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.

+3 votes
The Map Counties tool does not filter the finds - it shows total finds in respective counties and the filter applies only for chaches shown upon picking a county in the map.
in Bug reports by Jedelak (180 points)
I agree, when I ran the Map Counties for Texas all it shows is totals no matter filter I used so the filters are not working properly.

4 Answers

+1 vote
You can achieve something similar using Map Compare instead of Map Counties.

You choose your Profile name, Cache location (at least the country level), you add filters: show disabled + archived, you add the filter for which cache type or size you want to filter and you select show: one found (only this one, deselect the others).

'What you get is a map of, e.g. the earthcaches you found in Czechia. Underneath is a list with all these and if you click on "Location" the list is sorted by regions and within the regions by counties. Like this you can easily cross check with a list of regions/counties which are the regions/counties where you haven’t found a cache of the type/size you are interested in. (And once you know this it’s easy to find qualifying caches, I assume.)

Please note that for countries with a high density of caches and filtering for "standard" cache types/sizes (like traditional, micro etc.) you are likely to have an overflow error and not all caches will be plotted/listed. In this case you’d need to search by each region separately.

As an example I ran it for you with earth caches in Czechia:
by k+gw+a (11.8k points)
Yes, this is even better than the Map Regions it seems.  I will need to explore the many different permutations available via the filtering.  Map Compare is becoming my most popular and useful tool, lately.  Thanks for pointing this out.
0 votes
The Map Regions/Counties tools are not made to do anything more advanced than get at least one cache in each. The filters, as you say, allow you to limit the type of suggestions that you get but it has never been the intention that they should limit which of your finds were considered.
by pinkunicorn (Moderator) (160k points)
No matter what combination of filters I choose for the Map counties tool nothing changes, the totals remain the same so what is the point in providing filters in the first place?
So it's a feature not a bug.
0 votes

Map Regions works for me with your user as I would expect how it should work.

Selecting MapRegions shows the regions you got. By clicking on a region you see what you did in that region. Filtering shows a cachetype.

shows you should cache in Jeseník shows all possible caches in Jesenik.

And shows all Earthcaches in your missing county Jesenik.

by supertwinfan (17.8k points)
Looks as though the Map Regions tool is the better one to use but it doesn't answer the original issue.  The Map Counties tool provides filters that do not seem to work which is the point of this thread.

Posting it in the Bug reports category was the proper thing to do in order to bring it to the attention of those who work on programming.  I believe someone still needs to look into the Map counties tool to see why the filters are not working.
Yes, the tool is useful to see what types I have found in respective regions (there are 14 regions in CZ) but definitely it cannot be used to check whether I have found traditional cache in all counties...
I am aware that I have no founds in the last one county and the tool is good to show for example earth caches in Jesenik county. But the question is whether I have found at least one earth cache in any other county and the tool does not give the answer unless I click each county and observe whether there is at least one smiley.
0 votes
All the other answers here relate to how to solve the Jedelask's problem, or explain how the map works, but do not resolve the underlying problem. I agree with Jedelask that the queries behind the map are broken.

The intuitive expectation is as Jedelask requests - that when selecting a filter, that option should have an effect on the map. Either change the map so that the filters work as intuitively expected, or remove the filters or rename/explain that the filters actually do something else.

Personally I would like to see the map reflect the filter settings.
by the Seagnoid (Expert) (42.8k points)
I agree that the filter options need to be fixed otherwise remove them.