cheesepizza
-
Posts
8 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by cheesepizza
-
-
You might be surbrised to find out that Groundspeak is not a democracy. You might also note that polls are turned off in these forums. Now you know why.So far in the 66 replies, there have been 25 members.
13 for upping the limit
4 against
8 neutral (did not mention limits)
I think the yes vote has it so far.
Oh, I know only too well that Groundspeak is not a democracy. I am not under any illusion that GS listens to it's members. But, if you do not ask, you get nothing. Result may be the same, but at least I feel like I am a member of the organization. After all I am paying a yearly membership.
Groundspeak may not be a democracy, but in the real business world (not that I have experience there
) a company that doesn't listen to its customers doesn't last long. Thirteen compared to the total number of premium members probably wouldn't even register as a percentage, so it may not be in their best interest to change. We can hope, though, that they live by their Management Ethos# Resolve – problems and issues by proposing solutions and being open to other people's ideas
-
Perhaps, but it is not meant to be maintained. It is meant to be used and discarded.
Yes, a data "snapshot" is a better term.
You guys are clearly making this up as you go along! In searching the GC.com website, we find that GSAK is, indeed, supported software....its main purpose is to maintain a database of geocaches.
Further, in the License Agreement on the Pocket Query page there is no restriction requiring you to use and discard your PQ data. In fact, the following clause allows you to keep it.
• Licensee may make only one (1) copy of the original Data for archival purposes unless the right to make additional copies is granted to Licensee in writing by Groundspeak.
The License Agreement also allows you to merge and manipulate data sets.....in effect, allowing you to create a de facto database!
• Licensee may modify the Data and merge other data sets with the Data for Licensee's own internal use. The portions of the Data merged with other data sets will continue to be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
-
My apologies to Plasma Boy for somewhat hijacking his thread. In my view more PQs and greater cache limit aren't mutually exclusive. In response to the OP, I agree that more PQs would allow for efficient targeting of specific geocaching areas with more up to date data....and therefore would be a good thing. There's a BUT in here......but I'll let it go.
-
Well then, the simple answer is that this is the way that Groundspeak wants to run their business. Sorry.
Well GOF... I don't believe I ever asked a question!
-
That is my question. What is the need or usefulness of your offline database? It is more efficient to pick the area you are headed to and run a fresh PQ without all the work to clean the data in an attempt to ensure it is up to date. You can't find more than 500 caches in a day anyways. Even if you could you get 5 PQs to do it in. I honestly do not understand why anyone would want to keep a large database full of outdated information.
I don't understand why your insistent on raising irrelevant points about number of caches found in a day...it has no bearing on the want to keep an offline database, which is the point of the thread. The answer to your question is simple: It allows me to geocache the I way want to!
-
More pocket queries is the only answer to the inane 500 cache limit. 40 PQs and the 500 limit might have been adequate in the early years of geocaching but since the huge gain in popularity they are a hindrance. Raising the cache limit to 1000 or even 2500 will not affect database performance and would ease the need for 40+ PQs.
What possible need is there to PQ 2500 caches? Even the claimed record number of finds claimed for one day is less than the limit of 500 caches. So much easier to just run a fresh PQ when you are ready to go.
Bookmark those power trails you want to chase down. Then when you are ready you can zip of a run and head for the area.
I don't see the relevance of your link between my need of a greater PQ limit and the number of caches found in a day. It's all about maintaining an offline database and geocaching the way I want to.
-
More pocket queries is the only answer to the inane 500 cache limit. 40 PQs and the 500 limit might have been adequate in the early years of geocaching but since the huge gain in popularity they are a hindrance. Raising the cache limit to 1000 or even 2500 will not affect database performance and would ease the need for 40+ PQs.
) a company that doesn't listen to its customers doesn't last long. Thirteen compared to the total number of premium members probably wouldn't even register as a percentage, so it may not be in their best interest to change. We can hope, though, that they live by their Management Ethos
Pocket Query Limit
in General geocaching topics
Posted
People always want more. It's human nature.