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.

0 votes
15 views

Something appears out of sync with my info or the underlying data for counties in Florida (US). 

If I view the county map for Florida, it shows I haven't logged a find in Martin county. If I view Florida in the Map Counties tool, it shows green and 1 cache. My stats appear updated. It appears I do not have a cache in that county even though the Map Counties tool is indicating I did have a find.

Profile map of Florida counties:
Profile Map

Map Counties Tool view showing the county as having a find:

in Bug reports by Team DEMP (1.3k points)
edited by Team DEMP
What cache type is the one you found in Martin County?

Another question is:is the one you found at the border to Palm Beach County or St. Lucie County? Like a Mysty with original coord in Palm Beach and final/corrected coord in Martin County.

2 Answers

+4 votes
 
Best answer

The cache you found in Martin County can be simply viewed by the map compare query:

https://project-gc.com/Tools/MapCompare?profile_name=Team+DEMP&country=United+States&region=Florida&county=Martin+County+%28FL%29&onefound=on&showdisabled=on&showarchived=on&submit=Filter

It is Locationless reverse cache GC43BE, which is by default excluded from any statistics, since ... it is locationless.

If you want to include these in your stats for some reason, you can uncheck the checkbox in your settings of your profile stats and wait for the stats to update (not sure if this helps for locationless caches though -- it works for other exceptions)

by Jakuje (Moderator) (115k points)
selected by Team DEMP
Thanks for the investigation and detective work.

The situation is that it appears to be inconsistently representing these "exclusions" and this caused me to skip a county on my trip. I used the Map Counties tool to identify which counties I needed to find a cache in and the Map Counties tool showed green (1 found cache) in Martin County, FL. Yet none of the other stats/maps will show a cache found in Martin County.

There doesn't appear to be a way to exclude locationless caches from the Map Counties tool or am I missing an approach? If not, this seems to be a gap in the ability to use the tool with confidence.
Yeah. These old farts (cache types) make life and stats more complicated. They are not that common in Europe, from where Project-GC comes and really 99% of players today did not know anything about geocaching in 2006 when these were archived so it is really a problem for very small fraction of people.
From what I see how the map counties work it would probably require significant amount of work to implement this for very few people who are affected. But it should not hurt to fill it as a feature request. It might be easier than I though and it might be implemented in the end.
0 votes

I found this in another answer:

"PGC takes only the top level data (= country) from geocaching.com (and thus from the CO, who, unfortunately, can also assign the cache to the wrong country).

However, second (= state) and third level (=county) luckily are NOT taken over from geocaching.com but are calculated autonomously, mainly based on OSM. So, the first step to have correct assignments is to have correct boundaries in OSM, but as the change took place in 2016 I trust this has been taken care of (I just checked, indeed that’s the case).

Secondly, PGC has to update the polygon data. This is not an automatic process but needs manual input, and I understand that it is quite tedious. However, of course such changes to provinces as mentioned by the TO would warrant an update, and I assume that the wonderful people of PGC will take care of this as a result of this thread."

As Jakuje found you have found a Loctionless - this cachetype doen not have an county for the profile map.
by supertwinfan (19.6k points)
It indeed has county data as it has some bogus coordinates, but it is just excluded from statistics as I wrote. The rest is not related at all.
...