Page 1 of 1

Another GSAK question

Posted: 12 February 13 2:38 pm
by Hoojar
Newbie alert! I just imported the 'my finds' gpx files of two other cachers, so that I can then create a filter to show caches in a certain location that none of us have found. This worked a treat.

But, and this is a big but...

In the process my GSAK database now thinks that I have found all of the caches that they have found :-( Can anyone give me a pointer on how to fix this, other than manually changing some 5,000 caches!

Ahhhhh, it seemed like such a good idea at the time.

Thanks in advance :-)

Re: Another GSAK question

Posted: 12 February 13 2:51 pm
by Big Matt and Shell
I'm fairly sure there is a TOU violation in there somewhere...

I don't think c@w would like me discussing this here.

Re: Another GSAK question

Posted: 12 February 13 3:16 pm
by caughtatwork
You can share PQ's for that reason, I believe.

Personally, I would delete all of your found caches from GSAK, then load you own my finds back in.
You will lose any corrected co-ordinates and other flags you may have set though.

Re: Another GSAK question

Posted: 12 February 13 3:42 pm
by ian-and-penny
Do a Database > Global Replace > Found to Unfound.
Run the My finds PQ again
Filter for Unfound caches and delete them.

OR

Restore the database from one of GSAK's automated backups. You may have to go back a few depending on your settings and how many times you have run GSAK.

There may be a better solution to be found in the GSAK forum.

Re: Another GSAK question

Posted: 12 February 13 4:38 pm
by Hoojar
ian-and-penny wrote:Restore the database from one of GSAK's automated backups.
I've had a phone call from Big Matt and he is going to walk me through this.

Crises averted (I hope!).

Re: Another GSAK question

Posted: 12 February 13 4:48 pm
by maccamob
Once you have your database sorted using Ian's suggestion(s), you should do any future exercises like this in a separate database (ie not your default one). If you have GSAK V8, you can easily identify caches that none of you and your friends have found by using the "Geocaching.com access" menu. Use the "Get geocaches" menu item centred on the location you have in mind and the maximum distance you want from that centre point. Set up the other filter variables to suit, then under the "Advanced" tab, in the "Not found by" box, enter the team names you will be searching with, separated by commas. Click go, and shortly after you will have your list of mutually unfound caches.

Re: Another GSAK question

Posted: 12 February 13 9:25 pm
by Big Matt and Shell
caughtatwork wrote:You can share PQ's for that reason, I believe.
I thought so too until I read this here, http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index. ... &p=3530198 though I'm sure plenty of people still do it. If you have other information I'd love to see it. It would make team trip planning easier.

ClydeE had a workaround in GSAK a bit further down the list too.

Re: Another GSAK question

Posted: 12 February 13 9:48 pm
by caughtatwork
Well, I stand absolutely corrected.

I was certain that because all 3 of the participants were premium members they would have been able to combine their queries to determine which caches to hit.

Bummer.

Re: Another GSAK question

Posted: 12 February 13 11:19 pm
by Richary
Sad. Even though really a "My Finds" query is of little use to anyone else, and not really compromising their premium membership. So it would make sense that mates should be able to combine them to work out caches that are new for all of them. But that GC, and I guess the GSAK workaround is the way to go.

Re: Another GSAK question

Posted: 12 February 13 11:53 pm
by crew 153
You can get all the finds for each of the cachers using the macro GetAllLogsForUser.gsk

Re: Another GSAK question

Posted: 13 February 13 10:20 am
by ian-and-penny
If each member of the search group generates a GPX of the unfound caches in the hunt area from within GSAK, then a coordinator can use this GSAK macro to generate a final list.

I think that if the GPX files are generated from each members own data that this will not violate the TOU.