Pre-run pocket queries: everybody wins!

[+tr1976]

Hi all,

 

I'm wondering whether it would make sense to offer pre-run pocket queries to at least the premium members?

 

They could be updated daily or weekly, and one query could cover e.g. one US state or a country. I am quite

certain that it would

1. reduce the DB server load in gc.com
   
2. save people's time figuring out the pocket query combinations to cover an area
   

There are currently several sites leeching stats from gc.com in unoptimal ways as there is no real API

for 3rd party sites. Those could also use the same zip files and more load would be away from the DB

server again.

 

This was a free hint, but I could pay twice the premium membership fee if this service was available.

 

Best regards,

tr1976

[+StarBrand]

Why not use the wesite to get the freshest possible information? It changes rapidly.

 

Also TPTB are on record as not supporting the use of "offline" databases except for very short term caching use. (As in load up the GPSr for a day of caching).

[+tr1976]

Why not use the wesite to get the freshest possible information? It changes rapidly.

 

Because the website may be out of reach during the whole trip. How do you see printed cache

descriptions being up to date? Do you have wifi in Yellowstone?

 

I don't mind if even 1% of the caches get disabled or archived after downloading the database if the database

consists of 10K caches and I can find 100 without extreme planning.

 

tr1976

[+sbell111]

Why not use the wesite to get the freshest possible information? It changes rapidly.

 

Because the website may be out of reach during the whole trip. How do you see printed cache

descriptions being up to date? Do you have wifi in Yellowstone?

 

I don't mind if even 1% of the caches get disabled or archived after downloading the database if the database

consists of 10K caches and I can find 100 without extreme planning.

 

tr1976

Either way, TPTB are on record saying that this will not happen.

[+tr1976]

Why not use the wesite to get the freshest possible information? It changes rapidly.

 

Because the website may be out of reach during the whole trip. How do you see printed cache

descriptions being up to date? Do you have wifi in Yellowstone?

 

I don't mind if even 1% of the caches get disabled or archived after downloading the database if the database

consists of 10K caches and I can find 100 without extreme planning.

 

tr1976

Either way, TPTB are on record saying that this will not happen.

 

What is TPTB?

 

What is the reasoning?

 

Is it better that everybody writes their own script that crawls through all cache pages of Michigan

than gc.com offering a Michigan.zip?

 

Yeah, just buy new servers.

 

tr1976

[+StarBrand]

Do you have wifi in Yellowstone?

 

Actually "yes". At Yellowstone Village, Mammoth Hot Springs and probably a few other select spots.

 

The real problem is that you won't find anything other than virtual caches there because they tradtional geocaches are banned in US National Park areas.

 

edit to clarify

Edited April 17, 2007 by StarBrand

[+sTeamTraen]

I don't mind if even 1% of the caches get disabled or archived after downloading the database if the database consists of 10K caches and I can find 100 without extreme planning.

 

You don't. Others might. This way, it's clearly the seeker's problem.

 

What is TPTB?

 

TPTP = "The Powers That Be", which makes little grammatical sense (often, as in this case, because English has moved on since the version of the Bible, from which it comes, was translated), but is one of those "pre-canned" English expressions with a meaning. In this case it's a euphemism - of sorts - for those parts of the multi-billion dollar Groundspeak empire where decisions get made. And as always, Wikipedia is your friend.

 

What is the reasoning?

 

The reasoning could be debated, but it won't be, at least for the time being. It's been raised countless times and I think that the chances that TPTB™ will suddenly say "You know what? You're right!" are fairly minimal.

From the cacher's point of view I can see a number of advantages, but firstly, we don't have the big picture, and secondly, we don't have to sell our houses if we pick wrong.

 

The other issue with pre-run PQs is that it would cause a line to form from here to the moon of people saying "can I have all Trads older than six months in Maryland" or "all letterbox hybrids in Canada not placed by this one guy I don't like". (I have a solution for that: PQs you define yourself! )

Edited April 17, 2007 by sTeamTraen

[+tr1976]

I don't mind if even 1% of the caches get disabled or archived after downloading the database if the database consists of 10K caches and I can find 100 without extreme planning.

You don't. Others might. This way, it's clearly the seeker's problem.

 

It's better to have some coordinates with you than nothing. Helps finding something.

 

What is TPTB?

 

TPTP = "The Powers That Be", which makes little grammatical sense (often, as in this case, because English has moved on since the version of the Bible, from which it comes, was translated), but is one of those "pre-canned" English expressions with a meaning. In this case it's a euphemism - of sorts - for those parts of the multi-billion dollar Groundspeak empire where decisions get made. And as always, Wikipedia is your friend.

 

Thanks. English is just one of my foreign languages so bear with me

 

What is the reasoning?

 

The reasoning could be debated, but it won't be, at least for the time being. It's been raised countless times and I think that the chances that TPTB™ will suddenly say "You know what? You're right!" are fairly minimal.

From the cacher's point of view I can see a number of advantages, but firstly, we don't have the big picture, and secondly, we don't have to sell our houses if we pick wrong.

 

The other issue with pre-run PQs is that it would cause a line to form from here to the moon of people saying "can I have all Trads older than six months in Maryland" or "all letterbox hybrids in Canada not placed by this one guy I don't like". (I have a solution for that: PQs you define yourself! )

 

 

OK... If they wan't more hits to the DB then it's fine. It's their business.

 

I know it's quite difficult to say "hey, that's right, I didn't think of that, but I'll implement it for you".

 

And, as I said in the beginning, further filtering of the database is up to the users. As long as the

area is covered everything is fine.

 

Dont get me wrong: I always prefer on-line access to gc.com, but if it is not available, then it's really

really really nice to have stored (even outdated) cache coordinates and descriptions. So, even with

the new service, I would use gc.com as much as today, and I am quite sure all (interactive users)

would.

 

Cheers,

tr1976

Edited April 17, 2007 by tr1976

[+tr1976]

Do you have wifi in Yellowstone?

 

Actually "yes". At Yellowstone Village, Mammoth Hot Springs and probably a few other select spots.

 

The real problem is that you won't find anything other than virtual caches there because they tradtional geocaches are banned in US National Park areas.

 

OK. That was just an example. What if you have wifi everywhere, all the time. Then your device with the

wifi interface breaks. Then what? Stop geocaching and start drinking beer?

 

-tr1976

[+StarBrand]

OK... If they wan't more hits to the DB then it's fine. It's their business.

Actually I think they want more web hits as that equals revenue from advertisers.

 

I know it's quite difficult to say "hey, that's right, I didn't think of that, but I'll implement it for you".

I know they have thought of the idea but dismissed it. Remember the only real asset they have is the latest and greatest database full of caches. Giving it all away would not be wise. Allowing use without visting the web site is not wise either. - I'm guessing a little here but probably not far off.

 

Dont get me wrong: I always prefer on-line access to gc.com, but if it is not available, then it's really

really really nice to have stored (even outdated) cache coordinates and descriptions. So, even with

the new service, I would use gc.com as much as today, and I am quite sure all (interactive users)

would.

 

Cheers,

tr1976

You might be amazed at just how often you can find wi-fi access and cards to replace a broken one are frequently found for around $30 at many stores. Really not an issue.

[+tr1976]

OK... If they wan't more hits to the DB then it's fine. It's their business.

Actually I think they want more web hits as that equals revenue from advertisers.

 

I can load the ad 100 times before I can load the .zip. Next, please.

 

I know it's quite difficult to say "hey, that's right, I didn't think of that, but I'll implement it for you".

I know they have thought of the idea but dismissed it. Remember the only real asset they have is the latest and greatest database full of caches. Giving it all away would not be wise. Allowing use without visting the web site is not wise either. - I'm guessing a little here but probably not far off.

 

You're probably right. Having an X days old .gpx file doesn't change that. It's still the greatest.

Please understand, that it is possible to get what I want by heavily loading gc.com. I am just

proposing that giving it out easily helps everybody.

 

Dont get me wrong: I always prefer on-line access to gc.com, but if it is not available, then it's really

really really nice to have stored (even outdated) cache coordinates and descriptions. So, even with

the new service, I would use gc.com as much as today, and I am quite sure all (interactive users)

would.

 

Cheers,

tr1976

You might be amazed at just how often you can find wi-fi access and cards to replace a broken one are frequently found for around $30 at many stores. Really not an issue.

 

Kayaking in Alaska. Hiking in middle of Australia. I don't think so. Please get the idea. Or is relying

on wifi access the idea of the whole thing?

 

-tr1976

Edited April 17, 2007 by tr1976

[+Cardinal Red]

Hi tr1976

 

I think it would be great if we could grab as much information as we want, whenever we want it. I understand and accept that this will not happen. Some of the reasons are technical, some are not.

 

You seem determined to continue this discussion beyond any reasonable expectation of gaining the access you are advocating. Are you a salesman? I think you should start working on this suggestion list: One Million Reasons Why You Should Do It My Way

 

That way when the answer is still no, you will have run out of responses.

[+tr1976]

Hi tr1976

 

I think it would be great if we could grab as much information as we want, whenever we want it. I understand and accept that this will not happen. Some of the reasons are technical, some are not.

 

You seem determined to continue this discussion beyond any reasonable expectation of gaining the access you are advocating. Are you a salesman? I think you should start working on this suggestion list: One Million Reasons Why You Should Do It My Way

 

That way when the answer is still no, you will have run out of responses.

 

I don't say I want to grab as much information as I want, whenever I want. I am saying, besides

real-time data on the latest status of the caches (which I get from gc.com web pages), I could use

slightly outdated data or "hints" or whatever you want to call the data, on areas where I have no

connectivity to gc.com nor where I planned to go to.

 

I am not a salesman. I will keep the discussion ongoing until someone answers to my very simple

question:

 

"Which is preferable: people writing bot scripts which are downloading data inefficiently by

downloading and parsing gc.com web pages or people paying money to be able to download

periodically updated zip files made available by gc.com and including data that is only possible to update

through gc.com, which would keep gc.com as *the* place for the latest data?"

 

I haven't yet seen an intelligent answer to this question.

 

-tr1976

[+Lil Devil]

My Pocket Queries always exclude caches I already found. I can load them directly into my GPS and PDA and go caching.

 

If there were canned PQs, they would have to include all those thousands of caches that I already found. I would have to do some sort of filtering myself to remove those caches.

 

No thanks.

[+Lil Devil]

I am not a salesman. I will keep the discussion ongoing until someone answers to my very simple

question:

 

"Which is preferable: people writing bot scripts which are downloading data inefficiently by

downloading and parsing gc.com web pages or people paying money to be able to download

periodically updated zip files made available by gc.com and including data that is only possible to update

through gc.com, which would keep gc.com as *the* place for the latest data?"

 

I haven't yet seen an intelligent answer to this question.

Ummm, because it's against the Terms of Use and will probably get you banned from the site?

 

I've found ten times as many caches as you have and the existing mechanisms work fine for me, as well as for my buddies who have found even more. It ain't broke, man!

Edited April 17, 2007 by Lil Devil

[+StarBrand]

Bot scripts clearly violate the Terms of Use - so that isn't even up for discussion. Anybody doing it is in the wrong.

 

Your basic argument is that you want it - therefore it should be offered or someone will "hack" it out of them anyway.

 

TPTB are well aware of the extra "load" created by doing it thier way. And yet, they have made the business decision to go with that model.

 

Whether or not you find that intelligent ---- it remains as the only answer available.

[+tozainamboku]

"Which is preferable: people writing bot scripts which are downloading data inefficiently by

downloading and parsing gc.com web pages or people paying money to be able to download

periodically updated zip files made available by gc.com and including data that is only possible to update

through gc.com, which would keep gc.com as *the* place for the latest data?"

Using a bot script to download and parse gc.com web pages is in violation of the terms of use (TOU). Geocaching.com will block your IP address if this is detected. From their point of view using the existing pocket queries to achieve the same thing is also in violation of the TOU. However they limit the number of caches you you can download using a pocket query to 2500 a day and require you to agree to a license not to share the data in your PQs. Users that try to build their own off-line database from their pocket queries learn quickly that there may be stale data. If they accept the limitations and only use the database for their personnal use, GC.com allows this.

 

Providing pre-canned GPX files with large number of caches for a fee might work if it include a license agreement that the data wouldn't be shared (similar to the license agreement for pocket queries) and acceptance of the fact that the PQ may contain stale data (archive, disabled, and no newly published caches). One issue that GC.com has with releasing stale data occurs when a land owner/manager asked that a cache archived so that people will stop hunting it. If this happens and you could download a pre-canned query containing this cache a few days later, GC.com may be opened to a lawsuit from the land owner/manager. This would be something like YouTube removing a video for copyright infringment but still allowing you to still download that video by downloading a zip file with all the videos posted on a given day.

Edited April 17, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+tr1976]

I am not a salesman. I will keep the discussion ongoing until someone answers to my very simple

question:

 

"Which is preferable: people writing bot scripts which are downloading data inefficiently by

downloading and parsing gc.com web pages or people paying money to be able to download

periodically updated zip files made available by gc.com and including data that is only possible to update

through gc.com, which would keep gc.com as *the* place for the latest data?"

 

I haven't yet seen an intelligent answer to this question.

Ummm, because it's against the Terms of Use and will probably get you banned from the site?

 

Yes. I don't say I'm doing it, but I know there are sites that e.g. create stats like that.

 

I've found ten times as many caches as you have and the existing mechanisms work fine for me, as well as for my buddies who have found even more. It ain't broke, man!

 

Sure. You can always create a "Nearest unfound 500 caches" pocket query. That's what I do also. Depending

on where you live, the radius of the query results differs. That's not my point. My point is, if I come to US,

I want to have the caches in my GPSr and go caching. I don't want to find starbucks for wifi. It is technically

possible, but people here are stubborn to stick to what they have. OK, everything is fine now, let's not

change anything.

 

-tr1976

[+tr1976]

"Which is preferable: people writing bot scripts which are downloading data inefficiently by

downloading and parsing gc.com web pages or people paying money to be able to download

periodically updated zip files made available by gc.com and including data that is only possible to update

through gc.com, which would keep gc.com as *the* place for the latest data?"

Using a bot script to download and parse gc.com web pages is in violation of the terms of use (TOU). Geocaching.com will block your IP address if this is detected. From their point of view using the existing pocket queries to achieve the same thing is also in violation of the TOU. However they limit the number of caches you you can download using a pocket query to 2500 a day and require you to agree to a license not to share the data in your PQs. Users that try to build their own off-line database from their pocket queries learn quickly that there may be stale data. If they accept the limitations and only use the database for their personnal use, GC.com allows this.

 

Providing pre-canned GPX files with large number of caches for a fee might work if it include a license agreement that the data wouldn't be shared (similar to the license agreement for pocket queries) and acceptance of the fact that the PQ may contain stale data (archive, disabled, and no newly published caches). One issue that GC.com has with releasing stale data occurs when a land owner/manager asked that a cache archived so that people will stop hunting it. If this happens and you could download a pre-canned query containing this cache a few days later, GC.com may be opened to a lawsuit from the land owner/manager. This would be something like YouTube removing a video for copyright infringment but still allowing you to still download that video by downloading a zip file with all the videos posted on a given day.

 

Come on. What is the difference to print out 30 000 cache descriptions ON PAPER than having them

in digital form in a GPX FILE???

 

I can burn a video that is legal today on a DVD. If it get's banned tomorrow, do I have to burn my DVD?

 

-tr1976

[+tr1976]

Bot scripts clearly violate the Terms of Use - so that isn't even up for discussion. Anybody doing it is in the wrong.

 

Your basic argument is that you want it - therefore it should be offered or someone will "hack" it out of them anyway.

 

TPTB are well aware of the extra "load" created by doing it thier way. And yet, they have made the business decision to go with that model.

 

Whether or not you find that intelligent ---- it remains as the only answer available.

 

What has happened to the US people? You used to be the pioneers. Going where no man had gone before.

Finding business where ever. Now you're happy with what you have now. Watch out for a Chinese geocaching.com...

 

-tr1976

[+Markwell]

I think you are taking these responses far too personally. Many who are stating that the "head office of Groundspeak won't do it" are just trying to enlighten you to what has been discussed before.

 

Would a whole country pre-made PQ be nice? Sure. By the way, California has just about 38,000 caches. So, that whole country PQ of the US would be massive - too massive to download.

 

OK what about for just a particular state like mine - 5,000 caches. Sure that would be nice for caching, but the regional boundaries in our area are arbitrary, so when I go caching 50 miles east or 50 miles north, I'd be out of caches as they'd be across the state line.

 

What everyone is saying to you is not that it isn't a nice idea, but rather that Geocaching.com has considered it through the discussions before, and answered no.

[+tozainamboku]

Come on. What is the difference to print out 30 000 cache descriptions ON PAPER than having them

in digital form in a GPX FILE???

 

I can burn a video that is legal today on a DVD. If it get's banned tomorrow, do I have to burn my DVD?

 

-tr1976

The difference is if you have 30 000 cache descriptions in a GPX file you could start your own website and suck users away from Geocaching.com. Even if your intent was just to provide added content like statistics and still direct people to Geocaching.com to get the coordinates you are robbing Geocaching.com of the ablity to add this feature to their site (perhaps a premium feature). Geocaching.com is highly protective of any digital format that includes a significant number of caches. The pocket queries that exist now are meant for personal use by geocacher to plan a geocache outing. The limits on the number of geocaches you can download are more than enough for most people. But you can download as many caches as you want (500 at a time up to 2500 a day) and put them in a personal database that you can do whatever you want (including going to look for caches that have been missing for weeks).

 

You're just asking geocaching.com to make it easier for you to do this. They don't want it to be easy to do because that invites abuse. I'd have an easier time trusting your intentions if your original post didn't point this out

There are currently several sites leeching stats from gc.com in unoptimal ways as there is no real API

for 3rd party sites. Those could also use the same zip files and more load would be away from the DB

server again.

 

Still I think that with explicit wording in the license and a fee that limits the use of the feature to when it is really needed (the example of finding out you're going to be travelling and know the state or country but aren't sure exactly where you will be) it might be something Geocaching.com would consider. The one problem I still see is that the pre-canned file might contain a cache that was archived because a land owner/manager didn't want someone going to look for it. If the person getting the pre-canned file got in trouble looking for this cache, could they claim that geocaching.com was negligent in providing them with stale data?

Edited April 17, 2007 by tozainamboku

[CoyoteRed]

This was a free hint, but I could pay twice the premium membership fee if this service was available.

 

Or folks could save half the money and cause more work for the servers.

 

The idea has merit if a slightly different mind-set was applied, but TPTB don't seem interested.

[+tr1976]

You're just asking geocaching.com to make it easier for you to do this. They don't want it to be easy to do because that invites abuse. I'd have an easier time trusting your intentions if your original post didn't point this out.

 

You've got a point and I've got mine. And my explicit wording is that I am *not* planning to

abuse the license - I just wish more service even with higher fees. How about a platinum membership

level to get this kind of service? $100/year? $10/gpx/state/country?

 

Still I think that with explicit wording in the license and a fee that limits the use of the feature to when it is really needed (the example of finding out you're going to be travelling and know the state or country but aren't sure exactly where you will be) it might be something Geocaching.com would consider. The one problem I still see is that the pre-canned file might contain a cache that was archived because a land owner/manager didn't want someone going to look for it. If the person getting the pre-canned file got in trouble looking for this cache, could they claim that geocaching.com was negligent in providing them with stale data?

 

Still I don't see what is the difference to printing the description on a paper, and going for the cache

tomorrow when it's been disabled or archived... It's like visiting an archeological site then, right?

 

tr1976

[+mtrax]

This is all very interesting, given the data actually is provided by you and me (and every other geocacher..) strange that they are actually barriers to get this data back.. perhaps we should start charging CG to input data. lol