Enchanted Shadow

What makes you think that 99% of people are happy with the current limitations? Because they haven't voiced their opinions here? If they've done any searching in the boards, they'd see how most people who suggest such a thing get jumped on by a whole lot of people who take it personally because someone isn't caching the way *they* do, and either be too frightened or too disgusted to even try to mention it. As to the other suggestion, it doesn't work because I use constant updates for all caches. Otherwise logs and changes wouldn't show up. A cache doesn't have to be disabled in order for it to be moved, or for some other aspect to be modified.

To your first point, that's not acceptable, because sometimes those stats are what's called for. And ease doesn't necessarily match up with quality. And to your second point - yes, I suppose that's always possible. But the point, however, is that geocaching has grown so much that the limits should be raised in general. If your employer is significantly underpaying you, what is called for is for you to get a raise - not for you to get a second job.

I posted a thread requesting PQ consolidation a year and a half ago. While some suggestions were made to help alleviate my particular issues, the number of caches in existence have made this more necessary again. However, at this point, we need more than consolidation, we also need larger limits.

Ignore this - the GC website burped and submitted this before I had a chance to type anything.

Forgive me, and please don't take this for being overly defensive, but I get these sets of arguments every time I discuss my PQ useage. I'm going to copy some of what I've written in the past to summarize the final list of items that every argument seems to distill down to: 1. Not everyone Geocaches in the same way, and not everyone uses PQs in the same way. 2. Just because someone does it differently does not mean that it is wrong. 3. People have every right to cache in a manner different than you ("you" meaning generically, not you specifically). Now, that being said, I'll give you *some* of the specifics that apply to me: 1. I travel a lot, and I don't always know where I'm going ahead of time. 2. I have easily and spontaneously traveled 200 miles away on *WHIM*. 3. I often do not have internet access when I travel. 4. Because of the spontenaity involved, ANY outage of GC.com is a day killer. And the outages/slowdowns are not sparse. In light of those items, I need a fairly comprehensive database available to me on my own system/laptop/gps. And given how often caches can change, or be archived, or be muggled, as well as how often one particular finder's log will make the difference between finding a cache or not, I make it standard procedure for my database to always be up to date. I hope that helps you to understand why I do what I do, and I hope this doesn't degenerate into another nightmare of users screaming "but *I* don't need that many caches downloaded, so there's no possible reason that anyone *else* would!" And as to your comment, "With 47 finds, you need that many caches to choose from?", I offer the following: 1. I don't always log my finds. 2. GC isn't the sole source of caches that I look for. 3. The fact that I don't have the free time to find 100 caches per week makes it all the more important that I have the ability to choose good ones, rather than being indiscriminate.

I have to agree that the PQ limits (ALL of them) are at this point very outdated and insufficient. To everyone who argues otherwise - I will point out again (as I have in the past) that different people cache differently. And just because the limits are sufficient for the way you do it does not invalidate anyone else's way of doing it. Personally, I use GSAK, I don't know where I'm going to be in advance, and I'm highly selective about what caches I try to look for. Being able to load up GSAK on a laptop wherever I am and look for caches that match what I'm in the mood for is vital to how I cache. For me, simply maintaining a 100 mile radius is currently taking up TWENTY FIVE pocket queries! And I can't even get that data in one shot, but it has to come over a period of five days out of seven - which doesn't leave much room for other PQs that might be needed on the fly. The growth of geocaching has accelerated significantly from when the current limits were first imposed. After all, how many PQs did it take to get a 100 mile radius, five years ago? How many does it take now? At this point, ALL the PQ limits should be at least tripled in order to keep up. And yes, that means 1500 results per PQ, 15 PQs per day, and 120 PQs per week. I'm sure some of you will say that that's overkill - and perhaps for you, it is. But for others, it's not - so please be considerate before you judge.

Fantastic! I'm glad it's not just me - I was hoping I wasn't just being dim on one of the steps. Unfortunately, as I refuse to use Google Earth for plotting routes, that won't do as a workaround for me. But if this is a definite bug with GC, than I suppose I can wait a bit until it's fixed.

Why not? All this feature is (or at least, should be) is a radius search emanating from a multi-segment line. I have two points picked out, and all I'm looking for is all caches within a specified distance from the line connecting those two points. Or did you mean that the structure of the file isn't valid?

I'm trying to explore the Caches Along a Route feature, but I can't get it to work. I don't want to use Google Earth, so I'm going the MapSource route (using MapSource 6.12.4). To my knowledge, I'm doing what I'm supposed to: 1. Empty new MapSource file with nothing but the Route 2. Save as GPX 3. Upload to GC But when I upload the file, I see an empty list - the route I uploaded doesn't appear anywhere. I created a test route with two points picked at random - here is the complete text of the GPX file: -------------------------------------------------- <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?> <gpx xmlns="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/1"'>http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/1" creator="MapSource 6.12.4" version="1.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/1 http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/1/gpx.xsd"> <metadata> <link href="http://www.garmin.com"> <text>Garmin International</text> </link> <time>2007-08-16T07:01:31Z</time> <bounds maxlat="39.5297578" maxlon="-89.6456909" minlat="38.0783833" minlon="-91.3967261"/> </metadata> <rte> <name>Test Route</name> <extensions> <gpxx:RouteExtension xmlns:gpxx="http://www.garmin.com/xmlschemas/GpxExtensions/v3"'>http://www.garmin.com/xmlschemas/GpxExtensions/v3" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.garmin.com/xmlschemas/GpxExtensions/v3 http://www.garmin.com/xmlschemas/GpxExtens...3.xsd"> <gpxx:IsAutoNamed>false</gpxx:IsAutoNamed> </gpxx:RouteExtension> </extensions> <rtept lat="38.0783833" lon="-91.3967261"> <time>2007-08-16T07:00:55Z</time> <name>I-44</name> <cmt>I-44</cmt> <desc>I-44</desc> <sym>Waypoint</sym> <extensions> <gpxx:RoutePointExtension xmlns:gpxx="http://www.garmin.com/xmlschemas/GpxExtensions/v3"'>http://www.garmin.com/xmlschemas/GpxExtensions/v3" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.garmin.com/xmlschemas/GpxExtensions/v3 http://www.garmin.com/xmlschemas/GpxExtens...3.xsd"> <gpxx:Subclass>010013ea70003a0084000d1bbf005f134102</gpxx:Subclass> </gpxx:RoutePointExtension> </extensions> </rtept> <rtept lat="39.5297578" lon="-89.6456909"> <time>2007-08-16T07:00:59Z</time> <name>I-55</name> <cmt>I-55</cmt> <desc>I-55</desc> <sym>Waypoint</sym> <extensions> <gpxx:RoutePointExtension xmlns:gpxx="http://www.garmin.com/xmlschemas/GpxExtensions/v3"'>http://www.garmin.com/xmlschemas/GpxExtensions/v3" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.garmin.com/xmlschemas/GpxExtensions/v3 http://www.garmin.com/xmlschemas/GpxExtens...3.xsd"> <gpxx:Subclass>010013ea70005e002e010d1cc0002c1c0040</gpxx:Subclass> </gpxx:RoutePointExtension> </extensions> </rtept> </rte> </gpx> -------------------------------------------------- Am I doing something wrong, or is GC experiencing problems right now? Or do I need to manually edit the GPX file somehow? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

I would like to request that cache attributes please be incorporated into the GPX files. Having them there would make it a lot easier to do more detailed searches in GSAK (and other apps, I'm guessing).

As long as it was done daily, and there were no restrictions on downloading, I would love that.

The Cell-Phone thing is useless to me as well. I'm often in areas with limited or no cell-reception, internet access via cell costs me additional money, and it's too much of a pain by comparison. I'd rather have an offline database. That way, I also don't have to worry about GC site outages.

1. I don't always log my finds. 2. GC isn't the sole source of caches that I look for. 3. The fact that I don't have the free time to find 100 caches per week makes it all the more important that I have the ability to choose good ones, rather than being indiscriminate.

I have the same problem. I checked it on multiple machines - it's *definitely* the GC site.

Accepted, and thank you. I think we can put this thread to rest - God knows it certainly got its exercise.

If I misunderstood your tone, than I humbly apologize. As to the rest of your post, what you don't seem to realize is that what I do *is* planning ahead. The way I do it, I *can* drive spontaneously anywhere I want and still have the caches at my fingertips. By planning ahead as *I* do it, I have *more* freedom, not less. That's why I find it amusing that you're telling me to plan ahead. Right now, I haven't found anyone who's doing a *better* job of planning ahead with circumstances such as mine.

Jeremy, if you look carefully, you'll note that I never directly replied to or complained about your first post in this thread. Your telling me that you have no plans to adjust PQs at this time and telling me about your plans for future service was fine. I didn't have any problem with that, which is why I didn't reply. Between that and the suggestion that I try sorting by date, I considered the original purpose of my posting this thread to be done and dealt with. My complaints about your manner and customer service were in regards to your third and fourth posts. And those had NOTHING to do with your telling me the state of things in regards to Groundspeak's plans for current and future service. So please don't accuse me of something I didn't do. As I stated above, that was NEVER the issue.

Actually, my initial post stated clearly that I *knew* the resistance requests for increased PQ limits are met with, and therefore that was NOT what I was requesting. Instead, I thought that a consolidation of the current EXISTING limits might be a good compromise. You will note, if you bother to read the original post, that contrary to your suggestions, I did not take a "gimme gimme" attitude, but instead - I asked if my idea of consolidating the existing limits would be an acceptable compromise. Ultimately, the line is blurred between need and want in this case - as no one is going to keel over and die if geocaching died in its entirety. That being said, take a look at what I stated about how I cache: 1. I travel a lot, and I don't always know where I'm going ahead of time. 2. I have easily and spontaneously traveled 200 miles away on *WHIM*. 3. I often do not have internet access when I travel. Now, you suggested earlier that I do all the 1/1 micros first, then all the 1/1 regulars, etc... But that doesn't work for me, because that's not how I like to cache. And you know what? That is ENTIRELY within my prerogative. Some people hate micros, some people hate mystery caches, some people hate easy caches - are you going to tell them they're being unreasonable in not searching for those? No, lest you forget, this is a *hobby*. You do it as you enjoy it. If you can't understand that, than I'm afraid that remains your problem. You also implied earlier that I can just take 10 minutes to generate an on-the-spot PQ. Well, let's examine that, shall we? 1. I don't always know where I'm going ahead of time. Therefore, where am I going to generate a PQ for? 2. I have easily and spontaneously traveled 200 miles away on *WHIM*. Therefore, I can't just generate a PQ for a 5 mile radius from me. It won't work. 3. I often do not have internet access when I travel. Therefore, I can't necessarily generate a PQ on the road. You say I haven't defined clearly why I need all those caches at my disposal. I think I stated it pretty clearly on my earlier post.

I'm serious here. I appreciate the feedback and will consider it. You realize that it's hard to believe that when you said earlier that you would treat me with excellent customer service *instead* of complete honesty... Insofar as the technical nature of my initial inquiry, the suggestion made by a few others to try sorting by date is a possible partial remedy. I will try that and see if it reduces the headache of management I have to go through now. That is sufficient for now. Any further conversation in this thread is going to be in response to users who can't possibly understand how someone could do things differently than they do, and general conversation relating to business/CS practices.

StarBrand, as I've tried to convey previously, the way *you* might do things does not necessarily work for everyone else. Just because *you* can't imagine any set of circumstances that would require what I do, doesn't mean they don't exist. And if you read what I posted about how I cache, you might be able to rely on a logical set of facts, instead of your imagination. How I use PQs are *my* way of planning. And they suit *my* needs. You want to take 10 minutes to plan? Go right ahead. I don't always have those 10 minutes.

A few points to be made here: 1. Minus the lack of sincerity and form-letter approach, that wouldn't have been a bad response. 2. Being honest and being kind are not mutually exclusive. 3. People aren't looking for superficial customer service. Saying you'll take something under consideration, while you're throwing out the proposal under the desk with nary a thought doesn't do anyone any good.

However, the more accurate version of that quote is that the needs of the many do not necessarily outweight the needs of the few or the one. Otherwise, think about where that leaves civil rights. I completely understand that point of view. I really do. My biggest complaint is not that some users aren't getting what they're asking for, it's how their concerns, needs, and desires are being summarily dismissed, and more generally, how they are being treated.

Thank you OpinioNate. However, my understanding is that Jeremy is the top of the Groundspeak food chain. Am I wrong? Because if not, than I honestly don't see how speaking with Customer Service will achieve anything. Please let me know if I am incorrect about any of this.

No. Apparently yours is. As usual, Jeremy, your customer service and understanding of your customers is lacking. I *never* at any point indicated that I thought my opinion should be the only one that matters. What I am constantly fighting for, however, is the right to have my opinion be ONE of the ones that matter. You and many other users are in the habit of stomping on users who do things differently than you. You *could* listen to them and treat them like their opinion matters to you, but you don't. And that's not saying that you should cater to every whim, but what constantly seems to escape you is that it's possible to say no politely, kindly, and with an explaination. And more to the point, to say no only AFTER you have given the opinion of your customers the respect and consideration they are due. To have this kind of behavior coming from other users is bad enough, but from management? You need to get some training in Customer Service. And that is not a personal attack, but an honest opinion.

To your first point, actually *yours* is the poor analogy. Offering a disconnected pocket google of their search index is not normally a service they offer. Whereas, the equivalent, in the form of PQs *is* a service that your customers are paying for. To your second point, I acknowledged the advice I was given, and admitted that it might help. How is that ignoring anyone?