Incomplete .gpx Records

[+eigengott]

The .gpx records currently delivered (either through a pocket query or a direct download) don't include the complete cache description. The links to images uploaded to the cache description are missing.

 

That makes these .gpx records pretty useless for me. I became premium member in the hope to go paperless with a PDA, using .gpx records for the offline cache descriptions.

 

Will this gap be fixed anytime soon?

 

Just to avoid confusion: I don't want the images themselves, just the links. And i don't talk about the images uploaded with log entries, just those uploaded by the cache owner with his/her cache description.

[+The Leprechauns]

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I pay for a premium membership in part to obtain GPX files that DO provide the information needed to find more than 95% of the geocaches listed on this site.

 

The GPX files DO contain all of the information at the top of the cache page, the short description and the long description. If you can furnish an example of a cache where this did not happen for you, I'm sure the tech experts can pick apart the bad html and spot a reason why the process got choked.

 

The GPX files do not include maps or images because they are text-based files. That's fine by me. I don't need to see a picture of a pretty view in order to find the cache, and I use mapping software to get me there.

 

If, in your area, there are a lot of geocaches that rely upon external images or websites to provide critical data for finding the cache, then it seems to me that your beef is with the owners of those caches. When I encounter a cache like that, I just skip it.

[+Maeglin]

The .gpx records currently delivered (either through a pocket query or a direct download) don't include the complete cache description. The links to images uploaded to the cache description are missing.

Images that are uploaded but not referenced in an HTML description will be lost, sure, but those that are are referenced in the description itself. I have yet to see a cache description where images necessary to find the cache weren't referenced. Do you have an example?

Edited April 28, 2004 by Maeglin

[+eigengott]

Here is an example: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC5232

 

There are lots of them, at least here in Germany. And after all: Is it really that difficult, to add something like

 

[Additional Images]

http://img.Groundspeak.com/cache/21042_200.jpg

http://img.Groundspeak.com/cache/21042_300.jpg

 

at the end of the long cache description?

Edited April 28, 2004 by eigengott

[+Hemlock]

You're right. The cache owner should put those links in the description.

 

Your beef is with the cache owners, not the site.

[+eigengott]

Your beef is with the cache owners, not the site.

No, get real. The site offers to add images to the cache description. Some owners actually use this feature.

 

So either this feature should be disabled (bad), or the complete data should end up in the .gpx record. Why not make this site a bit more convenient?

[+Mopar]

Your beef is with the cache owners, not the site.

No, get real. The site offers to add images to the cache description. Some owners actually use this feature.

 

So either this feature should be disabled (bad), or the complete data should end up in the .gpx record. Why not make this site a bit more convenient?

YOU get real! Do you REALLY think I want all those links to background images and 27 cache camera pic links on cache pages because a couple of owners are too lazy to format their cache page properly?

[+The Leprechauns]

There is no reason to be rude to Hemlock. The photo upload feature is, I think, intended for photos.... not to convey information essential to finding the cache. If owners choose to use it for that purpose, that's their choice. Like I said above, I will skip any cache like that; there are plenty of others to choose from, where all the information I need is contained in the cache page. I get annoyed at the cache owner who consciously decides to make things more difficult than is necessary. I don't get annoyed at the listing service that provides us with free web pages to list our caches.

 

So where is your example of a cache page that doesn't download the complete cache description into the GPX file? Or is your sole complaint about the photos issue?

[+eigengott]

No point to get angry: you can make this an option for pocket queries (default: NO, i don't want those links).

[+eigengott]

The photo upload feature is, I think, intended for photos.... not to convey information essential to finding the cache.

Though i agree with your interpretation of the photo upload feature, there is nothing on the gc.com site, which says anything about it's purpose. Not even a warning to not use these images for essential information.

 

And in some parts of the world there are substantial numbers of caches, which rely on these images to get found. If it were just 5% (or less), i wouldn't ask for this (minor) feature addition.

[Jeremy]

Attached images are not included in version 1.0 of the gpx:Groundspeak namespace. Send an email to contact@geocaching.com and you'll be refunded for your membership.

[+eigengott]

Thanks for the clarification, Jeremy.

 

And no, i won't quit premium - this site is good enough to support it, even if the .gpx-stuff didn't turned out as expected (and announced... ).

 

I just wrote a perl script which converts a gpx file to another one with the links included. Essentially spidering gc.com for the missing information. An ugly kludge, but it works. No xml-schema extension is needed for this, tools like GSAK work perfectly with the new file. If anyone else has use for it: http://www.eigengott.de/geocaching/gpxcomplete.pl

Edited April 28, 2004 by eigengott

[Jeremy]

Using these kinds of tools usually gets your IP banned.

[+Moosiegirl]

There are lots of them, at least here in Germany. And after all: Is it really that difficult, to add something like

 

[Additional Images]

http://img.Groundspeak.com/cache/21042_200.jpg

http://img.Groundspeak.com/cache/21042_300.jpg

 

at the end of the long cache description?

If this process is so easy, and the pictures are critical to the cache, then why aren't those cache owners showing the pictures in the description instead of just uploading them? Surely, they know that if someone is printing a page, the pictures won't show up without the cacher making a special effort to pull them up. A paperless cacher will have to make the same effort or more. Seems to me the burden is on the cache hider to make it easier on the cacher to have the critical information.

 

The job of Jeremy's crew is to post what the hider asked to be posted. Not to make up for his shortcomings.

 

Candy Lind

Austin, TX

"just moosein' around"

[+BalkanSabranje]

The photo upload feature is, I think, intended for photos.... not to convey information essential to finding the cache.

Anything more convincing than your opinion at hand to this subject?

 

_I_ do believe that the option "add a picture" was solely intended to give users the option to provide additional (optical) information.

 

BS/2

[+BalkanSabranje]

If this process is so easy, and the pictures are critical to the cache, then why aren't those cache owners showing the pictures in the description instead of just uploading them?

Probably because

1. there could be spoilers in the pictures;

2. printing out additional pictures to the cache page is far easier for the average user than printing out the cache page wthout the embedded pictures.

 

BS/2

[+Maeglin]

2. printing out additional pictures to the cache page is far easier for the average user than printing out the cache page wthout the embedded pictures.

That point would be valid, if it didn't contradict the entire point of this thread. If all of the useful images uploaded for a cache were in fact linked to or embedded in the description, there would be no reason for this thread. Instead, they are linked in a separate part of the page... one would indeed think that printing a page with embedded images would be easier to do, but that's not the case in the example that eigengott specified. Those images are merely linked from that separate part of the page, requiring a separate printing if you need a hardcopy.

 

How about this...

 

3. Laziness

 

Since the description for the above referenced example was already in HTML, it's not that hard to actually include the images (or links to them) at the relevant parts of the description. Since there are German and English versions, links would be less redundant in that case.

[+RuffRidr]

Using these kinds of tools usually gets your IP banned.

So is there any way for this user to see what they want in their GPX file? You won't fix it, but then threaten to ban their IP when they come up with a solution on their own. Nice customer service there.

 

--RuffRidr

[+Renegade Knight]

Thanks for the clarification, Jeremy.

 

And no, i won't quit premium - this site is good enough to support it, even if the .gpx-stuff didn't turned out as expected (and announced... ).

 

I just wrote a perl script which converts a gpx file to another one with the links included. Essentially spidering gc.com for the missing information. An ugly kludge, but it works. No xml-schema extension is needed for this, tools like GSAK work perfectly with the new file. If anyone else has use for it: http://www.eigengott.de/geocaching/gpxcomplete.pl

Saving space in a GPX file is an important consideration. 500 caches still takes a lot of space. If more than 5% as you have said in your area have photographs as part of the cache clues that are needed then you have a good workaround.

 

A GPX file is a compromise between versatility and space and the implementation needs to be uniform so 3rd party apps can work. Without those 3rd party apps a GPX file would be fairly useless.

 

I think you have a good workaround and one that you could share. How the site responds to paying customers though is it's own choice.

[+Markwell]

So is there any way for this user to see what they want in their GPX file? You won't fix it, but then threaten to ban their IP when they come up with a solution on their own. Nice customer service there.

The problem is that when a spider crawls through the website gathering information, it effectively shuts the rest of us out by putting a high demand on the servers.

 

I think Jeremy's response was COMPLETELY customer service oriented.

[+eigengott]

I think you have a good workaround and one that you could share. How the site responds to paying customers though is it's own choice.

No, this hasn't to do with paying or not paying - hammering a web site with a (dumb) robot is indeed bad practice, just as Markwell pointed out.

 

The real fix with this problem is educating people, i think. It's not only lazyness but lack of knowledge. A simple message on the image upload page like "If your image contains information essential for finding the cache, please make sure to reference it in your HTML code for the cache, so that people which print out the cache page have this information." would be a GOOD thing.

[ju66l3r]

No, this hasn't to do with paying or not paying - hammering a web site with a (dumb) robot is indeed bad practice, just as Markwell pointed out.

 

The real fix with this problem is educating people, i think. It's not only lazyness but lack of knowledge. A simple message on the image upload page like "If your image contains information essential for finding the cache, please make sure to reference it in your HTML code for the cache, so that people which print out the cache page have this information." would be a GOOD thing.

Well, first, my guess is that with a good pause routine in your robot and only getting a few dozen results at a time, you're going to get all the info you need, the server won't be hammered, and your IP won't be banned because it didn't send up any red flags.

 

Secondly, if you're going to expect cache hider's to write the URL in their cache description in order to facilitate gpx file users, then you're going to have to inform them of that (ala eigengott's post). Just "expecting" it to happen and being down on the hiders, when hundreds of hiders aren't premium members or are premium members who don't use gpx files, is absurd. Since this isn't currently the case, then it was a reasonable request to have these things easily added into the gpx files. Jeremy chooses not to mess with the namespace at this point, so maybe a change to the cache submission page is in order.

[+RuffRidr]

So is there any way for this user to see what they want in their GPX file?  You won't fix it, but then threaten to ban their IP when they come up with a solution on their own.  Nice customer service there.

The problem is that when a spider crawls through the website gathering information, it effectively shuts the rest of us out by putting a high demand on the servers.

 

I think Jeremy's response was COMPLETELY customer service oriented.

I wasn't responding to that message saying that it was the way to do it. I was more pointing out Jeremy's dismissive attitude. I mean this was one of his paying customers who had a legitimate question. The responses seemed less than helpful.

 

It wasn't my question originally, and I don't care one way or the other about the original poster's question. I don't want to get in a big arguement over this, so this will be my last post on this thread.

 

Take it easy,

--RuffRidr

[+planetrobert]

So is there any way for this user to see what they want in their GPX file?  You won't fix it, but then threaten to ban their IP when they come up with a solution on their own.  Nice customer service there.

The problem is that when a spider crawls through the website gathering information, it effectively shuts the rest of us out by putting a high demand on the servers.

 

I think Jeremy's response was COMPLETELY customer service oriented.

welll stated

[+Wacka]

Why not just print out those very very small % of pages with this problem.

[+BalkanSabranje]

2. printing out additional pictures to the cache page is far easier for the average user than printing out the cache page wthout the embedded pictures.

That point would be valid, if it didn't contradict the entire point of this thread. If all of the useful images uploaded for a cache were in fact linked to or embedded in the description, there would be no reason for this thread.

This is true only for those who use electronic descriptions while caching.

For all those who have to print out the cache description, its a nuisance to have the pictures embedded in the text. And on top of that, having double links to the same pictures is sort of redundant, isn't it?

 

BS/2

[Jeremy]

So is there any way for this user to see what they want in their GPX file? You won't fix it, but then threaten to ban their IP when they come up with a solution on their own. Nice customer service there.

I didn't say I wouldn't fix it. I explained it isn't in the current Groundspeak:cache namespace. Due to the long list of applications that use this namespace, I can't just go changing things willy-nilly on the fly. It's one reason why I do not support automated bots that screen scrape the site.

 

If you want to interpret my honest response as poor customer service, maybe I should start flowering my responses so they don't have any usefulness at all.

[Jeremy]

I wasn't responding to that message saying that it was the way to do it. I was more pointing out Jeremy's dismissive attitude. I mean this was one of his paying customers who had a legitimate question. The responses seemed less than helpful.

That is your perception, but the actual customer I was addressing apparently got the answer they were looking for. Whether you thought the response was dismissive is irrelevant.

[Jeremy]

A simple message on the image upload page like "If your image contains information essential for finding the cache, please make sure to reference it in your HTML code for the cache, so that people which print out the cache page have this information." would be a GOOD thing.

I like this idea. I'll see if I can implement it on the cache image upload page.

[+HoPri]

A simple message on the image upload page like "If your image contains information essential for finding the cache, please make sure to reference it in your HTML code for the cache, so that people which print out the cache page have this information."  would be a GOOD thing.

I like this idea. I'll see if I can implement it on the cache image upload page.

I hope you can make it work!

 

Especially, as the same problem with uploaded (but unlinked) images also occurs for the printer-friendly pages as well. One has always to double-check whether there is a photo/drawing that you might want to or even must take with you.

 

Best regards,

HoPri

Edited May 5, 2004 by HoPri