Synchronize My Personal Cache Database

[+BigFurryMonster]

I have a little tool for synchronizing my internet bookmarks (favorites). Works like a charm: at home and at work I now have the same set of bookmarks.

 

This got me thinking: why do I need to go about all this Pocket Query (PQ) fuss when I just want to keep my personal cache database up-to-date?

 

It would be great to have a little program sitting on my PC that can synchronize (keep up-to-date), with the Groundspeak server, a certain set of geocaches for my personal use. I would be able to select an area, or multiple areas, that would get updated.

 

This would have several advantages:

 

For me and you:

• Ease-of-use. I wouldn't need to bother with PQ's anymore. Granted, PQ's are quite flexible and useful when getting cache data for a new area, but most of the time I just want to have a recent database of caches near my house. Many times I don't care about the logs. PQ's are awkward to use frequently, IMHO.
  

For Groundspeak:

• Less server load. Everyone would periodically receive a certain amount of 'synchonization credits' that he/she can use to download any cache data. Premium members receive more than regular members. The program would tell you how many credits are needed to complete a download operation: downloading all the caches in the country would require more credits than just some local caches in the town I'm visiting this weekend.
  
• More paying members. If a regular member wants to use the tool on a regular basis, he/she should upgrade to Premium member, but it would be really worth it.
  

What do you think about this idea?

[+KoosKoos]

I don't see the appeal...I can do all of this with a weekly (or more) PQ downloaded into GSAK. It's all in a GSAK macro, so I don't even need to be at my computer to have MY personal database updated with logs, cache status, new caches, etc. for whatever area(s) I choose.

[+Prime Suspect]

I gotta agree. I don't see how this makes anything easier.

 

When I get an PQ in the mail, my email program extracts the file, renames it (based on the subject line) and puts it on my desktop, replacing the previous PQ file. I don't have to do anything. When I want to see what's new, I click the file and it opens in my favorite GPX file reader (it's my favorite because I wrote it ). Sort by date and filter by distance (which are already set up with defaults) and I immediately see the new caches in the area. Total time to see new caches? 6 seconds.

Edited March 4, 2006 by Prime Suspect

[+BigFurryMonster]

Now you're talking about email programs and GPX reader programs that are (currently) not available to me. What I'd like to see is all those kind of functions nicely aggregated into one user-friendly tool.

[CoyoteRed]

My thinking is the only thing broken with the present system is the lack of effectively and efficiently removing archived caches from my local database.

 

With all of the clamour and posturing about "stale data" I would have thunk that would be a priority. Apparently, it's not.

[+The Leprechauns]

Now you're talking about email programs and GPX reader programs that are (currently) not available to me. What I'd like to see is all those kind of functions nicely aggregated into one user-friendly tool.

While Prime Suspect's GPX reader software is not generally available, another alternative, "Watcher," is freely available. That's what I use, and it's likewise just a few seconds from PQ arrival to viewing new caches offline. I don't use GSAK, but those who do are always raving about how everything is automated and customizable. You can download that software, too... tho eventually you'll want to pay $$$ for it.

 

My thinking is the only thing broken with the present system is the lack of effectively and efficiently removing archived caches from my local database.

 

With all of the clamour and posturing about "stale data" I would have thunk that would be a priority. Apparently, it's not.

Delivering current data from the website is a priority. They generally do that very well.

Keeping a user's personal database current is the user's job. I have no problem keeping mine current. If you use a different method, stale data is a consequence of your choice.

[CoyoteRed]

Delivering current data from the website is a priority. They generally do that very well.

Keeping a user's personal database current is the user's job. I have no problem keeping mine current. If you use a different method, stale data is a consequence of your choice.

 

I think my point, and others' time and time again, is that they don't. Specifically, caches that have become archived.

 

As for keeping your database current, I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that you toss out the old data in favor of a new, complete set every time. It might be a matter of semantics, but that in my book is not "maintaining," that's getting a new one.

 

Me, if you would allow me to refer you back to my post where I said, "effectively and efficiently." I included both of these terms because I do, in fact, have an "effective" way of dealing with keeping my database current. The problem is the "efficient" part--like you, I have to download complete data-sets to extrapolate the archived caches. This is not efficient.

 

To get around the problem of having to send out old, archived caches, I had a solution to that, too. Allow the user to use the "Updated in the last 7 days" function along with an "Include caches archived in the last 7 days." This would still maintain the reason archives cache aren't included today, but also remove the archived caches from a well-maintained personal database. Plus, reduce server load and associated overhead.

 

...but I'm sure you remember that thread not too long ago, anyway.

 

You would think it a win-win solution worthy of immediate attention.

[+Prime Suspect]

If you're having a problem with stale data, it's because you're using software that retaining stale data. I open up a PQ to see what caches there are to be found. If a cache has been archived, then I no longer really care about it. Yesterday's PQ? Recycle bin.

 

Or to quote Franco Bertollini (Raul Julia) in Gumball Rally:

"And now my friend, the first-a rule of Italian driving."

(pulls off rear view mirror and throws it over his shoulder)

"What's-a behind me, is not important!"

[+caderoux]

I admire your tenacity, CR, but for some reason, everyone wants to keep getting huge PQs and stressing out the servers.

[CoyoteRed]

If you're having a problem with stale data, it's because you're using software that retaining stale data.

 

Huh! Two reviewers, now, have assumed I'm having problems with stale data.

 

I'm not.

 

What I'm having a problem with is effeciency. Not on my end, on Groundspeak's.

 

My setup is automated. Very little fuss on my end. However, Groundspeak is sending me caches that I don't need. I don't know I don't need them until I get them, but Groundspeak does and they send them anyway.

 

Not very effecient.

[CoyoteRed]

I admire your tenacity, CR, but for some reason, everyone wants to keep getting huge PQs and stressing out the servers.

 

This is apparently so.

[+vds]

However, Groundspeak is sending me caches that I don't need. I don't know I don't need them until I get them, but Groundspeak does and they send them anyway.

 

Not very effecient.

 

I must be missing something. I have all my PQs set with the 'is active' flag and I 'never' see anything that I don't want to see.

 

Only objection I have in the effective/efficient arena is that in my opinion it's too many mouse clicks to add something to my ignore list. The feature works fine though once I add something to it.

[+caderoux]

However, Groundspeak is sending me caches that I don't need. I don't know I don't need them until I get them, but Groundspeak does and they send them anyway.

 

Not very effecient.

 

I must be missing something. I have all my PQs set with the 'is active' flag and I 'never' see anything that I don't want to see.

 

Only objection I have in the effective/efficient arena is that in my opinion it's too many mouse clicks to add something to my ignore list. The feature works fine though once I add something to it.

 

Yet, the caches you receive over and over again aren't changing very often. This results in waste in server processing, bandwidth, etc. If you only received changes, it would be more efficient for everyone in the global scheme of things, but if you throw away old data over and over again, you can't receive PQs of just changes.

 

Right now, people who throw away their PQs can't help conserve these resources, while people who maintain databases can help conserve the resources.