Jump to content

Enchanted Shadow

+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Enchanted Shadow

  1. Definitely not. If the limits were removed (or relaxed significantly), you would be able to do just that - I would imagine. Even if it wasn't a specific option.
  2. It might not be that difficult for *your* needs. But your needs do not necessarily match anyone or everyone else's. For my needs, I would find it significantly more useful if the current limitations were removed or relaxed. Why is that so difficult for some people to accept? The name is irrelevant. The concept is all that matters. I don't need geocaching.com in order to hide a cache and post it on a UseNet group, or a Web Log, or to tattoo it on my forehead. Hide and go seek is a fundamental game at heart (not meant to be a direct analogy, although it's very similar) - and no matter who tries to trademark, copyright, or patent it - they will not own the concept of it. And the concept is all that matters, most of the time. Well, you know what? It's a generally accepted rule of thumb that if you want something to be private - don't put it on the Internet. Once it's on the Net, anyone significantly motivated and skilled can access it - end of story. You can make it more difficult, sure - but at some point, you will reach a point of diminishing returns. *I* am not a "database pirate". I am a paying customer. I have no need to "steal" the information, because I'm *buying* it. As are you. As a customer, I have the right to express an opinion that the current services are good or not-so-good. You, and everyone else here has that same right. But how far do you want to take your opinion? Because you can also say that you don't want identity thieves to get any personal information on you, so you're against Blogging. And you don't want Spam, so you're against Mail Servers. And you don't want Personal Data Miners to be able to track what you do on the web, so you're against web surfing. I'm sorry, but to some extent, you have to take the bad with the good. Is it possible that someone will "steal" publicly posted cache coordinates? Sure. Although one could argue that if it's public - how much does it count as stealing. But, so what? This means that everyone who has a legitimate use for this information should be denied? I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. If you have a concern that someone might packet-sniff your GPX files as they are being sent to you - feel free to not request them. But please don't stop other people from trying to get the services that they need or want.
  3. Oh, I know that it's possible to work around the limitations - eventually. It's also possible to walk 200 miles - but that doesn't change the fact that it would be easier and more convenient if you had a car! I was just posting my own observations and opinions on what would make this site and service more useful to me - that's all.
  4. You know, if we were talking about a sport/field that has been around for 10 generations, I can understand a certain amount of tradition and "this is the way it's always been done" attitude setting in. But it's generally acknowledged that this is a new field - so it seems absurd that people can't accept diversity of opinion under these circumstances. Ai. I'll be honest with you - if this is how newbies are treated here, that temptation is going to thrive - and at some point, someone *will* act on it - and succeed for the very reasons that drove them to start that site in the first place. But by the same token, there's no need to "steal" anything from here. Such a site would be of limited use, unless the people who owned the caches came by to maintain the information - in which case, they would be providing it themselves (no need to "steal" anything). And that's completely seperate from the fact that this site doesn't "own" geocaching. It's like saying that because you drew europe on your map, no one else can draw europe their own maps. GrizzlyJohn, thank you for your support and understanding in this. It was a much needed breath of fresh air, and I appreciate it very much.
  5. Thank you for your insulting quote. I'll just ignore it for now, if you don't mind, and move on to the rest of your comments... So, Planet - please tell me... if you only get 5 Queries per day, each query yields you a 25-mile radius circle of geography, and you can and do travel on whim *anywhere* within a 400 mile radius - how exactly would you plan out those 5 Queries? You think you can get them to cover the complete area that you might be traveling within? No, I didn't think so. I suppose I could try and increase the effective radius of those queries if I limit them to ONLY caches with a difficulty of 3.45987 and a terrain of 2.9943860, that are between 6x6x10 inches and 6.2x5.8x11 inches in size, that were placed on the full moon of a leap year, and only by a person who had at least 1500 finds under their belt... However, while you might be fine working under such conditions - some people like to have the full set of choices before them. If you don't need or want choices, that's your prerogative - and that's perfectly okay. But please understand that other people can do things differently - and that that's okay, too.
  6. A PQ of 500 results yields a Zip file of a little over 700 kB. If we could use the daily maximum in a single query, we'd be looking at a file of about 3.5 MB, which really isn't that bad (unless you're on dialup). However, there's no reason why such a query still couldn't be broken up into 500 result chunks. You don't end up with different data, and you could still send it out in 5 seperate emails. The key is that the data contained in the results would be uniform to a single query - as opposed to having to do some sort of mish-mash, figuring out how to construct 5 seperate queries which would yield you results best approximating what you would get if you could run it cleanly as just one query.
  7. What I meant by that, is that if keeping an offline database was not important to people - no one would care for software like GSAK. But obviously, software in that category is very popular with users here - which shows that creating an offline database is not a small part of what your customers want. Sorry if it did. Reading is definitely different than talking and many nuances are lost. That's true. And if that's not what you intended, than I apologize again. It means you haven't done enough geocaches to know which types of caches you want to do. After you do a bunch you realize you don't need all 3,700 caches from your origin because you only like micros or traditionals or whatever, at x level terrain, etc. With some filtering mechanisms instead of a flood of everything you can get well within the 500 result. Which is exactly why having more choices is important for someone who is just getting started. Yes, but that's also why limiting search results can hinder people. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that the current system is unuseable. All I was saying is that it would be nice if there was more room to maneuver, so to speak. Perhaps in some areas, a limit of 500 queries might give you a 200 mile radius. But in one of my target zones, I get about 24 miles - and that's not much, given how much I move around. I can't always "call in", and even if I can - it's useless if I can't run a query and get a GPX file with the results immediately. That's why it's important for me to be able to load everything in advance - so I have it while I'm offline, and so I don't have to burden my trip with more chores than would otherwise be necessary. Perhaps others here can eliminate 80% of caches right out of the box - but I like having choices, and I like variety - and I don't see anything wrong with that. And for what it's worth, my comments on 500 results only giving me a 24 mile radius - *was* with some trimming. I cut out virtual caches, event caches, earth caches, and some others. That statistic is almost solely traditional style caches (including mystery and multi), and that's it. When you consider the fact that I have driven 6 hours away - on whim - just to have dinner at a restaurant I liked, and then drive 6 hours to go home again - perhaps you'll understand why a 24 mile radius means nothing to me. And perhaps you'll also understand why I can't always plan ahead which little circle of geography I *might* be driving through. I understand, truly I do. But not everyone here is an experienced geocacher. Your website ackowledges that this is a relatively new field. So, how can you ignore the needs of people who are new to this sport? And irrespective of the issue of experience - not everyone has the same requirements. I'll tell you - I could have 5000 finds under my belt, and I would still probably want to have more functionality out of your query system. As I said, I wasn't making any outrageous or unreasonable demands. I was just giving you my opinion, as someone who is new to this field and your site, what I would have liked to see different. If you're interested in welcoming people who are new to this sport, and your site - I would think that you should be particularly interested in the "first impressions" of those new users. I don't know what you mean by combining query rations. Please explain. I mean that if you only want to give people 5 queries a day, with a maximum of 500 results per query - it would be a nice thing if you allowed them to do a single query with 2500 results, and counting that as 5 queries. (or 2000 results would count as 4 queries - heck, maybe even allow 5000 results, but that would count as 10 queries - which means that it could only be run as the sole query over a 2 day period) That way, your server does not increase the load of database queries that it has to pull - but you give your users considerably more flexibility in how they use the resources you are allotting them.
  8. With all due respect, the way you do things isn't the *only* way to do things. Frankly, one of the reasons why I paid for this membership was, in fact, to allow me to build myself an offline database of caches. If people didn't care about offline databases of caches, why is GSAK even developed? I'll continue this below... If I took that wrong, than let me apologize in advance - but your comment came across as somewhat... patronizing and insulting. What does the number of finds I have logged have to do with anything? *Everyone* starts at 1 - even you. Just because I'm starting out, says absolutely nothing about how interested/involved in this subject I am. Geocaching was not only responsible for my paying a membership fee for this site - but it played a part in my shelling out over $600 on GPS equipment and software. Maybe that kind of money is pocket change for you - but it's certainly not for me. So the fact that I have *only* 1 find so far is patently irrelevant. Now, that being said - I'll tell you (and everyone else) why I would like so many caches. I travel a lot. And as a result, I am trying to incorporate Geocaching into my travels. I don't need to be able to store 3000 caches in my GPS, because that's what my laptop is for. I'll download the appropriate subsection of caches into my GPS on an as-needed basis. However, if I'm traveling through 8 states on a single trip - I would like to know what caches are in the region for my entire route, so that at any time - I can spontaneously pop open my laptop, see what's nearby, and go hunting. In addition, some of the areas I need results for are particularly cache-dense. I'll think nothing of driving 100-200 miles just for the heck of it. But 500 results will only give me a radius of 25 miles. That doesn't give me a lot of geographical choices. But, honestly? I don't think I need to justify anything. I'm a paying customer. I wasn't making demands and I wasn't making unconstructive criticisms. I was only making some wishful commentary based on my initial experiences with your site and services. And frankly, I don't need any other reason for wanting more results - other than "because I would like to have them". I apologize if this has come across as a bit harsh - I didn't want it to. But I'm admittedly a bit annoyed at the fact that my reasoned wishful comments has yielded a number of responses implying that I could have no possibly good reasons for what I was asking for. I have given you some reasons why more results would be useful. And I don't think that any of them are anything other than perfectly reasonable. However, even though your comments would indicate that you have absolutely no intention of giving your paying customers the additional results some of them are asking for - can you honestly tell me that my idea of combining the Query Rations is a bad one? You would not be increasing your output by one byte. And as a matter of fact, you could conceivably lower your server load (based on the number of emails sent out). I think that has some promise. You disagree?
  9. Well, if I do a standard radius search, accepting the default 100 mile radius - I'll get around 3700 results, if I remember correctly.
  10. Who said anything about actually finding 2500 caches a day? But it's important to know what you have to choose from.
  11. Hi, everyone! I'm a new member here, and I have a couple of wishes in regards to Pocket Queries - that I am *sure* are nothing new to you. 1. Results Limitations I wish that Pocket Queries had a much higher results limit as opposed to the limit of 500 results that exists now. If I do a standard radius search on Geocaching.com, I might come up with 3500 caches. It's sad that, as a paying member, I can only grab 500 of them at a time. 2. Using Query Rations to do larger searches Ideally, the Results Limit should be eliminated - or at least raised significantly. However, if nothing else, there should at the very least, be a way to use additional Query Rations to provide the continuing search results of a prior Query. In other words, if a particular search for a radius Query yields 3000 caches, and I'm limited to 500 results per Query, and only 5 queries per day - there should at least be a way for me to construct a Query that will return 2000 results, but perhaps at the cost of counting as 4 Queries worth for that one day. Otherwise, I'm forced to go through a convoluted process of mapping out additional points surrounding my initial one and doing subsequent radius searches in order to try and cover the same area that I would have otherwise been able to - if I had the option of getting more than 500 results. 3. Query Count Limitations While I'm on the topic of limits - I hate having a limit of 5 Queries per day. I'm sure I'm not the only one. 4. Running Queries immediately I wish there was a way to run a Query immediately - or at the very least, clicking a button that will process the query and email it to me within a guaranteed one hour or even two hour period of time. Right now, the closest I can get to this, if I need a Query run immediately - is to specify that I want it run on whatever day of the week today is - and hope that it still gets run. And that's aside from the fact that I have absolutely no idea when, during the day, it will actually run. So, if I need a Query run immediately - the current best I can do, is sometime within the next 24 hours. Maybe. Depending on when I make the request. Well, that's all that I wanted to say for now. I really like Geocaching.com, and I think it has a lot of potential. However, as a customer who is paying for this service, I just feel that it would be nice if it were a little more.... useful in its execution.
  12. I'd like to make a few suggestions for the Interface of GSAK, if I may... 1. User-selectable Font and Font Size for all Grid Data. It's a bit difficult to read for me, and I'd appreciate the ability to change the font and font size. 2. Tool Tips for the Column Headers, so that you can get a full name and/or description for what each column represents. This isn't an issue for the ones that are clearly spelled out (such as "Last Found"), but it is important for the ones that are abbreviated or are just icons. If a short description is included, it could also be helpful for beginners (for example, it's not immediately clear what the difference is between "Date Placed" and "Date Created"). 3. User-selectable color for the Column that the list is being Sorted by. (personally, I hate that yellow). 4. User-selectable column to show the Status Attributes. At the moment, you can only choose between First Column and Code. It would be nice if the Options contained a dropdown list of all the columns, and you could just choose the one you wanted to be highlighted by this. 5. Windows Color Picker for choosing the color of each of the Status Attributes (and the Sort Highlight color, as well). 6. Get rid of the User Flag column, and just allow multiple selections via the standard Windows methods (i.e. Control-Click to toggle a non-adjacent selection and Shift-Click or click/drag for a ranged selection, ) What do you guys think?
  13. Well, the first case you pointed out wouldn't work well, because there's no padding. Not only that, but that type of design isn't really well suited to having padding added. However, Pelican Cases.... I had forgotten about them. The last time I had looked at them, they didn't have anything small enough for what I'm looking for. But now that they've released their Micro series - that might actually work. Thanks for the reminder!
  14. Hi, everyone! I just purchased a Garmin GPSMap 76CS. And although I did pick up a neoprene "sheath" for it, that only protects it while you're using it - not really when you're transporting it. I need something that will protect it properly while it's in a bag - so that if the bag is dropped or is hit by something, I don't need to worry about the GPS getting damaged. What I'm looking for is a hard case with padding that will offer good protection to the unit, but is not any larger than it has to be (it still has to fit in a bag, after all). But I'm having the damndest time finding one. It seems that people are only making soft slipcover type cases. Does anyone know where I might be able to find a hard case to suit my needs?
  15. Well, that I understand - obviously if you're using those features, it's going to need an outgoing connection. However, what I'm talking about is different. I'm not using those features when it happens. I don't have the split screen display enabled. I just start it up and do absolutely nothing, and about 7 seconds later - it tries to reach www.gsak.net ( - on port 80). And it does this every time. That's why I was wondering if it might be a bug - especially if you say that it shouldn't call home. perhaps the option to not check for updates isn't working as it should?
  16. Hi, everyone! I have a quick question about GSAK. I just installed v5.0.4 Build 21, and even though I have turned off the automatic check for updates - it still tries to "call home". Is that a bug, did I miss an additional setting, or is it calling home for another reason entirely? And in any case, is there a way to disable that portion of it? (I dislike call-home functions on principle. )
  • Create New...