soulnavigator

Nevermind, I think I found the list Here!

I've been reading and researching the history of geocaching. I've done a lot of searching of these forums and the internet and cannot find what I'm looking for. I'd like to see the list of the 75 or so original caches (that were posted on Mike Teague's website) and which Jeremy first transferred over to this site. However, I'd like to see them in order of the date of their original hide. I know just looking up GC1, GC2, GC3, etc will give me the original caches but not in chronological order because Jeremy first categorized them by state and then by date starting with Oregon. I'd rather not have to look up all 75 and organize them myself. I have read Moun10bike comment in some old forums that he kept a record of all the caches for a while in an Excel spreadsheet. From what I've understand, his list was organized by date. Is it possible to get my hands onto a list like this? Reason I'm asking? I recently found North Dakota's oldest active cache and will like find Minnesota's soon. I'd just like to know where these rank overall in terms of chronological order. Thanks in advance!

I am absolutely in favor of this. In fact, I was just thinking about suggesting this very thing today when I decided to do a search instead of start a new thread... Case in point: my Father-in-law who is not particularly computer savvy but loves caching has had trouble remembering how to retrieve TB's. I wonder why it's so easy to drop travel bugs from the cache's page, but you have to go to the TB's page in order to retrieve them. It didn't really make sense to him. It doesn't to me either.

If this is indeed the case (and I believe you, Starbrand, when you say it is) then can you please help me to understand why GC.com implemented the use of pq's? Because it seems to me, the only thing they're really used for is creating and maintaining data in an offline form.

It seems to me the geocaching mobile is speeding faster and faster towards being completely paperless. As a new cacher, I discovered very quickly that paperless is the way to go and I'll bet the trend continues to gain advocates. So, I think this thread is valuable and forward-looking. Obviously the archived cache information is there on the website. It's not like I'm asking them to generate new information. Instead, I'm simply asking that we be given access to it in a form that is a little more usuable. All they need to do is include the newly archived caches in the "is not active" filter OR create a new filter that only returns permanently archived caches. Apparently the need for this type of filter has already been determined because as FamilyDNA notes, you can pull these caches up on the map page - which is great for viewing but worthless for other purposes. The information is there, it's just not in usuable form.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...hl=offline+data It would seem to me that placing data into a handheld device (or printing it or storing it in GSAK,etc) is creating an offline database. It's not the entire GC database, though it can be quite extensive. The online database contains the information necessary to hunt a cache and if I am given that information from GC.com and place it in my possession in a different form, I have created a database. So, I think Jeremy is playing words a little if he doesn't want to call digital data in handheld device a "database." Even loading the files into my GPS is creating an offline database. The information used is limited and device specific, but I am using it without being in contact with the GC.com server. I think that's the key to defining what is and isn't an offline DB. All I am asking is that TPTB maintain a service they're providing by adding a simple way to include permanently archived caches in PQ results, at least temporarily. It cannot be that hard. In addition, so that I don't sound only critical, I would like to say that I have found the GC.com website to be intuitive and user friendly. As a relatively new geocacher, I have thoroughly enjoyed GC's site at every level. It is extremely well done and very easy to use. I think TPTB have done a fine job. I am 100% satisfied. However, I just noticed this fluke in the PQ's and wanted some discussion.

Ha! I love how the conversation has evolved from a "how do I..." to "do TPTB have a moral obligation...?" And it would appear that it rightly should. Traildad makes the best point yet, I think. It would appear as though PQ's were implemented to allow us to have cache info in a form more practical and accessible than carrying my laptop into the field looking for hotspots so I can get more caches. TPTB should be working on a fix to this issue so that THEIR service to us as a customer works at the highest level possible. If they implemented PQ's, they should be committed to making them the best they can be...

It's a fact of life that many cachers have evolved to use their own offline database such as GSAK - and if a gpx file does not have archived cache data, then it is not the 'newest freshest data available'. I have to agree with Wayne here. When I do a pocket query and a cache status has been changed from available to unavailable due to being labled as "temporarily unavailable," the cache is a part of the results and GSAK is updated. However, I'm not getting any type of indication about status changes on newly permanently archived caches. Now, obviously I don't want to get these listed forever, but I think it would be very valuable to have them included in the pq results for say 2-4 weeks (or whatever a reasonable amount of time is) during which time most users will update their offline db's and then the issue is resolved. But just having the cache "disappear" off all results is definitely not helping anyone, including people who are only using GC.com's database.

I ran a pq to update my GSAK files, generate info for Cachemate, Garmin, etc. when I noticed that a recently archived cache from my area was not a part of the results. It's obviously a GC.com issue and not a GSAK issue because the pocket query didn't include the cache in it's results. Here's exactly what I did: Ran the standard 100 cache 100 miles pq from 58436. I got the results I expected except GCVWX4 which just recently went into archived status is not included in the pq results. I re-ran the pq with "not active" filter set and still did not receive GCVWX4 in the results. My question therefore is this: I have already found this cache and so therefore won't be looking for it. However, had it been one of my unfounds, I may have continued looking since the pq didn't generate the cache as being archived. Make sense? I've had other "temporarily unavailable" caches update without any trouble, but they show up in the pq results, as well. I suppose what's happening is none of the permanently archived caches are being included in pq or search results because they'll never be active again, which is really nice most of the time. However, it would be nice if somehow the pq would generate the permanent archive status for a couple of weeks, or something so GSAK would be updated, etc. Any thoughts?

I voted. Thanks!

Okay....I think I'm beginning to understand. My next question is this: is there another way to create .gpx files without using pocket queries? Or are pq's the only way to go. And, previewing the information is great, but if I understand correctly, I cannot get it into my GPS unless the .gpx files are created and emailed to me. Am I right?

Okay...I just figured out how to delete them...

Okay. I upgraded my account to premium status because I wanted access to .gpx format. All good. However, I'm thoroughly confused by the pq page on the website. Here's some statements that confuse me... "You have up to 5 pocket queries run every 24 hour period." "*The Pocket Query can only run once every 7 days." "Because of the detailed queries, each search can run only once per day." So, I'm cofused about what can run how much or whatever per day! I'm sure it's quite simple, but I'm not that bright apparently. Also, can I delete queries that I've already had run/received or do they delete on their own? Thanks for the help everyone!