Jump to content

Too Few Logs In Pocket Query .gpx Results


mlord
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Jeremy,

 

(EDITED)

Pocket Queries give only the most recent five log entries, which is not nearly enough for a travelling cacher.

 

On a recent trip to Oz, some critical information needed for finding caches there was buried deep down in the logs, way beyond the most recent five, or even ten, log entries. Some cache owners simply seem to put clues and updated coords into the notes rather than editing them into the main cache description.

 

When travelling abroad, I find it vital to have at least 10 logs per cache available, and preferably 20 logs. A mere 5 is really inadequate.

 

Can we have an option on the Pocket Query page to select the number of log entries to include? Even if it only allows up to 20 (or 10, I suppose) it would still be big improvement.

 

Without them in the .gpx file, I'll need to download each cache page separately again, which puts extra load on the gc.com servers, and takes up much of my time too.

 

Thanks

Edited by mlord
Link to comment

Thanks for helping my memory! Okay, so it's always been only 5.

 

FIVE is not enough!!!

 

Jeremy, can we have an option somewhere for including MORE log entries in Pocket Query results (please!). Up to 20 would be very nice.

 

Thanks

Link to comment

When travelling abroad, I find it vital to have at least 10 logs per cache available, and preferably 20 logs. A mere 5 is really inadequate.

 

Sounds like the problem is cache owner's not doing things properly. I doubt the number of logs in a PQ is going to change, as more logs make the files bigger and bigger, putting more load on the servers (including the mail server, which already seems overload at times, especially Thursdays). If they upped it to 10, when you find that log you need at 11, you'll want 20, then when that needed log is the 21st back, people will want 30......and eventually ALL the logs.....

 

Also, I don't think "downloading them seperately" from the cache page gives any more logs, unless, of course, you're printing the pages out.....

Link to comment
some critical information needed for finding caches there was buried deep down in the logs, way beyond the most recent five, or even ten, log entries.

Why is critical information in the logs? It should be on the cache page. Or do you really mean spoiler information so you have an easier time finding the cache?

 

Jamie

Link to comment

I find that it can be very useful to know what the cache owner wrote in the notes in conjunction with servicing a cache, especially if I have hunted that cache unsuccessfully in the past. For instance, if such an entry points out that the coordinates have been adjusted, then that is very useful. There are other reasons than the ones being discussed for needing more logs.

 

I too would like to see the ability to control the number of logs in each record in a PQ. If it cannot be made a variable controlled by the user, then locking it in at 10 would be a great improvement.

 

I would also like to suggest that for event caches, all log entries be transmitted. When I am out geocaching on the day of an event I sometimes check my PDA to see if a certain cache owner will be at the event.

Link to comment

Lots of us rely on the log entries to help out when a cache is not initially found at the expected location. My experiences in Australia, England, and Europe are that cache owners do not always post all of the necessary information as part of the cache description, prefering instead to spoon feed *necessary* info one clue at a time in the logs until somebody manages to log a first-to-find on it. Without those older logs, some caches are simply not findable..

 

But more common are caches where the owner does not maintain the cache listing. Examples include caches 200m from their posted coords -- findable by a local cacher with time on her hands, perhaps, but frustrating for visiting cachers without access to log entries listing corrrected coords etc..

 

I'm NOT advocating changing the default number of log entries from 5, but rather providing a simple option to set the number of logs to anything from zero (for all of you objectors) to perhaps 20 or so.

 

Currently, I pull down every single cache page for the 500-800 caches in the area of interest before leaving on the trip, stashing those on my laptop for hotel-room reference. I'd much rather have them on my PDA, and that's why I pay gc.com for pocket queries. For now.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
My experiences in Australia, England, and Europe are that cache owners do not always post all of the necessary information as part of the cache description, prefering instead to spoon feed *necessary* info one clue at a time in the logs until somebody manages to log a first-to-find on it. Without those older logs, some caches are simply not findable..

 

But more common are caches where the owner does not maintain the cache listing. Examples include caches 200m from their posted coords -- findable by a local cacher with time on her hands, perhaps, but frustrating for visiting cachers without access to log entries listing corrrected coords etc..

As was mentioned above, GC.com shouldn't be obligated to be the crutch for lazy cache owners that know that their initial coordinates are off but never bother to update the cache page. The logs are not the place for this. The cache description is where the owner should be putting additional hints.

 

If a cache has eighty logs, you would want to download all eighty? Times 500 caches in your GPX file? Times how many cachers who, when presented with the option to download either 5 or all the logs for their PQs will take the "all" option?

 

Those poor hamsters are going to be tuckered out from keeping up withthe extra server load.

 

Adding more logs is treating the symptoms, not the actual problem. I'd suggest going back to your local organizations and urging cache owners to change their mindset about how they maintain their cache pages.

Link to comment
Lots of us rely on the log entries to help out when a cache is not initially found at the expected location.  My experiences in Australia, England, and Europe are that cache owners do not always post all of the necessary information as part of the cache description, prefering instead to spoon feed *necessary* info one clue at a time in the logs until somebody manages to log a first-to-find on it.  Without those older logs, some caches are simply not findable..

 

But more common are caches where the owner does not maintain the cache listing.  Examples include caches 200m from their posted coords -- findable by a local cacher with time on her hands, perhaps, but frustrating for visiting cachers without access to log entries listing corrrected coords etc..

 

I'm NOT advocating changing the default number of log entries from 5, but rather providing a simple option to set the number of logs to anything from zero (for all of you objectors) to perhaps 20 or so.

I would advocate that you get on the cache hider's butts to fix their broken cache pages. Caches should ALWAYS be findable via the cache page alone with no logs. ALWAYS! I'm glad I don't cache in the areas you describe. That would be very frustrating.

 

--Marky

Link to comment
Well, in that case, I suppose we ought to be lobbying for ZERO logs in all .GPX downloads.

 

Duh.

That's not what I'm saying. Having the past few logs available can be useful in the case where you can't find the cache, and it turns out the three people who looked for it yesterday logged DNFs as well indicating the cache might be missing.

 

What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be required that you have access to a log that the cache owner wrote a year ago in order to find a cache. That sort of information should be in the description. As Marky said, you should be able to find the cache using the description alone. Having a half dozen logs available should be a source of info for the cache status, not a source of spoilers.

Link to comment

The fact is that the logs are useful, regardless of whether the owner has properly updated his main info or not.

 

We've all had times where the main info didn't tell us enough, and the hints were either non-existant or just plain didn't cut it. We've also had times where the logs were the ONLY source of information that listed certain hazards in the area.

 

Under those circumstances, it's *very* helpful to read through the logs of those who have searched before.

 

There's nothing wrong with having only the first 5 logs show up by default when viewing the cache pages online. And there's nothing wrong with having only the first 5 logs set as default for GPX downloads.

 

But I agree that there should be the option to set the number of logs to include for GPX files, up to and and including all logs.

 

When you're travelling, you don't always have the option to get on the Internet and take a second look.

Edited by Enchanted Shadow
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...