Jump to content

Pocket Queries - will they ever go beyond 500


GEOJuice
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

I'm wondering WHY is it that Groundspeak does not allow More than 500 caches per PQ. I'm confident that the Servers have been updated over the years and could probably handle the work load.

 

As the Geocaches in each province increases, the need to have larger PQs increases proportionally. Shouldn’t Groundspeak augment the number of geocaches allowable in each PQ to reflect the past growth? This is a service offered to their customers and should be reviewed at least once a year.

 

Questions Comments

Link to comment

TPTB do not support the creation and maintenane of offline databases except for very short term useage.

 

The idea is to go out and find the caches you have downloaded. Since you can get 2500 per day - should be a busy week!!!

 

It would be more helpful to discuss increasing the filtering options for a PQ so we could more closely target the types of caches we would like to hunt.

Link to comment

I'm wondering WHY is it that Groundspeak does not allow More than 500 caches per PQ. I'm confident that the Servers have been updated over the years and could probably handle the work load.

 

As the Geocaches in each province increases, the need to have larger PQs increases proportionally. Shouldn’t Groundspeak augment the number of geocaches allowable in each PQ to reflect the past growth? This is a service offered to their customers and should be reviewed at least once a year.

 

Questions Comments

 

Let us know when you find 2500 caches in a day, then we'll start helping push for an increase.

Link to comment
I'm wondering WHY is it that Groundspeak does not allow More than 500 caches per PQ. I'm confident that the Servers have been updated over the years and could probably handle the work load.

Apparently TPTB put the limitations of 500 per PQ and 5 PQs a day in place, not because of server load, but because they don't want folks to be able to maintain a sizable off line database of caches listed here.

 

There are good reasons why you'd want more than 500 in a PQ, or more than 2500 in a day, that would not include maintaining a database or finding that many in a day. I have often found myself in a situation where I could have benefited from having a larger PQ even though I didn't plan on finding every cache in the file.

 

However, I don't think the limits will likely change, so I've learned to either work around it or live without it.

Link to comment
Since you can get five PQs per day, containing almost 2500 caches, particularly if you set up your PQs by "Date Placed," how many more caches do you need? B)

 

 

I am well aware of how to use placed date..but for the newer caches along a route, there are times I wish I could get more than 500 results. I would gladly give up a few PQ "slots" for a day if I could get, say 2000, results from a route PQ. (What if instead of a fixed limit of 5 of 500 max, there was a limit of 2500 max setting in a day? Yes, I know that is a small matter of programming, but it would be a welcome change.)

 

 

And yes, I load the results into GSAK to get better filtering and selection than is possible with Groundspeak.

Link to comment

Since you can get five PQs per day, containing almost 2500 caches, particularly if you set up your PQs by "Date Placed," how many more caches do you need? B)

All of them in my radius.

250 Miles West. 100 Miles North, 50 Miles East (go figure).

100 Miles South. That covers 3 metro areas and a cache or two more than 500.

 

Managing multiple PQ's to get the info I need is a pain. However it's moot until my GPS can also deal with all those waypoints.

 

More than once I found myself with some unexpected time to go caching, but no PQ covering the area I was in and no way to grab a PQ at the time. It's not that you need all 2500 or more caches so much as it is you need the ones you can find at the time and can't always predict which of the 2500+ caches are going to be nearby.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
It's not that you need all 2500 or more caches so much as it is you need the ones you can find at the time and can't always predict which of the 2500+ caches are going to be nearby.

 

BINGO!

 

Then why do you need to have more than 500 in one PQ right this very minute? Do 5 PQ's of 500 each a day, dor that for every day of a month, do that for every month of a year. I can guarantee that when you are out somewhere then you can have some caches that you have not found.

Well, that's only if you do PQ's by placed date in a state and so on... Otherwise there will be much overlap and redundant wasted space in your PQ's.

 

Edited to add, if you are really gung ho about having more per day, I suggest you buy more Premium Memberships. I'm confident that you can buy as many of those as you want.

Edited by trainlove
Link to comment

My GPS will hold 1000 caches at one time. I may be anywhere around my area in a given day and would like to load the 1000 closests unfound traditional caches to my home.

 

The first 500 are easy (because that is what is allowed in a PQ), the next 500 are tricky.

 

-I can't set up a PQ that ignores the results from the first PQ.

 

- I can't pick another point for reference because the next 500 caches will be in all directions.

 

-I can't even pick 2 points in opposite directions that meet in the middle. (If I pick a location North of my house and one south of my house - it would ignore the caches east and west)

 

I don't need 5 PQ of 500 per day. I just want 1 of 1000 and the ability to do others if I am going to be way out of my area.

Link to comment
-I can't set up a PQ that ignores the results from the first PQ.

Yes you can, if you're tricky, but it is doable right now.

 

Let's say you want to get the closest 1000 caches and have it be 1000 caches. You can easily determine an approximation of the radius how close that is by going to www.geocaching.com/my and searching on caches closest to your home coordinates excluding finds.

 

Then add &dist=30 or some other number to the end of the URL and see how many return (the default for the distance is 50 miles, changing it to 30 reduces it to 30 miles). Change the number until you find something approximating 1,000 caches. You can even use decimals like 27.42. For me, there are 1,000 unfound caches within 19.4 miles of my home.

 

So now you know how far out a radius will go to include the 1,000 nearest caches.

 

Set up a PQ and choose caches that you haven't found, and choose that same radius (for me 19.4 miles) from the coordinates of your house (notice I didn't say "Home Coordinates"). Then choose a range of "date placed" for Jan 1 1997 to some date like Dec 31 2005. Preview the PQ and see if it's close to 500. Through trial and error, see if you can get that end date to include caches that are close (but under) 500. For our hypothetical question, let's say it's Oct 14 2005.

 

Once you have that end date, set up a second PQ with the same criteria (19.4 miles from the coordinates of my house and caches I haven't found) and choose a range of date placed from the day after the end date of the last PQ - Oct 15 2005 for our hypothetical situation, and choose a new end date of Dec 31 2008 (or 2009 if it rolls up).

 

Using these two PQs, you'll get a good approximation of the closest 1,000 caches to your home. That solves your first two concerns:

I can't set up a PQ that ignores the results from the first PQ.

 

I can't pick another point for reference because the next 500 caches will be in all directions.

 

Don't think overlapping circles, think one big circle and setting a separate criteria on the caches that can be mutually exclusive.

 

 

Also - don't forget to add other more restrictive contstraints to the PQs. Many people just select all types of caches and all containers (and all terrains and difficulties) even though they don't regularly hunt them. I personally like traditional caches with small, regular or large containers and don't want to see temporarily disabled caches. So those are the only caches I load.

 

If I choose all active caches, I can only go 19.84 miles from home before I hit 1,000 unfound caches. But if I only include Traditional caches that are small, regular or large containers, and terrain <4 and difficulty <4, that same 19.84 miles only returns 434 caches.

 

Applying that same criteria, it would take me 36.95 miles to reach 1,000 unfound caches - almost double the radius.

Link to comment

I've seen more then once where an offline database has allowed me to find a cache that would have been rendered unfindable otherwise. How could this be? well, a group of power cachers posting logs could cause another log containing a corrected coordinate to be shoved down so it doesn't show up with the PQ of the day. We have a few hiders who are infamous for two things, bad coords and refusing to believe cachers that post a log to that effect which leads to a delay of several month's before it gets fixed despite multiple logs stating coords are off. So having a cumulative offline database allows me to generate files with more logs in them for my PDA. This has helped more then once when a valuable hint or correct coords are in a log entry more then 5 down the list of logs.

 

Also not all areas of North America have wifi available or even cell service.

Edited by stickman756
Link to comment
...don't want to see temporarily disabled caches.

Good advice except one caveat here.

 

Unavailable caches can become available and push your count over the 500 cache limit. You'll miss some caches then. I always include the disabled caches when determining the dates and such, I even download them to make sure I get the logs written while disabled.

 

I simply don't include them when exporting from GSAK.

 

Another problem I'm seeing is folks changing criteria of caches on the fly. Out of state I exclude all micros, other-sized, and virts. I do include unknown, though. It seems some folks are re-categorizing their caches to something other than the excluded ones. I have earlier date limited queries that are growing which is something that shouldn't happen. It could be folks are changing "micro" to "unknown" to get away from the stigma micros are getting, I don't know. It's only happening in one area and going from a smaller cache to a larger one is highly unusual in today's caching environment--it's usually the other way around.

 

Just watch for the red 500 cache limit reached highlight in GSAK's update logs.

Link to comment

I have to agree that the PQ limits (ALL of them) are at this point very outdated and insufficient.

 

To everyone who argues otherwise - I will point out again (as I have in the past) that different people cache differently. And just because the limits are sufficient for the way you do it does not invalidate anyone else's way of doing it. Personally, I use GSAK, I don't know where I'm going to be in advance, and I'm highly selective about what caches I try to look for. Being able to load up GSAK on a laptop wherever I am and look for caches that match what I'm in the mood for is vital to how I cache.

 

For me, simply maintaining a 100 mile radius is currently taking up TWENTY FIVE pocket queries! And I can't even get that data in one shot, but it has to come over a period of five days out of seven - which doesn't leave much room for other PQs that might be needed on the fly.

 

The growth of geocaching has accelerated significantly from when the current limits were first imposed. After all, how many PQs did it take to get a 100 mile radius, five years ago? How many does it take now? At this point, ALL the PQ limits should be at least tripled in order to keep up. And yes, that means 1500 results per PQ, 15 PQs per day, and 120 PQs per week.

 

I'm sure some of you will say that that's overkill - and perhaps for you, it is. But for others, it's not - so please be considerate before you judge.

Link to comment

At this point, ALL the PQ limits should be at least tripled in order to keep up. And yes, that means 1500 results per PQ, 15 PQs per day, and 120 PQs per week.

 

I've considered it. I don't think it's right to request 180,000 caches per week.

 

That would be all of the caches I haven't found within 860 miles of home for me. From your New Jersey area, that comes up to about 1000 miles - all the way to Minneapolis. With 47 finds, you need that many caches to choose from?

 

I'm not trying to judge, I just think it's a poor waste of resources to send out that many caches when the main database is so readily available. Granted, the system goes down occassionally, but can anyone remember a time when the system was down more than two days?

 

And even if it WERE down for two days, what's the worst that could happen? You go out with old pocket query data, have a great stroll in the park and don't find a cache because someone picked it up a couple of hours ago. That's still not too bad unless you are dreadfully concerned about the numbers.

 

 

It *IS* possible to just load up 30 or 40 caches in your GPS and go out and find them. Geocaching DID exist prior to pocket queries, and I'm not sure that this request of 180K caches makes any sense at all to me.

Link to comment

 

I've considered it. I don't think it's right to request 180,000 caches per week.

 

That would be all of the caches I haven't found within 860 miles of home for me. From your New Jersey area, that comes up to about 1000 miles - all the way to Minneapolis. With 47 finds, you need that many caches to choose from?

 

I'm not trying to judge, I just think it's a poor waste of resources to send out that many caches when the main database is so readily available. Granted, the system goes down occassionally, but can anyone remember a time when the system was down more than two days?

 

And even if it WERE down for two days, what's the worst that could happen? You go out with old pocket query data, have a great stroll in the park and don't find a cache because someone picked it up a couple of hours ago. That's still not too bad unless you are dreadfully concerned about the numbers.

 

 

It *IS* possible to just load up 30 or 40 caches in your GPS and go out and find them. Geocaching DID exist prior to pocket queries, and I'm not sure that this request of 180K caches makes any sense at all to me.

 

 

Forgive me, and please don't take this for being overly defensive, but I get these sets of arguments every time I discuss my PQ useage. I'm going to copy some of what I've written in the past to summarize the final list of items that every argument seems to distill down to:

 

1. Not everyone Geocaches in the same way, and not everyone uses PQs in the same way.

 

2. Just because someone does it differently does not mean that it is wrong.

 

3. People have every right to cache in a manner different than you ("you" meaning generically, not you specifically).

 

 

Now, that being said, I'll give you *some* of the specifics that apply to me:

 

1. I travel a lot, and I don't always know where I'm going ahead of time.

 

2. I have easily and spontaneously traveled 200 miles away on *WHIM*.

 

3. I often do not have internet access when I travel.

 

4. Because of the spontenaity involved, ANY outage of GC.com is a day killer. And the outages/slowdowns are not sparse.

 

In light of those items, I need a fairly comprehensive database available to me on my own system/laptop/gps. And given how often caches can change, or be archived, or be muggled, as well as how often one particular finder's log will make the difference between finding a cache or not, I make it standard procedure for my database to always be up to date.

 

I hope that helps you to understand why I do what I do, and I hope this doesn't degenerate into another nightmare of users screaming "but *I* don't need that many caches downloaded, so there's no possible reason that anyone *else* would!"

 

 

And as to your comment, "With 47 finds, you need that many caches to choose from?", I offer the following:

 

1. I don't always log my finds.

 

2. GC isn't the sole source of caches that I look for.

 

3. The fact that I don't have the free time to find 100 caches per week makes it all the more important that I have the ability to choose good ones, rather than being indiscriminate.

Link to comment

One feature that might work is to let people request 2500 caches and then have the site sent you your entire allotment of 5 PQs for that day with those 2500 unique caches from your center point. I know that you can do this using date ranges but this would make it much more user friendly. :blink:

 

I posted a thread requesting PQ consolidation a year and a half ago. While some suggestions were made to help alleviate my particular issues, the number of caches in existence have made this more necessary again. However, at this point, we need more than consolidation, we also need larger limits.

Link to comment
I've considered it. I don't think it's right to request 180,000 caches per week. That would be all of the caches I haven't found within 860 miles of home for me. From your New Jersey area, that comes up to about 1000 miles - all the way to Minneapolis. With 47 finds, you need that many caches to choose from?

 

I'm not trying to judge, I just think it's a poor waste of resources to send out that many caches when the main database is so readily available. Granted, the system goes down occassionally, but can anyone remember a time when the system was down more than two days?

 

And even if it WERE down for two days, what's the worst that could happen? You go out with old pocket query data, have a great stroll in the park and don't find a cache because someone picked it up a couple of hours ago. That's still not too bad unless you are dreadfully concerned about the numbers.

 

It *IS* possible to just load up 30 or 40 caches in your GPS and go out and find them. Geocaching DID exist prior to pocket queries, and I'm not sure that this request of 180K caches makes any sense at all to me.

Forgive me, and please don't take this for being overly defensive, but I get these sets of arguments every time I discuss my PQ useage. I'm going to copy some of what I've written in the past to summarize the final list of items that every argument seems to distill down to:

1. Not everyone Geocaches in the same way, and not everyone uses PQs in the same way.

2. Just because someone does it differently does not mean that it is wrong.

3. People have every right to cache in a manner different than you ("you" meaning generically, not you specifically).

Now, that being said, I'll give you *some* of the specifics that apply to me:

1. I travel a lot, and I don't always know where I'm going ahead of time.

2. I have easily and spontaneously traveled 200 miles away on *WHIM*.

3. I often do not have internet access when I travel.

4. Because of the spontenaity involved, ANY outage of GC.com is a day killer. And the outages/slowdowns are not sparse.

 

In light of those items, I need a fairly comprehensive database available to me on my own system/laptop/gps. And given how often caches can change, or be archived, or be muggled, as well as how often one particular finder's log will make the difference between finding a cache or not, I make it standard procedure for my database to always be up to date.

 

I hope that helps you to understand why I do what I do, and I hope this doesn't degenerate into another nightmare of users screaming "but *I* don't need that many caches downloaded, so there's no possible reason that anyone *else* would!"

And as to your comment, "With 47 finds, you need that many caches to choose from?", I offer the following:

 

1. I don't always log my finds.

2. GC isn't the sole source of caches that I look for.

3. The fact that I don't have the free time to find 100 caches per week makes it all the more important that I have the ability to choose good ones, rather than being indiscriminate.

Here are two things you can do now:

1) Exclude caches with terrain and difficulty less than 2 from your PQs. This will increase the odds of getting "good" caches in your PQs.

2) If 2500/day is not enough then signup for 10 premium memberships. For only $30/month you could get 25,000 caches/day.

Link to comment

 

Here are two things you can do now:

1) Exclude caches with terrain and difficulty less than 2 from your PQs. This will increase the odds of getting "good" caches in your PQs.

2) If 2500/day is not enough then signup for 10 premium memberships. For only $30/month you could get 25,000 caches/day.

 

 

To your first point, that's not acceptable, because sometimes those stats are what's called for. And ease doesn't necessarily match up with quality.

 

And to your second point - yes, I suppose that's always possible. But the point, however, is that geocaching has grown so much that the limits should be raised in general. If your employer is significantly underpaying you, what is called for is for you to get a raise - not for you to get a second job.

Link to comment

 

Here are two things you can do now:

1) Exclude caches with terrain and difficulty less than 2 from your PQs. This will increase the odds of getting "good" caches in your PQs.

2) If 2500/day is not enough then signup for 10 premium memberships. For only $30/month you could get 25,000 caches/day.

 

To your first point, that's not acceptable, because sometimes those stats are what's called for. And ease doesn't necessarily match up with quality.

 

And to your second point - yes, I suppose that's always possible. But the point, however, is that geocaching has grown so much that the limits should be raised in general. If your employer is significantly underpaying you, what is called for is for you to get a raise - not for you to get a second job.

Based on my experience there is a strong coorelation between ease and fun level. I agree that this would eliminate some good caches but you can add the good ones back in by using "must-do" lists. Secondly, if 99% of people are happy with 17,500 caches/week, why do you think they would increase that? If it's that important to you then $30/month is a drop in the bucket. You could even do it for just one month to get your database loaded. Then you could run PQs for new and disabled (not active) caches to update your database.
Link to comment

I think it's great that we can discuss the need for bigger PQ's. I predict we're not going to get that, but we can at least discuss it. GSAK has given users the ability to store an offline database. With one membership, you can request more than 900,000 Caches per year. That rounds up to one million, and is overkill for the average Premium Member. Untill you can get a significant number of cachers to drop their paid membership over this issue, an increase is probably not going to happen. So, don't try to convince Groundspeak to give you more. Try to convince Premium Members to give Groundspeak less. Good luck.

 

Edited: As Enchanted Shadow correctly pointed out 2500 times 365 = 900,000+ individual cache downloads per year. NOT 900,000+ PQ's.

Edited by Cardinal Red
Link to comment

 

Based on my experience there is a strong coorelation between ease and fun level. I agree that this would eliminate some good caches but you can add the good ones back in by using "must-do" lists. Secondly, if 99% of people are happy with 17,500 caches/week, why do you think they would increase that? If it's that important to you then $30/month is a drop in the bucket. You could even do it for just one month to get your database loaded. Then you could run PQs for new and disabled (not active) caches to update your database.

 

 

What makes you think that 99% of people are happy with the current limitations? Because they haven't voiced their opinions here? If they've done any searching in the boards, they'd see how most people who suggest such a thing get jumped on by a whole lot of people who take it personally because someone isn't caching the way *they* do, and either be too frightened or too disgusted to even try to mention it.

 

As to the other suggestion, it doesn't work because I use constant updates for all caches. Otherwise logs and changes wouldn't show up. A cache doesn't have to be disabled in order for it to be moved, or for some other aspect to be modified.

Link to comment

 

I think it's great that we can discuss the need for bigger PQ's. I predict we're not going to get that, but we can at least discuss it. GSAK has given users the ability to store an offline database. With one membership, you can request more than 900,000 PQ's per year. That rounds up to one million, and is overkill for the average Premium Member. Untill you can get a significant number of cachers to drop their paid membership over this issue, an increase is probably not going to happen. So, don't try to convince Groundspeak to give you more. Try to convince Premium Members to give Groundspeak less. Good luck.

 

 

900,000 PQs per year is completely inaccurate. The current limits call for a maximum of 5 PQs per day, which amounts to 35 PQs per week - which yields a maximum of 1820 PQs per year.

 

This is not overkill at all - it completely depends on how people cache. That being said, I think I have to agree with you on your suggested tactics. Unfortunately, many posts which go against the common thinking here tend to be met with anger, derision, and/or scorn - as opposed to thoughtfullness and consideration, so an attempt on those lines is unlikely to get very far.

Link to comment

 

Based on my experience there is a strong coorelation between ease and fun level. I agree that this would eliminate some good caches but you can add the good ones back in by using "must-do" lists. Secondly, if 99% of people are happy with 17,500 caches/week, why do you think they would increase that? If it's that important to you then $30/month is a drop in the bucket. You could even do it for just one month to get your database loaded. Then you could run PQs for new and disabled (not active) caches to update your database.

 

What makes you think that 99% of people are happy with the current limitations? Because they haven't voiced their opinions here? If they've done any searching in the boards, they'd see how most people who suggest such a thing get jumped on by a whole lot of people who take it personally because someone isn't caching the way *they* do, and either be too frightened or too disgusted to even try to mention it.

 

As to the other suggestion, it doesn't work because I use constant updates for all caches. Otherwise logs and changes wouldn't show up. A cache doesn't have to be disabled in order for it to be moved, or for some other aspect to be modified.

Well then keep posting in here and see where what gets you. :blink: Don't listen to people that have been there and done that. At some point you'll realize that you are doing this: bangheadsc2.gif, and then you'll come up with some creative ways to adapt with "the way it is" and the way it will probably continue to be. B)
Link to comment
1. Not everyone Geocaches in the same way, and not everyone uses PQs in the same way.
I'm not questioning how you cache, I'm trying to really envision the need for 180,000 caches a week (your numbers, not mine).
2. Just because someone does it differently does not mean that it is wrong.
I never said that you or how you cache is wrong, I just said it wasn't right to request THAT many caches. You indicaed that you travel some 200 miles and never know where you're going to cache. I took your earliest New Jersey find and searched for active caches with a 300 mile radius. That equals 44,798 - far short of the 180,000 that you're proposing you need on a weekly basis, but closer to what you're looking for if you are proposing getting caches within 300 miles on a daily basis.

 

3. People have every right to cache in a manner different than you ("you" meaning generically, not you specifically).
Absolutely, so long as it doesn't interfere with how I cache or use the data. I believe that this data would put undue strain on the PQ server (no emperical evidence other than one has happened before with PQs barely running sometimes). According to your position, an increase like this would surely be used by more than just yourself. I believe that would overburden an already taxed system.

 

Also, according to the front page, right now there are 499,783 active caches in the world. With 180,000 caches per week, someone could buy three premium accounts and receives all the caches in the world.

 

 

I'm with what others have said already. If you are soon keen to need THAT much data, purchase as many premium accounts as you need. Then you are giving back more to the production company - proportionally more than what the average premium member uses with one regular account. If you need 180,000 caches per week, purchase 10 or 11 premium membership accounts. You'll then get exactly what you're looking for.

Link to comment

 

Well then keep posting in here and see where what gets you. <_< Don't listen to people that have been there and done that. At some point you'll realize that you are doing this: bangheadsc2.gif, and then you'll come up with some creative ways to adapt with "the way it is" and the way it will probably continue to be. :P

 

 

Just because a task is difficult doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing. :P

Link to comment

 

I'm not questioning how you cache, I'm trying to really envision the need for 180,000 caches a week (your numbers, not mine).

 

 

Forgive me, but I'm not sure I understand where the 180,000 is coming from. Right now, just to get a 100 mile radius, I need 25 PQs, which amounts to 12,500 caches. This doesn't take into account PQs to cover other areas which I may travel to. My recommendation to triple the current limits was largely a matter of addressing the exponential growth of geocaching over the years. To clarify:

 

Cache Limit per PQ:

 

The current limit of 500 caches is ludicrously low, given high density areas. Maintaining 25 PQs for a simple 100 mile radius is a bit much, don't you think? If part of the reasoning has to do with what older GPS's are capable of storing - well, then the individuals who have this consideration can simply set the number of results to 500. Meanwhile, users who don't have that limitation shouldn't have to be bound by it.

 

PQ Limit per Day:

 

5 PQs per day is far too little, considering what is stated in the paragraph above. Now, if the Cache Limit per PQ is increased significantly, this limitation doesn't have to increase as much - so they're connected to some degree. However, people who are traveling or who routinely travel a lot may have the need for many smaller PQs, and they would be constrained by a tight limit here.

 

PQ Limit Total:

 

This limitation is absolutely ludicrous in that it even exists in the first place. If you're already limiting the number of PQs that can be run, what difference does it make how many a user stores in his account to choose from? It takes up a negligible amount of space and zero load if they're not running.

 

 

As for the need for greater numbers - other than the reasons I already gave in earlier posts, an additional fact to consider is that programs like GSAK offer significantly more flexibility and complexity in how caches can be filtered and searched - not to mention the fact that doing it offline is much faster and puts zero load on GC's servers.

 

For example, if a user was in the mood to search for caches that can be driven up to and retrieved without getting out of the car, for days of truly horrible weather, that would require a complicated full text search and would still come up with pittiably few results. To come up with any reasonable number of them, it would indeed require a large pool of caches to search from in the first place.

 

 

 

I never said that you or how you cache is wrong, I just said it wasn't right to request THAT many caches. You indicaed that you travel some 200 miles and never know where you're going to cache. I took your earliest New Jersey find and searched for active caches with a 300 mile radius. That equals 44,798 - far short of the 180,000 that you're proposing you need on a weekly basis, but closer to what you're looking for if you are proposing getting caches within 300 miles on a daily basis.

 

 

Again, I'm not sure where 180,000 is coming from - but I remind you that having the option doesn't mean that everyone is going to use it. Are you telling me that you wolf down everything in sight when you're at a buffet? Of course, not. I'm just saying that the option should be there. If I build a system for someone, I'm not just taking into account what they need to do, but what they *might* need to do. It's the same thing here. You're also making the mistake of taking the suggested limits cumulatively, instead of considering the smaller packet-oriented way they might be actually used.

 

For example, let's say, using my 100 mile radius (at the moment - 12,500 caches), I haven't cached for a month. If I want to update my DB so I have the option the next day, with 1500 caches per PQ and let's say, a limit of 10 PQs per day, I can update in one day - which means I can update on Friday and go caching on Saturday. This is reasonable. However, with the current limits of 500 caches per PQ and 5 PQs per day, it would take me five days to update - which means that if I'm thinking on Tuesday that I might like to cache that weekend, it's already too late to get a full update.

 

This is closer to how the limits are likely to be used, rather than someone maxing out every single number possible all the time.

 

 

Absolutely, so long as it doesn't interfere with how I cache or use the data. I believe that this data would put undue strain on the PQ server (no emperical evidence other than one has happened before with PQs barely running sometimes). According to your position, an increase like this would surely be used by more than just yourself. I believe that would overburden an already taxed system.

 

 

It's not just the number of caches that's grown over the years, it's the number of members as well. This increase in income is what pays for the system upgrades that would allow for the additional load that comes with the greater numbers.

Link to comment

I am always amazed when this argument comes up and I never understood it before tonight. There have been a few comments made in this thread which, to me, finally clarify why someone would possibly need more than 500 query results in a pocket query. I think I now understand.

 

As I have never followed the previous thread THAT closely, and understanding the 500 result limit is the average limit of the general low-end GPS receiver (but certainly not ALL the receivers), please forgive me if this suggestion has been made before, but...

 

How about allowing premium members to run queries up to a maximum of 2500 results (cache listings) per day. This can be done in on single 2500 result query, two 1250 result queries, five 500 result queries, or whatever. This would allow the cachers desiring larger query results to get what they want in one fell swoop by adding very little if any additional stress to the query servers. It MAY even result in LESS stress since some of the creative work-arounds mentioned here would not have to be run as they could get their desired query results in one run.

 

I'm sure the modification to the query page and code would not be too complicated. Would it solve the issue?

 

Anyone have any other solutions aside from the creative query workarounds listed above? (Cool ideas, by the way! Working with the dates and the distance parameters!)

Link to comment

Worth repeting because some seem to have missed it......

 

TPTB do not support the creation and maintenane of offline databases except for very short term useage.

 

The idea is to go out and find the caches you have downloaded. Since you can get 2500 per day - should be a busy week!!!

 

It would be more helpful to discuss increasing the filtering options for a PQ so we could more closely target the types of caches we would like to hunt.

Link to comment
How about allowing premium members to run queries up to a maximum of 2500 results (cache listings) per day. This can be done in on single 2500 result query, two 1250 result queries, five 500 result queries, or whatever. This would allow the cachers desiring larger query results to get what they want in one fell swoop by adding very little if any additional stress to the query servers. It MAY even result in LESS stress since some of the creative work-arounds mentioned here would not have to be run as they could get their desired query results in one run.
Sounds like a good idea! :)

 

One feature that might work is to let people request 2500 caches and then have the site sent you your entire allotment of 5 PQs for that day with those 2500 unique caches from your center point. I know that you can do this using date ranges but this would make it much more user friendly. B)
Link to comment
How about allowing premium members to run queries up to a maximum of 2500 results (cache listings) per day. This can be done in on single 2500 result query, two 1250 result queries, five 500 result queries, or whatever. This would allow the cachers desiring larger query results to get what they want in one fell swoop by adding very little if any additional stress to the query servers. It MAY even result in LESS stress since some of the creative work-arounds mentioned here would not have to be run as they could get their desired query results in one run.
Sounds like a good idea! :)

 

One feature that might work is to let people request 2500 caches and then have the site sent you your entire allotment of 5 PQs for that day with those 2500 unique caches from your center point. I know that you can do this using date ranges but this would make it much more user friendly. :)

 

You forgot to include the line right above the start of my quoted post where I said "please forgive me if this suggestion has been made before, but..."

 

B)

 

Thanks for pointing it out.

Link to comment

Worth repeting because some seem to have missed it......

 

TPTB do not support the creation and maintenane of offline databases except for very short term useage.

 

The idea is to go out and find the caches you have downloaded. Since you can get 2500 per day - should be a busy week!!!

 

It would be more helpful to discuss increasing the filtering options for a PQ so we could more closely target the types of caches we would like to hunt.

 

And AT&T obviously feels it's okay to give out their customer's info and allow the government to wiretap them without a warrant.

 

I'm sorry, but just because the company wants to do something doesn't automatically make it right - and it doesn't mean the users/customers don't have every right to say that they have opinions to the contrary about what services the company provides and the method in which they provide it.

Link to comment
How about allowing premium members to run queries up to a maximum of 2500 results (cache listings) per day. This can be done in on single 2500 result query, two 1250 result queries, five 500 result queries, or whatever. This would allow the cachers desiring larger query results to get what they want in one fell swoop by adding very little if any additional stress to the query servers. It MAY even result in LESS stress since some of the creative work-arounds mentioned here would not have to be run as they could get their desired query results in one run.
Sounds like a good idea! :)

 

One feature that might work is to let people request 2500 caches and then have the site sent you your entire allotment of 5 PQs for that day with those 2500 unique caches from your center point. I know that you can do this using date ranges but this would make it much more user friendly. B)

 

You forgot to include the line right above the start of my quoted post where I said "please forgive me if this suggestion has been made before, but..."

 

B) Thanks for pointing it out.

 

I guess that means we both can't read. :)
Link to comment

And AT&T obviously feels it's okay to give out their customer's info and allow the government to wiretap them without a warrant.

 

I'm sorry, but just because the company wants to do something doesn't automatically make it right - and it doesn't mean the users/customers don't have every right to say that they have opinions to the contrary about what services the company provides and the method in which they provide it.

Groundspeak seems to have taken the stance that the collection of geocaching data in the Geocaching.com database is their property and is the main asset they have for a business. Part of their business model is to sell premium memberships and when you purchase a premium membership you are allowed to download a limited portion of the geocaching.com database for you personal use. You may not share the data you download. They have determined a number of caches that can be downloaded that they feel is fair for the amount you pay and which they feel offers some protection against people who might share, sell, or give away the data despite their agreement not to.

 

If you truly feel that you need to have more data, an option that you have that has already been discussed is to subscribe to multiple premium memberships and download more caches that way.

 

As a premium member, or a non-premium member, you certainly are within your rights to request that Groundspeak provide additional service to you either free of charge or as part of what you already pay for. And it may be that the company will decide that because of the growth cache density or the fact that newer GPS units can hold 1000 or more waypoints they can provide larger PQs. Don't be suprised however when others post in response that they have no need for more caches and would prefer that those who do should pay extra for them. Also don't be surprised when others offer suggestions on how they are able to geocache using the current limitation. Don't believe that they way you geocache is so much different than any one else. I suspect many people like to be flexible and spontaneous and would like to have an offline data base of all the geocaches within two hours drive from their home. But they realize that you don't need to keep all the cache up to date all the time. Maybe they miss that newest cache (or not if they also get instant notifications). Maybe they look for an archived cache every once and awhile (or you can get instant notification when caches are archived, disabled, or re-enabled). Sometime they might not have that one log that had a spoiler or corrected coordinates. They might still find that cache, or they might accept that sometimes you DNF a cache. You may believe you need more, but your not going convince people who are having fun making do with what the website already gives them.

Link to comment

 

As a premium member, or a non-premium member, you certainly are within your rights to request that Groundspeak provide additional service to you either free of charge or as part of what you already pay for. And it may be that the company will decide that because of the growth cache density or the fact that newer GPS units can hold 1000 or more waypoints they can provide larger PQs. Don't be suprised however when others post in response that they have no need for more caches and would prefer that those who do should pay extra for them. Also don't be surprised when others offer suggestions on how they are able to geocache using the current limitation.

 

 

I'm not surprised at any of these things, nor did I ever say that I was.

 

 

Don't believe that they way you geocache is so much different than any one else.

 

 

The large number of people who reply to my posts on this subject whenever it comes up seem to make it pretty clear that the way I cache *is* different from the way a lot of people do it. So forgive me if their prior posts have already rebutted you.

 

 

I suspect many people like to be flexible and spontaneous and would like to have an offline data base of all the geocaches within two hours drive from their home. But they realize that you don't need to keep all the cache up to date all the time. Maybe they miss that newest cache (or not if they also get instant notifications). Maybe they look for an archived cache every once and awhile (or you can get instant notification when caches are archived, disabled, or re-enabled). Sometime they might not have that one log that had a spoiler or corrected coordinates. They might still find that cache, or they might accept that sometimes you DNF a cache. You may believe you need more, but your not going convince people who are having fun making do with what the website already gives them.

 

 

You are sadly mistaken as to what is going on, I'm afraid. I'm not trying to convince anyone that there's anything wrong with the way they cache (many of them cannot say the same). Nor am I trying to convince anyone that my way of caching is superior to anyone else's (also, many of them cannot say the same). The primary point I've been trying to make is that my way of caching is JUST AS VALID as anyone else's - and it is neither their place, nor yours, to tell me otherwise.

 

If you're okay will all of those "maybe" compromises you list above, that is 100 percent your prerogative. But don't tell me what I should be happy with. I will remind you that I was not the one who started this thread regarding the PQ limitations. I am simply *another* person who believes that the PQ limitations are archaic and too constricting. If you're completely happy with them, than that's wonderful - honestly. But don't get in the way of people for whom it doesn't work.

Link to comment

In 2002, I could order up to 5 basic pocket queries per day with 500 caches in each. It only cost me $30 per year.

 

In 2008, I can still order up to 5 pocket queries per day with 500 caches in each, but with an improved interface, more selection options, and new ways to construct queries such as from a map, from an uploaded route, or from a pocket query. I can also get a query with all my finds, which returns more than 3,000 caches in a single file.

 

And it still only costs me $30 per year.

 

I think that's pretty cool. :)

Link to comment

 

In 2002, I could order up to 5 basic pocket queries per day with 500 caches in each. It only cost me $30 per year.

 

In 2008, I can still order up to 5 pocket queries per day with 500 caches in each, but with an improved interface, more selection options, and new ways to construct queries such as from a map, from an uploaded route, or from a pocket query. I can also get a query with all my finds, which returns more than 3,000 caches in a single file.

 

And it still only costs me $30 per year.

 

I think that's pretty cool. :)

 

 

And I don't begrudge you that at all. But here's another way of looking at it...

 

In 2002, 5 PQs per day at 500 caches each gave you all the caches in what radius?

 

In 2008, 5 PQs per day at 500 caches each NOW gives you all the caches in what radius?

 

And how many more members are there paying $30 per year in 2008 than there was in 2002? And yet, you're still getting only 5 PQs per day at only 500 caches each. To me, that's not cool at all. But that's me. B)

Link to comment

I maintain three databases, all of which are updated weekly. One gives me all the unfound caches within 150 miles of my home. A second gives me unfound caches in Eastern Pennsylvania, where I travel several times a year. The third gives me the nearest 1000 unfound caches near my parents' home in Upstate New York.

 

Even with running 30 queries per week, I still have room left over to run my "All Finds" query, or a group of five queries for trips to other areas of the country. The secret is using the "placement date" method to maximize the efficiency of my PQ's. The process is so automated that I don't give much thought to how many separate queries are involved.

 

It will take me quite awhile to find all the caches in my "Home 150 miles" database -- all 10,000 of them. Last year I found nearly 1000 caches in nine states, and about 20% of those finds were outside the areas covered by my regular queries. Within my regular areas, I love having the ability to jump in the car and head off in any direction to find caches without any advance planning. That's freedom!

 

Yep, I'm getting my $30 worth. :)

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...