Strip HTML from cache descriptions for GPX

[+niraD]

For those of us who still use "dumb" GPS devices (at least some of the time), the fancy formatting of HTML descriptions can make the content painful to read. It would be nice to have the option of converting cache descriptions to plain text.

 

Ideally, this would not affect PQ data downloaded to smartphone apps (for those of us who use both smartphones and "dumb" GPS devices). Perhaps there could even be three values for the setting:

• leave all descriptions in HTML
  
• convert all descriptions to plain text
  
• convert descriptions to plain text in GPX files, but leave descriptions in HTML for the API
  

 

Some might even want some API-based systems to get plain text, and others to get HTML, but that's starting to get pretty complicated.

[+GeoLog81]

The best would be to simply ban the HTML from the cache description. It's not needed, geocaches are not 'fancy' powerpoint presentations from boring team meatings, one should not import such (mis)concepts to the outdoor hobby like geocaching in the first line.

 

I wonder, maybe I should log DNF to the caches, which description crash my GPS? Maybe some owners have never had a GPS device and they are not aware of the problem? Workarounds are really painful to work out. I haven't still managed to master the GSAK to the level that enable me to do such things like add spoiler photos to the GPX (another 'genial' idea from smarphone owners - too lazy to write a few meaningful words for hint, better to add some photo only smaries will see).

[+EngPhil]

The best would be to simply ban the HTML from the cache description. It's not needed, geocaches are not 'fancy' powerpoint presentations from boring team meatings, one should not import such (mis)concepts to the outdoor hobby like geocaching in the first line.

Granted, HTML is (more often than not) used unnecessarily, but banning it would cut off all sorts of options for unknown puzzle mystery caches. Please don't go there.

[cezanne]

The best would be to simply ban the HTML from the cache description. It's not needed, geocaches are not 'fancy' powerpoint presentations from boring team meatings, one should not import such (mis)concepts to the outdoor hobby like geocaching in the first line.

 

I disagree strongly. Some cache descriptions would be real mess without html or not possible at all. I'm not using any fancy elements, but most of my caches are quite complex and they typically involve much more outdoor components than a typical

powertrail cache with a one sentence description which of course can easily live without html.

 

None of my caches is intended for paperless caching and this becomes very clear already when looking at the descriptions and their lengths.

 

What could make sense is an attribute "not for paperless caching". Then people like you could automatically filter out such caches while not taking away from many others what they apparently enjoy.

Edited October 17, 2014 by cezanne

[+dprovan]

For those of us who still use "dumb" GPS devices (at least some of the time), the fancy formatting of HTML descriptions can make the content painful to read. It would be nice to have the option of converting cache descriptions to plain text.

I wouldn't oppose something like that, but I don't consider it important, and I wouldn't use such an option even though my GPSr can't display HTML. I don't blame the HTML: COs make descriptions hard to read, and HTML is one tool they use to do it, both for dumb screens and smart screens alike. I'm not any more worried about a CO making the description impossible to read using HTML than I am about a CO making the description impossible to read because they can't write. Yeah, it happens. It wouldn't be the first time I didn't read a description for a cache I was looking for.

 

The best would be to simply ban the HTML from the cache description. It's not needed, geocaches are not 'fancy' powerpoint presentations from boring team meatings, one should not import such (mis)concepts to the outdoor hobby like geocaching in the first line.

Similarly, I'm not interested in banning HTML simply because some COs do stupid things with it. While "fancy" often looks dumb, bold and italics are very useful, easily used, and still mean something even when displayed on a dumb screen.

 

I wonder, maybe I should log DNF to the caches, which description crash my GPS?

Filing a DNF when you can't find a cache because of something wrong with the description is a good idea. Heck, I'd even support you filing a Needs Maintenance if it really crashed your GPSr. I'd also support a DNF from niraD if he decides not too look for a cache because the HTML made it impossible for him to read the description. An NM would be a little harder to justify in that case, but it would make sense if the description had important text -- warnings, for example -- that were obscured by HTML.

 

Maybe some owners have never had a GPS device and they are not aware of the problem?

I think in most cases they don't realize the side effects of HTML. (Even when using a browser, many people that get into using HTML have no idea what it looks like in other browsers or with other window sizes or other font sets.) That's precisely why I'd suggest a DNF, at least, if the HTML caused trouble. I've never skipped a cache because of HTML, but I have mentioned in my Found log that the HTML made the description unreadable in the field.

 

(Of course, then there was the time I solved a puzzle because my GPSr showed some HTML I hadn't seen when reading the cache page in my browser back home...)

[cezanne]

Filing a DNF when you can't find a cache because of something wrong with the description is a good idea.

 

If something wrong just means it is html and/or that the description is too long for some GPS-devices, then I'regard it as pretty strange to write a DNF log, but I would not object.

 

Heck, I'd even support you filing a Needs Maintenance if it really crashed your GPSr.

 

I would not support this except in very special situations.

 

I'd also support a DNF from niraD if he decides not too look for a cache because the HTML made it impossible for him to read the description. An NM would be a little harder to justify in that case, but it would make sense if the description had important text -- warnings, for example -- that were obscured by HTML.

 

Who says that a cache description must be readable on an arbitrary device?

 

This after all is a website. If my cache descriptions are readable with web browsers and are printable in a reasonable way, I'm fully satisfied.