Geocaching Premium members get sneak peek at new Advanced Search

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

We're super excited to be unveiling to Geocaching Premium members a first-look at the new and improved Advanced Search, a tool that’s been requested by the geocaching community. It’s been completely retooled, revamped and streamlined based on geocaching community feedback. Here are a few of the features we’ve been working on:

Search by Geocache Name – Look for any geocache with a certain keyword in its name, anywhere in the name, not just at the beginning.
Search by Minimum Favorite Points – Only like finding the best of the best? This will make it easier.
Filters – Narrow your search with ease using filters like geocache type, D/T and more.

Keep in mind this page isn’t 100% complete yet, so some things may change before the official release.

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

We're super excited to be unveiling to Geocaching Premium members a first-look at the new and improved Advanced Search, a tool that’s been requested by the geocaching community. It’s been completely retooled, revamped and streamlined based on geocaching community feedback. Here are a few of the features we’ve been working on:

Search by Geocache Name – Look for any geocache with a certain keyword in its name, anywhere in the name, not just at the beginning.

Search by Minimum Favorite Points – Only like finding the best of the best? This will make it easier.

Filters – Narrow your search with ease using filters like geocache type, D/T and more.

Keep in mind this page isn’t 100% complete yet, so some things may change before the official release.

Is the new advanced search not hooked up to the database yet? I searched via zip code, the city I live in, the GC code for one of my caches, and the partial name of one of my caches and all came back with nothing.

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

I got nuttin' when trying to search with one word of cache name

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

I got nuttin' when trying to search with one word of cache name

Works for me.... did you specify enough of a search radius to get the cache(s) you were expecting?

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

I played with several filters and it worked for me

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

I got nuttin' when trying to search with one word of cache name

Works for me.... did you specify enough of a search radius to get the cache(s) you were expecting?

I can not enter anything into search radius, which may be the problem. (Windows 7, IE 11)I'll wait...

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

I got nuttin' when trying to search with one word of cache name

Works for me.... did you specify enough of a search radius to get the cache(s) you were expecting?

I can not enter anything into search radius, which may be the problem. (Windows 7, IE 11)I'll wait...

If you don't enter an origin location in the main search box, you won't be able to set a distance.

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

I first saw the announcement here in the forums. I have the tips&tricks ticked on my profile but did not get an email.

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

I got nuttin' when trying to search with one word of cache name

Works for me.... did you specify enough of a search radius to get the cache(s) you were expecting?

I can not enter anything into search radius, which may be the problem. (Windows 7, IE 11)I'll wait...

If you don't enter an origin location in the main search box, you won't be able to set a distance.

That was it. thanks

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

I first saw the announcement here in the forums. I have the tips&tricks ticked on my profile but did not get an email.

It's been just over a half hour. Email might be a little slow. Give it few more mins. If you're premium though, you should still be able to access the search.

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

Would it be possible to have it automatically start with the home location as the default?

if that is not possible, could all the filters just be on the main page? It seems quite odd to have to type some sort of location and then go to the filter page to enter in the search criteria.

Thanks for bringing back, what looks like, a fairly useful search.

*Edited to Add*

Ooops. I missed the little arrow for "use my location"...never mind that part

Edited January 28, 2015 by Mr Kaswa

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

Seems to work good for me.

One suggestion: It looks like you can sort the results by everything but the name of the cache. It would be nice to have that ability.

Also, there's a lot of white space when the list comes back. Seems like you could 'compress' that a bit to fit more results on the screen.

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

OK, a few comments after playing with it for a few minutes:

1. The keyword filter isn't working for me. No matter what I put in there (leaving everything else at defaults), I get no results. I've tried several words from my flagship cache "I Love it When a Plan Comes Together", as well as ones I would fully expect to give results like "headquarters" and "stash".

2. When typing a username into the "Not Found By" or "Hidden By" fields, what I'm typing is duplicated in a new entry at the top of the autosuggest list. For example, if I type my name (The A-Team), I see an unclickable entry with no highlighting first (duplicating my text), followed by a clickable entry with highlighting (the actual result). This doesn't happen for the "Search Only In..." field, which is what I would expect, so I have to assume this is a bug. I can already see what I typed in the field, so I don't need it duplicated immediately below.

3. I agree with J Grouchy that there's an unusual amount of white space in the result grid, both vertically and horizontally. If this could be reduced, many more results would be visible on the screen.

Otherwise, it seems to work well and will be very useful. Thanks for all the effort that has gone into this!

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

One more thing.

When I filter for "Has Personal Geocache Note", I get 17 of my own caches showing up in the results, even though none of those has or has ever had such a note. The rest of the results are correct.

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

One more thing.

When I filter for "Has Personal Geocache Note", I get 17 of my own caches showing up in the results, even though none of those has or has ever had such a note. The rest of the results are correct.

I wonder if the filter is checking for any personal note instead of just your own...

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

One more thing.

When I filter for "Has Personal Geocache Note", I get 17 of my own caches showing up in the results, even though none of those has or has ever had such a note. The rest of the results are correct.

I wonder if the filter is checking for any personal note instead of just your own...

Good thought. Would you mind making a personal note on GC2VRDP, and then I'll do the search again and see if that one comes up? It isn't right now.

Edit to add: I was going to suggest that you make a note on GC3E4D4, but I then realized that I had made a note myself on that one, and it didn't come up in the search. Something's definitely funny with the personal note filter.

Edited January 28, 2015 by The A-Team

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

The ability to filter by "minimum number of favorite points" is nice, since it's a little more convenient than using the PQ to do the same thing. What would be really great, however, is the ability to filter by both the "minimum number of favorite points" and the "minimum favorite points percentage." That way, I could search for all the caches in an area that have, say, at least 5 FPs and at least 25% favorited. Sort the results by FP%, and I've got myself a really useful list.

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

I got nuttin' when trying to search with one word of cache name

Works for me.... did you specify enough of a search radius to get the cache(s) you were expecting?

I can not enter anything into search radius, which may be the problem. (Windows 7, IE 11)I'll wait...

If you don't enter an origin location in the main search box, you won't be able to set a distance.

That wasn't real obvious to me. I went straight to the "filters" page. Once I updated the filters and went back and entered in the location I saw that I could enter a distance value. However, it would only let me enter a value less than 30 miles.

It looks like there is a lot of goodness there. The first thing I tried was a search for caches with corrected coordinates. I was hoping that I would get a list of *all* caches for which I had used the corrected coordinates, but it would only return a list of caches within 30 miles of the location I entered. I've solved well over a 100 puzzles for caches that I have not yet found and they're in locations all over the world. It hasn't been mentioned, but if the same search interface and backend code is going to be used for pocket queries i it would be nice if a proximity limit was not enforced.

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

One more thing.

When I filter for "Has Personal Geocache Note", I get 17 of my own caches showing up in the results, even though none of those has or has ever had such a note. The rest of the results are correct.

I wonder if the filter is checking for any personal note instead of just your own...

Good thought. Would you mind making a personal note on GC2VRDP, and then I'll do the search again and see if that one comes up? It isn't right now.

I added one to that page.

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

Ability to add selected caches from the search results directly to a bookmark list, pweeze.

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

Seems to work good for me.

One suggestion: It looks like you can sort the results by everything but the name of the cache. It would be nice to have that ability.

Also, there's a lot of white space when the list comes back. Seems like you could 'compress' that a bit to fit more results on the screen.

I could live without sorting by name if the proximity limit is removed. A 30 mile distance limitation is very constraining.

I'd like to know if the advanced search form and additional search criteria will be included for pocket query searches. If so, once you've got your results they'r easily sortable by a waypoint manager such as GSAK.

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

Please, please, please let it be possible to search by cache name only - without having to specify a location.

Let search by cache name be a feature on the front search page. Very often one wants to find a specific cache, mentioned only by name.

Thank you!

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

The ability to filter by "minimum number of favorite points" is nice, since it's a little more convenient than using the PQ to do the same thing. What would be really great, however, is the ability to filter by both the "minimum number of favorite points" and the "minimum favorite points percentage." That way, I could search for all the caches in an area that have, say, at least 5 FPs and at least 25% favorited. Sort the results by FP%, and I've got myself a really useful list.

That was one of the first things we'd asked for, but it's apparently quite complex to do at this point. Hopefully down the line they'll figure out a way to get that. Definitely is a desirable filter!

The first thing I tried was a search for caches with corrected coordinates. I was hoping that I would get a list of *all* caches for which I had used the corrected coordinates, but it would only return a list of caches within 30 miles of the location I entered. I've solved well over a 100 puzzles for caches that I have not yet found and they're in locations all over the world. It hasn't been mentioned, but if the same search interface and backend code is going to be used for pocket queries i it would be nice if a proximity limit was not enforced.

You should be able to, if you don't set an origin location. A locationless search with only corrected coordinate set should return all of them.

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

I know most everyone realizes this, but just to reiterate, the page isn't 100% complete yet. Some things may change before the official release.

We can't respond to each and every suggestion in this thread. But please know they're all being read. Also, a survey will be sent to Geocaching Premium members in the upcoming weeks asking for feedback about Advanced Search.

The team here has been working really hard on this and the player in me is very excited about the tools. I've got a couple weekend trips coming up, and being able to easily search for "challenge" or specific D/T ratings is really nice.

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

One more thing.

When I filter for "Has Personal Geocache Note", I get 17 of my own caches showing up in the results, even though none of those has or has ever had such a note. The rest of the results are correct.

I wonder if the filter is checking for any personal note instead of just your own...

Good thought. Would you mind making a personal note on GC2VRDP, and then I'll do the search again and see if that one comes up? It isn't right now.

I added one to that page.

Thanks.

So much for that theory. I just did the same search again, and got the same results. GC2VRDP did not show up.

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

The ability to search by date placed would be helpful. Also why do searches for US caches have to be limited by State? If I want to search for all Webcam caches in the US, I can't do that in one search. Same for being able to search for all caches in the US that were placed in 2000. It would be really nice to be able to do a search that covers all of the US.

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

The ability to search by date placed would be helpful. Also why do searches for US caches have to be limited by State? If I want to search for all Webcam caches in the US, I can't do that in one search. Same for being able to search for all caches in the US that were placed in 2000. It would be really nice to be able to do a search that covers all of the US.

As there is an option for "Canada", I'll second this one.

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

The ability to filter by "minimum number of favorite points" is nice, since it's a little more convenient than using the PQ to do the same thing. What would be really great, however, is the ability to filter by both the "minimum number of favorite points" and the "minimum favorite points percentage." That way, I could search for all the caches in an area that have, say, at least 5 FPs and at least 25% favorited. Sort the results by FP%, and I've got myself a really useful list.

That was one of the first things we'd asked for, but it's apparently quite complex to do at this point. Hopefully down the line they'll figure out a way to get that. Definitely is a desirable filter!

The first thing I tried was a search for caches with corrected coordinates. I was hoping that I would get a list of *all* caches for which I had used the corrected coordinates, but it would only return a list of caches within 30 miles of the location I entered. I've solved well over a 100 puzzles for caches that I have not yet found and they're in locations all over the world. It hasn't been mentioned, but if the same search interface and backend code is going to be used for pocket queries i it would be nice if a proximity limit was not enforced.

You should be able to, if you don't set an origin location. A locationless search with only corrected coordinate set should return all of them.

Yes, that works. The distance column has a "dash" in it. For search result order and sorting purposes, if a user doesn't enter a location, perhaps calculating the distance based on ones home location (assuming they've entered one) could be used. That was an issue with the old search interface. If you did a "cache starts with" search the results would be randomly ordered. For example, entering challenge in the old interface, the first cache in the list is in Norway, the second in Texas..

In the new interface clicked "clear filters" then I entered "challenge" in the Geocache Name contains field, selected update search and got:

Oh no, a DNF! We couldn't find any geocaches that matched your search. Here are a few things to try:

Clear individual filters by clicking the 'X' next to the filters listed above

Adjust your filters and search again

That's on the page when the big search form where no filters are displayed.

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

One more thing.

When I filter for "Has Personal Geocache Note", I get 17 of my own caches showing up in the results, even though none of those has or has ever had such a note. The rest of the results are correct.

I wonder if the filter is checking for any personal note instead of just your own...

Good thought. Would you mind making a personal note on GC2VRDP, and then I'll do the search again and see if that one comes up? It isn't right now.

I added one to that page.

Thanks.

So much for that theory. I just did the same search again, and got the same results. GC2VRDP did not show up.

A-Team, are you using this query: https://www.geocaching.com/play/search?originomitted=True&note=1 ? When I run that when spoof logged in as you, I see only one of your caches, and that one does appear to have a cache note from you on it.

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

I love it! Its well done and highly functional. Thanks for listening and I look forward its live launch!

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

A-Team, are you using this query: https://www.geocaching.com/play/search?originomitted=True&note=1 ? When I run that when spoof logged in as you, I see only one of your caches, and that one does appear to have a cache note from you on it.

Yes, that's what I did. I just clicked that link, and it gave me exactly the same results that I got earlier when I manually set it up. I get 100 results, with the last 17 being caches I own (with the star on the icon indicating as such).

Curiouser and curiouser... I just sorted the results by Date Placed, and I now see GC3E4D4 showing up (which does have a note). It didn't before I sorted. It still says there's 100 results, and there are still 17 owned caches at the end of the list.

While playing with the sorting and see more odd behaviour, I have to ask, is there a limit of 100 results? As I change the sorting (without changing the filters), it continues to say there are 100 results, but different caches show up or disappear depending on how it's sorted. What I'm seeing are a different 83 caches, with the same 17 owned caches at the bottom. For example, if I sort the list by terrain, I can see the terrain increasing until the 83rd cache, after which point I see the same 17 owned caches (always in the same order regardless of sorting) instead of more caches with higher terrain ratings.

Really odd. Hopefully you can figure out what's going on.

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

No, there's no 100-cache limit. I see the same results before and after sorting, with GC3E4D4 being the only cache you own to show up both before and after. Have you tried clearing cookies and cache just in case you have something in your browser that is messing things up for you?

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

In the new interface clicked "clear filters" then I entered "challenge" in the Geocache Name contains field, selected update search and got:

Oh no, a DNF! We couldn't find any geocaches that matched your search. Here are a few things to try:

Clear individual filters by clicking the 'X' next to the filters listed above

Adjust your filters and search again

That's on the page when the big search form where no filters are displayed.

Cache name is not one of the required base filters. (Because we are still tied to the old - and limited - database, we have had to add some boundaries to searches to avoid serious performance issues, and these are currently in the form of certain required base filters.) The base filters are:

Origin point
Hidden By
Search Only In...
I've Found
I Own
Has Corrected Coordinates
Has Personal Cache Note

As long as at least one of those filters is set, the search will run.

If you want to search for a cache that includes the name "Challenge", try narrowing down the search by including the state. For example: https://www.geocachi...=challenge&r=33

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

No, there's no 100-cache limit. I see the same results before and after sorting, with GC3E4D4 being the only cache you own to show up both before and after. Have you tried clearing cookies and cache just in case you have something in your browser that is messing things up for you?

Doh! I didn't even consider this oft-suggested troubleshooting step. After clearing the cache (as well as trying it on a completely different computer and browser), it works as expected. Thanks for working with me on this.

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

Cache name is not one of the required base filters.

That explains why my keyword searches were failing. It might be good to mention this somehow on the search page, including a warning/error if a user attempts to search without any of the required base filters set. Maybe even prevent the user from submitting (e.g. grey out the search button) if these requirements haven't been met?

Is it hoped that this limitation can be overcome in the not-too-distant future?

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

In the new interface clicked "clear filters" then I entered "challenge" in the Geocache Name contains field, selected update search and got:

Oh no, a DNF! We couldn't find any geocaches that matched your search. Here are a few things to try:

Clear individual filters by clicking the 'X' next to the filters listed above

Adjust your filters and search again

That's on the page when the big search form where no filters are displayed.

Cache name is not one of the required base filters. (Because we are still tied to the old - and limited - database, we have had to add some boundaries to searches to avoid serious performance issues, and these are currently in the form of certain required base filters.) The base filters are:

Origin point

Hidden By

Search Only In...

I've Found

I Own

Has Corrected Coordinates

Has Personal Cache Note

As long as at least one of those filters is set, the search will run.

If you want to search for a cache that includes the name "Challenge", try narrowing down the search by including the state. For example: https://www.geocachi...=challenge&r=33

So selecting "I have not found" and cache types won't allow the search to run? I think the "DNF" message when it doesn't return any results is kinda cute but it should probably display something else if the search doesn't run (due to the lack of at least one base filter).

This is probably a geocoding issue but when I selected "web cam" and "Wherigo" for cache types and "You haven't found", without entering a location, I got the DNF message. When I entered New York in the search box, I got three results, all within a few miles of New York City. Apparently it's treating New York as a city rather than as a State. Entering California instead of New York and I get the DNF message again. It appears that it doesn't allow a State Name for the location, and it should probably return a message which indications that it doesn't recognize the location (or use the lat/long coordinates when a state name is entered).

Overall, it looks really good for a beta release but I think that tailoring error messages appropriate to the error condition will help make it more intuitive.

Since this sort of thing is fresh on my minds, as I have been dealing with it on a couple web applications that I'm working on but would you like us to test for XSS vulneribilities?

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

So selecting "I have not found" and cache types won't allow the search to run? I think the "DNF" message when it doesn't return any results is kinda cute but it should probably display something else if the search doesn't run (due to the lack of at least one base filter).

Correct, that won't run. When that happens, you'll see the message "Please enter a location or adjust your filters." appear below the origin field, and the border of the origin field will highlight in red. I'm sure that the UX team will continue to tweak things if feedback indicates that people are confused by that.

This is probably a geocoding issue but when I selected "web cam" and "Wherigo" for cache types and "You haven't found", without entering a location, I got the DNF message. When I entered New York in the search box, I got three results, all within a few miles of New York City. Apparently it's treating New York as a city rather than as a State. Entering California instead of New York and I get the DNF message again. It appears that it doesn't allow a State Name for the location, and it should probably return a message which indications that it doesn't recognize the location (or use the lat/long coordinates when a state name is entered).

If you are putting text into the origin field, the geocoder is going to try to find a point location that matches that text. If your goal is truly to search within a state, then you need to add the state in the "Search Only In..." filter.

Since this sort of thing is fresh on my minds, as I have been dealing with it on a couple web applications that I'm working on but would you like us to test for XSS vulneribilities?

Sure, go for it!

Posted January 28, 2015 · January 28, 2015

Is it hoped that this limitation can be overcome in the not-too-distant future?

Definitely. We need to overhaul the data service, though, and get rid of the performance bottleneck that we currently have with the database.

Posted January 29, 2015 · January 29, 2015

Wont format correctly (centred) despite using the editor so have deleted. Overall changes fine. It set my location as a Sydney suburb when I live a 100 Kilometres south but can get around that perhaps.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Tuena

Posted January 29, 2015 · January 29, 2015

Wont format correctly (centred) despite using the editor so have deleted. Overall changes fine. It set my location as a Sydney suburb when I live a 100 Kilometres south but can get around that perhaps.

This all sounds like a geocoding issue rather than issues with the search interface.

Moun10bike can correct me if I'm wrong about this but basically when you enter place name information into the form it takes that string and sends it to a geocoding service (there are many services available to do this). The service parses the string, then attempts to look it up and returns a set of lat/long coordinates. The search interfaces then sets a "center point" based on what it got back from the geocoding service. The issue is that a geocoding service is only going to be as accurate as the placename string you enter. For example, if you just type in Springfield, it could be one of many different cities called Springfield in the world (I imagine most are in the U.S.) The geocoding service is not something hosted at Groundspeak, but some external service such as Geonames that can be called from a web application. Thus, if you are entering a city, state name and it's showing a location 100km away it might because the geolocation service is returning lat/values based on it's database and the geocaching site is just going to trust that those values are correct. You'll often see some odd results when entering zip codes as well.

Out of curiousity, have you tried setting your home location, or entering in lat/long coordinates into the form?

Edited January 29, 2015 by NYPaddleCacher

Posted January 29, 2015 · January 29, 2015

Rather than spelling out "New South Wales" in your query, try the abbreviation of NSW. I seem to get reasonable results when I enter "Shoalwater, NSW": https://www.geocaching.com/play/search/@-34.8508,150.74515?origin=Shoalhaven,+NSW

Posted January 29, 2015 · January 29, 2015

This is probably a geocoding issue but when I selected "web cam" and "Wherigo" for cache types and "You haven't found", without entering a location, I got the DNF message. When I entered New York in the search box, I got three results, all within a few miles of New York City. Apparently it's treating New York as a city rather than as a State. Entering California instead of New York and I get the DNF message again. It appears that it doesn't allow a State Name for the location, and it should probably return a message which indications that it doesn't recognize the location (or use the lat/long coordinates when a state name is entered).

If you are putting text into the origin field, the geocoder is going to try to find a point location that matches that text. If your goal is truly to search within a state, then you need to add the state in the "Search Only In..." filter.

This exposes the issue I mentioned before about an inability to order/sort results.

If I select "webcams" for cache type and select "Search Only in.." United States: California it gives me a list of the 18 webcams still active in the state of California. Suppose I live in Los Angeles. I can't tell which of the 18 web caches is closest to me and if there are none within 30 miles, search based on my home location won't show me any.

I imagine that it would be someone compute intensive, but suppose when creating a search within a region, you iterated over the results, calculated the distance from ones home coordinates (if the user has set them) then displayed the distance in the Distance column and ordered the results based on that value.

Since this sort of thing is fresh on my minds, as I have been dealing with it on a couple web applications that I'm working on but would you like us to test for XSS vulneribilities?

Sure, go for it!

A common xss pattren was caught and the fact that you've extended an invitation to try it tells me that it's something you've thought about.

Posted January 29, 2015 · January 29, 2015

so far my searches have returned the expected results. I love being able to select 'not found by'!

One thing for the wish list... the ability to convert the search results to a PQ or .gpx file so I can load them in my GPSr.

Posted January 29, 2015 · January 29, 2015

so far my searches have returned the expected results. I love being able to select 'not found by'!

One thing for the wish list... the ability to convert the search results to a PQ or .gpx file so I can load them in my GPSr.

I asked about the same thing. While we're looking at a new search interface, obviously there was some back end code developed to implement some of the filters that were not previously available (favorite points, not found by, has corrected coordinates, etc). Hopefully, this same code could be used with new form elements on the PQ page to generate pocket queries and produce .gpx files.

Posted January 29, 2015 · January 29, 2015

Please, please, please let it be possible to search by cache name only - without having to specify a location.

Let search by cache name be a feature on the front search page. Very often one wants to find a specific cache, mentioned only by name.

Thank you!

+1!!!

That's what I thought the situation was until I tried it out. I thought it just didn't work until I actually entered a location and tried again.

Posted January 29, 2015 · January 29, 2015

Keep in mind this page isn’t 100% complete yet, so some things may change before the official release.

The new search has many very nice features, thanks for doing it.

However, why the 30 mile radius limit? That makes some searches a lot less useful, for example for people who are trying to fill their D/T grid. Most will have to travel more than 30 miles from home to get at least some squares, and if they can't search a circle with a radius larger than 30 miles this makes things tedious, or else they have to resort to pocket queries which appear to have a 500 mile limit, but don't have some of the nice features in the new search (like looking for words in the title). And if someone is trying to do a challenge cache that needs a particular word in the title, but the word is rare enough that the nearest match is 50 miles away in some random direction, the limit is also a handicap. I hope I can convince you to raise the limit at least somewhat. If you're worried about someone sucking down all your data you could limit the number of caches produced, but then project-gc.com has it all anyway so it really shouldn't matter.

Second, it would be great to be able to filter based on hidden date: find brand new caches, or find very old caches.

Thanks again for the improvement.

Posted January 29, 2015 · January 29, 2015

Another tip: At this point you can enter "Home" as the origin and it'll search from your home coordinates.

Posted January 29, 2015 · January 29, 2015

I'm still waiting on the email notice to arrive.

I sure hope the search radius is expanded. 30 miles doesn't do much for folks in rural areas.

Posted January 29, 2015 · January 29, 2015

Looks pretty sweet! I just did a search for all caches with "challenge" in the name in Washington State that I haven't found and got 251 results. That's a search I'd been pining for, so I'm happy.

I see there's a Distance column, altho no data in it, so sure hope that will be in the release (and that you can do an entire state, not just 30 miles).

Huge agreement with the person who said we need to be able to download a GPX of the results - I'd hate to hone in on a set of caches and then have no way to export the data. Being able to add them to a bookmark list would also be awesome (or an alternative, since you can run a PQ on a bookmark list).

Thanks, Groundspeak!

Edited January 29, 2015 by hydnsek

Posted January 29, 2015 · January 29, 2015

I got nuttin' when trying to search with one word of cache name

Works for me.... did you specify enough of a search radius to get the cache(s) you were expecting?

I can not enter anything into search radius, which may be the problem. (Windows 7, IE 11)I'll wait...

If you don't enter an origin location in the main search box, you won't be able to set a distance.

That wasn't real obvious to me. I went straight to the "filters" page. Once I updated the filters and went back and entered in the location I saw that I could enter a distance value. However, it would only let me enter a value less than 30 miles.

It looks like there is a lot of goodness there. The first thing I tried was a search for caches with corrected coordinates. I was hoping that I would get a list of *all* caches for which I had used the corrected coordinates, but it would only return a list of caches within 30 miles of the location I entered. I've solved well over a 100 puzzles for caches that I have not yet found and they're in locations all over the world. It hasn't been mentioned, but if the same search interface and backend code is going to be used for pocket queries i it would be nice if a proximity limit was not enforced.

NYPC, re the 30 mile limit you're seeing, try searching without a location. When I filtered by "corrected coordinates" I got one of them returned from the Gobi desert, clear around the globe. I'd inadvertently set E instead of W for longitude. Answered the question as to why it never showed up on the GPS when I was in the right area.

On the request list, it'd be nice to be able to export the results, either to file or to a PQ.

Geocaching Premium members get sneak peek at new Advanced Search

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment