Locationless - Logs with co-ords that are close [Completed]

[caughtatwork]

The development list http://wiki.geocaching.com.au/wiki/Geoc ... pment_List has a few items on it. Someone mentioned one today. http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopi ... 08#p185308

Locationless caches: Alert User if co-ords match those placed by another cacher if the owner decides they should be unique finds...

At the moment, finds on locationless cache are not checked (nor can the listing owner decide whether to allow multiple finds against the same object).

As I have some time available, I thought I'd tackle the part of highlighting to someone who logs a find that their co-ords are very close to another find on the same cache and they may be finding the same thing.

i.e. You log a find. We check the co-ords against the other finds for the same cache. If they are within (say) 10m of another find, you find still goes through but you get a notification that your find may have already been found. You can then chose to check the other log and if necessary change your find to a note or delete it or even leave it there.

Is 10m close enough? 20m? Variation of co-ords on any given day may be quite a way out. 50m or 100m seems a little too far.

What are your thoughts?

[roundcircle]

20m seems fair to me.

[CraigRat]

agreed

[pwags]

This would be a great feature.

I feel that 10m or 20m would be too close... on a bad day, that's getting close to the error on (some) GPSrs.

Some locationless caches are for largish objects (playgrounds, BBQs, etc), so the logs could potentially be across a large area.

Hence, why not set it at the default that we are all familiar with, i.e. 161m? Or something similar? Does anyone have any locationless finds that you have claimed that are less than that distance from another valid find on that same cache?

The proposal is only for a warning, so any finds within the warning range will still be permitted.

Other thoughts?

[caughtatwork]

Hey, welcome back pwags. I thought we'd lost you for a while.

161m seems like a big distance. As you say, some things like parks may be OK, but things like BBQ's may have more than two sets closer than that.

As it's only a notification, any distance is probably OK. 20m is indeed within normal error range and as it's only a locationless, they're probably not terribly accurate anyway.

I'll start the coding tomorrow (while I'm sitting on the bench*) and we can discuss distances. The distance thingy should be easy to change.

* Technically I am a consultant and for the last 6.5 years I have been on assignment at a large Telco. My engagement ended last Friday so until a new engagement is forthcoming, I get to go into town and sit in a hotdesk and stare out the window (or code for GCA). Fun and entertainment for all.

[Laighside Legends]

What about letting the cache owner decide the distance?

[pwags]

Hey, welcome back pwags. I thought we'd lost you for a while.

Yes, been VERY busy at work... so been very quiet on the geocaching front. Looking forward to a big summer to catch up again!

I'll start the coding tomorrow...

Go for it... sounds like you've got a bit of spare time. Pity you have to stay indoors!

Cheers.

[pwags]

What about letting the cache owner decide the distance?

Oooh, I like that suggestion! Easy to implement, c@w?

[caughtatwork]

We can do anything

If I'm going to be playing with the cache owner setting the distance, then I'll add in the "number of finds" permitted at the same time.

This will mean the cache owner can set:
a. The distance from another found waypoint logged against that cache.
b. Set the number of finds that can be logged by any one cacher against the cache.

From the development list, this would cover these two aspects.

Locationless caches: Alert User if co-ords match those placed by another cacher if the owner decides they should be unique finds...
Place restrictions on number of finds if selected by user

The log proximity checker will be an alert / notification.
The number of finds check will error if you have exceeded the finds permitted.

[Big Matt and Shell]

161m seems like a big distance. As you say, some things like parks may be OK, but things like BBQ's may have more than two sets closer than that.

I think 161m is a good measurement, how hard up would you be for finds if you had to run around a park logging 3 BBQ 's 20m apart?

[Zalgariath]

Will it retroactively send notices to people who may have logged a couple close together... One email per offence? hehe

[caughtatwork]

Will it retroactively send notices to people who may have logged a couple close together... One email per offence? hehe

No. I know you're joking, but there is no offence. The proximity check is an alert. You are not obliged to take any action. It's informational and gives you a visual indication that you may not be complying with the cache owners wishes. Ultimately, it's your choice.

Most of the time you would find them without prior planning, so knowing which ones have been logged is probably not something you have to hand anyway.

For some locationless caches (like the survey markers) where you cannot easily discern which ones have been logged. At the very least with this alert, even though you have been there, you will now know you're logging something that has already been found. You can then choose to change your log to a note.

Question: If the cache owner does not specify a proximity, do we default to 161m? They can always go change it later if they like.

[caughtatwork]

Wheeeeeeeee!
http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopi ... 40#p185340
All done.

[Zalgariath]

Wow You have a quiet week at work mate? Huge amount if GCA awesomeness online in the last few days!

[caughtatwork]

On the bench, so quiet ... extremely.