needed an expert.

 

But that's just my guess based on years of working in companies flying by the seat of their pants, which is what I think GS was doing in software until a couple years ago.

 

28 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

At some point the older GPS devices will simply have to 'break'.

You have a valid point. I've been in several development efforts where old stuff was supported to that breaking point and it became obvious that something would have to give. But then the old stuff is almost always supported well past the breaking point after all, so I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. The turning point will be when they decide not to support GPSrs at all anymore.

 

[+thebruce0]

18 hours ago, dprovan said:

But then the old stuff is almost always supported well past the breaking point after all, so I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

 

Yeah but typically not by official means. Usually by people who still want to use it, and find ways around the difficulties. And if that community is fortunate enough to have a skilled engineer/developer, that solution could be shared and proliferate, for as long as necessary.

 

In a way, that's why we still have old computer and console emulators

[+NYWanderer]

I was just looking for a way to retrieve all my personal notes from various caches and thought GPX would be the way. Turns out it isn't for the reasons outlined above.

My question is: do I have a way to retrieve ALL my personal notes with an existing tool? I am ok doing it one bookmark list at a time, as I expect to have most caches with notes stored in at least one bookmark list. I am trying to figure if project-gc would do it, but so far I have failed. Would gsak do that? I'm not using windows, so never tried gsak, but would be willing to put it in a virtual box if that would do the trick. Thank you!

[+HHL]

4 minutes ago, NYWanderer said:

Would gsak do that?

Yes, GSAK does retrieve PCNs via an Api download.

Hans

[+Team Canary]

On 05/07/2018 at 6:48 AM, fizzymagic said:

I do have some insight here, as I have discussed this matter with GS a little.

 

It would be awesome to have the cache note and favorite points in the PQs, but there are some unexpected complications.  The last time that  they added info to PQs it broke a whole bunch of GPS units that had buggy firmware that relied on details of the GPX that they should not have.  So adding a new field to the GPS, even though it would be correct according to the standard, would likely break some GPS units.

 

So the true cost of implementing this feature would not be the development, which is trivial, but the pain of supporting old GPS units.  And even though the new format could be optional, there are a lot of people who would still try it and break their units.

 

I have proposed some alternatives, such as appending the user note and the favorites to the end of the long description, but those are not particularly "clean."

 

So I think GS deserves a break on this one.  I would still love to see the personal notes work in the apps, though, and I would still love to be able to filter PQs based on favorite points even if they don't show up in the GPX data.

 

Coykd the hint be editable without changing the data fields?