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

: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.

I know that I'm far from to only one using an offline database the way I do.

Maybe we can meet. I can show you what I do. For sure you'll find it very practical. :huh::o

Share this post


Link to post

snip

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

snip

You log in Virginia. Your local time is the same as you Virginia neighbors. Your Virginia Preset PQ could be ready Virginia local time :huh::D

 

snip

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

snip

Well...I'm no expert in US geography :unsure: I'm sure someone could have good ideas on this issue.

What do you suggest? B)

 

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

I have an average of 503k/PQ over my last 10 (4876 caches). The files were zipped :blink:

 

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.

Let's hear from them.

By the way, I will always need their data, every week :o:D

Share this post


Link to post

I like the statewide PQ - maybe even just pick which ones you can download. I would get NY, PA, and OH, living in Erie, Pa.

 

I can always clean it up with my finds, using GSAK. If I'm traveling a long distance, I would need to plan several days in advance to make sure I get caches in all of the areas I plan to go. This makes the 5x500 series not all that good in some cases. I know about routing... just makes it difficult.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

You make it look like a selfish suggestion :blink:

Let me reassure you, most of my geocaching friends do about the same as I do :o

 

20 PQ's per week is far out of the ordinary.

It's time consuming. Let's make it easier. :unsure:

 

Do you use GSAK ?

What's wrong with a new Option in GC ? :huh::D

Share this post


Link to post

I hate this idea for the same reasons that I hated it in the thread that suggested it a few weeks ago. I don't believe that GS would ever implement it for the reasons I also gave in that thread.

Share this post


Link to post

I like the statewide PQ - maybe even just pick which ones you can download. I would get NY, PA, and OH, living in Erie, Pa.

I also live in a border area. I can be in West Virginia or Ohio in a half an hour, in Maryland in a little over an hour, or in New York in 90 minutes. I have lots of finds in each of those states, but none of them are in Charleston (southern West Virginia), Dayton (western Ohio), Annapolis (eastern Maryland) or Albany (eastern New York). Ordering up complete state files where I would likely never seek half the caches seems inefficient. Ordering prefiltered queries for a 150 mile radius that exclude my finds, hides and ignored caches and cache types is very efficient.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

:blink: I thought Groundspeak didn't claim they owned the data, just the way it was collect/organized? :unsure:

 

Personally I think a whole state PQ (or at least larger geographical areas) would a good thing. If the PQ system was designed for it or not people can and do mass up collections of PQ data. Since it does happen, figuring out the best way to let that happen with the minimum work load would seem the thing to do. Of course various ideas on how to 'reduce the load' have been brought up several times and it still hasn't happened. Guess Groundspeak doesn't want to do it that way, for whatever reason.

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::DB):D:blink::huh:

 

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

You make assumptions about how Geocaching.com generates pocket queries which may or may not be correct. Perhaps you are right and by generating one huge 54 meg file for Califonia enough people would pick this instead of getting custom pocket queries for just the caches they are interested in. It may be you could split California into 3 or 4 regions and offer canned queries for each of them. Based on what I do, I doubt that you will have that many people take up the opportunity for an easy to get efficient Pocket Query that contains far more caches than the wish to have to load into GSAK or where they still won't be pleased unless than can get the canned query for the neighboring states where they might geocache even more often then their own state.

 

You seem to feel that all of these custom queries generate a load on Groundspeak that would be offset by the users who would drop these queries for canned queries. The custom queries only temporarily take up room on Groundspeak servers. As soon as they are generated they are zipped up and mailed to the people requesting them. I suspect the results are then deleted from the server. A canned query too could be run once a day to generate a GPX for the whole state and then mailed to each person who requested it. So in the end the large canned query actually requires Groundspeak to use more resources than any custom pocket query that is limited to 500 cache. I don't think this is really a problem since Team Alamo and CCCooperAgency can request their my finds queries that return more caches than most states. The main difference it the bandwidth used by Groundspeak mail servers. I'm not sure how it works, but perhaps the instead of mailing the canned query once to each person who requested, it can be mailed to a distribution list and allow the internet mail protocols to take responsibility for replicating the attachment till it arrives at each recipients mail box. However, Groundspeak already has enough problems with ISP that identify them as spam mailers. I imagine that there might be some issue with sending a 54 meg attachment to a distribution list that would trigger some ISP antispam program.

 

Even if you are correct and your proposal actually allowed Groundspeak to better serve the geocachers who feel they aren't getting their money's worth with the current PQ limitiation without needing to add more hardware and maybe even reduce some the load caused by the current PQs, Groundspeak is likely using the current restriction more to ensure that only a limited portion of the database can be downloaded for use by premium members. You have tried to explain why the current limitation effect your ability to cache, yet people in pretty much the same situation as you manage to cache within the limitation.

 

I'll accept that some people may not want to spend as much time preparing to cache and don't have much time to actually cache, so they may find a need have the caches in any area they are likely to be visiting available offline so they can cache at a moments notice. I will point out that so long as there is cell phone coverage in the area where you dedice to cache, you can subscribe to Trimble GeocacheNavigator to have access to the full Geocaching.com database all the time for when the urge hits to geocache and you haven't gotten the right PQs. I would have no objections if Groundspeak decided to sell subscription to for larger PQs, including whole state PQs, to those who need them for the same $6.99/mo. that a GeocacheNavigator subscription cost.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

You make absolutely no argument here. This forum is specifically for the suggestions of possible changes people would like to see. Leboyf submitted a change he would like to see. Then people like you come along and begin the "complaining." My time spent caching has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, my stats have nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and someone doing 2500 caches in a day have nothing to do with the discussion at hand as stated above multiple times by mulitple people. When you constantly repeat a ridiculous comment like that, you make no sense. And, oh my, you're right, it has worked for many years in its current implementation, so dear God, don't change it!!! What the heck was Ford thinking???? The horse and buggy worked just fine for centuries... B)

 

A suggestion was made that many people would like to see as an option, specifically, the ability to have more than 500 caches in a search. It is made over and over by many different people, so obviously, it is a much desired feature. It's a feature request in the forum designed for feature requests; imagine that. People ask why it is wanted and the requestors explain their reasons. Alternatives are offered and either accepted or do not fit the requestor's needs. Maybe it will get implemented and maybe it won't. But all the people, like you, who just sit there and automatically throw out remarks and complaints about how there can possibly be no need for anything new to the system just clog up the forums and do not add anything useful to the discussion. If you don't want the feature then say, "I vote no," and leave.

Share this post


Link to post

I demand that Ford make a hover car for me. I travel to work in an area that is so congested with cars that what used to take me 30-35 minutes of travel time now takes me 60 minutes. The increased travel time eats into my family life and makes me irratable when I come home.

 

Sure my present car CAN get me to work, and I could drive off-road, but that's not the point. I want to get to my office on a straight shot without having to deal with the regular cars on the ground. If I had a flying car that travelled at 250 mph, I could be in my office in just over 3 minutes instead of the 60 it takes now.

Share this post


Link to post

I demand that Ford make a hover car for me. I travel to work in an area that is so congested with cars that what used to take me 30-35 minutes of travel time now takes me 60 minutes. The increased travel time eats into my family life and makes me irratable when I come home.

 

Sure my present car CAN get me to work, and I could drive off-road, but that's not the point. I want to get to my office on a straight shot without having to deal with the regular cars on the ground. If I had a flying car that travelled at 250 mph, I could be in my office in just over 3 minutes instead of the 60 it takes now.

B)B)

Share this post


Link to post

You make it look like a selfish suggestion B)

 

I don't have to make it look like a selfish suggestion because it is selfish.

 

Let me reassure you, most of my geocaching friends do about the same as I do B)

 

Then you and your friends should be doing 2500+ caches a day or you should stop wasting processing power.

 

20 PQ's per week is far out of the ordinary.

It's time consuming. Let's make it easier. B)

 

Please justify the need for that much data being streamed to you every day, you don't cache that much, so you shouldn't need that much data unless you are using it.

 

Do you use GSAK ?

What's wrong with a new Option in GC ? B)B)

 

No, I don't use GSAK, I used to, but not any more. What I do now is I look at a map, and figure out where I want to go caching then I download a PQ for that area. Most days I have my PQ in hand and loaded into the PDA and the GPS within 10 minutes of requesting it. As more and more cachers come on line, more and more of them will do what you are doing and you will see a new option come up, it will probably be called something like one pocket query per day with 500 or 1000 caches in it.

 

People are greedy by nature, if you offer them more they will take it and then say it wasn't enough. Then like you they will ask for more like it is there given right.

 

Again, figure out how to use the data you are given and be glad that you get even that much because if things keep going the way they are you will either see fees go up for heavy users, or pocket queries become more limited.

Share this post


Link to post

 

A suggestion was made that many people would like to see as an option, specifically, the ability to have more than 500 caches in a search. It is made over and over by many different people, so obviously, it is a much desired feature. It's a feature request in the forum designed for feature requests; imagine that. People ask why it is wanted and the requestors explain their reasons. Alternatives are offered and either accepted or do not fit the requestor's needs. Maybe it will get implemented and maybe it won't. But all the people, like you, who just sit there and automatically throw out remarks and complaints about how there can possibly be no need for anything new to the system just clog up the forums and do not add anything useful to the discussion. If you don't want the feature then say, "I vote no," and leave.

 

Here is the alternative that you want to here from someone.

 

COWBOY UP! You buy the servers, pay for the additional software, personnel, high speed Internet connections, database management, and all the other costs for this.

 

I am personally tired of getting the server unavailable screens because people "NEED" to download information on 17,500 caches a week. Until someone can actually do that many caches in a week, or 2500 caches in a day the desire to have this much data is nothing but pure vanity. What do you want next? A daily PQ of the entire country? Would that make you happy? Perhaps you want a PQ of North America as well, Not enough for you? How about all of the Americas? Maybe you will be running out for french bread in France better get a PQ of Europe too. Not enough? Why not a daily PQ of all the active caches on the planet? Where does it end?

 

My problem isn't with someone wanting something new, if the system wasn't overtaxed today something like a full or partial state, provence, territory, or area bounded by four sets of cords would be fine, but the words "Server unavailable" say that the system is overtaxed already.

 

What I really want to know is why do you want more data than you can ever use anyway? You can say you need that data all you want, but until I see someone say "I need that data because................. to me it will be a crock. In most cases you can have a PQ in your hands and loaded into everything in less than ten minutes, you probably know where you are going to be caching tommorow so you can do the PQ of that area tonight and have it in the morning.

 

Oh yeah.

 

I VOTE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT WANT THESE HUGE PQ'S REACH INTO THEIR POCKETS AND PAY FOR THE SYSTEM UPGRADES THAT WILL MAKE THEM POSSABLE.

Share this post


Link to post

 

B) I thought Groundspeak didn't claim they owned the data, just the way it was collect/organized? B)

Hmmm... that's not the way I read it.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/waypoints/agreement.aspx

 

IMPORTANT--READ CAREFULLY BEFORE DOWNLOADING THE ONLINE DATA

 

Groundspeak, INC. D/B/A GEOCACHING.COM (Groundspeak), IS WILLING TO LICENSE THE REQUESTED DATA TO YOU ONLY UPON THE CONDITION THAT YOU ACCEPT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT. PLEASE READ THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE CLICKING THE ‘I ACCEPT’ BUTTON AND THEREAFTER DOWNLOADING THE ONLINE DATA. BY DOWNLOADING THE ONLINE DATA, YOU ARE INDICATING YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE Groundspeak DATA LICENSE AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS STATED, THEN Groundspeak IS UNWILLING TO LICENSE THE DATA TO YOU.

 

Proprietary Rights and Copyright: Licensee acknowledges that the Data and Related Materials contain proprietary and confidential property of Groundspeak and its licensor(s). The Data and Related Materials are owned by Groundspeak and its licensor(s) and are protected by United States copyright laws and applicable international copyright treaties and/or conventions.

Share this post


Link to post

I demand that Ford make a hover car for me. I travel to work in an area that is so congested with cars that what used to take me 30-35 minutes of travel time now takes me 60 minutes. The increased travel time eats into my family life and makes me irratable when I come home.

 

Sure my present car CAN get me to work, and I could drive off-road, but that's not the point. I want to get to my office on a straight shot without having to deal with the regular cars on the ground. If I had a flying car that travelled at 250 mph, I could be in my office in just over 3 minutes instead of the 60 it takes now.

 

You illustrate a point here. Nobody is demanding that GC.com make these changes. People are suggesting changes they would like to see which I figured was the purpose of this forum. However, there are a lot of people that are demanding that what is being suggested is stupid, useless to anybody, and wouldn't work.

 

I don't think anyone here really has any idea how anything is going to affect the GC servers except for maybe some of the moderators and higher ups. And since they aren't talking, as far as I am concerned all speculation on that subject is just that, speculation. I realize, Leboyof introduced the topic as a way to reduce the load on the servers, but again, that is just speculation. I view this thread as another request for larger PQ's. Nothing more, nothing less. Maybe it will reduce the load if done in a certain way, and maybe it won't. For all I know, someone found a hidden cave somewhere one day while geocaching, and they decided to start GC.com. They then stocked the cave full of servers (because they were friends with a multi-billionaire who just took to the sport) that are being used at roughly 1% capacity currently. I personally have never gotten one of these infamous "server busy" screens, so from my point of view, there is no server issue. But again, that's speculation and not fact.

 

I just think it is funny how people get all riled up over what someone else might find useful. B)

 

What?? You want data??? You don't need data. You big ol' data hog, you. How dare you even consider doing this ancient sport any way differently than I do!! B)

 

Would that make you happy? Perhaps you want a PQ of North America as well, Not enough for you? How about all of the Americas? Maybe you will be running out for french bread in France better get a PQ of Europe too. Not enough? Why not a daily PQ of all the active caches on the planet?

 

Actually, that might be kind of neat. Then I could create that neat looking map like the one GC.com had posted for a wallpaper with all the caches in North America. Now that's thinking big. See, you can do it.... B)

 

By the way, I would rather suggest someone start working on teleportation instead of the hover car. Works even faster, and would eliminate all those cars from the environment. B)

Share this post


Link to post

Ya know, this has got me thinking. How about a way to just do a PQ of all the caches in a given area that went active or inactive in a given week? That number has got to be far less than 500 caches a week even for places like California or Texas I would bet that daily for the entire US would be less than 500 caches added and archived in a day. This way you can load all the caches you want for a given area over a period of days or weeks, then all you need is one PQ a day or week just to keep the data you have up to date. I know GSAK can do that.

 

Yes it would suck loading all the caches the first time, but keeping them all tidy would be simple after that. This would also lower the load on the server as people would not be running huge amounts of PQ's every day.

 

Nah, forget it I'm just a loud mouth twit that couldn't possibly come up with a solution, in fact all I can do is complain about what others suggest.

Share this post


Link to post

I someday hope to have enough experience to appreciate this problem. To my inexperienced and untrained mind, management of the data I desire for hunting has always seemed to be a problem I should solve for myself, by using the tools provided. In my ignorance it never occurred to me to make geocaching.com responsible for my happiness. I just assumed that I was supposed to adjust to the system, now I see that the real pros get that way by making the system adjust to their desires. Thanks for opening my eyes to a whole new world, I think things will be easier for me now that I know it is OK to expect the rest of the world to change to meet my expectations.

Share this post


Link to post

... Nobody is demanding that GC.com make these changes. People are suggesting changes they would like to see which I figured was the purpose of this forum. However, there are a lot of people that are demanding that what is being suggested is stupid, useless to anybody, and wouldn't work.

 

I don't think anyone here really has any idea how anything is going to affect the GC servers except for maybe some of the moderators and higher ups. And since they aren't talking, as far as I am concerned all speculation on that subject is just that, speculation. ...

But the "higher ups" spoke to this same question less than three weeks ago. Do you expect them to make an encore performance in this thread as well, just to say that the answer hasn't changed? I don't, so instead I try to post descriptions of how I manage to find a few caches using the current system. Groundspeak is appreciative of those who try to be helpful in the forums. That's all I'm doing; I am not "demanding" anything.

 

For those of you who missed or forgot the last official pronouncement on this subject, I'll repeat it for you, with a linky and everything:

 

The only changes to the PQ system planned for release when the new Phoenix project is completed will be the introduction of instant downloads. There are some details that have yet to be finalized concerning the storage of those PQs on Geocaching.com, but those issues will be worked out.

 

For those of you who are not satisfied with the limits set by the Pocket Query generator there are numerous ways to refine your searches; many of which have been pointed out in this thread. There are important reasons for Groundspeak setting those limits, foremost being that the site performs better when they are enforced, but also because we want you to visit the site frequently to retrieve fresh data. I'm sorry if that inconveniences some of you.

 

I someday hope to have enough experience to appreciate this problem. To my inexperienced and untrained mind, management of the data I desire for hunting has always seemed to be a problem I should solve for myself, by using the tools provided. In my ignorance it never occurred to me to make geocaching.com responsible for my happiness. I just assumed that I was supposed to adjust to the system, now I see that the real pros get that way by making the system adjust to their desires. Thanks for opening my eyes to a whole new world, I think things will be easier for me now that I know it is OK to expect the rest of the world to change to meet my expectations.

I'm delighted that your eyes are open now. Didja manage to find many caches the old fashioned way? B)

Share this post


Link to post

OK - so here's an answer...

The only changes to the PQ system planned for release when the new Phoenix project is completed will be the introduction of instant downloads. There are some details that have yet to be finalized concerning the storage of those PQs on Geocaching.com, but those issues will be worked out.

 

For those of you who are not satisfied with the limits set by the Pocket Query generator there are numerous ways to refine your searches; many of which have been pointed out in this thread. There are important reasons for Groundspeak setting those limits, foremost being that the site performs better when they are enforced, but also because we want you to visit the site frequently to retrieve fresh data. I'm sorry if that inconveniences some of you.

Share this post


Link to post
...also because we want you to visit the site frequently to retrieve fresh data. I'm sorry if that inconveniences some of you...

 

Key part of the quote.

 

TPTB have always maintained they don't want to support offline long term databases....just re-iterates that point.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

-High Speed Internet...nope...so you got me there...but if needed, I can always hit a coffee shop for some free high speed

-Rural Area...yep...you got me there again...but my nearest 500 is already reaching a cache dense area of the Minneapolis/St. Paul area...and yet, my 500 nearest PQ is good enough for me

-Fine Tune PQ for hours...nope...I find tune my PQ but it takes me 5 minutes or less (sort out the unavailable and I am ready to go...do alot of the sorting in requesting a meaningful PQ)

-Offline Database...nope...I would rather have up-to-date information [:unsure:]

-Without Experience...sorry, but I have my own and the way PQ's are handled now is good enough for me (sorry if that shows my lack of experience :unsure: )

-Complaining...yep, we all do at times [<_<]

 

My 500 nearest is good enough for me...run it once a week to see if anything new comes out (beyond my watch area) and run a PQ or two a needed when I am about to travel out of my nearest 500 area...I don't need the whole state of Minnesota, Iowa nor Wisconsin...

 

...besides, last I thought...offline database support is not what the PQ's were meant to do...

 

Sorry, but my vote is no on this one.

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

Share this post


Link to post

 

I'm delighted that your eyes are open now. Didja manage to find many caches the old fashioned way? :)

 

After trying for a while I finally managed to find ten or so. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I happen to like the idea of having a larger set of data. Here's a good reason. I plan to do some cross-country traveling this coming summer. I could download a new set of 5 pq's every day for the areas I'm likely to be in, but what if I miss an area and feel like finding a cache? (without going through all the rigamarole of the wap interface) Also, some people say use routes - what if I change my route?

 

I don't see any reason why they need to be so protective of their database. The database was built by the users - we submit the data, they keep it. They limit our access to it. I guess because we agree to it in the beginning, we're stuck with their way of handling it.

 

And at this point, they pretty much have a monopoly on Geocaches around the world - the are the largest site by far, have the most extensive database and work hard to make sure it is maintained and updated. Until someone comes up with a better way of doing things, we're stuck with whatever decisions TPTB make. Even the originator of the game didn't like the way that GC.COM was running things way back when... so not everyone's going to agree.

 

The best we can do is post problems/concerns/issues, and hope that TPTB listen to the people who are playing the game and paying for the servers through premium memberships, and don't irritate enough people through their unwillingness to change their stands on specific issues (This one, virtuals/webcams, some common rule for what constitutes a find, what is allowed for a cache to be "legal", etc) to lose their sources of income, and flop. I doubt this will happen, but I would hope that in a business made up of the players, they would listen to the will of the players, rather than just doing whatever they want to. Not listening, to me, sounds like a bad business decision. This has to be balanced with what works and what allows them to keep their business running, but there is always a happy medium. They bend on some things - like returning archived caches (when they find the time to reenable something they disabled...?) to the maps. But some they chose not to... and that's their choice.

 

And most businesses don't have the priveledge of saying "you don't like it, go somewhere else" - they need the business, so they listen. TPTB listen sometimes, and sometimes they don't. Guess that's the way they want to run their business.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree entirely with what FireRef said, so I would like to make my wishes known to TPTB. As a long-time customer and premium member, I would like for you to know that I am happy with the current system. I support your decision to maintain an up-to-date database and your decision to stand by the EULA that we all agreed to as we submitted geocache data to that database. I also fully support your decision to not make it easier for people to maintain huge offline databases of their own. After looking at the arguments above, I recognize that some people have legitimate concerns, however I think that it is more important to protect the data and the true value of GC.com as the largest and best geocache listing service, than to provide an easy mechanism for someone to create a mirror listing site, even if that mirror site is only for their personal use. Thank you for your kind attention to our concerns and for the years of service you have given to provide the Geocaching.com site.

 

Edited for apalling spalling.

Edited by Monkeybrad

Share this post


Link to post

I agree entirely with what FireRef said, so I would like to make my wishes known to TPTB. As a long-time customer and premium member, I would like for you to know that I am happy with the current system. I support your decision to maintain an up-to-date database and your decision to stand by the EULA that we all agreed to as we submitted geocache data to that database. I also fully support your decision to not make it easier for people to maintain huge offline databases of their own. After looking at the arguments above, I recognize that some people have legitimate concerns, however I think that it is more important to protect the data and the true value of GC.com as the largest and best geocache listing service, than to provide an easy mechanism for someone to create a mirror listing site, even if that mirror site is only for their personal use. Thank you for your kind attention to our concerns and for the years of service you have given to provide the Geocaching.com site.

 

Edited for apalling spalling.

 

I just got confused. You agree entirely with FireRef, but don't agree with his desire for a larger set of offline data. Which is it, you agree or don't agree? Was just curious if there was a typo in one of your two guy's posts that is confusing me.

Share this post


Link to post

I am sorry, I should have said that I agree entirely with what FireRef said about a business listening to it's customers. I think that it is important that we all express our desires to TPTB on this issue so that they may gauge public response. I then went on to express my siupport for the current system , because I believe that it is important to place what I deem to be reasonable limits on offline access to the data in order to protect the integrity of the database and to discourage mirror sites. I freely admit that I often find it frustrating to have to think about how to construct pq's in order to get the data I may need for my many road trips, but I understand that I also have a responsibility to work these problems out for myself. It is my opinion that my desire for an easier option when it comes to downloading caches does not outweigh the need to protect the information in the database from misuse. So I suffer some minor inconveniences in this respect, so that my overall enjoyment of the game is protected and even enhanced by having a single, protected source of geocaching information.

Share this post


Link to post

I am sorry, I should have said that I agree entirely with what FireRef said about a business listening to it's customers. I think that it is important that we all express our desires to TPTB on this issue so that they may gauge public response. I then went on to express my siupport for the current system , because I believe that it is important to place what I deem to be reasonable limits on offline access to the data in order to protect the integrity of the database and to discourage mirror sites. I freely admit that I often find it frustrating to have to think about how to construct pq's in order to get the data I may need for my many road trips, but I understand that I also have a responsibility to work these problems out for myself. It is my opinion that my desire for an easier option when it comes to downloading caches does not outweigh the need to protect the information in the database from misuse. So I suffer some minor inconveniences in this respect, so that my overall enjoyment of the game is protected and even enhanced by having a single, protected source of geocaching information.

 

How dare you figure that out on your own!

 

Don't you know that Leboyf and Nakedbamboo are trying really hard to start their own geocaching web site called piratedcachedata.com. Now what are they going to do? You have revealed their plan to the world.

 

Well, it probably wasn't their plan, but I'm sure there is someone out there that either tried it, or wanted to try it. This along with the servers being beat down is just another good reason for only allowing 2500 cache downloads a day.

 

Now that you have brought this up as a reason for downloading huge numbers of cache listings I am still thinking that no one has stepped forward to say why they need to download 17,500 cache listings a week. So, why exactly do you need 2500+ cache listings a day?

Share this post


Link to post

Now that you have brought this up as a reason for downloading huge numbers of cache listings I am still thinking that no one has stepped forward to say why they need to download 17,500 cache listings a week. So, why exactly do you need 2500+ cache listings a day?

 

Why don't we reduce your PQ to 5x20, don't tell me you do more then 100 caches per days :):)

Share this post


Link to post

Now that you have brought this up as a reason for downloading huge numbers of cache listings I am still thinking that no one has stepped forward to say why they need to download 17,500 cache listings a week. So, why exactly do you need 2500+ cache listings a day?

 

Why don't we reduce your PQ to 5x20, don't tell me you do more then 100 caches per days :):)

 

I do.

Share this post


Link to post

Now that you have brought this up as a reason for downloading huge numbers of cache listings I am still thinking that no one has stepped forward to say why they need to download 17,500 cache listings a week. So, why exactly do you need 2500+ cache listings a day?

 

Why don't we reduce your PQ to 5x20, don't tell me you do more then 100 caches per days :):)

 

Whaaa It's too hard, make it easier for me and harder for other people. Suck it up, we all get to download the same maximum number of caches and that is not going to change any time soon so figure out how to work with what you are given. Just like the grown ups do.

 

I don't recall being the one that wanted to download huge numbers of cache listings every day, that was you. I can and have done just with 20 cache downloads the night before I go caching, and that probably won't change any time soon either.

 

But I will ask again, Just what do you want to do with all the cache listings that you want to download? I have to assume that you have nefarious intentions if you won't tell us.

Share this post


Link to post

As I said in the other thread that I quoted above, the database on GC.com is the main up-to-date source. I think people want to be able to slice and dice the data in the ways that GSAK can, is that a correct statement?

 

If GC.com's PQ filters had all of the capabilities of GSAK for picking and choosing caches on the fly, and the website were always available, then no one would need GSAK right?

 

So instead of lobbying for ways to grab hoards of data to plug into an out-of-date offline database (and then complain when GC.com makes it difficult to update your out-of-date database), why not lobby GC.com to implement a better selection process on the live data? Then you have access to over 775,000 caches to pick and choose from (well less than that since the PQ generator doesn't show unpublished or archived caches).

Edited by Markwell

Share this post


Link to post

I'm beginning to detect some serious hostility in this thread. Take some deep breaths and remember to love your fellow geocachers. *hug*

Share this post


Link to post

As I said in the other thread that I quoted above, the database on GC.com is the main up-to-date source. I think people want to be able to slice and dice the data in the ways that GSAK can, is that a correct statement?

 

If GC.com's PQ filters had all of the capabilities of GSAK for picking and choosing caches on the fly, and the website were always available, then no one would need GSAK right?

 

So instead of lobbying for ways to grab hoards of data to plug into an out-of-date offline database (and then complain when GC.com makes it difficult to update your out-of-date database), why not lobby GC.com to implement a better selection process on the live data? Then you have access to over 775,000 caches to pick and choose from (well less than that since the PQ generator doesn't show unpublished or archived caches).

 

The highlighted words are the reasoning behind my desire for this enhancement. As I stated above as well as did CoyoteRed, the reason I would like the data is just to travel along with me in case I decide to go geocaching at the drop of a hat. If I am not at home, well then, unfortunately the website is not available. Some of us do that, we geocache randomly, not always in massively detailed, planned-out-in-every-detail excursions. Although I do that as well, in which case the current system works fine for me. :D

 

I don't undestand bblhed's constant demand of a reason why we want this. Various reason's have been stated clearly, but he seems to be stuck on the idea of having to go find each and every cache in a PQ that day. :D

 

Clearly, more people are not in favor of this idea that those that are, which is fine. I just wonder why there is always such a vehement and sometimes mean response to ideas posted in these forums. I thought the forums were here to throw around new ideas. I especially don't understand these responses when it is about something that doesn't even affect people directly. It is an idea that, if implemented, would be a voluntary use thing. It wouldn't be implemented if it affected the load on the servers, thus negating that argument. Currently, it is only an idea, and yet we are being told that we are basically stupid because of the way in which we like to go about enjoying this sport. It baffles the imagination... :huh:

Share this post


Link to post

A little history. I'll make another point here

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

I started Geocaching in June 2006. Back then, I was able to download all the cache in my state with the 5x500. It was fun to see all my state at once in GSAK. Make some statistics and all.

I used to update GSAK with ALL the caches available in my state on Fridays.

Since we don't have access to PQ for archived cache, I update with a fresh (not the updated) set of PQs.

 

Today, there are 8802 caches in my state. That's ±3.52 times more. One would expect that we should be permitted to download (500x3.52) x5. That's 1760x5 caches.

If back in 2006, Groundspeak felt secure allowing 5x500… today, with the same security level it can be ±1700x5.

 

WHAT THE HELL TO I DO WITH ALL THAT:

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

…Euh…I'm sorry I need to do that… and I think it's a waste of time but… Some people around here requested it.

 

Well…Let's keep it simple…

 

Like you would imagine, GSAK is the center of all that.

 

The gear:

- GPSMAPS76Csx

- An old Palm Pilot for Paperless caching. I can put ±700 caches in it.

- A very old laptop. Nothing on it but Win2000pro, GSAK, MapSource and other simple tools. I bring it with me want I go out geocaching. It's so much easier to view the caches on a larger screen. I hunt more efficiently and plan a route through them (Using Garmin MapSource).

- Small calculator

- Paper, pen and water

 

#1 - PQs ready for Friday (I'm good for the week-end)

#2 – I Import PQs in GSAK

#3 – I Filter out Archived one

#4 – I export a big area from GSAK to MapSource (Garmin)

#5 - I use MapSource to locate hunting spots. It's MUCH.. MUCH… I mean WAAAYYYY faster then using Google/Geocaching online mapping service.

#6 – I use GSAK to browse the online cache pages. There is split screen built-in. I use it to see the online cache pages. There again, browsing is WWWAAAYYY faster and I go directly what I want to see. You click a cache in the database, the online page appears.

Oh…the Ads… I get to see them too…all the time….

 

#7 - I filter the selected hunting ground with GSAK so that I can send 900 caches in my GPSr. I have a lot of preset filters for a multitude of usage

#8 – I send filtered GSAK to GPSr

#9 – I send filtered GSAK to PDA via Cachemate

#10 –I send filtered GSAK to MapSource (So that it shows what's in my PGSr)

 

Some people use GC filters. I use GSAK filter. It's much faster, more efficient and convenient.

I know that the database may not be up-to-date Sunday… but I live with it…

 

When I'm hunting and I can't find a cache, I go back to my car and use my old laptop to view ALL of the past logs (since 2006 when I started) off of GSAK. Most of the time I can find hints within the logs, suggested coordinates (Owner can be careless sometimes even if logs indicate a big offset with the coordinates), …

 

Also, in a hunt, I plan ±5 caches in advance using Mapsource and looking at the GSAK for DNFs (Icon in GSAK)

 

Back home, I download my found waypoints in MapSource along with my route. I view my finds, in sequence with MapSource. I log them online using GSAK's online split screen.

 

Another big benefit is to be able to change plans and be able to reload the GPSr without going back online during the week-end.

 

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

 

IN CONCLUSION:

For me, it's convenient to have an update database for 60 miles around my home coordinates. If we receive a last minute invitation to spend the afternoon at one of our friends, I can repeat steps 4 through 10 in my way there (wife driving). For sure the kids there will want to do some cache before dinner.

 

State wide may be a little to much. I agree. Nonetheless, a 60 miles radius around my home is a comfortable area since 95% of the people that I know are within that area (Office included)

 

Now what is happening is that the area I can cover with a reasonable amount of PQs is shrinking more and more. I live close to a big city.

World wide, the amount of Geocache is growing exponentially. Pretty soon, It'll be just a few miles for a reasonable amount of PQs.

 

Here is some local statistics (source : www.geocaching-qc.com)

End of 2001 : 16 geocaches were available

End of 2002 : 69

End of 2003 : 130

End of 2004 : 314

End of 2005 : 1465

End of 2006 : 4294

End of 2007 : 8391

Today : 8802

 

I can't have an update database for my state, but… I have to admit, today… I can still live with 5x500. What about 2009? Even in July 2008 it'll go worst.

 

I am VERY happy with Groundspeak. By far, they have the most extensive database and work hard to make sure it is maintained and updated.

 

We have to think for the future. That's exactly why I'm trying to find other ideas.

Pretty soon the situation won't be acceptable any more and then Hackers may want to fool around with the database and distribute PQ. Frankly, who wants to see this?

 

So… State wide might be too big and may not be convenient.

 

What I suggest:

- Preset PQs (could be for a smaller regions that a State - about the same server wise as explain in my first post)

- Larger PQs with limit of cache/PQ growing with the amount of available caches (maybe too heavy on Groundspeak servers)

 

Platinum account could be available to accommodate that but frankly, more cache = more users = more cash so that Groundspeak can accommodate the growth.

 

I will ALWAYS need to go online

I will ALWAYS need Groundspeak to update GSAK

I will ALWAYS see the Ads.

ALL of that, every week.

Edited by Leboyf

Share this post


Link to post

Again, I agree - since no one is listing caches (and besides, a mirror site violates the TOS) on a mirror site... we just want to be able to get geocache info on the fly much easier. Can we do GeoCacheNavigator without $7 a month and not only on certain phones? The website is free...

Share this post


Link to post

My problem is that you want GC.com to bend to your method of caching. Not that your method is wrong, but I feel it is the responsibility of the cacher to bend there method of caching to fit the way GC.com provides the data, not the other way around.

 

One of the reasons we play games is to learn how to solve problems, you have a problem, figure out a work around to it, don't ask for the rules to be changed to suite your methods.

 

Try this at work some day, "boss I can't solve this problem with the tools provided, can you change the problem so that it is easier to solve".

Share this post


Link to post

Try this at work some day, "boss I can't solve this problem with the tools provided without having to exert a tiny bit of effort, can you change the problem so that it is easier to solve?".

Fixed it for ya, Ted! :D

Share this post


Link to post

My problem is that you want GC.com to bend to your method of caching. Not that your method is wrong, but I feel it is the responsibility of the cacher to bend there method of caching to fit the way GC.com provides the data, not the other way around.

 

One of the reasons we play games is to learn how to solve problems, you have a problem, figure out a work around to it, don't ask for the rules to be changed to suite your methods.

 

Try this at work some day, "boss I can't solve this problem with the tools provided, can you change the problem so that it is easier to solve".

 

My problem is that you seem to take offense at the process of offering requests for site changes out of hand. I am curious, do you go to every thread about a feature request and rant on them for wanting something new? "Bend to my method of caching..." Well maybe that is one way of looking at it. Whenever someone asks for a new feature, I would assume it is something they feel would make their method of caching more enjoyable. I mean, it would be pretty dumb for me to ask for something that would make my method of caching less enjoyable.

 

But then again maybe you're right. We should never change anything from the way it is ever done because obviously, the first method chosen is the always best. To heck with progress. :D

Share this post


Link to post

I use 13 PQ a week to keep MY CACHING area handy in GSAK palm and GPSr. If a large area were available in a single PQ, the number of caches I get a week would be about the same (or might be more as I do not have the whole province in my PQ set). Bottom line is that I do not use the max 35 a week now. And if this request existed, then I would get ONE PQ a week with the same caches in it as I get in 13 now.

 

For ME, this request would make little difference than the existing system.

 

For Groundspeak I can see that server load would be much lower. We know that the PQ server is a different machine, that imply's that the PQ server does a search of the main data server for each PQ it generates. Having a single PQ generated and then shared by only TWO cachers, still cuts back the enquiry on the MAIN DATA server by 50%. Any more cachers that would use the same (large) PQ instead of several smaller ones, would multiply the MAIN SERVER savings, and have no real effect on the PQ server.

 

The email server will see a lower load too: one message to each cacher instead of 13. A single file is saved to the server, then sent to any number of cachers. At the end of the cycle (day), the file is deleted. Next week it runs again.

 

Just make sure MY big PQ runs every Friday at 5:00 PM, so that I have the most current set for the weekend :D:huh::D

Edited by Mach2003

Share this post


Link to post

 

Today, there are 8802 caches in my state. That's ±3.52 times more. One would expect that we should be permitted to download (500x3.52) x5. That's 1760x5 caches.

If back in 2006, Groundspeak felt secure allowing 5x500… today, with the same security level it can be ±1700x5.

The gear:

- GPSMAPS76Csx

- An old Palm Pilot for Paperless caching. I can put ±700 caches in it.

 

"Inconceivable!" - Vizzini

"You keep saying that. I don't think it means what you think it means." - Fezzik

- The Princess Bride

 

You keep using the ± symbol. I don't think it means what you think it means. :D

 

I would guess that is what your searching for.

Share this post


Link to post

A little history. I'll make another point here ...

 

WHAT THE HELL TO I DO WITH ALL THAT: ...

 

IN CONCLUSION: ...

 

What I suggest: ...

Wow. That was some post.

 

As I understand my skimming of your post, you want to keep all of the caches in your province in an off-line database. You used to be able to do this with the tools provided and, due to growth, you no longer are able to. You believe that your ability to download gobs of caches should keep up with the growth of cache placements.

 

(If that's not your actual reason for wanting more caches to be downloaded, just roll with it. The truth is, I don't need to know your reason for downloading more than the PQs allow, nor do I care. BTW, your numbers are off. As I understand it, PQs allow you to download 17,500 caches per week. If, as you state, there are 8,802 caches in your province, you should be able to download all of them, twice.)

 

Anyway, it has been made clear on a number of occasions that TPTB are not ever going to allow us to download prebuilt PQs with large chunks of the database. However, you can still download as many caches as you need, even if you need more than 17,500. All you have to do is buy additional memberships. For less than 60 cents (US) per week, you can download an additional 17,500 caches. That would give you an off-line database of 35,000 caches.

 

Do you need more caches than that? No problem. For $1.15 per week more than your basic premium membership, you can download a total of 52,500 caches every week. Certainly, this would give you enough caches to look for.

 

What? You don't want to deal with the hassle of managing all those PQs and making sure that they all get dumped into your GSAK database? Just set up GSAK to slurp them right out of your email. You would only need to set up the PQs once and then GSAK will pretty much keep them all updated for you.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

You keep using the ± symbol. I don't think it means what you think it means. :huh:

I would guess that is what your searching for.

 

Translation problem between French and English ?? :D

Share this post


Link to post
You keep using the ± symbol. I don't think it means what you think it means. :huh:

I would guess that is what your searching for.

Translation problem between French and English ?? :D
While I have also used that symbol incorrectly in the past, '±' is used to identify a range. For instance, if I say that I need to download 8,000 ± 500 caches, I am saying that I will need information on from 7,500 to 8,500 caches. Alternatively, '' means 'approximately'. Therefore, if I say that I need to download 8,000 caches, I am saying that I need information on about 8,000 caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I also mean about.

Can't find it on my keyboard ?

Where do you find this symbol ? [alt] xxx ?

Edited by Leboyf

Share this post


Link to post

Please stop posting ideas for workarounds for these people.

 

These people are obviously lazy, and want someone else to do all the work and thinking for them. The only way they are going to learn that the system will work for them if they just figure out how to use it is if they have to figure out how to make the system work for them on their own.

 

This is the problem of the western world, I want it now, and I want you to do it for me.

 

And yes, I do take offense to that type of behavior, I work for a living.

 

Lets allow guns in the sport of football, that would be and improvement right?

Edited by bblhed

Share this post


Link to post

bblhed, I just think that we play the game differently.

My best week caching: 122 finds

Your best year caching: 120 finds

 

That could explain why you don't understand the issue.

Edited by Leboyf

Share this post


Link to post

bblhed, I just think that we play the game differently.

My best week caching: 122 finds

Your best year caching: 120 finds

 

That could explain why you don't understand the issue.

It is pompous posts like this that brought me into this thread in the first place. So I would like for you to explain, just why I don't understand the issue.

 

If you would please compare and contrast for me how this is possibly a "number of finds" issue. Seeing things like this just makes my blood boil. There is no evidence that the number of caches you have found or the frequency with which you found them makes you smarter or even a better cacher. At best, you could argue that you have seen a greater number of hides styles and locations, but that does not really play into it. It is careless, pompous posts like yours that give "big number" cachers a bad name.

Share this post


Link to post

bblhed, I just think that we play the game differently.

My best week caching: 122 finds

Your best year caching: 120 finds

 

That could explain why you don't understand the issue.

It is pompous posts like this that brought me into this thread in the first place. So I would like for you to explain, just why I don't understand the issue.

 

If you would please compare and contrast for me how this is possibly a "number of finds" issue. Seeing things like this just makes my blood boil. There is no evidence that the number of caches you have found or the frequency with which you found them makes you smarter or even a better cacher. At best, you could argue that you have seen a greater number of hides styles and locations, but that does not really play into it. It is careless, pompous posts like yours that give "big number" cachers a bad name.

 

Sorry about the confusion.

This guys started Caching long before me.

Nothing here about the experience of players.

It's just that he needs less PQs to play. Needs are different.

Share this post


Link to post

....

Sorry about the confusion.

This guys started Caching long before me.

Nothing here about the experience of players.

It's just that he needs less PQs to play. Needs are different.

"Needs" is a strong word.

 

I think in this case: needs = wants = desires

Share this post


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

×