Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Leboyf

REDUCING THE LOAD on Grounspeak servers AND give MORE to premium users

Recommended Posts

5x500 caches/day is now simply not enough :(:(:D:D:)

This question has come up many times and the answer from Jeremy has always been no. Do not expeecct this to change any time soon if at all.

 

WHY

-------

Too much load on Groundspeak Servers

 

Every week I generate 20 PQs breaking the data up by date placed.

Every week I spend 1 hour fine tuning the PQ's

All of that is creating a lot of load on the servers

 

LOAD ON SERVERS

-----------------------

Exemple :

If there are 10 000 users in a given state, each of them generating 10 PQs a week that's:

- 100 000 different PQs and

- 100 000 E-mails.

That's a lot of load on both servers (PQ server and the E-mail server).

 

SOLUTION --> STATE WIDE PQ :D

---------------------------------------

Step #1 : ONCE a day, Groundspeak could generate 64 special PQ's (that's 1/state + 1/province) AND save it to their server

 

Step #2 : Mass mail the PQ's ONCE a day (say, around midnight)

 

Benefit:

- Very low demand on the PQ server (64 PQs already generated and saved on Groundspeak servers)

- Less demand on e-mail server (ONLY 1 E-mail sent to the 10 000 users stated in the exemple above. The load is on the Internet not on Groundspeak servers)

 

As per the exemple above :

1 state = 1 large PQ + 1 E-mail

- versus -

100 000 different PQs + 100 000 E-mails

 

FORMAT

----------

I would give up my 5 PQs in a given day if I can run 1 state wide PQ :):huh:

Further more, I won't need the 15 other PQ's and no more fine tuning of the data.

Personally, 1 state wide PQ per week is all I need :D:D

 

WHY THAT MANY CACHES

--------------------------------

Don't bother me with that question...Because I want it :D:(:D

 

I download it all in GSAK and I'm ready for the week-end.

I can plan my hunt and choose the area that I want to hit.

I put what ever I need in my GPSr.

Where ever I want to go, I'm up-to-date.

I hate wasting time on an archived cache.

 

Leboyf

will be working on my 2000th find this summer

Share this post


Link to post

I download it all in GSAK and I'm ready for the week-end.

I can plan my hunt and choose the area that I want to hit.

I put what ever I need in my GPSr.

Where ever I want to go, I'm up-to-date.

I hate wasting time on an archived cache.

I already achieve all these goals, using well under my limit of five queries per day. I can cache anywhere in my state on a moment's notice, plus anywhere in five neighboring states, provided the cache is within 150 miles of home.

 

As I didn't go caching today, I updated my GSAK database to weed out archived caches. Done while watching a movie, the GSAK "Status Check" is simple. In a year of maintaining this database, I've never chased after an archived or disabled cache.

 

If you can't figure out how to avoid archived or disabled caches, you should be asking for help in the GSAK forum rather than complaining in the Groundspeak forum for something that's not going to change anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post

I download it all in GSAK and I'm ready for the week-end.

I can plan my hunt and choose the area that I want to hit.

I put what ever I need in my GPSr.

Where ever I want to go, I'm up-to-date.

I hate wasting time on an archived cache.

I already achieve all these goals, using well under my limit of five queries per day. I can cache anywhere in my state on a moment's notice, plus anywhere in five neighboring states, provided the cache is within 150 miles of home.

 

As I didn't go caching today, I updated my GSAK database to weed out archived caches. Done while watching a movie, the GSAK "Status Check" is simple. In a year of maintaining this database, I've never chased after an archived or disabled cache.

 

If you can't figure out how to avoid archived or disabled caches, you should be asking for help in the GSAK forum rather than complaining in the Groundspeak forum for something that's not going to change anytime soon.

 

I know how to to this and I do it often.

What about latest DNF logs. Some users don't archive before a long time.

The point is that I want GSAK up-to-date when I go for a hunt and in the mean time find a way to reduce the load on Groundspeak servers

Share this post


Link to post

You do know that the pocket query generator runs on a separate machine, right?

 

Is there a concern about pocket query server load, of which I'm unaware? I may have missed another forum thread.

Share this post


Link to post

Best solution is to use the most up-to-date information - conveniently stored for you on the Groundspeak servers. You can get a PQ for any area or route within about 5 minutes. Change your mind and off to a new area up to 5 times per day. Bet you will never find more than 100 in a day anyway - you should always be set. If you need more - buy a 2nd or 3rd member ship and get that many more per day.

 

I think it would be better to discuss the types of changes to the query options that will allow us to more closely target the kinds of caches we like to find.

Share this post


Link to post

You're going in Florida for a week, 1 PQ and you're all set.

You're not up-to-date in NY State, 1 PQ and you are.

 

Don't you find the idea appealing?

Share this post


Link to post

Not really. Rather than a prepackaged pocket query covering the whole state, I'd rather have one that matches my specifications.

 

I have more than 100 finds in New York, and about 50 in Florida. I'd want to exclude caches I've already found.

 

Since I'd be traveling, I'd also want to exclude puzzle caches, events and high-terrain caches.

 

The system would be sending me lots of data that I don't want, and which I'd have to take time to filter.

Share this post


Link to post

No appeal to me either. I have never kept my finds in GSAK so wouldn't be able to filter those out. When travelling I rarely do multis. I never ever do puzzles. States are big chunks of land - would rather target where I will be during my visit. Lots of useless data to me. I let the Groundspeak servers handle the heavy lifting of data.

Share this post


Link to post

Strange....

 

Use a saved filter in GSAK.

Edited by Leboyf

Share this post


Link to post

I use the "delete" option when opening each GPX download. I never kept any data beyond a few days in GSAK. I have no interest in doing so. The website does such a good job at it.

Share this post


Link to post

I NEVER delete caches in GSAK.

 

It seems that we don't use GSAK the same way.

Maybe that's why you don't agree with the State wide PQ concept.

Share this post


Link to post

With the PQ's you can let the web-site filter some of the data as it makes them. (Like eliminating your finds, or types of caches you do not want to do) even with GSAK you can do that but it takes you time to do it.

 

Also what about people like me who live just about in another state? I live in PA by 2 blocks. I cache in 2 states (PA, OH). That means we would have to do it twice to get the data we want. It now takes me 1 PQ to get the area around me.

 

One the other hand it would be nice to be able to get a whole state. As I do maintain a few data sets in PA. I have a set around my home, I have a set around Marienville (I like to go to the National Forest) I also have a set around my brothers house in Harrisburg. So having a full state would make it easer on me for this.

 

I think an optional PQ for a full state would be nice with the PQ filters applied. Maybe able to get one a week for a state upto 5 states a week would be nice.

 

Well my $.02 anyhow.

 

kf4oox - Paul

Share this post


Link to post

Would a PQ that size even go through on some email servers? How big would that attachment be for, say, California?

Share this post


Link to post

Also what about people like me who live just about in another state? I live in PA by 2 blocks. I cache in 2 states (PA, OH). That means we would have to do it twice to get the data we want. It now takes me 1 PQ to get the area around me.

Exactly. I haven't even yet downloaded a PQ (I'm rather new at this...still waiting for my GPSr to arrive) and the idea of being able to get them only on a state-by-state basis doesn't sound good to me. I live in PA but 30 miles to the east is NY and 30 miles to the west is OH.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, Noscitare... After a couple hundred finds, you will understand.

 

In you case 2 PQs and your good to go.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, but this sounds like a terrible idea to me. What about the caches that are updated and/or added during the week. People are still going to complain that the queries don't include those.

 

I'm not sure what is so difficult about getting the PQ's the day before you go out, updating your GSAK and going about your hunt.

Share this post


Link to post

I NEVER delete caches in GSAK.

 

It seems that we don't use GSAK the same way.

Maybe that's why you don't agree with the State wide PQ concept.

It seems he uses PQs the way they were designed and intended to be used.

It seems you don't.

It seems that you want GC.com to change to accommodate some 3rd party software.

It seems if you have problems with the way 3rd party software works, you should be compaining to whoever wrote it.

 

Well, Noscitare... After a couple hundred finds, you will understand.

 

In you case 2 PQs and your good to go.

I understand that people have somehow managed to find 10's of thousands of caches without problems with the current system. Funny that you never see the people with 5-10-20 thousand cache finds complaining.

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't that what the Platium membership is for? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak is well aware of changes to the PQs that would make them easier for users and perhaps even more efficient for their servers, yet they don't make the change. This leads me to the conclusion that the limitations are there for a reason other that server load.

 

I have admire the concern of geocachers who keep asking for more efficient ways to get the caches they want in their pocket queries and point out that a least some of these changes would almost certainly be more efficient for the Groundspeak servers. I am always amazed that people who have no particular knowledge of how geocaching data is store and how pocket queries get generated seem to be able to deduce that some method would have significantly less load on the servers. But even granting that, it may very well be that the limitation on PQs that currently exist are there for some other reason than preventing undue load on the servers. Groundspeak wishes to exert a degree of control over access to the database since this is the primare asset on which their business model rests. Premium memberships are sold providing specific rights to download limited parts of the database. Archived caches are not included in part to prevent a person from incrementally building a copy of any significant portion of the geocaching database by knowing that they could get PQs of only the caches that were archived or changed in some manner. You need to keep getting the same 2500 or whatever number of caches over and over thereby limiting the size of the offline database you keep (if you want to keep it up to date).

Share this post


Link to post

What about the caches that are updated and/or added during the week.

 

The PQ "Updated within last 7-Day" option doesn't really satisfy me, because every cache log resets the last date of update. In result, my daily queries have too much non interesting updates (cache-logs), and these 500 caches covering only a small area.

 

I don't use GSAK, I have my own process, retrieving PQ from mailbox, check for updates, and store the cache waypoints in database of my favorite navigation software TTQV in an automated process. Today only 15 of 500 caches have relevant updates in their cache descriptions. In my opinion, Groundspeak could save a lot of traffic, if they would exclude log updates in their query options.

 

I'm not sure what is so difficult about getting the PQ's the day before you go out, updating your GSAK and going about your hunt.

 

Not difficult, but boring by doing the same stupid clicks every day. I prefer the way define once, run daily. Computers costs a lot of money, why don't use them :)

 

Marmotte

Share this post


Link to post

I always find it interesting when someone suggests something and a group will pounce on the idea as bad, they'd never use it, so it shouldn't happen. Whatever happen to options? Who said the idea would be the only way to do it? Just because you wouldn't use it means that no one should be able to use it?

 

The idea of a state-wide or region-wide PQ has been floated a few times before. The result has always been the same: nay-sayers and nothing changing.

 

Personally, I would use it to replace the SC series of PQs I run now. I doubt I would use it to replace the rest though.

 

As far as tailoring for a third party software solution, this site has already done that. The GPX format is not proprietary except of the reserved name space. I think Clyde would probably be better suited to adjusting his program to Groundspeak than the other way around.

 

That's not to mention GSAK is the 800 lb. gorilla of the offline caching data world.

 

Also, GSAK already interrogates logs for finds and such automatically. The idea of having to have custom PQs for everyone is simply not valid in this respect.

 

"The PQs would be huge!" Not for the optional "changed in last 7 days" and only the required data and changes are sent. In my area only about 25% or 33% of the caches change in a given week. Many of those times there are only one or two logs that are added. Description changes are relatively rare. Dump the unnecessary data and the sizes of the PQs would drop dramatically.

 

Additionally, I'd probably only have differential PQs sent automatically. Full PQs could be pulled--one daily and at will, with the same one only available weekly--from a link to get one up to speed and then use differentials to keep the database fresh.

 

"We're supposed to come to the website to see advertisements." Yeah, don't we get that opportunity when we're logging our finds? I'm not much into perusing ads when I'm on a mission, i.e. getting some PQs downloaded.

 

In short, the idea has been discussed, objections countered and solutions given, and Groundspeak still does nothing on the issue except spend development time on other websites. Yes, it's a sore spot as I'm only interested in geocaching yet funds are being diverted to other ventures before the primary revenue maker is nailed down solid. It wouldn't be as big a deal if Geocaching.com 2.0 were actually here. However, we've waiting on it since, what, May '03?

 

~shrug~

 

In the meantime, I continue to get the data the best way I can regardless of the strain it places on the servers.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, you are my hero, you can do 2500 caches in a day!!!

 

Why do you need to download 2500 caches a day if you can't do them all in one day?

 

Either put up or shut up, do 2500 caches in one day for a week solid by yourself thus proving a need for people to be able to download 2500+ caches a day and maybe someone will notice the need and then make the change you are asking for.

 

So what's it going to be? Step up or step off!

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, you are my hero, you can do 2500 caches in a day!!!

 

Why do you need to download 2500 caches a day if you can't do them all in one day?

 

Either put up or shut up, do 2500 caches in one day for a week solid by yourself thus proving a need for people to be able to download 2500+ caches a day and maybe someone will notice the need and then make the change you are asking for.

 

So what's it going to be? Step up or step off!

 

I love it when people have no idea waht they are talking about. It has nothing to do with finding 2500 caches in one day. People sound like morons when they throw out that stupid question everytime something like this comes up. Every thread that talks about this topic always has to have the one guy saying that "as soon as you find 2000 caches in one day, then maybe you will have a point..." It has to do with having options. I live in Dallas where there are thousands of caches in a 20 mile area. I like to have options available for whenever I go out to run errands. I might be in one part of the town one day and another part of the town the next and it is nice to be able to just grab a few caches in the area while I am out running errands. It saves on gas not making a lot of specific cache runs. Having a larger database makes this process simple. I do not know that I would need a whole state, but I understand the desire for some to have bigger, up to date databases. Like CoyoteRed said, just because you wouldn't use it doesn't mean thousands of others wouldn't use it.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess this would a good idea for people that live in smaller states with few caches, but I sure wouldn't want a PQ hitting my mailbox everyday with all of the caches in Texas! Good grief! 450 of the nearest to my home is plenty! Why do you need your whole state anyway - I didn't see that explained sufficiently by the OP.

Share this post


Link to post

Disclaimer: I'm pretty new to all of this and still trying to learn the details and finer points. Ergo, I might very well be speaking here via my bung-hole. :)

 

Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding the use/purpose of Pocket Queries, but why would one need to download the info for hundreds of caches at a time?

 

Why wouldn't you just download enough to get you through your upcoming expedition and then when it comes time for another outing, request a new Pocket Query?

 

Granted, I am now hearing of "Power Cachers" who do 100+ caches in a day or a weekend, but those folks are the minority of the cachers, no?

 

Thanks in advance for being patient to a possible clueless noob.

Share this post


Link to post

Disclaimer: I'm pretty new to all of this and still trying to learn the details and finer points. Ergo, I might very well be speaking here via my bung-hole. :)

 

Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding the use/purpose of Pocket Queries, but why would one need to download the info for hundreds of caches at a time?

 

Why wouldn't you just download enough to get you through your upcoming expedition and then when it comes time for another outing, request a new Pocket Query?

 

Granted, I am now hearing of "Power Cachers" who do 100+ caches in a day or a weekend, but those folks are the minority of the cachers, no?

 

Thanks in advance for being patient to a possible clueless noob.

 

For me, like I stated above, I like to have options when I am out running errands. I might not know where I am going to end up in advance, so a location specific query is no good all the time. When I do take a day to cache I will do a normal query and get the ones in the area I am going to. But when I am running errands, I will look at my GPS and PDA for the caches in that area if I have time to go find some. This means I am in that area and not at a computer to do a query on that area. So yes I have built a database of Dallas over time, and yes, it gets out dated so that I might be searching for archived or lost caches. I deal with this issue, but it is the reason I can see for wanting and updated query of lots of caches. For me, a state would be way too big; I don't really need the caches in El Paso, but it is the same concept that gets tossed around, mainly, more caches in your query results.

Share this post


Link to post

A couple minor issues that I haven't seen addressed yet:

You suggest setting up 64 'super queries' (for lack of a better term), 1 for each state/province. Ummm... did you miss the memo that said this is a world-wide activity? What about all those chaps in Britain? How about the French? Or the South Africans? Are they all out of luck?

You want to talk about reducing server load?

Dumping all of Michigan's caches (8652 as of this moment), to each PM that requests it today (let's say... 500), would probably cause some issues. Based on my nearest 100 pocket query, at 117 kb, would give me a file of 10.1 megs (more or less, probably more with parking coords, etc.). Multiply that by the 500 people in my example, you'll have 5.05 gb transferred. For Michigan. You're from Quebec. It's about the same as Michigan (8933 caches). Oh, you live in California? Your file is going to be aproximately 54 megs. Just yours. 500 people (that's a pretty conservative estimate of daily requests), 27 gigs to send. And don't forget, you'll see some massive upswing in queries on Thursday and Friday, getting ready for the weekend.

Now, granted, these are rough estimates. Your suggestion is to generate once per day, but somebody may get grumpy that they got an archived cache or two - people are constantly archiving, publishing, logging finds/dnfs.

Don't forget to add all those normal pocket queries into the mix. Whew! That's a lot of data to try to mash through!

I'd rather have Groundspeak's servers do all the sorting for me.

 

I understand that people have somehow managed to find 10's of thousands of caches without problems with the current system. Funny that you never see the people with 5-10-20 thousand cache finds complaining.

That's because they're out caching! :)

 

Thanks all the same, but I'll take my pin-point pocket query method any day of the week.

Share this post


Link to post

Like has already been mentioned, it's not about finding 2500 caches in a day. Not anymore than it is about having so many caches that one would not be able to find them all--or want to.

 

When we go off on a trip, we rarely know our exact itinerary. We simply don't plan each and every cache we're going to hit on a trip. We like to keep it pretty darn loose. So, we like to have options. We keep a fairly complete list of caches in the areas we like to go--minus the ones we feel would be a waste of our time.

 

If we originally wanted to go one place and decide to go somewhere else which would be outside our original planned cache group, we can. We simply fire up the laptop and load the GPS, Tom-Tom, and PDA with the new set. However, it would be kind of hard to do if we didn't have that offline database. We don't know where all of the neat, wham-bam free wi-fi spots are, nor do we have a data plan with our cellphone company.

 

Keeping an offline database is simply a customized mirror of gc.com and tc.com within our stomping grounds for when we are out of touch with the internet. If we did have internet access in the boonies, what's the difference between that and having an offline database? It's not as if we're going to find all of those caches, right? It's about being able to choose which and what you want to do on an outing.

Share this post


Link to post
That's a lot of data to try to mash through!

Mayhap you missed my post above that addressed the issue of the size of the PQs.

 

But let's back up a minute.

 

Breaking up the regions by state, especially the ones with higher populations, would not be the best solution as you pointed out. Breaking up the areas by state is simply too simplistic. However, intelligently created PQs could be formed based of populations of caches and cachers that could be much more efficient. It could be a state would be best served by a simply state PQ, like SC. GA might be best served by doing one for the Atlanta region, and then north and south GA. CA might have the two or three largest cities and then three regions that don't include those cities.

 

Basically, what is happening right now is something similar. How many folks in Atlanta are pulling down very nearly the exact same PQ? A few hundred? Each of those are individually ran for each. However, if you had pre-canned PQs--or even shared PQs ala caches-along-a-route style PQs--then you would certainly reduce the server load while not drastically increasing the bandwidth.

 

If these "Super-Queries" could be shared and if they allowed a much larger maximum cache set, do you think folks would opt for them over custom PQs? Sure they would. The only question would be how many. I certainly would opt for a SC state-wide super-query. Add a NEFL super-query and Western NC super-query then all I would need left is my sliver of GA and the rest of southern NC built from regular queries.

 

Sure, building gargantuan queries would not increase efficiency, but that doesn't mean the idea should be tossed out the window without further study.

Share this post


Link to post

I download it all in GSAK and I'm ready for the week-end.

I can plan my hunt and choose the area that I want to hit.

I put what ever I need in my GPSr.

Where ever I want to go, I'm up-to-date.

I hate wasting time on an archived cache.

I already achieve all these goals, using well under my limit of five queries per day. I can cache anywhere in my state on a moment's notice, plus anywhere in five neighboring states, provided the cache is within 150 miles of home.

 

As I didn't go caching today, I updated my GSAK database to weed out archived caches. Done while watching a movie, the GSAK "Status Check" is simple. In a year of maintaining this database, I've never chased after an archived or disabled cache.

 

If you can't figure out how to avoid archived or disabled caches, you should be asking for help in the GSAK forum rather than complaining in the Groundspeak forum for something that's not going to change anytime soon.

how do you do the staus check??

Share this post


Link to post

You're going in Florida for a week, 1 PQ and you're all set.

You're not up-to-date in NY State, 1 PQ and you are.

 

Don't you find the idea appealing?

No. :)

 

I get seven "Date Placed" PQs for the area I might reasonably search at a moment's notice. After refreshing my GSAK database, I use the "Last .gpx Update" filter to delete the caches that did not update -- those are the ones that have been Archived or Temporarially Disabled since the last time I got those PQs.

 

Then, I filter the caches by three local regions, based on distance, and direction from my home. That works very well for me.

 

When I traveled more than 6000 miles in 2006, I just logged on at WiFi Hotspots and got new PQs, within minutes, for the areas I was heading towards.

 

I cannot imagine what I would do with all the caches in California . . . :)

 

Edit for spelling . . . :)

Edited by Miragee

Share this post


Link to post

All Groundspeak do are providing data to you. If you need to manipulate it further, you can do that in GSAK. In one of the threads someone said that when they are going round Dallas they'd want to a query for that specific area. Go to GSAK, create a new temporary location, filter the caches to do the ones that you'd want to do, Trads, Multis etc, and I don't know, pump out 100 or so onto your GPSr. Job done.

 

That's all I do with mine. Hardly any caches very close to me these days but when I'm out and about further afield, I usually have caches details to hand.

Share this post


Link to post

For me, like I stated above, I like to have options when I am out running errands.

Okay....I think I'm getting the drift of this. I wasn't thinking about the possibility of "spur-of-the-moment" caching expeditions.

 

Plus, I suppose if you live in a major metropolitan area you could hit that 500 mark rather quickly. For my own area I have to go out to a 20 mile radius of my home zip-code to get 544 cache listings. And many of them look (from their map location) to be so simple that you probably don't even need a GPSr to find them.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

Would a PQ that size even go through on some email servers? How big would that attachment be for, say, California?

 

Forget California, how big would it be for San Diego County? I do a pq for 500 caches and I'm lucky to get a spot a couple of miles wide!

 

I'm all for the idea of having bigger PQs, exactly because of that density here in San Diego area. If I am at the other end of the town, I'd need a dozen PQs to cover my daily commute triangles.

 

I know everyone keeps throwing out that whole 'pq should get you everything within 100 miles of home' number, so how about instead of everyone trying to argue over how many cahces a persone really needs, let some of us have the option to have everything within 50 miles of home with no cap on the number of caches.

 

Also, how about if I get a once a week pq of the county. May not work as well for some who live near the edges of counties, but again, I dont think there will be a one size fits all solution, and I think we need to have different options for people instead of always trying to make other people cache the way we do. Different areas, different lifestyles and scheduals REQUIRE different methods of caching. I started out caching in rural Ohio, and now I'm in urban San Diego, and I can tell you for sure, it's a whole different sport in the two different places.

 

How ever you cache, keep on cachin!

root1657

Share this post


Link to post

Would a PQ that size even go through on some email servers? How big would that attachment be for, say, California?

Forget California, how big would it be for San Diego County? I do a pq for 500 caches and I'm lucky to get a spot a couple of miles wide!

 

<snip>

You need to set up your PQs for such a large metropolitan area by "Date Placed." Just set up the 500-cache PQs using a centerpoint up by Julian, and you'll get a 100-mile circle of caches to hunt. :)

Share this post


Link to post

...

 

I love it when people have no idea waht they are talking about. It has nothing to do with finding 2500 caches in one day. People sound like morons when they throw out that stupid question everytime something like this comes up. Every thread that talks about this topic always has to have the one guy saying that "as soon as you find 2000 caches in one day, then maybe you will have a point..." It has to do with having options. I live in Dallas where there are thousands of caches in a 20 mile area. I like to have options available for whenever I go out to run errands. I might be in one part of the town one day and another part of the town the next and it is nice to be able to just grab a few caches in the area while I am out running errands. It saves on gas not making a lot of specific cache runs. Having a larger database makes this process simple. I do not know that I would need a whole state, but I understand the desire for some to have bigger, up to date databases. Like CoyoteRed said, just because you wouldn't use it doesn't mean thousands of others wouldn't use it.

...so couldn't you (for example) download all of the 2/2 regular sized caches that you haven't found placed before 2003 in your area and have (for example) a few hundred caches covering the entire metro area - more than enough for a day of errands???

 

Next week load up all the 3/2 micros placed since July 2006. The following week load up the 1/2 smalls.

 

If thier are really so many caches - couldn't you just target some subset before heading out and still have a huge number of potential targets?? Isn't that what bthe PQ options are for??

 

I am in full agreement that we should have even more filtering options to narrow down these subsets before heading out. Keyword searches, owner searches, etc.....

 

Wouldn't that work for your random days of errands?? At least couldn't you "live" (get by) with caching that way? It fits nicely into the current limitations - doesn't it??

 

I've learned to live with them......

Share this post


Link to post

I hava a caching buddy that keeps all the old data. Quite often I find him seeking an archived cache.

 

His new nickname is "Stale Data".

Share this post


Link to post
I hava a caching buddy that keeps all the old data. Quite often I find him seeking an archived cache.

 

His new nickname is "Stale Data".

If he is your buddy then wouldn't he be called "Stale Mate." :)

Share this post


Link to post

...

 

I love it when people have no idea waht they are talking about. It has nothing to do with finding 2500 caches in one day. People sound like morons when they throw out that stupid question everytime something like this comes up. Every thread that talks about this topic always has to have the one guy saying that "as soon as you find 2000 caches in one day, then maybe you will have a point..." It has to do with having options. I live in Dallas where there are thousands of caches in a 20 mile area. I like to have options available for whenever I go out to run errands. I might be in one part of the town one day and another part of the town the next and it is nice to be able to just grab a few caches in the area while I am out running errands. It saves on gas not making a lot of specific cache runs. Having a larger database makes this process simple. I do not know that I would need a whole state, but I understand the desire for some to have bigger, up to date databases. Like CoyoteRed said, just because you wouldn't use it doesn't mean thousands of others wouldn't use it.

...so couldn't you (for example) download all of the 2/2 regular sized caches that you haven't found placed before 2003 in your area and have (for example) a few hundred caches covering the entire metro area - more than enough for a day of errands???

 

Next week load up all the 3/2 micros placed since July 2006. The following week load up the 1/2 smalls.

 

If thier are really so many caches - couldn't you just target some subset before heading out and still have a huge number of potential targets?? Isn't that what bthe PQ options are for??

 

I am in full agreement that we should have even more filtering options to narrow down these subsets before heading out. Keyword searches, owner searches, etc.....

 

Wouldn't that work for your random days of errands?? At least couldn't you "live" (get by) with caching that way? It fits nicely into the current limitations - doesn't it??

 

I've learned to live with them......

 

I obviously do live with it. I have lived with it for a while now. I am just saying that I see the need for larger queries for SOME people. Everybody keeps offering the same alternatives that have been there for a long time now. Yes I know how to search by date; that is how I created my database in the first place. It still took about 15 PQs to get everything in a 50 mile radius that covered DFW. Do I look at 90% of it? No, but you never know if you are going to be in some area on a random day, and think, "hey, I haven't cached here yet, let's go grab a few." Then it pays off to have that info available.

 

It is a totally different scenario than if I was taking a trip somewhere and would then do a query on a route and on the final destination. This is about day to day activities that could take you anywhere in a place populated by 1000's and 1000's of caches.

 

I always get the argument that this was not the intent of the PQs. Well, I am pretty sure geocaching wasn't the intent of the designers of the original GPSr's, either, but looked what happened. People will always find different uses for things than what they were intended for, and then they will try to recommend improvements to said "thing". Heaven forbid if the GPS companies didn't try to make their GPSr's more geocaching friendly these days.

Share this post


Link to post
It is a totally different scenario than if I was taking a trip somewhere and would then do a query on a route and on the final destination. This is about day to day activities that could take you anywhere in a place populated by 1000's and 1000's of caches.

 

And my technique of loading up just one size and type for the one day wouldn't satisfy you - just to narrow it all down a bit?? I don't even need GSAK or any long term storage and I could cache a large metro area by targeting a very select type, size, date for the day.

Share this post


Link to post

If there are 10 000 users in a given state, each of them generating 10 PQs a week that's:

 

... that's 50 x 10 000 x $30, total $15 million a year in revenue just for the US. Which would buy all the server power you could wish for. Although, if I were in charge and that happened, I'd probably cash up, close the site down, and head to a distant tropical island, where GPS signals are jammed and the only whining noise came from my private helicopter.

Share this post


Link to post

All right, all right.

 

This idea is not for people:

- Without high speed internet (I assume it's a minority)

- Living in rural areas (Lucky you, not your problem, a few regular PQs is enough)

- That loves fine tuning their PQ for hours (I had enough of that)

- That don't use offline database (I assume it's a minority)

- Without experience (You'll understand soon enough)

- That loves complaining without giving any positive thoughts.

 

Remember, this is all about giving more to premium members WITHOUT overloading Groundspeak servers. Preset PQs sent ONLY at midnight (Or twice a day).

I'm sure even the complainers will use the Preset PQs. They might not admit it :blink::huh:

 

As soon as you have not enough of 1 PQ (of course, already filtering out unwanted cache type and all), you begin wasting time. Fine tuning PQs always require more then 30 minutes.

 

Sorting an offline database is MUCH faster and it could be done in the plane, in the train, in the woods ??? (ok, ok, in your car next to the woods)... B)

 

At midnight, a majority of cachers have already logged their finds. So, the midnight Preset GPX would be close to up-to-date. You request the preset the day before you go out caching. Nice isn't it :o:D

 

Your e-mail server doesn't like big files, use GMail (6 gigs – It's FREE) and GSAK will download, import and delete the e-mails for you. With Hotmail you have (5 gigs)

 

I've been to California last summer. I spent hours trying to run PQs in a small 20 mile area. Of course, I had to go with the date placed method.

I have other stuff to do than fine tuning of PQs online :unsure:

 

For my Florida trip... I don't know if I will be able to find Wi-Fi. I don't want to waste time finding a hot spot or risk not being able to. Offline database is there again the most efficient solution. If I can find Wi-Fi… excellent… 1 PQ and I'm done.

 

Let's use the United States for example.

In some cases, State wide might be too big ?

It could be county wide (not country, county), more then 1 county could be selected. It could be done via a selectable map.

For other Countries, like Germany, Ethiopia, Russia, Canada (my home land) we'll deal with that later. It's just an example.

 

Of course, you don't need to receive the Preset PQ every day. For me, once a week (Friday) is enough.

You're caching every day? The updated last xx could be available for the Preset PQ

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

VERY IMPORTANT READ BELOW :

snip

Oh, you live in California? Your file is going to be aproximately 54 megs. Just yours. 500 people (that's a pretty conservative estimate of daily requests), 27 gigs to send. And don't forget, you'll see some massive upswing in queries on Thursday and Friday, getting ready for the weekend.

snip

You missed my point :

One 54 megs E-mail to 500 people that's NOT 27 gigs, that's 54 megs. The idea is to send 1 e-mail to all of people requesting it, at ONCE, once a day, lets say at midnight (Pacific time of course). The load is not on Groundspeak server. The load will be on the Internet.

54 megs.

 

FYI:

1 cache = ±1k

1000 caches = ±1 meg

Share this post


Link to post

All right, all right.

 

This idea is not for people:

- Without high speed internet (I assume it's a minority)

- Living in rural areas (Lucky you, not your problem, a few regular PQs is enough)

- That loves fine tuning their PQ for hours (I had enough of that)

- That don't use offline database (I assume it's a minority)

- Without experience (You'll understand soon enough)

- That loves complaining without giving any positive thoughts.

 

I definately agree with this list. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

All right, all right.

 

This idea is not for people:

- Without high speed internet (I assume it's a minority)

- Living in rural areas (Lucky you, not your problem, a few regular PQs is enough)

- That loves fine tuning their PQ for hours (I had enough of that)

- That don't use offline database (I assume it's a minority)

- Without experience (You'll understand soon enough)

- That loves complaining without giving any positive thoughts.

I don't fit any of these categories and I still don't agree with your idea. Neither does Groundspeak, which is the controlling opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
One 54 megs E-mail to 500 people that's NOT 27 gigs, that's 54 megs.

 

ok then......... :unsure::huh::DB):blink::o

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, you are my hero, you can do 2500 caches in a day!!!

 

Why do you need to download 2500 caches a day if you can't do them all in one day?

 

Either put up or shut up, do 2500 caches in one day for a week solid by yourself thus proving a need for people to be able to download 2500+ caches a day and maybe someone will notice the need and then make the change you are asking for.

 

So what's it going to be? Step up or step off!

 

I love it when people have no idea waht they are talking about. It has nothing to do with finding 2500 caches in one day. People sound like morons when they throw out that stupid question everytime something like this comes up. Every thread that talks about this topic always has to have the one guy saying that "as soon as you find 2000 caches in one day, then maybe you will have a point..." It has to do with having options. I live in Dallas where there are thousands of caches in a 20 mile area. I like to have options available for whenever I go out to run errands. I might be in one part of the town one day and another part of the town the next and it is nice to be able to just grab a few caches in the area while I am out running errands. It saves on gas not making a lot of specific cache runs. Having a larger database makes this process simple. I do not know that I would need a whole state, but I understand the desire for some to have bigger, up to date databases. Like CoyoteRed said, just because you wouldn't use it doesn't mean thousands of others wouldn't use it.

 

Your right, I see that you have been caching far longer than I have so I must bow to your experience. You must know what you are talking about because I have never run a PQ.

 

Or maybe you should figure out how to run a pocket query a little better. If you are going to be running errands you are not going to be doing 3/3 or above caches so run 5 pocket queries every day called "I only do lame LPC's (1 thru 5)" and set them to only return 2/2 or less caches. This way you will have a list of all the park and grabs you can handle to do every day. Then you can tell people that you are a great cacher because you have numbers.

 

Lets look at your stats, you appear to be proud of them, 63.6% of your finds were lass than 10 miles from your home, and 40.7% of your finds were micros. It would appear that the Pocket Query system I have laid out will work as prefect as a dream for you.

 

Like Mopar said, Learn to use the software. (sorry to drag you into this Mopar, but you were right)

 

Like I said, Do 2500+ caches in a day or quit complaining.

 

This system has worked for everyone else for years, learn to use the data as provided and quit complaining.

Share this post


Link to post

... snip

Remember, this is all about giving more to premium members WITHOUT overloading Groundspeak servers. Preset PQs sent ONLY at midnight (Or twice a day).

 

...snip

At midnight, a majority of cachers have already logged their finds. So, the midnight Preset GPX would be close to up-to-date.

Again, you seemed to have missed that this is a global game.

 

Let's use the United States for example.

In some cases, State wide might be too big ?

It could be county wide (not country, county), more then 1 county could be selected. It could be done via a selectable map.

For other Countries, like Germany, Ethiopia, Russia, Canada (my home land) we'll deal with that later. It's just an example.

What about places in the US that are not in counties?

 

FYI:

1 cache = ±1k

1000 caches = ±1 meg

If this is true, then why is my regular PQ with 500 caches 2 MB?

 

And the part that you really seem to be missing is that the owners of the data have decided how and how much data they are willing to parcel out at a time. They own the data.

 

And the part that I seem to be missing whenever these debates start up is why would the world come to an end if you found yourself in an area that 1) you didn't have any cache data at that time or 2) you didn't have the data for ALL the caches available. I mean this isn't something that is life and death. The world will continue to revolve if I'm not mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
One 54 megs E-mail to 500 people that's NOT 27 gigs, that's 54 megs.

 

ok then......... :unsure::huh::DB):blink::o

 

:D You don't get it do you ? :D

Share this post


Link to post

:unsure: You don't get it do you ? :blink:

 

No, we do get it, you can't figure out how to use the data as provided so you think the system should be altered to your whims. You are not the only cacher, and everyone else appears to be able to use the data as provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...