Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Jeremy

Updated Benchmark Section

Recommended Posts

Most or maybe all of the bugs mentioned have been fixed! :mad:

 

One former feature hasn't returned yet - the person's name attached to the pictures in the Gallery.

 

Of course, all the excellent improvements and new features resulted in a bunch of requests for additional features. :smile:

Share this post


Link to post

Yes I miss seeing the finder's name on the gallery pictures.

Of course, all the excellent improvements and new features resulted in a bunch of requests for additional features. 
So true! :smile:

Share this post


Link to post

I'll see what I can do with the additional requests. Right now I've moved on to the "my cache page," which, priority wise, needs a lot more TLC. Once it is done I'll get to the image galleries to make them better as well.

Share this post


Link to post

Just a thought...

 

It would have been nice if the "view original datasheet" was a link to the NGS site so that we can look for any more recent Recovery notes.

Share this post


Link to post

Hello,

 

I've skimmed these posts in this topic, and didn't see anything about this, but if I'm repeating anything, sorry.

 

1) Many of the reference markers links's on NGS disks' pages come up with an error that commonly says that the waypoint can not be found. Example

 

2) I know that this has been discussed, but there needs to be a direct tab link to the Benchmark page from the geocaching.com home page. I think it would go pretty well between the My Cache Page and Discuss Geocaching, give or take a space or two.

 

Other than this I think that everything's fine. It even seems, and I could be mistaken, that you've added some new markers! But I know of quite a few that aren't listed and am hoping to see the updated markers on this page soon!

Share this post


Link to post

Hi. I'm coming in a bit late to this discussion, but I have a question about the use of the new icons on the benchmark pages.

 

There is now a little "broken benchmark" icon that indicates that a benchmark has been destroyed. Am I correct that the use of that icon relies on a geocacher choosing "Mark destroyed" when he or she posts a log? I.e., GC.com doesn't automatically assign those marks based on the contents of the official reports for a mark, right?

 

Why I'm asking is that when I look through a list of the benchmarks in a certain area, many of the ones that have an "intact benchmark" icon (meaning "Benchmark not yet logged") turn out to be ones that the NGS or some other official agency desginated "station is lost" or "station was destroyed" long (sometimes decades) ago. It would be nice to have those changed to "broken benchmark" icons so we don't have to waste our time going to each individual page only to discover that there's nothing to look for any more.

 

I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone from GC.com should take on that effort! But would it be appropriate for us individual cachers to assign a "Mark destroyed" icon when the official reports warrant it, so that henceforth other cachers can quickly skip over those listings? Given the debate and confusion over how best to handle missing benchmarks, I certainly don't want to jump in and start making this designation unless there's general agreement (and preferably a go-ahead from Jeremy) that it's the right thing to do.

 

If it wouldn't be appropriate for individual cachers to assign "Mark destroyed" icons, is there some other process we could come up with to do it?

 

Patty

Share this post


Link to post
Why I'm asking is that when I look through a list of the benchmarks in a certain area, many of the ones that have an "intact benchmark" icon (meaning "Benchmark not yet logged") turn out to be ones that the NGS or some other official agency desginated "station is lost" or "station was destroyed" long (sometimes decades) ago. It would be nice to have those changed to "broken benchmark" icons so we don't have to waste our time going to each individual page only to discover that there's nothing to look for any more.

Yes, that happens. I see quite a few like that in my area. The problem is although the test clearly indicates "destroyed" that mark is not classified by NGS as destroyed. (If you look in the datasheets on NGS, you have to check a special box to see the destroyeds and you'll see "Destroyed" in the history table. If it was classified by NGS as destroyed, it wouldn't have been loaded in GC's database.)

 

I don't know of any automated way of parsing the data to update the destroyed status. I think individuals will have to look at the sheets and log them.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't know of any automated way of parsing the data to update the destroyed status. I think individuals will have to look at the sheets and log them.

I don't do this in any systematic way, but if I happen to read in the text that a station is 'destroyed' or 'presumed lost,' I will sometimes post a Note to that effect.

 

-ArtMan-

Share this post


Link to post

Wintertime -

 

I have pondered this question for a couple of years. There are many PID descriptions that perfectly clearly say that the mark is gone, yet the NGS database has a Found status on it. Here is an example, and the report is by the NGS itself! In a big database, these things happen.

 

In many of these cases, I think it's OK for us to code these as destroyed. It takes a bit of fuzzy logic to read the description and comprehend that it does say that the mark is gone. The NGS probably doesn't have such a fuzzy logic computer, and neither does geocaching, so you have to be such a computer yourself. :)

 

It is good to 'clean up' the database on our end so that we don't have to keep reading the same description over and over.

 

Along the same general line, I am tempted to 'post a note' on all those PIDs that say that there's a disk or nail on top of a building. Since we're not surveyors, I think that such marks are beyond the scope of our community. I'm tired of reading these PIDs over and over again and would just as soon post a note on any that I see. But, I haven't done that yet. (( I put the subject of this last paragraph in a new topic, so if you're wanting to post a reply on this paragraph, please do it there.))

Edited by Black Dog Trackers

Share this post


Link to post
I have pondered this question for a couple of years. There are many PID descriptions that perfectly clearly say that the mark is gone, yet the NGS database has a Found status on it. Here is an example, and the report is by the NGS itself! In a big database, these things happen.

Actually, if you look at the summary, it says "see description".

 

I've taken some like that and pointed it out to Deb and gotten a "destroyed" based on nothing more then the log itself.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for your comments, everyone.

 

GeckoGeek, I didn't realize that the GC.com database is already a subset of the NGS database, leaving out the ones that have officially been marked as destroyed by NGS. I guess I could drop a note to that person you mentioned at NGS, listing the PIDs of the ones that seem to have been destroyed according to NGS's own descriptions, and let her clean up the database? Then maybe those marks will disappear next time Jeremy updates his database.

 

Meanwhile, I could use ArtMan's suggestion of posting a note on each of the suspect pages. That would at least remove the enticing "Find me! Find me!" look of the "intact benchmark" icon, without my declaring the station lost. (I realize that declaring it lost on GC.com isn't as though I'm making an official statement, but given the sometimes heated opinions about when a mark should be labeled as lost here, I'm reluctant to get in the middle of that!)

 

Patty

Share this post


Link to post
GeckoGeek, I didn't realize that the GC.com database is already a subset of the NGS database, leaving out the ones that have officially been marked as destroyed by NGS. I guess I could drop a note to that person you mentioned at NGS, listing the PIDs of the ones that seem to have been destroyed according to NGS's own descriptions, and let her clean up the database?

 

You can try - at least for the "landmark" type stations (towers, etc.) So far I've been told that destroying disks requires that the disk be found. Normally I'm for that, but there are cases when the building it's attached to has been destroyed, or you can tell by the log a very good check has been done and it is clearly gone such as that location on the hill side is gone. But so far I don't think that's going to work.

 

I realize that declaring it lost on GC.com isn't as though I'm making an official statement, but given the sometimes heated opinions about when a mark should be labeled as lost here, I'm reluctant to get in the middle of that!

Yes, that is something of a debate. But I'd say if the logs by someone other then a geocacher or USPS says it's gone, then go ahead and mark it destroyed so people don't keep looking at it. We don't have to be quite a picky as NGS here. But as long as there is solid evidence that it's gone and not just hiding from you, I don't see a real problem with parking destroyed on GC - but it really depends on the details.

Share this post


Link to post

I LIKE IT!! Thank you Jeremy!!

 

But I am having a difference in downloaded .loc files. I am not sure if it is due to the new benchmark page, due to my buying ExpertGPS or due to my becomming a premium member? Nothing like changing everything at once huh? :)

 

My earlier .loc files had the PID in the Waypoint field and the designation in both the Comment and Description fields. Now I am getting a .loc file with the PID in all three fields (Waypoint, Description & Comment) and the designation does not show up at all. I liked having the designation show up on my GPS. Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong and/or how I could again get the designation in the .loc files?

Share this post


Link to post

My guess would be it's the changes to the site. I've used ExpertGPS for 3.5 years and just made my third membership payment. I'm getting the same results as you now. I hadn't noticed before, because I download the county files from NGS.

Share this post


Link to post

Jeremy,

 

Are there any plans to add the ability to watch a benchmark? I would think this would be a simple addition to the page, and would personally find it a useful feature.

Share this post


Link to post

I like on the detail page how it has a link to nearest benchmarks and nearest geocaches. What would it take to get the same links on the geocache detail pages? I'd like a quick link to see what benchmarks are near a geocache I'm interested in finding.

 

Also, it would be nice to be able to specify how many results, or how big of a radius.

 

Other than that, it's great! Good work!

Share this post


Link to post
What would it take to get the same links on the geocache detail pages?

I think what you are looking for is already on the cache page:

 

Find...

...other caches hidden or found by this user

...nearby caches of this type

...all nearby caches

...all nearby placenames

...all nearby benchmarks

 

It shows up on all cache pages with hyperlinks just like the benchmark page.

Share this post


Link to post

Forgive me if this was suggested before. But how about on the bm main page, where it says how many ppl have reported in and how many bm's there are in the country, we list the % found by gc.com users. And at the current rate the date and year when they will all be found by members. Just a suggestion being thrown out there.

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 5

×
×
  • Create New...