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.

+18 votes
It would be handy if there was a feature (perhaps a premium/paying feature), that you can specify a challenge checker and specify a set of coordinates and the feature would return a list of the nearest 10 geocachers that meet the requirements.  Or, maybe list up to 20 in ascending distance order, so that one could choose among the list for other criteria.    This would be useful if a geocacher would like to hide a duplicate to that challenge in their area (at the given coords) and needs to provide the reviewer with a list of 10 area geocachers that qualify.   I know you can check individual geocachers names for each checker, but for more challenging challenges, you might have to check dozens to even hundreds of likely geocachers and might not remember to check a few that do qualify.    I know Project-GC is constantly checking all premium/paying members to see if they qualify for challenges, so I assume getting a list of those premium members that had qualified for a challenge would not be a big processing hog.   I do not know if it also checks the non-premium members automatically (and just not allow them to know), or if this process would need to do a check for each non-premium members on the fly.   If the later, that would be a good reason to make this feature a paying member feature.
in Feature requests by Starkacher (1.3k points)
edited by Starkacher
If the resulting distances are given in whole miles (or kilometers) or groupings of miles 0-5, 5-10, etc, the exact home location would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine.   Or, the list can just be sorted by distance without actually stating the distance.    That would still be useful.  Also, a geocacher's inclusion in these results could (and likely would) be determined by the Opt-Out feature that prevents personal data from being shared through the API.   So again, I don't think that privacy would be an issue.
@Pepegeo your response does not actually answer the question and is based on speculation rather than facts. It is more appropriate as a comment and not an answer. Please consider following your own protocols by converting your answer to a comment as you requested I do the same in this thread
Thanks @Starkacher for explaining.  I decided to hide both of my comments since I felt they did not actually contribute to the discussion.
I personally think any thoughts are valid as it may shine light on an idea that was not considered by others.   Everyone has a slightly different prospective.
I understand and thanks for being candid.

Please log in or register to answer this question.