Pocket Queries: Raising the 500 limit

[+Stunod]

Like Sax, I use PQ's to cover my caching area. I have about 5000 caches within 2 hours of driving from home. I'll plug those PQ results into GSAK and output a Streets & Trips map to help me plan a caching day.

I don't mind the 500 limit, as I use a GSAK macro to help me keep the date ranges of my PQ's current, and automatically update the GSAK database from the emailed PQ's with a batch job.

[+Leboyf]

I like to have on my GSAK ALL caches in my state an choose, with GSAK, which one I download in my GPSr. Sometime I go to some friends, 30 miles from home. GSAK is always up-to-date. In my state there are more than 6600 caches. I need 14 PQs. That 3 days of PQs.

I need more than 5 PQs "Update last 7 days". That doesn't give me the new caches. So, I need to run my 14 PQs every week.

 

I always run 5 PQs a day !!!!!

 

Why can't we subscribe to a once a week STATE wide PQ.

Then, to an update every other day. THAT COULD BE FANTASTIC.

 

That could save a lot of processing time for the PQ server.

52 major PQ, mass mailed is nothing compare to zillions of PQs req'd by a LOT of users doing the same as I do.

 

Martin

[+LastGrape]

As a new premium member in the UK I think the page that lists my PQs could greatly be improved with two things I don't see problems with...

 

- A button next to each PQ to 'run now', so I don't have to schedule it then unschedule it.

- Number of queries already run today(and so daily allowance left today), or am I just being blind on this one?

[+Miragee]

I like to have on my GSAK ALL caches in my state an choose, with GSAK, which one I download in my GPSr. Sometime I go to some friends, 30 miles from home. GSAK is always up-to-date. In my state there are more than 6600 caches. I need 14 PQs. That 3 days of PQs.

I need more than 5 PQs "Update last 7 days". That doesn't give me the new caches. So, I need to run my 14 PQs every week.

 

I always run 5 PQs a day !!!!!

 

Why can't we subscribe to a once a week STATE wide PQ.

Then, to an update every other day. THAT COULD BE FANTASTIC.

 

That could save a lot of processing time for the PQ server.

52 major PQ, mass mailed is nothing compare to zillions of PQs req'd by a LOT of users doing the same as I do.

 

Martin

This gets back to my oft-asked question -- why do you need so much data? If you know you are headed east, or west, for the weekend, can't you just update the caches you are likely to look for on that caching trip? Why do you need to have the entire state up-to-date all the time? Can you really be looking for all of them in the next day or so?

 

I don't even want, or need, all the logs for all the caches caches in San Diego County. If I am headed one direction, I just update the PQs for that area. If I am going on a trip, I either use the "Caches Along a Route" feature, or create new PQs for the areas I am traveling to.

 

I can't even imagine how huge the PQ for California is . . .

 

As a new premium member in the UK I think the page that lists my PQs could greatly be improved with two things I don't see problems with...

 

- A button next to each PQ to 'run now', so I don't have to schedule it then unschedule it.

- Number of queries already run today(and so daily allowance left today), or am I just being blind on this one?

I agree. I don't schedule my PQs, so I don't need the days next to the PQs in my list. For people in other parts of the world, sometimes, it must be confusing to figure out what day it is in Seattle . . . I would like one button for "Run Now." However, I have noticed that if the PQs are set to --

 

"[ ] Uncheck the day of the week after the query runs"

 

the checkmark does go away now, but the message you get, "The Pocket Query ____________ has been turned on for Friday" is confusing, if you don't want the PQ next Friday as well.

 

The second suggestion is also a good one. Sometimes I count wrong when I look at the bolded dates in my long list of PQs and think I have one more PQ I can run that day, when I actually don't have any left . . . And that error message I get makes me think I broke something . . .

[+Team GPSaxophone]

This gets back to my oft-asked question -- why do you need so much data?

You've been ignoring the answers, why explain it again?

 

*sigh*

 

I cache in Colorado Springs and Denver and in the mountains along the Front Range. I don't have a problem with the 500-cache circle around Colorado Springs, but Denver is so cache dense that I just can't cover the whole city in one PQ. In fact, this is common in most major cities.

 

Many people cache within, say, 20 miles of home or work. Why can't the PQ size be adjusted to cover that radius, up to your daily limit of waypoints (currently set to 2500, but in 5 files of 500). It would be a lot easier on many people to setup and download one file of 2500. For those that don't need that much, like you, it wouldn't affect them at all. Why stop progress just because *you* wouldn't use it? A lot of people would, as evidenced by numerous threads asking for this change.

 

Any GPSr with a memory card is not limited to only 500 waypoints. Back when PQ's were developed, 500 was a standard amount and only a few GPSrs could hold more. The times have changed. Technology has advanced, but this site is not keeping up. It isn't about getting more data, just getting the same data in fewer files. That helps the server, by creating fewer requests, and everyone trying to download the caches in their area.

[vagabond]

This gets back to my oft-asked question -- why do you need so much data?

You've been ignoring the answers, why explain it again?

 

*sigh*

 

I cache in Colorado Springs and Denver and in the mountains along the Front Range. I don't have a problem with the 500-cache circle around Colorado Springs, but Denver is so cache dense that I just can't cover the whole city in one PQ. In fact, this is common in most major cities.

 

Many people cache within, say, 20 miles of home or work. Why can't the PQ size be adjusted to cover that radius, up to your daily limit of waypoints (currently set to 2500, but in 5 files of 500). It would be a lot easier on many people to setup and download one file of 2500. For those that don't need that much, like you, it wouldn't affect them at all. Why stop progress just because *you* wouldn't use it? A lot of people would, as evidenced by numerous threads asking for this change.

 

Any GPSr with a memory card is not limited to only 500 waypoints. Back when PQ's were developed, 500 was a standard amount and only a few GPSrs could hold more. The times have changed. Technology has advanced, but this site is not keeping up. It isn't about getting more data, just getting the same data in fewer files. That helps the server, by creating fewer requests, and everyone trying to download the caches in their area.

 

So if you go to Denver for a week how many caches would you plan on doing 500 1000 2500 ?

just curious

[+Miragee]

This gets back to my oft-asked question -- why do you need so much data?

You've been ignoring the answers, why explain it again?

 

*sigh*

 

<snip>

I know why you need so much data, but was curious why Leboyf needed all the caches in his state up-to-date all the time. It seems like unnecessary pressure on the PQ server for someone to get all the logs for all the caches all the time when the cacher is not planning a trip in one direction or another to search for those caches . . .

 

I guess some people just want to keep an offline database of everything . . . That way they don't have to visit the site . . .

[+Team GPSaxophone]

This gets back to my oft-asked question -- why do you need so much data?

You've been ignoring the answers, why explain it again?

 

*sigh*

 

I cache in Colorado Springs and Denver and in the mountains along the Front Range. I don't have a problem with the 500-cache circle around Colorado Springs, but Denver is so cache dense that I just can't cover the whole city in one PQ. In fact, this is common in most major cities.

 

Many people cache within, say, 20 miles of home or work. Why can't the PQ size be adjusted to cover that radius, up to your daily limit of waypoints (currently set to 2500, but in 5 files of 500). It would be a lot easier on many people to setup and download one file of 2500. For those that don't need that much, like you, it wouldn't affect them at all. Why stop progress just because *you* wouldn't use it? A lot of people would, as evidenced by numerous threads asking for this change.

 

Any GPSr with a memory card is not limited to only 500 waypoints. Back when PQ's were developed, 500 was a standard amount and only a few GPSrs could hold more. The times have changed. Technology has advanced, but this site is not keeping up. It isn't about getting more data, just getting the same data in fewer files. That helps the server, by creating fewer requests, and everyone trying to download the caches in their area.

 

So if you go to Denver for a week how many caches would you plan on doing 500 1000 2500 ?

just curious

I light find a couple in Golden, a couple in Thornton, a couple more in Highlands Ranch and one in Castle Rock on my way home. There is no way to get all of those areas into one 500-waypoint PQ.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

This gets back to my oft-asked question -- why do you need so much data?

You've been ignoring the answers, why explain it again?

 

*sigh*

 

<snip>

I know why you need so much data, but was curious why Leboyf needed all the caches in his state up-to-date all the time. It seems like unnecessary pressure on the PQ server for someone to get all the logs for all the caches all the time when the cacher is not planning a trip in one direction or another to search for those caches . . .

 

I guess some people just want to keep an offline database of everything . . . That way they don't have to visit the site . . .

I could run 2 or 3 PQs for Denver, another for Colorado Springs, and another for whatever area of the mountains I might go to. I choose to do the entire state because it is much easier to setup and I only need to update my GPSr once a week instead of right before I head out the door.

 

Sure, I could setup caches along a route to cover I-25 between the two cities to get Castle Rock, but what happens when I get to Denver and choose to take a different way home? With 500-cache circles that barely have a 10 mile radius, I can't do that. Downloading the entire state gives me that flexibility and I would actually download fewer waypoints if I could do just one 2500 cache PQ..

[+Miragee]

This gets back to my oft-asked question -- why do you need so much data?

You've been ignoring the answers, why explain it again?

 

*sigh*

 

I cache in Colorado Springs and Denver and in the mountains along the Front Range. I don't have a problem with the 500-cache circle around Colorado Springs, but Denver is so cache dense that I just can't cover the whole city in one PQ. In fact, this is common in most major cities.

 

Many people cache within, say, 20 miles of home or work. Why can't the PQ size be adjusted to cover that radius, up to your daily limit of waypoints (currently set to 2500, but in 5 files of 500). It would be a lot easier on many people to setup and download one file of 2500. For those that don't need that much, like you, it wouldn't affect them at all. Why stop progress just because *you* wouldn't use it? A lot of people would, as evidenced by numerous threads asking for this change.

 

Any GPSr with a memory card is not limited to only 500 waypoints. Back when PQ's were developed, 500 was a standard amount and only a few GPSrs could hold more. The times have changed. Technology has advanced, but this site is not keeping up. It isn't about getting more data, just getting the same data in fewer files. That helps the server, by creating fewer requests, and everyone trying to download the caches in their area.

 

So if you go to Denver for a week how many caches would you plan on doing 500 1000 2500 ?

just curious

I light find a couple in Golden, a couple in Thornton, a couple more in Highlands Ranch and one in Castle Rock on my way home. There is no way to get all of those areas into one 500-waypoint PQ.

No, but if you have those areas in your PQ list as "centerpoints," you can cover the area with three or four 500-cache PQs.

 

When I visited Colorado, I had two PQs in my list. One with a centerpoint between Lakewood and Golden, and one for Littleton. When I knew I was going to drive to the airport, I got another PQ that covered that area. That was how I found the wonderful Virtual cache, "Memories of Mary," where Elitch Gardens used to be.

 

That brought back a lot of memories.

 

Thanks for further explaining why you prefer to get all the caches for the entire state.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

This gets back to my oft-asked question -- why do you need so much data?

You've been ignoring the answers, why explain it again?

 

*sigh*

 

I cache in Colorado Springs and Denver and in the mountains along the Front Range. I don't have a problem with the 500-cache circle around Colorado Springs, but Denver is so cache dense that I just can't cover the whole city in one PQ. In fact, this is common in most major cities.

 

Many people cache within, say, 20 miles of home or work. Why can't the PQ size be adjusted to cover that radius, up to your daily limit of waypoints (currently set to 2500, but in 5 files of 500). It would be a lot easier on many people to setup and download one file of 2500. For those that don't need that much, like you, it wouldn't affect them at all. Why stop progress just because *you* wouldn't use it? A lot of people would, as evidenced by numerous threads asking for this change.

 

Any GPSr with a memory card is not limited to only 500 waypoints. Back when PQ's were developed, 500 was a standard amount and only a few GPSrs could hold more. The times have changed. Technology has advanced, but this site is not keeping up. It isn't about getting more data, just getting the same data in fewer files. That helps the server, by creating fewer requests, and everyone trying to download the caches in their area.

 

So if you go to Denver for a week how many caches would you plan on doing 500 1000 2500 ?

just curious

I light find a couple in Golden, a couple in Thornton, a couple more in Highlands Ranch and one in Castle Rock on my way home. There is no way to get all of those areas into one 500-waypoint PQ.

No, but if you have those areas in your PQ list as "centerpoints," you can cover the area with three or four 500-cache PQs.

 

When I visited Colorado, I had two PQs in my list. One with a centerpoint between Lakewood and Golden, and one for Littleton. When I knew I was going to drive to the airport, I got another PQ that covered that area. That was how I found the wonderful Virtual cache, "Memories of Mary," where Elitch Gardens used to be.

 

That brought back a lot of memories.

 

Thanks for further explaining why you prefer to get all the caches for the entire state.

The problem with setting those as centerpoints is that the PQ's will overlap and I'll actually be duplicating data, but there is no less load on the server for it. I'm losing out on the 2500 caches per day because of the overlap. By creative date-filtering I can get around it, but that takes a lot more for me to set it up and takes more server resources to run through the additional filtering.

 

I've been doing this for some time, but try and explain how to do all this to a newbie? It would also be far easier for a beginner to just setup a 2500 cache circle than it would be for them to "get" date filtering.

 

Also, that's great that you had access to download more PQ's on your trip. I've brought the laptop, and the PDA cradle, and the USB-serial convertor, and all the other gadgets with me on trips before. I find it far easier to just load up the GPSr with a larger area just in case I deviate from my initial plan and that way I can leave a whole bag of stuff at home. That's the beauty of memory cards - they can hold a lot of information. I know, Jeremy has said he doesn't want us to build a database and go caching on stale data, but I only load my GPSr once a week anyway. If a cache has gone missing since I got my PQ, big deal. I'll mark it as a DNF and move on. Surely not every cache I downloaded will have some problem that a more current PQ would fix.

[+Miragee]

That gets back to my original question however. How many "newbies" need, or want, 2500 caches in their database?

 

Most people don't travel that far and have no need for a PQ that large.

 

Because I have such a slow dialup connection, I don't even order the "My Finds PQ" because it takes so long to arrive. The 500 cache PQs are the maximum I want to wait for.

 

I realize most people don't have that problem . . . but that is a reason I don't need, or want, larger PQs.

[+TrailGators]

That gets back to my original question however. How many "newbies" need, or want, 2500 caches in their database?

 

Most people don't travel that far and have no need for a PQ that large.

 

Because I have such a slow dialup connection, I don't even order the "My Finds PQ" because it takes so long to arrive. The 500 cache PQs are the maximum I want to wait for.

 

I realize most people don't have that problem . . . but that is a reason I don't need, or want, larger PQs.

Miragee, there are over 2000 caches within 20 miles of my house and I don't live in the densest areas in San Diego. I've often covered that much ground in a day of caching many times. I know that I can run five 500 cache PQs with staggered dates (have to guess at those dates) to get the same thing as one 2500 cache PQ, However, one 2500 cache PQ is so much cleaner and more convenient. So if there is no effect on server load then it would be a nice option for some.

 

By the way, there is no difference between pulling five 500 cache PQs and one 2500 cache PQ with a slow bandwidth connection...

Edited May 26, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Miragee]

That gets back to my original question however. How many "newbies" need, or want, 2500 caches in their database?

 

Most people don't travel that far and have no need for a PQ that large.

 

Because I have such a slow dialup connection, I don't even order the "My Finds PQ" because it takes so long to arrive. The 500 cache PQs are the maximum I want to wait for.

 

I realize most people don't have that problem . . . but that is a reason I don't need, or want, larger PQs.

Miragee, there are over 2000 caches within 20 miles of my house and I don't live in the densest areas in San Diego. I've often covered that much ground in a day of caching many times. I know that I can run five 500 cache PQs with staggered dates (have to guess at those dates) to get the same thing as one 2500 cache PQ, However, one 2500 cache PQ is so much cleaner and more convenient. So if there is no effect on server load then it would be a nice option for some.

 

By the way, there is no difference between pulling five 500 cache PQs and one 2500 cache PQ with a slow bandwidth connection...

But how many of those 2000 caches are ones you really want to look for.

 

It would be interesting to know how many cachers really need the data for 2500 caches every day.

 

I rarely get five PQs per day. The radius I can afford to travel now is not very large, nor can I get away frequently enough to need to update my GSAK database all the time. I think the average Geocacher is the same. They go caching on the weekend and update their database for the area they are concentrating on for that family outing.

 

As for the bandwidth, if I want more than one PQ, I run one at a time. That way I am not locked out of browsing the Internet for such a long time. When I order the "My Finds" PQ, I have to get up from the computer and let that thing download for 15 minutes . . .

 

That's why I try to keep my Found database in GSAK up-to-date instead of getting the "My Finds" PQ.

[+TrailGators]

That gets back to my original question however. How many "newbies" need, or want, 2500 caches in their database?

 

Most people don't travel that far and have no need for a PQ that large.

 

Because I have such a slow dialup connection, I don't even order the "My Finds PQ" because it takes so long to arrive. The 500 cache PQs are the maximum I want to wait for.

 

I realize most people don't have that problem . . . but that is a reason I don't need, or want, larger PQs.

Miragee, there are over 2000 caches within 20 miles of my house and I don't live in the densest areas in San Diego. I've often covered that much ground in a day of caching many times. I know that I can run five 500 cache PQs with staggered dates (have to guess at those dates) to get the same thing as one 2500 cache PQ, However, one 2500 cache PQ is so much cleaner and more convenient. So if there is no effect on server load then it would be a nice option for some.

 

By the way, there is no difference between pulling five 500 cache PQs and one 2500 cache PQ with a slow bandwidth connection...

But how many of those 2000 caches are ones you really want to look for.

 

It would be interesting to know how many cachers really need the data for 2500 caches every day.

I'd be happy if they let me download one 2500 cache PQ once a week just like they do for My Finds PQs. Edited May 26, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Miragee]

Okay, I guess a PQ every seven days might give you current enough data so this might not happen . . .

[+Team GPSaxophone]

But how many of those 2000 caches are ones you really want to look for.

Read the micro threads...there is no way to filter out "lame"

It would be interesting to know how many cachers really need the data for 2500 caches every day.

Per day, every week? Very few people, I suspect, but the ability is there anyway.

Edited May 26, 2007 by Team GPSaxophone

[+Mimon_team]

For something like $7 per month...

...plus a phone that will handle the programing and the extra for the data service from your provider.

... plus living in the right country, because Geocache Navigator is limited only to U.S. There is no possibility to use it in Europe or any other continent.

[+tozainamboku]

That gets back to my original question however. How many "newbies" need, or want, 2500 caches in their database?

 

Most people don't travel that far and have no need for a PQ that large.

 

Because I have such a slow dialup connection, I don't even order the "My Finds PQ" because it takes so long to arrive. The 500 cache PQs are the maximum I want to wait for.

 

I realize most people don't have that problem . . . but that is a reason I don't need, or want, larger PQs.

Miragee, there are over 2000 caches within 20 miles of my house and I don't live in the densest areas in San Diego. I've often covered that much ground in a day of caching many times. I know that I can run five 500 cache PQs with staggered dates (have to guess at those dates) to get the same thing as one 2500 cache PQ, However, one 2500 cache PQ is so much cleaner and more convenient. So if there is no effect on server load then it would be a nice option for some.

 

By the way, there is no difference between pulling five 500 cache PQs and one 2500 cache PQ with a slow bandwidth connection...

If you had a way to filter LPCs out of your PQ you would be able to download just the caches you like Seriously, when visiting some place with high density of caches I have several options: Filter my PQ to find the caches I would most likely do using a combination of cache type, difficulty, and terrain. Use caches along a route or several smaller PQ centered around the places I know I will be going to. Use bookmark lists - perhaps of must do caches. If I have time before the trip I may create my own bookmlark list using the Geocaching Google maps. For example, if I were going to San Diego for a geocaching event, I would likely get a PQ of the 500 caches centered around the event. I would use cache along a route to do some caching on my drive down from LA. I'd probably run a PQ against TrailGators San Diego Consensus Favorites list - although many of these are puzzles or multis that I might not have time to do on a day trip. Of course if I went with the Ventura_Kids they would have a preplaned list of exactly which caches they were going to do.

I don't want to get technical on the claim that getting one 2500 cache PQ is never less efficient on the server than 5 500 cache PQs. To run a 2500 cache PQ requires more resources be acquired at one time. Depending on the server setup it could be more efficient to run 5 500 cache PQ since each requires fewer resources. Of course if there are no other processes on the sever except running the PQs sequentially the one big one would likely be more efficient. But I doubt this is the case. And downloading 5 500 cache PQs may be better if you have a slow connection. If you expect to get 1 error each 2500 caches you could expect that 4 of the 5 500 cache PQ would download without error and the one that had an error would probably only take one retry. But if you did this all in one 2500 cache PQ - you would expect an error every time you try to download it and it may take several retries. Fortunately, IP protocols check for errors on a packet by packet basis so, the difference really isn't so dramatic.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

If you have such a poor connection that you have that many errors, then the 2500 waypoint PQ isn't for you. Many (I won't even say most since that would start another thread) cachers have broadband connections. Connection speed isn't a reason to limit those that want them from getting one PQ a day that contains 2500 waypoints. THose that can't or don't want a PQ that size could still get up to 5 of the 500 waypoint PQ's just like they do now.

[+PJPeters]

Couple things...

First - I went on a trip from Grand Rapids to Detroit a couple weeks ago. Normally, I make it in 3 hours. This time, it took me 7, because I stopped to cache. These were typically no more than 2/2's, and most were pretty close to my direct path travel route. I got around 20 caches that day. Granted, I could have gotten more if I wasn't on (somewhat of) a timetable, but still. I got 2 more while in Detroit, but that just boils down to lots more stuff to do with the family. I maybe hit half the caches I had loaded into my Palm. No way could I have gotten 500, much less 2500, in one day.

 

Second - What about PQ sharing? We all know somebody else that caches, why not coordinate your pocket queries? "Hey Bob, let's trade PQs. You get the stuff north of town, and I'll get the stuff in town, and south." And, there you have it. A fast 5000 caches for two people. More if you get a bigger circle.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Second - What about PQ sharing? We all know somebody else that caches, why not coordinate your pocket queries? "Hey Bob, let's trade PQs. You get the stuff north of town, and I'll get the stuff in town, and south." And, there you have it. A fast 5000 caches for two people. More if you get a bigger circle.

Sorry, but that's against the TOU. If you need 5000 waypoints, you need to run 2 days worth of queries - on your own.

[+TrailGators]

If you have such a poor connection that you have that many errors, then the 2500 waypoint PQ isn't for you. Many (I won't even say most since that would start another thread) cachers have broadband connections. Connection speed isn't a reason to limit those that want them from getting one PQ a day that contains 2500 waypoints. THose that can't or don't want a PQ that size could still get up to 5 of the 500 waypoint PQ's just like they do now.

I agree.

[+Kabuthunk]

Not wanting to read through several pages of replies, I just wanted to put my thoughts on the matter:

 

Having a PQ of more than 500 would indeed be nice. Given I like to just cache on a whim, generally pulling out my GPS and looking at what's around me generally no matter where I go... trying to set up seperate pocket queries for different areas of town wouldn't work. It'd be nice to have a larger subset to work with.

 

I've found a pseudo-solution to this. I've got two PQ's set, one which only returns small, large, and micro caches, and the other which returns virtual, regular, other, and unknown. It took me a while, but in Manitoba, this particular set returns approximately the same distance worth of caches (furthest is within 10km of eachother).

 

However, it'd be nice to not have to go through the hassle of working with multiple files. A larger PQ wouldn't really change much for me, but just save a bit of hassle.

[CoyoteRed]

I've found a pseudo-solution to this. I've got two PQ's set, one which only returns small, large, and micro caches, and the other which returns virtual, regular, other, and unknown. It took me a while, but in Manitoba, this particular set returns approximately the same distance worth of caches (furthest is within 10km of eachother).

 

Try the "Date Method." It has a much finer granularity. It's much more flexible if you want to push further out and go with more PQs, or if someone starts hiding a lot more of one size cache.

[+Kabuthunk]

I contemplated the 'date method', but since one of the PQ's would remain static, while the other continuously got larger, it'd have to be adjusted periodically. My method in theory should not require adjustment, since the ratio between the different cache sizes should increase about evenly for the given area. At least, that's if statistics has taught me anything

[+TotemLake]

I contemplated the 'date method', but since one of the PQ's would remain static, while the other continuously got larger, it'd have to be adjusted periodically. My method in theory should not require adjustment, since the ratio between the different cache sizes should increase about evenly for the given area. At least, that's if statistics has taught me anything

Actually, they don't stay static. There will always be archivals that remove caches from the total count. I have had to adjust my PQs a couple of times already to bring the count back up as close to 500 as possible.

[vtmtnman]

I have about 5000 caches within 2 hours of driving from home.

 

I don't think I've got 200 with in 2 hours!!Holy crap!You'd never have to leave your 2 hour cicrle for caching!

[CoyoteRed]

I contemplated the 'date method', but since one of the PQ's would remain static, while the other continuously got larger, it'd have to be adjusted periodically. My method in theory should not require adjustment, since the ratio between the different cache sizes should increase about evenly for the given area. At least, that's if statistics has taught me anything

Actually, they don't stay static. There will always be archivals that remove caches from the total count. I have had to adjust my PQs a couple of times already to bring the count back up as close to 500 as possible.

Not just archivals, but found caches, as well, will make the earlier numbers shrink. That's assuming you exclude found caches because that can be better accomplished with a different function.

 

What I like about the date method is the area I'm getting the caches from remains static. Using the size or type method the area continually fluctuates as finds and new caches happen within the 500 cache limit.

[+Miragee]

When you use the "Date" method, don't you have to get a lot of PQs for an area to keep the caches you might seek up-to-date?

 

My PQs are set up by location centerpoints. That way, if I'm heading in one direction, or another, I just get the PQ, or PQs, for those areas instead of having to get many PQs to make sure the ones I will be nearby have been updated.

[+TrailGators]

When you use the "Date" method, don't you have to get a lot of PQs for an area to keep the caches you might seek up-to-date?

 

My PQs are set up by location centerpoints. That way, if I'm heading in one direction, or another, I just get the PQ, or PQs, for those areas instead of having to get many PQs to make sure the ones I will be nearby have been updated.

The date method is pulling one of more PQs of an area by using hide date to expand the range of the circle of caches that can be pulled. You don't have to store anything to do it. In San Diego county half the active caches were hidden prior to October of 2005. It's pretty amazing that the number of caches in the area has doubled in the past 17 months! Edited May 27, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Miragee]

But, if I am headed to the La Jolla area for the day, to update the caches I will put in my GPSr for that caching adventure, I only have to get one PQ, the one with a centerpoint just east of La Jolla.

 

If I use the Date method, wouldn't I have to get several PQs to make sure I have updated all the caches that are in that geographical area?

[+TrailGators]

But, if I am headed to the La Jolla area for the day, to update the caches I will put in my GPSr for that caching adventure, I only have to get one PQ, the one with a centerpoint just east of La Jolla.

 

If I use the Date method, wouldn't I have to get several PQs to make sure I have updated all the caches that are in that geographical area?

If I'm driving 50-60 miles down to south county and then maybe caching in other places, I would need to run at least 3 PQs. I would also have to guess where the boundaries are and I would have lots of wasted overlap. If I use the date method I could run 3 queries and have no overlap and get the entire area! Now I never have to worry about headed into an area that I didn't load! Edited May 27, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TheCarterFamily]

"Why do we need so much data?" I've seen this question repeated. Obviously he didn't understand the 10 people who have already answered it.

 

So let's put it another way. Not all of us are "perfect" at planning. We need lots and lots of data to plan for different contingencies.

 

Not to mention the other reasons in this forum.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

But, if I am headed to the La Jolla area for the day, to update the caches I will put in my GPSr for that caching adventure, I only have to get one PQ, the one with a centerpoint just east of La Jolla.

 

If I use the Date method, wouldn't I have to get several PQs to make sure I have updated all the caches that are in that geographical area?

Yes, but by using the date method you can get a much larger circle of caches than you can with only one PQ.

[+Major_Dad]

Alrighty...I am perplexed by Groundspeak's perspective. I made a suggestion that the website should offer PQs for benchmarks as well. The response I received was to post my suggection in the forums and let the 'Geocaching' community decide if it is a good idea or not. Why not just take a suggection and act on it. Groundspeak, read a suggestion, analyze it, ask yourselves if it makes sense. If it makes sense, do it. If it does not make sense, do not do it, but offer a reason for it not making sense to you. Frankly, if the customer wants it, shouldn't you do everything to make the customer happy? That attitude is slowly fading in the commercial world and it perplexes me...if you upset your customer base too often, eventually, you may find yourself wanting for a customer base. Just a resonable man making a resaonable request. Why not grant it to him? We are talking some code generation maybe? Would it be worth making the customer happy? The world is already full of folks who think that their opinions and points of view are WAY more important than everyone elses' so give where you can...it might even come back around in a positive light for you. JMHO...Thank you. Semper Fidelis.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Because you can't do everything that everyone wants. It would make the system completely unworkable. You have to try to implement the features that the greatest number of people want/need and that also function with the technology available. This is key.

 

Suggesting that feature requests get posted in the forums, is a way to gauge the will of the community as opposed to the will of the individual. It's a way to get input. It doesn't necessarily mean that the features will or won't get implemented based on the input, but it provides a tool that can be used in the evaluation process.

Edited May 28, 2007 by Motorcycle_Mama

[+TheCarterFamily]

I was also surprised at how many places I could get WiFi when I was on the road. I "borrowed" the signal from Day's Inn and other motel chains, sitting in my car in the parking lot. Also, most independent coffee shops had free WiFi. There were three of those within a few blocks of one another in Prescott, AZ.

 

Just for the people who ask "Why do you need so much data?" and think "You can just borrow/steal internet" to get the data you need while on the road.

 

Check out this:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070...om-his-car.html

 

It's illegal and you could get you 5 years and $10,000 fine. (at least in Michigan)

[+TotemLake]

The world is already full of folks who think that their opinions and points of view are WAY more important than everyone elses'

What an ironic statement to make after your rant.

[darwinmay]

Lately I've been pulling 5 (full) queries a day, 6 days a week. I'm going on a long multi state vacation soon, and our route isn't fixed-so just creating a route PQ won't work. There's no redundancy because I'm using date ranges, but it would sure be nice if I could halve the number of queries I have to run in order to receive all the caches for the states I'll be traveling through. I don't know much about the load on the server, but the examples posted earlier make sense.

 

Just my 2¢.

 

EDIT: Oh, and I'm trying to run these very early in the morning to reduce the server load as much as possible.

Edited May 29, 2007 by BlueNinja

[+Markwell]

Lately I've been pulling 5 (full) queries a day, 6 days a week. I'm going on a long multi state vacation soon, and our route isn't fixed-so just creating a route PQ won't work. There's no redundancy because I'm using date ranges, but it would sure be nice if I could halve the number of queries I have to run in order to receive all the caches for the states I'll be traveling through. I don't know much about the load on the server, but the examples posted earlier make sense.

 

Just my 2¢.

 

EDIT: Oh, and I'm trying to run these very early in the morning to reduce the server load as much as possible.

 

Route isn't fixed?

[darwinmay]

Route isn't fixed?

 

Yeah-we don't have a definite route. At any stop we could take several different routes to a destination.

[+BigCarbonFootprint]

Oh and not to mention you only get 5 queries a day. If you screw up on one and no rows are returned. Your now down to 4. So usually I don't play around. Just pull a blanet query and go from there.

 

I am cool with only 500 WPs per PQ, but I’d like to be able to dl more than 5 PQs per day. I do a lot of travel around the US with only my GPSr and handheld. I generally have to start dl PQs several days in advance of my departure to get 20 or so PQs created for my areas of travel. I do use the caches along a route technique, which is a big help, but in a two week trip out I can have as many as 12-15 different areas that I may want to have a PQ for. Even as a route. Any chance of upping the daily PQ limit?

 

I also really dig the changes to the cache pages that have been implemented over the last week.

[+The Cheeseheads]

Throw me in the 2500 caches per day crowd. I live in the middle of the Milwaukee-Chicago corridor, and there are several thousand caches available within a short distance of the 30-mile path I take to work. Like Sax, I currently have to set up multiple overlapping PQs to get the coverage that I would like, meaning three 500-result PQs actually results in far less than 1500 caches. A single PQ covering the entire area would get me everything I want, and because only a single file is being packaged and delivered instead of three, it would actually be less resource-intensive than three PQs.

[+Markwell]

I currently have to set up multiple overlapping PQs to get the coverage that I would like, meaning three 500-result PQs actually results in far less than 1500 caches...

Not if you do it with a single radius breaking the data up by date placed (as has been mentioned). I can get the 2,492 active caches within 47.5 miles of my home coordinates in 5 PQs with no overlap. This GSAK macro for date placed helps keep everything fresh.

 

Looking at the above scenario, there are actually 2,495 active caches within 47.5 miles of my home. With the "date placed" subdivision, because there are multiple caches placed on single days, my last PQ would have returned 501 (there were three placed on May 28). So instead, my PQ would undershoot it to give me 498.

 

Admittedly, you may not be able to use a radius, but that's where the route feature might come in handy.

 

But where is this thread going?

 

Jeremy has indicated that he's not going to increase the limit in the foreseeable future. I'd love to be able to download all caches within 250 miles of my home and have 24,147 caches in my GSAK database. I'm sure many others would like the same, but I just don't see it happening no matter how many people ask.

 

Also, by keeping the PQ generator at the 500 limit, there may be added benefits to this that we're not aware of. For example, the reason might be not clogging up the PQ Mailer with large attachments. My largest PQ from my last set came in at 578KB zipped, but a complete zip of five PQ's data in a single file would have been 2.74MB.

 

I'm just very skeptical that the increase will happen.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I currently have to set up multiple overlapping PQs to get the coverage that I would like, meaning three 500-result PQs actually results in far less than 1500 caches...

Not if you do it with a single radius breaking the data up by date placed (as has been mentioned). I can get the 2,492 active caches within 47.5 miles of my home coordinates in 5 PQs with no overlap. This GSAK macro for date placed helps keep everything fresh.

 

Looking at the above scenario, there are actually 2,495 active caches within 47.5 miles of my home. With the "date placed" subdivision, because there are multiple caches placed on single days, my last PQ would have returned 501 (there were three placed on May 28). So instead, my PQ would undershoot it to give me 498.

 

Admittedly, you may not be able to use a radius, but that's where the route feature might come in handy.

 

But where is this thread going?

 

Jeremy has indicated that he's not going to increase the limit in the foreseeable future. I'd love to be able to download all caches within 250 miles of my home and have 24,147 caches in my GSAK database. I'm sure many others would like the same, but I just don't see it happening no matter how many people ask.

 

Also, by keeping the PQ generator at the 500 limit, there may be added benefits to this that we're not aware of. For example, the reason might be not clogging up the PQ Mailer with large attachments. My largest PQ from my last set came in at 578KB zipped, but a complete zip of five PQ's data in a single file would have been 2.74MB.

 

I'm just very skeptical that the increase will happen.

You can get all 24,147 caches if you spend 10 days downloading your 5 PQ's a day...

[+Roktman]

Why would someone need all that data?

 

I can only speak from my own rather limited experience caching (5 months). For me, it takes 7 pocket queries to get all the caches within 30 miles of my house (Citrus Hts, CA, just NE of Sacramento). I started out needing only 6 PQs, but from Feb. 2007 to mid-April there were 500 additional caches placed in that area. For this kind of cache density, it's almost mandatory to have an offline database ("intended PQ uses" or not, GSAK is really helpful). I update once a week to get "fresh enough" data for my Palm database, and create filters in GSAK to load my GPSr for the area I'm headed to that day.

 

My reason for wanting a higher limit is just one of convenience: I would appreciate a larger number of caches in the PQs because it would mean fewer PQs to download.

[+RonFisk]

Most GPS these days support up to 1000 waypoints.

 

Is there any possibility of getting the pocket query limit raised from the 500 to 1000 or higher?

 

Count me in on this one. The 500 limit is antiquated.

[+Renegade Knight]

Most GPS these days support up to 1000 waypoints.

 

Is there any possibility of getting the pocket query limit raised from the 500 to 1000 or higher?

 

That would be nice. Locally and when I make trips across the state I really don't know what area I'd be caching in. 500 caches even filtered gives me such a low radius anymore that I can now be past my radius when I realize I have some time to hunt.

[+Cached]

Rather than limiting the number of PQs that can be downloaded, why not limit the total number of caches downloaded per day? At the moment it is 2500 caches. (5 x 5).

 

So set a 2500 cache limit, and if I download as 5 x 500, 10 x 250 or 1 x 2500, I haven't gotten any more or less data, but I have had some flexibility.

 

Cached