Return to Project-GC

Welcome to Project-GC Q&A. Ask questions and get answers from other Project-GC users.

If you get a good answer, click the checkbox on the left to select it as the best answer.

Upvote answers or questions that have helped you.

If you don't get clear answers, edit your question to make it clearer.

Lab cache hides in statistics on project-gc.com ?

0 votes
360 views

Now that apparently lab caches has been included in the profile stats (including, apparently, BagdeGen), I think it appropriate to bring up this old topic:

https://project-gc.com/qa/?qa=12205/lab-cache-hides-in-statistics-on-project-gc-com

It would seem that a lab cache hide does not appear. Not in the "Hides" tab, not in BadgeGen.

There is no precedence on how to handle hides on geocaching.com since they don't include hide stats at all.

Any plans to bring lab cache hides into the ProfileStats module as well ?

EDIT: They are included in the overall hide count, as evidenced by

https://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=fc493bac-ebc5-4a09-a567-da5b80e17001

asked Nov 18, 2017 in Miscellaneous by Funky_Boris (9,290 points)
edited Nov 18, 2017 by Funky_Boris
This raises the question: does geocaching's api expose the owner of a lab cache? If not then PGC cannot do hides. If so then I hope to see hide stats soon.
I think this is particularly rare...also I would have axpected, those caches do not have an owner...but the statistics of the linked user proofs.
Actually, lab caches do have an owner. Look up my cache hides. That they are rare or not is irrelevant. They are more common that ape caches, gigas and possibly even mega events. Also more common than block parties... need I go on?

1 Answer

+2 votes
 
Best answer
Project-GC does not have access to information about who owns lab caches, so we can't add this to the statistics.
answered Nov 20, 2017 by pinkunicorn (Moderator) (125,520 points)
selected Nov 20, 2017 by Funky_Boris
Right. I am selecting best answer on the assumption that pinkunicorn speaks on behalf of Project-GC.

This brings me to my next point about this thread, which I originally proposed 13 months ago:

https://project-gc.com/qa/?qa=12205/lab-cache-hides-in-statistics-on-project-gc-com&show=12208#c12208

"The reason I am asking is that from what I understand, Groundspeak are still developing the part of the API that project-gc uses to pull data about labcaches. My point is to throw the owner-part in with the other requirements so that it has a chance to get included before you call it a day with respect to lab caches :)"

That proposal still stands.
I do. I can also say that the changes that have been made relating to lab caches here lately are the effect of displaying the (little) information we have about them, not of getting more information. Integrating lab caches into the statistics is complicated since there is a lot of information that normal caches have that lab caches don't. Including, but probably not limited to: GC code, logs, difficulty, terrain. (They do have an owner but we can't access that information.) It's not possible for users to state when they found them so it's common that lab cache finds are listed for the wrong date.
I understand all of that. I even summed up why I thought it silly in the first place to try to pretend that lab caches are caches at all because they lack all of the traits of one. They lack not only GC code, logs, difficulty and terrain - there is a list of 18 items total that a normal cache would have that they lack. I summed that up last year (which somebody somehow found unhelpful):

https://project-gc.com/qa/?qa=11991/lab-caches-treat-them-like-caches&show=11992#a11992

From what I understand, the policy of Project-GC is to try to treat lab caches the same way that they are treated on geocaching.com to the extend possible. My point is that there is now a discrepancy in how it is done with respect to owning them.

I know that you cannot force Groundspeak to do anything, but from what I gather, you are one of the biggest and most influential users of the Geocaching Live API. If you stated your policy of trying to make your treatment of caches match that of geocaching.com and then lament that you are unable to do so due to limitations of the API, maybe the API would be extended at some point to allow you to treat them more the same ?

That would be my proposal at least :)

EDIT: They lack 15 of the 18 trait of a normal cache, not all of them
...