Jump to content

Enchanted Shadow

+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Enchanted Shadow


    But apparently not in a consistent way, considering that you, Klatch and I all have NT maps, but see slightly different results with different versions and circumstances. :ph34r:



    Good point. Perhaps it's worth a few other people calling Garmin tech support - it wouldn't be the first time they gave out incorrect information.



    I personally don’t ever use Find By Name because I didn’t see any logic to the results. The results weren’t organized based on distance from my current location. It was as likely to list something in the next state first as it was to list something in my current city. :mad: I found that useless, so I quit using it, which is why I never noticed it was gone until now. Sorry that it’s something that you’ll miss, though.



    That's the beauty of it - it finds by name regardless of distance; it's simply alphabetical. If you've got custom POIs, you might want to find something 50 miles away - Find by Name would bring it up in seconds. But if you used Nearest Containing, you might as well go grab lunch - and that's assuming it finds it at all.


    It all depends on whether you're searching for something relatively unique or not. If you want to find a Staples, than it's worthless, true enough. :yikes:


    It is there in find "All POI" and in the other categories



    And which unit and firmware version do you have?



    doesn't "Nearest Containing..." do the same thing?



    No, "Nearest Containing" is different for two reasons.


    1. It only looks near your current location (or reference), so if what you're looking for isn't nearby, it will say there are zero matches when that's not true.


    2. It looks for your entered text anywhere in the name, whereas "Find by Name" assumes you're typing from the beginning. That means that "Find by Name" will come up with something in five seconds that might take ten minutes for "Nearest Containing" to find, assuming it's close enough for it to find it at all.

  3. I have a Garmin 76 CSx and City Navigator - and ever since I updated to firmwares 3.60/3.70, I discovered that "Find by Name" no longer appears as an option for POI searches. It's still there when searching Waypoints, but not for any of the POI searches.


    Can any of you confirm that they removed this from the latest firmwares? Because if they did, I'm really annoyed.


    For those of you who are not satisfied with the limits set by the Pocket Query generator there are numerous ways to refine your searches; many of which have been pointed out in this thread. There are important reasons for Groundspeak setting those limits, foremost being that the site performs better when they are enforced, but also because we want you to visit the site frequently to retrieve fresh data. I'm sorry if that inconveniences some of you.



    PQs get emailed. I can get fresh data without ever needing to visit the site, so it's not an inconvenience at all. The current number limits, however, are. And as has been stated before, along with the increase in caches over the years, also has come an increase in members, and thus an increase in funds available to upgrade those systems.


    And that's aside from suggestions like the 52 Complete State files, which would almost completely eliminate the PQ load on your SQL servers.


    Ahhhh - but I myself have actually successfully used a butter knife as a screw driver. It worked. I was successful.


    But they never intended for me to do that and still don't support it.



    That's not quite it - after all, you said yourself that a butter knife makes a *poor* screwdriver. It's not that you can never make it work, but it's a lousy substitute under most circumstances. There is, however, zero loss of function if I take music from a purchased CD and put it on my computer or burn a mix CD.


    And in any case, while people might occasionally use a butter knife as a screwdriver, how many people *expect* a butter knife to work just as well as a screwdriver? Not many, if any. On the other hand, there are many people who want and expect music CDs to be rippable for legal reasons, and many people who want and expect downloaded caches to work with offline DB programs. And they both work perfectly with those alternate functions. That's the way things are nowadays - and just like the record companies, you adapt or you get left behind.



    oh BTW


    I would also propose that I slice and dice all that data on the servers and then when I get the result set I like (including a diverse set of criteria) - I download the PQ. Still allowing for everything you are trying to do.



    No, it doesn't allow for everything I'm trying to do. Are you even reading the posts?


    Offline DB: You can change what you're looking for an UNLIMITED number of times per day.

    GC Website: You can change what you're looking for FIVE times per day.


    Offline DB: Works, regardless of whether or not GC.com is up, down, running slow, or having problems.

    GC Website: ONLY works if GC is up and running, not having problems, and is running at a minimally useable speed.


    Offline DB: Filtering results are shown immediately.

    GC Website: PQs are unpredictable as to when, or even IF they get sent out. You can minimize the time by creating a new PQ, instead of modifying an old one, but that still means you might wait 10 minutes per change, as opposed to TWO SECONDS.


    Offline DB: You can save as many filters as you want, to be used at any time.

    GC Website: You are limited to 40 PQs, and if you have the temerity to say it's not enough, you get piled on by a bunch of people who tell you that there must be something wrong with you if you're not doing things the way they do.


    Offline DB: Works, regardless of whether you have an internet connection or not.

    GC Website: ONLY works if you have internet access.


    Offline DB: Filtering puts zero load on GC's servers.

    GC Website: Filtering puts load on GC's servers - not only their web servers, but also their SQL servers.



    How can you think the two options are equal in functionality?



    It is the same data up on the servers isn't it? Tell me why you think you can slice it and dice it better on your machine. I want to see a vastly expanded set of filtering criteria. You seem to be stuck on the idea that you will ALWAYS do it better. Tell us what criteria you want to see - that would be more helpful. I think we have a much better shot at that then ever seeing more data coming down the pike.



    GSAK offers more flexibility and more speed than GC's PQ creation. If you want to know exactly what it can handle, take a look at their website - or better yet, try downloading and learning to use it.


    Oh, and there's something else that's a very significant difference - the author of GSAK is very responsive and nice when it comes to user requests. GC on the other hand... I don't think I really need to finish that.

  6. You still don't get it. I run different filters all the time, based on what I'm looking for. I might run 10 filters in 10 minutes, while I'm researching. I might be in the mood for one thing, one day, and be in the mood for something else, the next. I'm not going to run any filters to limit the root data set because once I do that, I shoot myself in the foot as I can no longer change the filter.


    Do you understand, now?



    I still believe the ability to fine tune the filtering (at any time) is best served on the servers. All the data is stored there, it will not be changing there, it is the most current - so I should expect to be able to do it there. If I continue with the current scheme, I can change my mind about what I want 5 times per day everyday. And still get all the cache info I want for up to 500 caches in the 4.8 hours in between each change I make.



    <sigh> Let me try to put this in simpler terms for you:



    If I did things My Way:


    "Hmm... I have the time to grab about six caches tomorrow. I think I'd like to grab a couple of micros."


    --- Run GSAK Filter ---


    "Okay, there's two of them that are promising. Hmm... I think I'd also like to grab a couple of traditionals."


    --- Run GSAK Filter ---


    "Way too many. Let's try ones that are at least a Difficulty of 3."


    --- Run GSAK Filter ---


    "There we go, I'll grab those. I think I'd also like to do a couple of Mystery caches."


    --- Run GSAK Filter ---


    "There's a lot here, but they're not the type that I like. Hmmm... I remember liking the ones by Avroair, let's try looking for those."


    --- Run GSAK Filter ---


    "Aha! Okay, now I've got my list!"




    If I did things Your Way:


    "Hmm... I have the time to grab about six caches tomorrow. I think I'd like to grab a couple of micros."


    --- Set PQ to grab only micros ---


    "Okay, there's two of them that are promising. Hmm... I think I'd also like to grab a couple of traditionals."


    "... shoot."




    You talk about changing your mind up to 5 times a day. Well, I can change what I'm looking for 500 times a day (which isn't the same as changing my mind), and it doesn't require GC to be up and running, it doesn't require an internet connection, I don't have to be home, it puts zero load on GC's servers...


    If you still don't get it, I'm not sure I can make it any clearer for you.




    Jeremy himself has stated that PQs were never intended to create an offline database. He further states that he does not understand why people think that PQs have that purpose. Use the search - it is there. It is not Groundspeak's fault that you have made the choice to use them in an unsupportted manner. Do not heap the results of that choice on them as a problem that needs to be fixed. They created a tool to load caches into your GPSr and go caching. You chose to keep it. You chose to build it up. You chose to further slice and dice it. Don't go blaming somebody else for not supportting your choices.


    Many people use butter knives as screwdrivers. I've seen it. The fact that my butter knife makes a poor screwdriver should not be blamed on the manufacturer. I should not expect the cutlery maker to add a grip and interchangable blades because the original is not good at driving in screws. It wasn't meant to be used that way. Same for PQs. The mere fact that it "can" be used to create offline large data sets is not reason enough to say it was created for that purpose.



    I never said that PQs were originally created for the purpose of offline databases. That doesn't change the fact that many people TODAY want to use them for that purpose. Record companies may have *intended* for music to be listened by playing the original CDs directly. That doesn't change the fact that many people TODAY want to be able to load it on their MP3 Players, or create a mix CD from the music that they've already bought, or put it on their computer so they can listen through iTunes/WinAmp/etc... The companies and artists that recognize this are well positioned to flourish through the upcoming years. The ones who insist on standing by their original intentions, crafted years ago before MP3 Players or consumer CD burners even existed, are being left in the dust.


    That's a much better analogy than your butter knife and screwdriver one. Because programs like GSAK *intend* for people to use those GPX files to populate them. Your analogy is about people using an item for something it's not suited for - which isn't the same as using an item for something it may not have been intended for, but works just fine all the same.


    I am afraid - you do not understand - if you could do ALL of those advanced filters on the PQ itself before any of the data got to you - would the 500/2500 limits be enough for you??



    You still don't get it. I run different filters all the time, based on what I'm looking for. I might run 10 filters in 10 minutes, while I'm researching. I might be in the mood for one thing, one day, and be in the mood for something else, the next. I'm not going to run any filters to limit the root data set because once I do that, I shoot myself in the foot as I can no longer change the filter.


    Do you understand, now?



    BTW - your memory analogy is quite incorrect. The limit is designed around how many waypoints will fit into many GPSr units. That number (for even many of the newest units - [see garmin "h" line]) is either 500 or 1000. You keep assuming that the limits had (have) something to do with density or server limits or something. In fact the limits are designed around what a GPS can hold - that has not changed over the years. TPTB do not support the creation and use of offline databases. Never have. The idea behind a PQ - is to target the types of caches you would like to find in an area you will be in. Then go find them.


    What has changed, IMHO - is the need to do more advanced filtering - things like log length, number of logs, keywords in logs and descriptions, types of logs, date since last found - etc.........



    First of all, there have been various statements by GC staff that contradict that. Responses to requests to raise the limits often have nothing to do with handheld GPS limits - but rather, state that GC staff feel that the limits are sufficient for people's needs in general. In light of those statements, my memory analogy works just fine.


    And while I have not done an extensive search on the subject, I don't recall any staff member yelling at people because they stated that they used GSAK or a similar program. So, while the current limits might have been *originally* intended to mesh with handheld GPS units, that is an archaic standard - not only because programs like GSAK, that didn't exist then, exist now - but also because many handheld units can store much more than 500 waypoints.


    As to what has changed, you forgot something - nowadays, many people want and expect the ability to download cache data for the purpose of creating offline databases. Whether GC is happy with that or not is irrelevant to the fact that many people are using programs like GSAK - and *like* it.


    Cell phone carriers have long said that they don't support their customers unlocking their phones. They can say it all they want - the CUSTOMERS have stated that it's *their* phones, they paid for it, and they'll do what they want with them. And you know what? The courts have agreed with them. So don't use a company's position on something as the be all and end all when it comes to a discussion of what customers need and want. It doesn't work.

  8. Since you can get five PQs per day, containing almost 2500 caches, particularly if you set up your PQs by "Date Placed," how many more caches do you need? :unsure:


    Hilarious. :D:):lol:


    Except that there's a serious response. If I only like 10 caches out of 1000, than the answer to how many more I need is "a lot". Some of you really need to realize that not everyone is as... indiscriminate... about which caches they go for.


    ...So you support my assertion that we should have better and more complex filtering options for a PQ??


    I mean seriously, if you could target that data more precisely from the source your downloads would be more effcient and require downloading less caches right??


    ...and best as I can tell, gc.com is up running and available somewhere way north of 98% of the time.


    I'm afraid you don't understand. What I was saying worked best for me was the ability to run as many filters as I needed *** through GSAK ***. In other words, having a complete set of data on hand and being able to switch what I'm looking for at a moment's notice - which is something that you can't do if you've filtered the data set itself.


    Wow. 12,000+ caches within 100 miles is pretty cache-dense. Consider whittling down that data. One way, of course, is to find caches. I'm having fun right now, trying to keep my database below 10,000 caches. Between finding 14 caches in the past week and seeing a bunch of others get archived, I got the number down to 9991. :(


    Another way is to be selective in the caches requested by your pocket queries. If I ever max out my queries, I'd likely eliminate mystery/unknown caches, since I rarely hunt for them. Others don't like micros so they exclude that cache size from their queries.


    In your case I noticed that in three years, you've never attended an event, or logged a virtual or webcam cache. And, you've only found one cache with a terrain rating greater than two stars. These are criteria you might consider using to slim down your queries.



    As I've said before, I often don't log my caches, so the count is misleading.


    As to your other suggestion - I already limit the categories of caches that my PQs pull. What's left is still a large set, but I choose from all the remaining categories and difficulty/terrain levels, so I can't limit it any further.


    Maybe I'm doing the math wrong...

    1500 caches per PQ

    120 PQs per week

    1500 x 120 = 180,000 caches per week



    Ah, that was a mistake on my part, for which I apologize. My referencing 120 PQs per week was a tripling of the current limit of 40 PQs - but that's not a weekly limit, it's the total number of stored PQs period.


    What I should have said was that there should no longer be a limit on stored PQs. If they're already limiting the number of PQs that can be run, there's no need to limit the number that you can create to choose from.



    You made the buffet analogy - and I'll take it a little further, as it seems a good analogy. The cooks spend time and money maitaining the food, keeping it hot and the warmers running. They're giving out standard sized plates and most people are filling their plates and are satisfied with the food. What you seem to be asking for is that you want to go to the buffet with a bigger plate so you can take more food and only eat what you want. Isn't it possible to take a smaller plate back to the buffet and only get the food you really want?



    Well, the buffet analog worked for what I was pointing out - but it doesn't work so well here because there's no need for people to keep track of the total food on the table.


    A slightly better analogy here is computer memory. A few years ago, the average consumer PC had around 512 MB of RAM. That was fine at the time, but nowadays, there are software apps are showing 1-2 GB *minimum* requirements. Currently, people's needs and wants have caused the consumer PC to average around 2 GB of RAM. And the cost for 2 GB of RAM today is approximately what 512 MB cost years ago. The price is about equal, but you're getting more because current apps use more memory, and also because people are doing more with their PCs.


    What GC is doing is the equivalent of saying that 512 MB was sufficient years ago, so they're only going to offer 512 MB now. Sorry, but cache density has grown - and what they offer should grow to match it.


    Your comment makes it clear to me that you're not understanding my method, which is a common one useed by many others.


    The placement date is just a way to split up all the caches in the desired area so there is no overlap and no missed caches. EACH cache, whether it was hidden in 2001 or last week, gets updated once each week. The first PQ runs on Monday morning and covers the oldest 500 unfound caches, with hidden dates ranging from 2000 to 2003. The last PQ runs on Friday morning -- capturing all the newest caches before the weekend -- and covers caches hidden on or after December 15, 2007. If a cache got disabled or archived in the past week, I know about it. If there were three DNF's last week on a cache hidden in 2002, I know about it. I've never wasted time looking for a cache that the owner had pulled or archived, as the odds are good that week-old data is OK for the oldest caches.


    If you don't understand how to split up a huge area (in my case, 10,000 caches in a circle with a 150 mile radius), and how to work with the resulting data, please ask and we'll be happy to help.



    I understand that method just fine, and I use it myself. I think I just misunderstood what you were saying by bringing it up. For me, I use it to eliminate overlap, and it *still* takes 25 PQs to get a 100 mile radius. :(


    So how many caches do you think they should give you for you paying only 8 cents/day? Right now you get ~300 for each penny you spend. That's a heck of a lot of entertainment for 1 cent! :laughing: I actually think we are getting a great deal and a lot of people would pay more. :(



    See, you're making a few assumptions here - and I'm guessing that it's based on how you cache. A lot of people seem to cache by simply going through a list of what's nearby. These are typically going to be the folks that make comments like "I've found 1000 of the 2100 caches around me - therefore I still have 1100 to go. Plenty for me!"


    And if they enjoy doing that - fantastic, I'm glad that they can be happy with that. Personally, I can't stomach finding eight hundred lamppost/guardrail/I-had-30-seconds-while-taking-a-pee-so-I-thought-I'd-toss-a-cache-over-my-shoulder caches (and this is only one category, not all). In other words, most of the caches in a given area don't do it for me. So for a person who just goes down the list, you can say they get 300 caches per penny. But that doesn't hold true for me, or anyone else who's selective about their caches.


    I remember that someone else once suggested that they should just have a regularly updated list of 52 files, representing all caches organized by state. You have to admit, if they did that, it would significantly cut down on the load on their SQL Servers. :(


    Yet when people make these suggestion you ask them to get out of your way.



    I think you need to go back and read a bit more closely. I didn't make that statement simply because an alternate suggestion was made. I made that statement because you were implying that I was being unreasonable in not caching the way you and many others do.



    You have made your request and stated your reasons that you would like to download more caches in your PQs. With your 47 finds (and yes I read where you don't log all your finds and that you also look for caches that are not listed on Geoaching.com) I don't buy that you really have thought about ways to enjoy geocaching given the limits of PQs. But if you say you have and you must be able to download every cache in 100 mile radius than it must be so.



    I have thought about it extensively. And the maximum flexibility I can get to maximize my enjoyment comes from being able to execute as many or as complex filters as I need through GSAK - which occurs instantaneously, does not require an internet connection, and is not dependant on whether GC.com is running or not.



    I'm pretty sure that if Geocaching.com allowed people to download every cache in 100 mile radius many people would do it. Using GSAK and other tools you can set up much more specific queries that you can with PQs. In addition, you might get results in the less than 10 minutes that it generally takes an new PQ to run and be delivered. This would save tremendous time for someone who can't decide where to cache until the last minute before the head out the door. (Of if you have your GSAK data base on a laptop, I suppose you don't need to run a query till you get there). You may be different than others in that you want to postpone your decisions till the last minute, but most of the other responses you got were from people who do find ways to be spontaneous about where they go caching and are simply willing to do this with only the last 5 logs instead of the last 50 logs.



    You're making many assumptions about how I cache - most, if not all of them, completely wrong.


    1. Sometimes, I take several days to plan out which caches I want to attempt. This involves many hours of searching for what I want and where I want it.


    2. I don't always know I'm going to cache, or even have the opportunity to, until it happens. This has nothing to do with me being a person "who can't decide where to cache until the last minute".


    3. It takes so many PQs to get a complete listing given the current limitations, that given the useless restriction of 40 *stored* PQs, I don't always have slots free to add new ones.


    And here you go again, when you reference people "willing to do this with only the last 5 logs instead of the last 50 logs". Again, you're implying that my way of caching is unreasonable, and everyone else is doing it "the right way".


    I'm sorry, but it's not your place to decide how a person should or should not cache. If you want to do it with 5 logs - more power to you. If someone wants to do it with 50 logs, it's none of your business, and it's not your place to judge.


    I am not, nor have I ever, tried to tell everyone else that they're caching with too little research and too little data. They cache how they want to cache, and if it makes them happy - that's what counts. But a lot of you can't seem to reciprocate with that same type of open mindedness - and THAT'S where I take issue.



    Your way of geocaching may be just as valid as anybody else's. I have my personal opinion about this, but for the most part I don't care how a person chooses to cache.


    If you really want spontaneity, Groundspeak does provide a service with Trimble Geocache Navigator application for GPS equipped cellphones that gives you access to the latest information from the Geocaching.com data base any place where you have cell phone coverage. Of course there are additional fees involved.



    I appreciate the suggestion - but it's not an acceptable solution because:


    1. It requires cell phone coverage - many areas do not have coverage, or do not have reliable coverage.


    2. It requires a GPS enabled phone, which not everyone has (I certainly don't).


    3. It assumes that GC's servers are up and running, running well, and without errors - personally, I'd rather buy a lottery ticket than gamble on that one. :(


    I maintain three databases, all of which are updated weekly. One gives me all the unfound caches within 150 miles of my home. A second gives me unfound caches in Eastern Pennsylvania, where I travel several times a year. The third gives me the nearest 1000 unfound caches near my parents' home in Upstate New York.


    Even with running 30 queries per week, I still have room left over to run my "All Finds" query, or a group of five queries for trips to other areas of the country. The secret is using the "placement date" method to maximize the efficiency of my PQ's. The process is so automated that I don't give much thought to how many separate queries are involved.


    It will take me quite awhile to find all the caches in my "Home 150 miles" database -- all 10,000 of them. Last year I found nearly 1000 caches in nine states, and about 20% of those finds were outside the areas covered by my regular queries. Within my regular areas, I love having the ability to jump in the car and head off in any direction to find caches without any advance planning. That's freedom!


    Yep, I'm getting my $30 worth. :(



    The placement date has nothing to do with when a cache may change, be stolen, be submerged, or anything else - which is why I update all caches, not just the newer ones. So it doesn't really do much for efficiency, as far as that's concerned.


    That being said, if you think you're getting good value for your money - I'm happy for you, honestly. I just happen to feel differently, that's all.


    In 2002, I could order up to 5 basic pocket queries per day with 500 caches in each. It only cost me $30 per year.


    In 2008, I can still order up to 5 pocket queries per day with 500 caches in each, but with an improved interface, more selection options, and new ways to construct queries such as from a map, from an uploaded route, or from a pocket query. I can also get a query with all my finds, which returns more than 3,000 caches in a single file.


    And it still only costs me $30 per year.


    I think that's pretty cool. :)



    And I don't begrudge you that at all. But here's another way of looking at it...


    In 2002, 5 PQs per day at 500 caches each gave you all the caches in what radius?


    In 2008, 5 PQs per day at 500 caches each NOW gives you all the caches in what radius?


    And how many more members are there paying $30 per year in 2008 than there was in 2002? And yet, you're still getting only 5 PQs per day at only 500 caches each. To me, that's not cool at all. But that's me. B)


    As a premium member, or a non-premium member, you certainly are within your rights to request that Groundspeak provide additional service to you either free of charge or as part of what you already pay for. And it may be that the company will decide that because of the growth cache density or the fact that newer GPS units can hold 1000 or more waypoints they can provide larger PQs. Don't be suprised however when others post in response that they have no need for more caches and would prefer that those who do should pay extra for them. Also don't be surprised when others offer suggestions on how they are able to geocache using the current limitation.



    I'm not surprised at any of these things, nor did I ever say that I was.



    Don't believe that they way you geocache is so much different than any one else.



    The large number of people who reply to my posts on this subject whenever it comes up seem to make it pretty clear that the way I cache *is* different from the way a lot of people do it. So forgive me if their prior posts have already rebutted you.



    I suspect many people like to be flexible and spontaneous and would like to have an offline data base of all the geocaches within two hours drive from their home. But they realize that you don't need to keep all the cache up to date all the time. Maybe they miss that newest cache (or not if they also get instant notifications). Maybe they look for an archived cache every once and awhile (or you can get instant notification when caches are archived, disabled, or re-enabled). Sometime they might not have that one log that had a spoiler or corrected coordinates. They might still find that cache, or they might accept that sometimes you DNF a cache. You may believe you need more, but your not going convince people who are having fun making do with what the website already gives them.



    You are sadly mistaken as to what is going on, I'm afraid. I'm not trying to convince anyone that there's anything wrong with the way they cache (many of them cannot say the same). Nor am I trying to convince anyone that my way of caching is superior to anyone else's (also, many of them cannot say the same). The primary point I've been trying to make is that my way of caching is JUST AS VALID as anyone else's - and it is neither their place, nor yours, to tell me otherwise.


    If you're okay will all of those "maybe" compromises you list above, that is 100 percent your prerogative. But don't tell me what I should be happy with. I will remind you that I was not the one who started this thread regarding the PQ limitations. I am simply *another* person who believes that the PQ limitations are archaic and too constricting. If you're completely happy with them, than that's wonderful - honestly. But don't get in the way of people for whom it doesn't work.

  18. Worth repeting because some seem to have missed it......


    TPTB do not support the creation and maintenane of offline databases except for very short term useage.


    The idea is to go out and find the caches you have downloaded. Since you can get 2500 per day - should be a busy week!!!


    It would be more helpful to discuss increasing the filtering options for a PQ so we could more closely target the types of caches we would like to hunt.


    And AT&T obviously feels it's okay to give out their customer's info and allow the government to wiretap them without a warrant.


    I'm sorry, but just because the company wants to do something doesn't automatically make it right - and it doesn't mean the users/customers don't have every right to say that they have opinions to the contrary about what services the company provides and the method in which they provide it.


    I'm not questioning how you cache, I'm trying to really envision the need for 180,000 caches a week (your numbers, not mine).



    Forgive me, but I'm not sure I understand where the 180,000 is coming from. Right now, just to get a 100 mile radius, I need 25 PQs, which amounts to 12,500 caches. This doesn't take into account PQs to cover other areas which I may travel to. My recommendation to triple the current limits was largely a matter of addressing the exponential growth of geocaching over the years. To clarify:


    Cache Limit per PQ:


    The current limit of 500 caches is ludicrously low, given high density areas. Maintaining 25 PQs for a simple 100 mile radius is a bit much, don't you think? If part of the reasoning has to do with what older GPS's are capable of storing - well, then the individuals who have this consideration can simply set the number of results to 500. Meanwhile, users who don't have that limitation shouldn't have to be bound by it.


    PQ Limit per Day:


    5 PQs per day is far too little, considering what is stated in the paragraph above. Now, if the Cache Limit per PQ is increased significantly, this limitation doesn't have to increase as much - so they're connected to some degree. However, people who are traveling or who routinely travel a lot may have the need for many smaller PQs, and they would be constrained by a tight limit here.


    PQ Limit Total:


    This limitation is absolutely ludicrous in that it even exists in the first place. If you're already limiting the number of PQs that can be run, what difference does it make how many a user stores in his account to choose from? It takes up a negligible amount of space and zero load if they're not running.



    As for the need for greater numbers - other than the reasons I already gave in earlier posts, an additional fact to consider is that programs like GSAK offer significantly more flexibility and complexity in how caches can be filtered and searched - not to mention the fact that doing it offline is much faster and puts zero load on GC's servers.


    For example, if a user was in the mood to search for caches that can be driven up to and retrieved without getting out of the car, for days of truly horrible weather, that would require a complicated full text search and would still come up with pittiably few results. To come up with any reasonable number of them, it would indeed require a large pool of caches to search from in the first place.




    I never said that you or how you cache is wrong, I just said it wasn't right to request THAT many caches. You indicaed that you travel some 200 miles and never know where you're going to cache. I took your earliest New Jersey find and searched for active caches with a 300 mile radius. That equals 44,798 - far short of the 180,000 that you're proposing you need on a weekly basis, but closer to what you're looking for if you are proposing getting caches within 300 miles on a daily basis.



    Again, I'm not sure where 180,000 is coming from - but I remind you that having the option doesn't mean that everyone is going to use it. Are you telling me that you wolf down everything in sight when you're at a buffet? Of course, not. I'm just saying that the option should be there. If I build a system for someone, I'm not just taking into account what they need to do, but what they *might* need to do. It's the same thing here. You're also making the mistake of taking the suggested limits cumulatively, instead of considering the smaller packet-oriented way they might be actually used.


    For example, let's say, using my 100 mile radius (at the moment - 12,500 caches), I haven't cached for a month. If I want to update my DB so I have the option the next day, with 1500 caches per PQ and let's say, a limit of 10 PQs per day, I can update in one day - which means I can update on Friday and go caching on Saturday. This is reasonable. However, with the current limits of 500 caches per PQ and 5 PQs per day, it would take me five days to update - which means that if I'm thinking on Tuesday that I might like to cache that weekend, it's already too late to get a full update.


    This is closer to how the limits are likely to be used, rather than someone maxing out every single number possible all the time.



    Absolutely, so long as it doesn't interfere with how I cache or use the data. I believe that this data would put undue strain on the PQ server (no emperical evidence other than one has happened before with PQs barely running sometimes). According to your position, an increase like this would surely be used by more than just yourself. I believe that would overburden an already taxed system.



    It's not just the number of caches that's grown over the years, it's the number of members as well. This increase in income is what pays for the system upgrades that would allow for the additional load that comes with the greater numbers.


    Well then keep posting in here and see where what gets you. <_< Don't listen to people that have been there and done that. At some point you'll realize that you are doing this: bangheadsc2.gif, and then you'll come up with some creative ways to adapt with "the way it is" and the way it will probably continue to be. :P



    Just because a task is difficult doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing. :P


    I think it's great that we can discuss the need for bigger PQ's. I predict we're not going to get that, but we can at least discuss it. GSAK has given users the ability to store an offline database. With one membership, you can request more than 900,000 PQ's per year. That rounds up to one million, and is overkill for the average Premium Member. Untill you can get a significant number of cachers to drop their paid membership over this issue, an increase is probably not going to happen. So, don't try to convince Groundspeak to give you more. Try to convince Premium Members to give Groundspeak less. Good luck.



    900,000 PQs per year is completely inaccurate. The current limits call for a maximum of 5 PQs per day, which amounts to 35 PQs per week - which yields a maximum of 1820 PQs per year.


    This is not overkill at all - it completely depends on how people cache. That being said, I think I have to agree with you on your suggested tactics. Unfortunately, many posts which go against the common thinking here tend to be met with anger, derision, and/or scorn - as opposed to thoughtfullness and consideration, so an attempt on those lines is unlikely to get very far.

  • Create New...