Jeremy - You da Man!

[Guest web-ling]

Jeremy, great job! Just noticed that the name of the cacher and the cache are now included in the watch list emails! Keep up the TREMENDOUS work!

 

Thanks!

 

Web-ling

[Guest Buck8Point]

Here Here......

 

Vote "Jeremy" for Congress...

 

A Man who not only has great ideas, but he gets things done...

 

------------------

Buck8Point

"If I can't fix it, It's definately Broke."

[Guest Hawk-eye]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buck8Point:

Here Here......

 

Vote "Jeremy" for Congress...

 

A Man who not only has great ideas, but he gets things done...

 

---

 

Well so much for that idea ... he wouldn't qualify for congress if he went there and got things done ... now would he?

[Guest Hawk-eye]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buck8Point:

Here Here......

 

Vote "Jeremy" for Congress...

 

A Man who not only has great ideas, but he gets things done...

 

---

 

Well so much for that idea ... he wouldn't qualify for congress if he went there and got things done ... now would he?

[Guest Flarkey]

A good feature to add to the Cache pages would be a "Who Is watching this Cache?" button.

 

I know there are 3 people watching my cache, but who are they?

 

Or am I being stupid and can this be done already????

 

Flarkey

[Guest LindaLu]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flarkey:

A good feature to add to the Cache pages would be a "Who Is watching this Cache?" button.

 

I know there are 3 people watching my cache, but who are they?

 

Or am I being stupid and can this be done already????

 

Flarkey

---

 

You're not being stupid, but this does get into privacy issues...I think this was talked about in another post somewhere...

 

Happy Caching!

[Guest Ron Streeter]

Yep, he's the best !

 

I just noticed that now when you receive an email notification of a found cache (or even a watch list notification) that NOT ONLY does it tell you who sent it, it ALSO shows the text of the entry itself. You don't even have to go to the cache page if you don't want to. I didn't notice this on Tuesday the 5th...maybe it's a new addition today, Wednesday the 6th.

 

Ron (49 hidden/134 found)

 

[This message has been edited by Ron Streeter (edited 06 February 2002).]

[Guest Markwell]

Nope Ron - the text has been part of the mailing since the beginning of January. I know that I missed it for a few days because I never scrolled down in the e-mail.

 

It was mentioned in this thread on Jan 5.

 

Take note of the post by Choberiba on 06 January 2002 11:06 PM:

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Choberiba:

Hey gang,

I just made an encrypted post to that $100 cache.

 

The email message it generated was *NOT* encrypted. Be careful when reading this type of email if you're watching a cache you intend to hunt in the future.

---

 

------------------

Markwell

My GPS Activity Page

Non omnes vagi perditi sunt

 

[This message has been edited by Markwell (edited 06 February 2002).]

[Guest Markwell]

/markwellcachemain.htm" TARGET=_blank>My GPS Activity Page

Non omnes vagi perditi sunt

 

[This message has been edited by Markwell (edited 06 February 2002).]

[Guest Artful Dodger]

I am STILL awaiting Jeremy to tell us on the TB page the number of people on its Watch List.

[Guest Women) Group]

innovations are at least as valuable to us as the contributions of some of the sports figures. Thanks, Jeremy, especially for the identification of both the cache and the finder in the autobot notification. That saves a lot of time.

[Guest Women) Group]

We are still watching for a Jeremy Irish bobble head doll to put in a geocaching shrine! His good work and constant innovations are at least as valuable to us as the contributions of some of the sports figures. Thanks, Jeremy, especially for the identification of both the cache and the finder in the autobot notification. That saves a lot of time.

[Guest web-ling]

WHoa! I just spotted ANOTHER AWESOME CHANGE! When I clicked on a picture in a cache log, it

popped open another page with BOTH pictures in the log, as well as the log text! Like I said before, Jeremy, You da MAN!

 

------------------

Web-ling

www.web-ling.com

 

[This message has been edited by web-ling (edited 06 February 2002).]

[Guest Ron Streeter]

Web-ling...

 

I think that was code the cacher put in. There are some interesting things going on throughout our little community ! People with enough knowhow can dress up a page pretty nicely.

 

Ron

[Guest Ron Streeter]

Markwell....

 

Thanks for the link. You know I remember reading that from Choberiba (a local boy who just hosted a regional picnic near the S.F. bay area), but I didn't really make the connection. I was just plugging along looking at multiple email notes (usually from the same person...editing their posts)!

 

This is a real time saver.

 

Ron

[Guest Ron Streeter]

Hey wait a minute....that does look like something new ! Sorry, web-ling....guess I zoomed through that too fast !

 

This looks pretty nifty. Will have to explore it some more !

 

Checking, checking.....

 

Dang that Jeremy's good. This IS a pretty nifty way to look at the pictures instead of the original one "popup" enlargement. This guy just doesn't know when to stop....thank goodness !

 

Ron

 

[This message has been edited by Ron Streeter (edited 06 February 2002).]

[Guest maps-r-us]

Now that we are all discovering new features - anyone notice the new maps? Much better idea to use Streets and Trips maps instead of the census map. Hopefully you get to do it for free and Bill Gates didn't make any money! Never did understand all those red balls! And the small location map by the name is also way cool! Now we just need to work with you on the State maps and the rest of the world!

 

Maps-R-Us

[Guest Mopar]

Now, just add a link to the lostoutdoors.com maps on the cache page, and I will truly be a happy camp....errrr, cacher!

[Guest Ron Streeter]

The map at the bottom looks great, but I can't figure out the little one up by the state listing (upper left). The two caches I looked at both showed a line running from Ukiah, CA to Phoeniz, AZ.

 

Any help here?

 

Thanks...Ron

 

Update...just looked at some caches out of my state...apparently the little pic is just a piece of the state the cache is located in.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Ron Streeter (edited 07 February 2002).]

[Guest Markwell]

Hmmm. Interesting.

 

First, the little map up by the name should show a representation of the statewide area of the location of the map. The new map at the bottom shows a much better detail of the area than the Tiger Maps did.

 

Great example is the new Magic Box cache. The little map shows that it's right next to Chicago (blue circle) and the big map shows that it's in Busse Woods (again, the blue circle).

 

However, it doesn't seem to be consistent for all caches yet. Older caches don't seem to have these yet. Take a look at Great Village of the Maramek Cache and two of mine: The Giving Tree and The Hall of Justice.

 

Could it be that Jeremy is trying these out in a limited fashion to elicit our feedback before implementing it database wide?

 

------------------

Markwell

My GPS Activity Page

Non omnes vagi perditi sunt

[Guest Markwell]

A little testing on my part...

 

Starting with ID=13356 (which is an archived cache), any cache after that has the new maps, anything older does not.

 

The map next to the "State" "Hidden on" "Use Waypoint" and "Make Printer Friendly" is scaled to fit the state the cache is in.

 

Originally, I thought that it might take some updating of the coding on each page to incorporate that change, and that Jeremy just started with the new ones, but that doesn't really make sense.

 

Instead, I still believe this is beta test for everyone to determine how much they like the new maps so that J doesn't have to go back and change something - like he did with the truncated logs.

 

My vote: apply it to all the pages ASAP.

 

------------------

Markwell

My GPS Activity Page

Non omnes vagi perditi sunt

[Guest glenn95630]

A little testing on my part...

 

It works in Australia...

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=14331

 

The map is great. I can get a good feel for the location because the map is at a scale that give topo landmarks. Here are two examples from areas that I'm kinda familar with...

 

Seattle area

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=14334

 

San Diego

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=14333

 

I give it two thumbs up.

 

(I also give two thumbs up for the new log pages with all the photos. Here is one example...

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cachelog_details.asp?start=&L=142643&ID=13566&decrypt=

[Guest Ron Streeter]

Ok...if we're playing "contributing editor" to page design, I vote for NOT including the little map toward the top. It doesn't serve any purpose for me.

 

If it were to be included, I think it should be the SHAPE of a state,surrounded by white space, not a little piece of the state.

 

The important part of these visuals is the map at the bottom, and the new ones are a big improvement. I still use my own mapping program though when going out on a hunt.

 

Ron

[Guest jeremy]

Hmm... Any other feedback on the small image? What if it were used on the cache results page on a search so you can get a quick visual where in the state/province/country it is?

 

Anyone really want to keep it there?

 

The code to create the maps is not in real time, and it will take a while before it goes through all the caches.

 

Jeremy

[Guest Mopar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeremy:

Hmm... Any other feedback on the small image? What if it were used on the cache results page on a search so you can get a quick visual where in the state/province/country it is?

Jeremy

---

 

In a small state like here in NJ, it's fairly useless. I just check a cache located in the middle of the state, and that tiny little map showed NJ, PA, MD, and NY on it. Not very helpful. However, I would think this would be alot more useful in those big, sprawling states, where a cache could be 400 miles away and still in your home state.

[Guest arffer]

Jeremy,

 

I love the new small map. When a new cache goes up in our state or nearby state, I typically have to scroll down to the bottom, click on the detail map to bring it up, then zoom out to state level to see where in the state it is.

 

Your new little map does away with all this work. Bring up a cache, and instantly get an idea of where in the state it is. Its a great new feature!

 

Having thus said, I would not be opposed to ALSO including it on the search results page, it would indeed be handy there, but please don't remove it from the cache details page, it takes up little realestats, and is very handy.

 

Thanks!

 

------------------

Team CacheCows of Wisconsin

[Guest brokenwing]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeremy:

Hmm... Any other feedback on the small image? What if it were used on the cache results page on a search so you can get a quick visual where in the state/province/country it is?

Jeremy

---

 

First of all, let me say that I love the new maps! The little map does not seem to be of much use however. In deference to Mopar's comments, even for Texas, (a nice big state) the map is not detailed enough to be of any use. I think a small map on the cache page, or on the search results page might be nice, but it would have to be zoomed in a lot to be useful. Is that possible? The little map right now shows all of TX, LA, AR, NM, OK, and a good portion of Mexico! It's just too far away to be of use. What I'd like would be something that's detailed enough to let me know what county it's in. Possible?

 

------------------

Brokenwing

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

 

[This message has been edited by brokenwing (edited 07 February 2002).]

[Guest jeremy]

Even with Texas, the little blue circle points to the area where the cache is hidden. That isn't helpful? Or maybe the circle isn't as obvious. It will be (I think) on the cache search results page. But I'll have to wait until all the maps generate before checking.

 

Jeremy

[Guest brokenwing]

It's not very helpful because the circle is covering an area about 100 miles in diameter. At that resolution, it doesn't help. When I do a search of all caches within 100 miles of my zip or coords, I already know the cache is in the North Texas area. The circle with a 100 mile diameter does not narrow down the direction at all. All the caches in this area have a circle that looks identical.

 

------------------

Brokenwing

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

[Guest jeremy]

Ah. I see. For someone searching all of Texas, for example, this would be more useful on the cache search results page. From the front page it is helpful for folks just browsing. I guess it just depends on the person's motivations as to whether it is worthwhile.

 

Jeremy

[Guest Markwell]

Personally, with the little map - I like it quite a bit. Although, I've been at it long enough to know where most of the main lat/lon lines run in my state - so I can tell you that a cache that is has N38° W089° or W090° is in the St. Louis area - and not in my "jurisdiction."

 

The little map is nice for a quick reference of the general area, and even if you don't like it - I don't think it's too detrimental to the page. Any reason NOT to include it?

 

------------------

Markwell

My GPS Activity Page

Non omnes vagi perditi sunt

[Guest arffer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brokenwing:

...the map is not detailed enough to be of any use

...it would have to be zoomed in a lot to be useful

---

 

I think not being detailed enough is the whole point. Its not supposed to help you actually locate the cache, its supposed to help you determine the part of the state its in by looking at the blue circle. If it was zoomed in any, you couldn't identify the part of the state...

 

 

[This message has been edited by arffer (edited 07 February 2002).]

[Guest arffer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brokenwing:

When I do a search of all caches within 100 miles of my zip or coords, I already know the cache is in the North Texas area.

---

 

True, but if you use a different search, such as for the whole state, it becomes very useful. Often, I take a couple of minutes to jump up to geocaching.com and quickly click on 'Wisconsin' to see all the caches in my home state. Why? Because the newest are listed first and I can see if anything new has gone online. The small map allows me to see if its in my area.

 

If I used the zip code search to limit the search to 100 miles of me like you indicated, the caches are sorted by closest to furthest, not by newest. So I have to scroll through pages and pages to see if anything new has gone up.

 

The small map is a wonderful addition for state searches. It takes up little realestate on the details page, so if someone doesn't like it, they can just not look at it...

[Guest maps-r-us]

We vote to definitely keep the small location map! Have you ever seen the small location maps used on larger maps to help the viewer see where the main, detailed map fits in relation to the overall geography of an area? It's a basic cartographic concept and this is really just a variation of the same thing. The small map instantly lets you know where in your state the cache is 'generally' located. The larger map on the bottom of the cache page gets you increased detail and then you click on that and the Mapquest maps get you even more detail. It is very useful for the first quick glance to see if it is in your general area. Especially in larger states shaped like rectangles (like Oregon)! States like Texas, California or New Jersey are just not going to look as nice due to there non-rectangular shapes. Of course the small map would be even better if you could control the fonts and text that displays, but I bet that is a feature not available. I have to wonder why Madras is the second city displayed in Oregon??!!

 

And if you could put the image by each cache listing on the search results page it would also be helpful for the same reasons.

[Guest glenn95630]

quote:

---

I have to wonder why Madras is the second city displayed in Oregon??!![/b]

---

 

The biggest name on the California maps is Phoenix...

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=14376

 

The second biggest is Ukiah.

 

And I bet you guys back east didn't even know Phoenix was in California (it came for the cheese!)

[Guest glenn95630]

ted by glenn95630 (edited 08 February 2002).]

[Guest glenn95630]

map.

 

Second: I would like it even more if it was at the top of the page so I wouldn't have to scroll down to see it. Put it in the upper right corner just below the 'visit this cache' button. Move the Offroute ad to the left. Move the 'Download' text, State text, 'Hidden On' text, and 'Waypoint' text down the page or under the big map.

 

There have been a few times when I print out a cache page and the big map (in the current location) doesn't print. I assume it happens when the cache description is a certain length and the map gets lost between the first and second pages.

 

One last thing. When I go out caching, I usually leave a cache printout on the kitchen counter for my wife so that she can tell the rescue squad where to start searching for a body. Some of the old maps had very little useful information for her. These new maps look like they will help her a lot more if she ever has to make that phone call, "Hello Squad 51... it's me again.. no, he did make it back from the Survivor Cache, it's a different one this time..."

 

 

[This message has been edited by glenn95630 (edited 08 February 2002).]

[Guest Ranz]

The maps aren't on all of the caches pages yet but I did some checking of caches in different areas and of those that had them, I found it to be a neat little general reference. If this feature is not going to require a lot of effort to maintain I would definitely leave it in. I think it also adds to the aesthetics of the page.

 

[Guest Ron Streeter]

Two sorries here...first, this is a LONG post and.....

 

Sorry, I'm still not convinced about the usefulness of the little map at the top of the page.

 

I used the state search box on the seek page for Texas and went to one of the new caches near Houston.

 

When I got to the cache description page, I looked at the little map and it showed me generally where the cache was.

 

I clicked on the state map (word link) and it took me to the larger state map. The cache location was indicated with a round red circle. THAT seemed a little useful, but the blue circle on the little map didn't do much for me.

 

The red circle designation ONLY comes up when accessing the state map from certain other features in the web site.

 

Overall, even the state maps aren't that useful to me. If you look at California where I live, or Texas the big state (geographically) there ARE SO MANY CACHES that the variety of blue squares overlap so much that you only can get a very general idea of where a cache is IF the RED dot circles come up.

 

I think the best indicator for where a cache is comes from being logged in, clicking on my cache page, clicking on "in my zip code" or "in my coordinates" links.

 

This brings up a list of caches you haven't found, caches you have found and caches you have placed. That seems to be a good indicator to me of where a cache is. Can't remember if it also shows the distance to the caches.

 

When looking at a particular cache page there is also the opportunity to look at "nearby caches" which shows you caches close to the one you first looked at and says things like "1.8 miles NW" or "36.2 miles SE" of the current cache being investigated. Can't get much more "graphic" than that, even if you are only looking at words.

 

So, I guess what I am saying is that with all those great previous features regarding cache proximity, I don't see the value of the little map.

 

There may be some things about the little map I have missed, but it just doesn't do it for me.

 

After using the old mapquest maps at the bottom of the page during the first few months of looking for caches (since Feb of 2001) I bought a $50 copy of Topo! by Wildflower/National Geographic and found it quite good for all my tracking needs, but have since gone to a regional Delorme Topo USA that is even more incredible with 3D terrain and many other features.

 

If you are serious about looking at good maps, I feel you need to go this route. No, it doesn't show all the cache locations, but the maps available from geocaching.com and from Buxley are at this point a jumble of dots lying on top of one another...at least in the states with hundreds of caches.

 

Sorry for the long post, but just felt I had to explain why I felt the little map wasn't that useful.

 

One person said "any reason for NOT including it?" to which I would reply, if it's eating up space and its appearance doesn't add much, and it's not that useful, why include it?

 

Jeremy knows me from work I have done for him in the past (a small amount of effort compared to all he and others have done) so I know he will take this is the spirit in which it is intended, though others may not.

 

Thanks Jeremy for ALL your work.

 

Ron

[Guest Markwell]

Ron, I might be confused from your last post, but I think there are two issues here that you have overlapping.

 

The state maps for the caches that are zoomable and that you indicate have a red circle have been available for quite some time (here's Illinois'). They are the interactive ones that you can zoom in, and if you're logged in you can determine if the cache is one you've found or not.

 

The two "new" maps were talking about are the general map (95x57 pixels) like this:

 

and the big maps that replaced the Tiger Maps...

 

Just a clarification.

 

That being said, while I think the little state maps in the upper left hand of the cache page by themselves are a nice visual reference for a broad quick look at where in the state this cache is. I think that is all it is intentded to be.

 

------------------

Markwell

My GPS Activity Page

Non omnes vagi perditi sunt

 

[This message has been edited by Markwell (edited 08 February 2002).]

[Guest Ron Streeter]

I may not have made myself clear in all my meanderings.

 

Yes, I was referring to ALL the geocaching map opportunities we have available.

 

The newest, smallest map in the upper left portion of the cache page is the one I feel is unnecessary.

 

The clickable word link to "state map" is useful to some extent, and I realize it is zoomable, but I was trying to make the point that even those are less useable since the profileration of caches in some states and some city areas. Unless you zoom, the large number of caches on these maps does no more than show you there are a lot of caches around San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, Salt Lake, etc.

 

Once again, I just think the little map serves no real purpose. As glenn said, the map of California when looking at caches in the S.F. or Sacramento area, shows a blue circle and the city Ukiah, CA (not a biggie by anyone's estimate I would guess) and Phoneix, Arizona. Not useful.

 

A clean pic of a state...outline, surrounded by white space, would make more sense to me, but if I've done a click on state search for CA or TX, I already know what state I'm going too. The little blue circle doesn't cut it in my opinion.

 

I use a lot of photos and graphics in my cache page descriptions and I continually fight my own impulse to put in just one more graphic or animation. I guess that is part of what I am looking at too. A famous designer once said "Less is more." Don't know if that is true or not, but it has guided me for awhile now and when I violate my own sense of that, I try to do some editing to pare things down.

 

With that in mind. That's it for this post !

 

I think the discussion is a good one though and all opinions work for the common good here, with Jeremy making final decisions based on what we say and what HE feels will work.

 

Ron

[Guest Ron Streeter]

in the S.F. or Sacramento area, shows a blue circle and the city Ukiah, CA (not a biggie by anyone's estimate I would guess) and Phoneix, Arizona. Not useful.

 

A clean pic of a state...outline, surrounded by white space, would make more sense to me, but if I've done a click on state search for CA or TX, I already know what state I'm going too. The little blue circle doesn't cut it in my opinion.

 

I use a lot of photos and graphics in my cache page descriptions and I continually fight my own impulse to put in just one more graphic or animation. I guess that is part of what I am looking at too. A famous designer once said "Less is more." Don't know if that is true or not, but it has guided me for awhile now and when I violate my own sense of that, I try to do some editing to pare things down.

 

With that in mind. That's it for this post !

 

I think the discussion is a good one though and all opinions work for the common good here, with Jeremy making final decisions based on what we say and what HE feels will work.

 

Ron

[Guest Markwell]

I will agree with you on one point. I'd rather see an uncluttered map.

 

Maybe something like this:

 

Admittedly, it's Tiger Census and therefore unavailable for other countries. But I would think a little icon like that would be better than the dark one cluttered with interstates.

 

------------------

Markwell

My GPS Activity Page

Non omnes vagi perditi sunt

[Guest brokenwing]

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. If you find the small images useful, then they should stay. I don't find them useful because they are just too "zoomed out". If they could be closer in, that would be different.

 

Here is an example of two different caches images:

 

 

and:

 

 

These caches are about 25 miles apart, but the images are virtually identical.

 

As far as searching by state, I suppose those of you in smaller states might find some use there, but I never do that in Texas. It's just too big! I could care less what caches are in Houston or El Paso, It's very unlikely I'll ever drive that far.

 

If there is anyway to zoom these maps in, it sure would help.

 

------------------

Brokenwing

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

[Guest Markwell]

I won't post anything else defending these maps after this, but those two maps above show me that these are both in northeastern Texas and if I was in your neck of the woods, I would probably check them out a little further.

 

This cache

would not be in my range of finding, but this cache

would - just because it's in northeastern Illinois instead of south central.

 

The point I'm making is that these maps are a good overview of where they are in the state. Nothing more. Sure they're not very useful for determining if the cache is in your town or not - that's what the microsoft map and the links to MapQuest are for.

 

I've tried to make my point - I'll shut up now (on this topic).

 

------------------

Markwell

My GPS Activity Page

Non omnes vagi perditi sunt

 

[This message has been edited by Markwell (edited 08 February 2002).]

[Guest JamieZ]

I agree with Markwell and with Ron's suggestion about the cache location be on just the outline of the state. The interstates and other graphics within the small state picture make it a little tough to determine where it is. An outline of the state with a simple dot showing where the cache is (a la Markwells, example) is what I'd sure like to see.

 

In any case, I do like having the small map.

 

Jamie

[Guest Ron Streeter]

Markwell....

 

Your point that the little map is simply an overview is well taken. I just don't think it's needed.

 

Your Illinois examples were good...two different caches. The Texas examples were good too, showing 2 caches 25 miles apart but same image.

 

Finally, Markwell, your line drawing (tiger map) is esthetically more pleasing to my eye than the other small maps currently in use.

 

I think (for me at least) this issue is getting down to the nitty-gritty. Probably my last views on this issue (unless someone comes up with something we haven't covered of course !)

 

Thanks to all for the input and opinions.

 

Ron

[Guest Utahbill]

I will keep it short. I vote to keep the little map. I like it.

 

Utahbill

[Guest belleterre]

I vote to keep the little map. It's a great overview and tells me quickly if the cache is near or far. The cache page and MapQuest can tell me any more details I want to know.

[Guest Eoghan]

between the first and second pages.

---

 

That's the only problem I have with the maps. Printing on legal size paper usually handles it, but it would be really nice if the map was a little higher in the page.

 

Also, splitting off the majority of the logs to a separate page works great for me. Printing out a cache page now gives me the cache description as well as the most recent reports on cache condition without the whole history of finds. Love it.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Eoghan (edited 08 February 2002).]