This object is in archive!
Wrong order of Geocaching waypoints
Solved
The order of Geocaching waypoints changes when updating a Geocache by "Geocache Live".
To reproduce:
- import a Geocache, e.g. multi-cache GC6XAQ8, via GPX import (GPX file was downloaded directly from GPX button in Cache listing)
- observe that the order of waypoints matches exactly the order in the listing (i.e. ordered by waypoint code)
- now update the cache by pressing "Share" button and "Update cache"
- after the update the order of waypoints changed; it doesn't follow the order in the cache listing anymore
The changed order is especially problematic for multi-caches that often have different types of waypoints: stages, reference points, parking areas, trailheads, final location.
The waypoint order is set by the Cache owner in the cache listing and usually follows the order the waypoints have to be visited in the field, i.e. the order matters.
By the way, one gets the same (changed) order of waypoints also when importing the cache via Live Map or bookmark list rather than via GPX import- seems to be related to "Geocache Live".
Maybe two possible solutions:
- adding a sorting possibility to the waypoints tab: e.g. sort by Waypoint code or by name or by ...; then it's a user's choice
- let the waypoint order always follow the order in the cache listing, no matter how the cache was imported or updated
The same problem 
Good day Thomas,
thanks for a bug report. We will look at it.
Good day Thomas,
thanks for a bug report. We will look at it.
Good day Thomas,
problematic task to be true.
In GPX file, waypoints are sorted correctly as you may already see. Unfortunately, Geocaching4Locus use method, which seems to return waypoints in "unsorted" order as you may see after update. And unfortunately this problem does not have simple 100% working solution.
I may manually sort waypoints received from add-on to match sort order of already existing cache waypoints. Anyway most of users download caches directly over this add-on, so in case, no such cache exists in app already (by for example import from GPX), waypoints remain incorrectly sorted.
As I see, in this cache waypoints are sorted by number and final point is last. Is this sort system used in all caches automatically or owner define points order?
Good day Thomas,
problematic task to be true.
In GPX file, waypoints are sorted correctly as you may already see. Unfortunately, Geocaching4Locus use method, which seems to return waypoints in "unsorted" order as you may see after update. And unfortunately this problem does not have simple 100% working solution.
I may manually sort waypoints received from add-on to match sort order of already existing cache waypoints. Anyway most of users download caches directly over this add-on, so in case, no such cache exists in app already (by for example import from GPX), waypoints remain incorrectly sorted.
As I see, in this cache waypoints are sorted by number and final point is last. Is this sort system used in all caches automatically or owner define points order?
Hello Menion,
thank you for taking care of this matter!
The additional waypoints in every Geocache listing are always ordered alphanumerically by their "Waypoint id". E.g. in GC6XAQ8 the order is006XAQ8, 016XAQ8, 106XAQ8, 116XAQ8, 206XAQ8, 216XAQ8, 306XAQ8, 406XAQ8, FN6XAQ8
You may notice that for each Waypoint id the prefix "GC" of the Geocache id GC6XAQ8 simply gets replaced by the corresponding "Prefix" given in the Geocache listing (screenshot below).
Setting these waypoint prefixes is totally up to the Geocache owner, i.e. for the example above the final was chosen to be the last in order since that's the final waypoint to navigate to in the field. But that's not a must (e.g. see here: GC7P2M4).
The idea behind is to provide the searcher exactly the order in which the waypoints should be visited. Most Geocache owners take care to follow that idea, especially for multi caches.
So when downloading caches directly over Geocaching4Locus and then sorting the waypoints by their waypoint ids would be perfect and solve the issue (imported GPX files that were downloaded from cache listings do always have the correct alphanumeric order, therefore no problem when updating).
Hello Menion,
thank you for taking care of this matter!
The additional waypoints in every Geocache listing are always ordered alphanumerically by their "Waypoint id". E.g. in GC6XAQ8 the order is006XAQ8, 016XAQ8, 106XAQ8, 116XAQ8, 206XAQ8, 216XAQ8, 306XAQ8, 406XAQ8, FN6XAQ8
You may notice that for each Waypoint id the prefix "GC" of the Geocache id GC6XAQ8 simply gets replaced by the corresponding "Prefix" given in the Geocache listing (screenshot below).
Setting these waypoint prefixes is totally up to the Geocache owner, i.e. for the example above the final was chosen to be the last in order since that's the final waypoint to navigate to in the field. But that's not a must (e.g. see here: GC7P2M4).
The idea behind is to provide the searcher exactly the order in which the waypoints should be visited. Most Geocache owners take care to follow that idea, especially for multi caches.
So when downloading caches directly over Geocaching4Locus and then sorting the waypoints by their waypoint ids would be perfect and solve the issue (imported GPX files that were downloaded from cache listings do always have the correct alphanumeric order, therefore no problem when updating).
Good day Thomas,
thanks for additional information. I've improved sorting of waypoints (there was none previously) so you will see in next (Beta) version. Let me know.
Menion
Good day Thomas,
thanks for additional information. I've improved sorting of waypoints (there was none previously) so you will see in next (Beta) version. Let me know.
Menion
Hello Menion,
that are good news! Will check in next release immediately and report back.
Regards, Thomas
Hello Menion,
that are good news! Will check in next release immediately and report back.
Regards, Thomas
Hello Menion,
works perfect in 3.33.1. Thank you very much!
Regards,
Thomas
Hello Menion,
works perfect in 3.33.1. Thank you very much!
Regards,
Thomas
Replies have been locked on this page!