Jump to content

# of caches delivered in a Pocket Query.


Malpas Wanderer
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

Many UK cachers use the 'Date Placed' as the main selection criteria for the generation of Pocket Queries.

 

With many caches being published daily (when we have a full complement of reviewers) setting the criteria in this way returns a PQ resulting in much less than the current 500 maximum.

 

As computer power is continuously improving and broadband delivery is now almost universally employed even in mobile computing, would there be any possibility of GSP increasing the number of caches delivered in each PQ. :lol:

Link to comment

I'm confused. If setting a date ranged PQ is "setting the criteria in this way returns a PQ resulting in much less than the current 500 maximum" why increase the maximum? You're using a date range that returns fewer than 500, but you want more than 500 delivered?

 

You can play with the PQ settings (increasing the date range) until it returns 500 caches....but I'm not sure if that's useful information, because I'm not sure *quite* what your point is?

Link to comment

In this "cache-rich" area, I have seven "Date Placed" PQs in order to get a large search radius. Each of these delivers just under 500 caches.

 

The last one, is getting close to that number, due to all the new caches being placed. I see the creation of an eighth "Date Placed" PQ in the near future.

 

I don't see the problem . . . and I'm still on dialup, so 500 caches is about all my slow connection can handle.

Link to comment

You are assuming the limit has to do with the size of the file being built. I don't believe that is the complete picture. The following is pieced together from a number of discussions over the years....

 

I know part of the issue is the number of waypoints that can be loaded into most consumer type GPS units. Most are restricted to between 500 and 2000. Most of the lower end units are at the 500 mark. The intent of a PQ is to get enough caches for a day of caching.

 

Part of it is the size of the files and the computational power required to put them together. It takes a lot to pull all the info that goes into a PQ together. Then assemble it, code it and email it.

 

Part of it a business decision. Seriously think about it - the only real thing of value the owners of the site have is the database. No sense in being in a big hurry to give it away.

 

Part of it is simple resources.

 

Combine all that together and I think the limit isn't going anywhere.

Link to comment

If gc.com would get their act together they would stop this nonsense of forcing people to use pocket queries to get data, and start generating a nightly/weekly file for each state or country. Pocket queries are a joke. I have to run 40 pocket queries over the course of 10 days just to get the caches updated in GSAK. Im always running into caches that are archived because my GSAK database it out of date. Not to mention if they did this approach, they would free up bandwidth and server space to produce these single files. I personally would only need to run a pocket query on a rare occasion if I had a way to download a file of my state regularly.

Link to comment

If gc.com would get their act together they would stop this nonsense of forcing people to use pocket queries to get data, and start generating a nightly/weekly file for each state or country. Pocket queries are a joke. I have to run 40 pocket queries over the course of 10 days just to get the caches updated in GSAK. Im always running into caches that are archived because my GSAK database it out of date. Not to mention if they did this approach, they would free up bandwidth and server space to produce these single files. I personally would only need to run a pocket query on a rare occasion if I had a way to download a file of my state regularly.

If you need to get 40 PQs, you are getting almost 20,000 caches, if you are getting them by "Date Placed."

 

If you get the caches by "Date Placed," all you have to do is one "Last .gpx Update" filter in GSAK after you have refreshed the database. After that, just Delete all the caches that did not update. Those are the ones that were Archived or Disabled since the last time you refreshed the database.

 

It is EZPZ. ;)

Link to comment

If gc.com would get their act together they would stop this nonsense of forcing people to use pocket queries to get data, and start generating a nightly/weekly file for each state or country. Pocket queries are a joke.

 

Ah, the sweet-talker approach. ;)

Link to comment

And you need to have every cache in your state, at all times... why?

 

 

Whilst I know keeping local databases is discouraged I must admit I do keep one. :D

 

I'm unsure what the situation is in other countries but there are around 25000 caches in the UK.

 

Caches within the UK vary greatly in quality, the amount of effort the placer has devoted to the cache etc.

 

Although thus far I have not traveled great distances I intend to travel much further in the future, to this end I want to greatly refine the caches I select far beyond the PQ search criteria.

 

Having a lot of desk bound time, allows scrutiny and recording of notes (codes) within an offline database to allow a quick filtering of suitable caches when required.

 

The ultimate update method would be to only update the filtered selection from this offline database but AFAIK there is no way to do that, so I need to use PQs which for the current number of caches in the UK needs about 56 date placed queries.

 

Whilst even then I may not travel to the furthest shores of the UK the amount of knowledge and history gained from just reading the pages is immense.

 

As said earlier the quality of caches vary greatly and I want to select just the caches I want to seek in the most efficient way especially in these times of expensive fuel costs, so it is with great sadness we apperar we might lose some of the best caches in the UK GCGWBW

Forum Thread.

 

Once again I think the ultimate would be to only load onto an offline database once, then only update at point of need from a filter within the database but I don't think that is currently possible or likely to be introduced.

 

Whilst many have said they do not require greater numbers generated in a PQ any number 1 to max can be specified, if greater than 500 in a query would effect delivery by ISPs could the number of queries run be increased. A moderator has suggested that you may buy multiple accounts but I thought the terms and conditions discouraged this, and indicates the capitalism of Groundspeak. :D

Link to comment
forcing people to use pocket queries to get data

 

Does the U.S. Government know about this travesty? Why haven't the presidential candidates brought this up? I say start congressional hearings....but to some, I suppose that my be a tad "extreme."

 

"Force" is such a strong word for a such an innocuous activity as geocaching....seriously....

 

:D

Link to comment

If gc.com would get their act together they would stop this nonsense of forcing people to use pocket queries to get data, and start generating a nightly/weekly file for each state or country. Pocket queries are a joke. I have to run 40 pocket queries over the course of 10 days just to get the caches updated in GSAK. Im always running into caches that are archived because my GSAK database it out of date. Not to mention if they did this approach, they would free up bandwidth and server space to produce these single files. I personally would only need to run a pocket query on a rare occasion if I had a way to download a file of my state regularly.

 

I agree 100%. For example this summer I'll go to USA and Canada and road trip over 8 or 9 states and I don't know the exact route before leaving home, and exact places where I'll stop, so "caches along a route" is a no option for me. My only option is to generate approx. 10 PQs per state (type=traditional, D<=2, T<=2), which gives approx. 40-50K caches. Of which I will search 40-50 if I'm lucky. The problem is that caching is so ad-hoc on a trip like this, because I don't know where the other family members want to stop and where I can opt for caching (while they're shopping etc.). I don't then want to waste 30 minutes to find a WLAN hotspot, create a PQ and wait until I get the e-mail, update the GPSr etc. I want the caches be in the devices all the time. With 1-2 weeks aged descriptions, I have probably 97% chance to find the cache still active. That's good enough for me.

 

Now the point is that I will do those PQs. If there were e.g. daily snapshot .zip files available in gc.com, I would filter what I want from those. That would save gc.com computing resources, not needing to store and process my personal PQs, and it would save my time. I could even download them again some night in a hotel with WLAN. With 5 PQs per 24h, that would be impossible.

 

I don't want any "we don't support your offline database" comments, they're as old as the opposing opinions. Caching content is one method to bring scalability in many systems, and I don't see why it's not good for geocaching. What is the difference in having a one week old set of PQs on my laptop compared to having a one week old GPX in my Garmin? Should I use WLAN every day in the bottom of the Grand Canyon just to check that I am not going out with an outdated cache description? Following the opposition's comments, why won't we force a transmitter to every cache container so that the database in gc.com is really up to date and not just information about ancient history (= latest log message).

Link to comment

If gc.com would get their act together they would stop this nonsense of forcing people to use pocket queries to get data, and start generating a nightly/weekly file for each state or country. Pocket queries are a joke. I have to run 40 pocket queries over the course of 10 days just to get the caches updated in GSAK. Im always running into caches that are archived because my GSAK database it out of date. Not to mention if they did this approach, they would free up bandwidth and server space to produce these single files. I personally would only need to run a pocket query on a rare occasion if I had a way to download a file of my state regularly.

 

I agree 100%. For example this summer I'll go to USA and Canada and road trip over 8 or 9 states and I don't know the exact route before leaving home, and exact places where I'll stop, so "caches along a route" is a no option for me. My only option is to generate approx. 10 PQs per state (type=traditional, D<=2, T<=2), which gives approx. 40-50K caches. Of which I will search 40-50 if I'm lucky. The problem is that caching is so ad-hoc on a trip like this, because I don't know where the other family members want to stop and where I can opt for caching (while they're shopping etc.). I don't then want to waste 30 minutes to find a WLAN hotspot, create a PQ and wait until I get the e-mail, update the GPSr etc. I want the caches be in the devices all the time. With 1-2 weeks aged descriptions, I have probably 97% chance to find the cache still active. That's good enough for me.

 

Now the point is that I will do those PQs. If there were e.g. daily snapshot .zip files available in gc.com, I would filter what I want from those. That would save gc.com computing resources, not needing to store and process my personal PQs, and it would save my time. I could even download them again some night in a hotel with WLAN. With 5 PQs per 24h, that would be impossible.

 

I don't want any "we don't support your offline database" comments, they're as old as the opposing opinions. Caching content is one method to bring scalability in many systems, and I don't see why it's not good for geocaching. What is the difference in having a one week old set of PQs on my laptop compared to having a one week old GPX in my Garmin? Should I use WLAN every day in the bottom of the Grand Canyon just to check that I am not going out with an outdated cache description? Following the opposition's comments, why won't we force a transmitter to every cache container so that the database in gc.com is really up to date and not just information about ancient history (= latest log message).

My advice to you is to better refine where you think that you might visit. Certainly, you don't want to simply wander aimlessly around America. Believe me, you will end up missing the best stuff if you do it this way.

 

Determine which sites that you simply must see and build PQs for the nearby area. Then build routes between the 'must see' sights and run PQs for the routes.

 

Target your PQs so you are not including those caches that you have no intention of looking for. For instance, when I'm traveling, I skip high terrain caches and difficult puzzles. I know that I won't take the time to do them, so I've stopped including them in my PQs. Excluding the caches that you don't want to find allows you to include more caches in each PQ.

 

Finally, I typically bring my laptop with me. That way, if I diverge from my plans, I can run PQs from my hotel.

Link to comment

If gc.com would get their act together they would stop this nonsense of forcing people to use pocket queries to get data, and start generating a nightly/weekly file for each state or country. Pocket queries are a joke. I have to run 40 pocket queries over the course of 10 days just to get the caches updated in GSAK. Im always running into caches that are archived because my GSAK database it out of date. Not to mention if they did this approach, they would free up bandwidth and server space to produce these single files. I personally would only need to run a pocket query on a rare occasion if I had a way to download a file of my state regularly.

 

I agree 100%. For example this summer I'll go to USA and Canada and road trip over 8 or 9 states and I don't know the exact route before leaving home, and exact places where I'll stop, so "caches along a route" is a no option for me. My only option is to generate approx. 10 PQs per state (type=traditional, D<=2, T<=2), which gives approx. 40-50K caches. Of which I will search 40-50 if I'm lucky. The problem is that caching is so ad-hoc on a trip like this, because I don't know where the other family members want to stop and where I can opt for caching (while they're shopping etc.). I don't then want to waste 30 minutes to find a WLAN hotspot, create a PQ and wait until I get the e-mail, update the GPSr etc. I want the caches be in the devices all the time. With 1-2 weeks aged descriptions, I have probably 97% chance to find the cache still active. That's good enough for me.

 

Now the point is that I will do those PQs. If there were e.g. daily snapshot .zip files available in gc.com, I would filter what I want from those. That would save gc.com computing resources, not needing to store and process my personal PQs, and it would save my time. I could even download them again some night in a hotel with WLAN. With 5 PQs per 24h, that would be impossible.

 

I don't want any "we don't support your offline database" comments, they're as old as the opposing opinions. Caching content is one method to bring scalability in many systems, and I don't see why it's not good for geocaching. What is the difference in having a one week old set of PQs on my laptop compared to having a one week old GPX in my Garmin? Should I use WLAN every day in the bottom of the Grand Canyon just to check that I am not going out with an outdated cache description? Following the opposition's comments, why won't we force a transmitter to every cache container so that the database in gc.com is really up to date and not just information about ancient history (= latest log message).

My advice to you is to better refine where you think that you might visit. Certainly, you don't want to simply wander aimlessly around America. Believe me, you will end up missing the best stuff if you do it this way.

 

Determine which sites that you simply must see and build PQs for the nearby area. Then build routes between the 'must see' sights and run PQs for the routes.

 

Target your PQs so you are not including those caches that you have no intention of looking for. For instance, when I'm traveling, I skip high terrain caches and difficult puzzles. I know that I won't take the time to do them, so I've stopped including them in my PQs. Excluding the caches that you don't want to find allows you to include more caches in each PQ.

 

Finally, I typically bring my laptop with me. That way, if I diverge from my plans, I can run PQs from my hotel.

 

Thanks for the tips. However, as I said, I will create PQs only for caches that are traditional and both difficulty and terrain are less than equal to 2.0. I might want to look for harder ones but I want to limit the queries as much as possible, just like you advised. But even the number of that kind of caches is increasing at the rate of 500 caches per two months (e.g. Michigan), so one day this just won't work any more. It is true that I won't go zigzag in every state I intend to visit. I have a few places that are fixed to the plan, but the plans may change while we're there, and the "caches along the route" don't cover that wide area off the route. Sure I will bring a laptop with me, along with the Garmin and TomTom, but however I prepare for it, it is made difficult, by commercial reasons I guess. Or is it just that "the rules of geocaching" seem to be almost as conservative as the game of golf.

 

I have no complaints for the support when you're caching from home or similar fairly stabil location - 500 caches is surely enough, and gc.com has really all I need for that, but preparing for a long road trip is quite difficult.

Link to comment

Should I use WLAN every day in the bottom of the Grand Canyon just to check that I am not going out with an outdated cache description?

 

Let me see if I've got this straight.

 

You are going to hike the Grand Canyon - a strong candidate for the most beautiful and spectacular place on Earth - with your loving family. You are going to have the kind of experience that you will talk about in forty years time (believe me, you will, and I only got to the rim of the canyon). And you are genuinely worried that if you get to a particularly special spot which was ground zero of a cache until it was archived three days ago - and which might have actually been missing for months, up-to-date PQ or not - and so you don't get a smiley, this will in some way have spoiled your trip? :)

Link to comment

Should I use WLAN every day in the bottom of the Grand Canyon just to check that I am not going out with an outdated cache description?

 

Let me see if I've got this straight.

 

You are going to hike the Grand Canyon - a strong candidate for the most beautiful and spectacular place on Earth - with your loving family. You are going to have the kind of experience that you will talk about in forty years time (believe me, you will, and I only got to the rim of the canyon). And you are genuinely worried that if you get to a particularly special spot which was ground zero of a cache until it was archived three days ago - and which might have actually been missing for months, up-to-date PQ or not - and so you don't get a smiley, this will in some way have spoiled your trip? :D

 

No you did not get me straight. Pardon my faults in English as it's not my native language. So I better stick to very simple language :) I just meant that *I* don't care if the cache description is a few days or weeks outdated. If the cache is not found after some searching, so be it, my trip is not ruined. With my previous comment I just tried the "attack is best defense" -method for those comments that will come, like last year, and year before that :) Those comments are usually something like: "what if you have outdated data", "you should not keep offline database of caches, instead you should check from gc.com for the fresh description", etc.

 

Summary of my opinion: an outdated description gives a better chance to find a cache than no description at all.

 

Hope I got it straight this time...

 

P.S. Grand Canyon was just an example. Been there, it's a truly amazing place. I guess there are WLANs today at the bottom so even my example is not so very good... :lol:

Edited by tr1976
Link to comment
My advice to you is to better refine where you think that you might visit. Certainly, you don't want to simply wander aimlessly around America. Believe me, you will end up missing the best stuff if you do it this way.

 

Determine which sites that you simply must see and build PQs for the nearby area. Then build routes between the 'must see' sights and run PQs for the routes.

 

Target your PQs so you are not including those caches that you have no intention of looking for. For instance, when I'm traveling, I skip high terrain caches and difficult puzzles. I know that I won't take the time to do them, so I've stopped including them in my PQs. Excluding the caches that you don't want to find allows you to include more caches in each PQ.

 

Finally, I typically bring my laptop with me. That way, if I diverge from my plans, I can run PQs from my hotel.

Thanks for the tips. However, as I said, I will create PQs only for caches that are traditional and both difficulty and terrain are less than equal to 2.0. I might want to look for harder ones but I want to limit the queries as much as possible, just like you advised. But even the number of that kind of caches is increasing at the rate of 500 caches per two months (e.g. Michigan), so one day this just won't work any more.
Are you very familiar with Michigan? I have every reason to believe that you are not going to vist the entire state. If you target your PQs to only the areas that you will reasonably expect to visit, you will save yourself a bunch of hassle. That goes for all of the states that you are going to visit, but Michigan is the absolute perfect example.
It is true that I won't go zigzag in every state I intend to visit. I have a few places that are fixed to the plan, but the plans may change while we're there, and the "caches along the route" don't cover that wide area off the route. Sure I will bring a laptop with me, along with the Garmin and TomTom, but however I prepare for it, it is made difficult, by commercial reasons I guess.
By bringing your laptop, you allow yourself to become very flexible. If you've diverged from your route, all you have to do is run a PQ of a new route. If you decide to visit a new place, run a PQ for that area.
Or is it just that "the rules of geocaching" seem to be almost as conservative as the game of golf.
:)
I have no complaints for the support when you're caching from home or similar fairly stabil location - 500 caches is surely enough, and gc.com has really all I need for that, but preparing for a long road trip is quite difficult.
You just need to build a plan that supports your trip.
Link to comment

Should I use WLAN every day in the bottom of the Grand Canyon just to check that I am not going out with an outdated cache description?

 

Let me see if I've got this straight.

 

You are going to hike the Grand Canyon - a strong candidate for the most beautiful and spectacular place on Earth - with your loving family. You are going to have the kind of experience that you will talk about in forty years time (believe me, you will, and I only got to the rim of the canyon). And you are genuinely worried that if you get to a particularly special spot which was ground zero of a cache until it was archived three days ago - and which might have actually been missing for months, up-to-date PQ or not - and so you don't get a smiley, this will in some way have spoiled your trip? :D

 

No you did not get me straight. Pardon my faults in English as it's not my native language. So I better stick to very simple language :) I just meant that *I* don't care if the cache description is a few days or weeks outdated. If the cache is not found after some searching, so be it, my trip is not ruined. With my previous comment I just tried the "attack is best defense" -method for those comments that will come, like last year, and year before that :) Those comments are usually something like: "what if you have outdated data", "you should not keep offline database of caches, instead you should check from gc.com for the fresh description", etc.

 

Conclusion: an outdated description gives a better chance to find a cache than no description at all.

 

Hope I got it straight this time...

 

P.S. Grand Canyon was just an example. Been there, it's an amazing place. I guess there are WLANs today at the bottom so even my example is not so very good... :lol:

If you don't care if your data's old, start building your PQs in GSAK now. By the time your trip comes along, you could probably have every old cache in each state that you will be vitising. It's going to be alot of work and there is definitely more efficient ways to plan for a trip, but what do I care?

 

You won't have some new caches, but who cares? You'll still have tens of thousands of caches to look for. Come to think of it, you could even get the new caches if you run PQs of recently placed caches just before you leave.

Link to comment

I don't use all my PQ's. But for those that do and feel they need more cache info, is it worth $3.00 a month to get more? Why not set up an account whose sole purpose is to run PQ's. If you don't want to pay for a year membership, just use the monthly payment plan to cover for you when you are on vacation.

 

tr1976 a good option for might be to buy a gps antenna adapter for your laptop. My friend perky has one, she already has GSAK, uploads her caches into streets and trips sticks her antenna on the window and knows every single cache on her route, and if she is not driving puts the cords into her gadget while she is on the way. That way you don't have to have "everything" in your gadget. I guess if she really wanted to, Perky could even take her laptop and use that instead of her gadget to find caches. (BTW can you tell I am just a little envious of her caching gear :) )

Link to comment

If gc.com would get their act together they would stop this nonsense of forcing people to use pocket queries to get data, and start generating a nightly/weekly file for each state or country. Pocket queries are a joke. I have to run 40 pocket queries over the course of 10 days just to get the caches updated in GSAK. Im always running into caches that are archived because my GSAK database it out of date. Not to mention if they did this approach, they would free up bandwidth and server space to produce these single files. I personally would only need to run a pocket query on a rare occasion if I had a way to download a file of my state regularly.

 

I agree 100%. For example this summer I'll go to USA and Canada and road trip over 8 or 9 states and I don't know the exact route before leaving home, and exact places where I'll stop, so "caches along a route" is a no option for me. My only option is to generate approx. 10 PQs per state (type=traditional, D<=2, T<=2), which gives approx. 40-50K caches. Of which I will search 40-50 if I'm lucky. The problem is that caching is so ad-hoc on a trip like this, because I don't know where the other family members want to stop and where I can opt for caching (while they're shopping etc.). I don't then want to waste 30 minutes to find a WLAN hotspot, create a PQ and wait until I get the e-mail, update the GPSr etc. I want the caches be in the devices all the time. With 1-2 weeks aged descriptions, I have probably 97% chance to find the cache still active. That's good enough for me.

 

Now the point is that I will do those PQs. If there were e.g. daily snapshot .zip files available in gc.com, I would filter what I want from those. That would save gc.com computing resources, not needing to store and process my personal PQs, and it would save my time. I could even download them again some night in a hotel with WLAN. With 5 PQs per 24h, that would be impossible.

 

I don't want any "we don't support your offline database" comments, they're as old as the opposing opinions. Caching content is one method to bring scalability in many systems, and I don't see why it's not good for geocaching. What is the difference in having a one week old set of PQs on my laptop compared to having a one week old GPX in my Garmin? Should I use WLAN every day in the bottom of the Grand Canyon just to check that I am not going out with an outdated cache description? Following the opposition's comments, why won't we force a transmitter to every cache container so that the database in gc.com is really up to date and not just information about ancient history (= latest log message).

You didn't book motel rooms with WiFi? I find that pretty surprising. I did a drive to to Yellowstone National park and every motel I stopped at had WiFi available. That being said, I knew what my route was generally going to be the next day so downloading a couple of PQs to cover was a no brainer.

 

=-=-edited after I read the remainder comments-=-=

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment

If gc.com would get their act together they would stop this nonsense of forcing people to use pocket queries to get data, and start generating a nightly/weekly file for each state or country. Pocket queries are a joke. I have to run 40 pocket queries over the course of 10 days just to get the caches updated in GSAK. Im always running into caches that are archived because my GSAK database it out of date. Not to mention if they did this approach, they would free up bandwidth and server space to produce these single files. I personally would only need to run a pocket query on a rare occasion if I had a way to download a file of my state regularly.

 

I agree 100%. For example this summer I'll go to USA and Canada and road trip over 8 or 9 states and I don't know the exact route before leaving home, and exact places where I'll stop, so "caches along a route" is a no option for me. My only option is to generate approx. 10 PQs per state (type=traditional, D<=2, T<=2), which gives approx. 40-50K caches. Of which I will search 40-50 if I'm lucky. The problem is that caching is so ad-hoc on a trip like this, because I don't know where the other family members want to stop and where I can opt for caching (while they're shopping etc.). I don't then want to waste 30 minutes to find a WLAN hotspot, create a PQ and wait until I get the e-mail, update the GPSr etc. I want the caches be in the devices all the time. With 1-2 weeks aged descriptions, I have probably 97% chance to find the cache still active. That's good enough for me.

 

Now the point is that I will do those PQs. If there were e.g. daily snapshot .zip files available in gc.com, I would filter what I want from those. That would save gc.com computing resources, not needing to store and process my personal PQs, and it would save my time. I could even download them again some night in a hotel with WLAN. With 5 PQs per 24h, that would be impossible.

 

I don't want any "we don't support your offline database" comments, they're as old as the opposing opinions. Caching content is one method to bring scalability in many systems, and I don't see why it's not good for geocaching. What is the difference in having a one week old set of PQs on my laptop compared to having a one week old GPX in my Garmin? Should I use WLAN every day in the bottom of the Grand Canyon just to check that I am not going out with an outdated cache description? Following the opposition's comments, why won't we force a transmitter to every cache container so that the database in gc.com is really up to date and not just information about ancient history (= latest log message).

You didn't book motel rooms with WiFi? I find that pretty surprising. I did a drive to to Yellowstone National park and every motel I stopped at had WiFi available. That being said, I knew what my route was generally going to be the next day so downloading a couple of PQs to cover was a no brainer.

 

=-=-edited after I read the remainder comments-=-=

 

Aaargh.... I have not booked ANY motel or hotel rooms. Should I book a hotel room with WLAN every time I stop at a rest stop in a middle of nowhere in Wisconsin, to create a PQ to see if there are any caches around, while my family is losing their nerves, then drive another 293 miles, stop again, notice that the 500 cache PQ does not cover this place, create another PQ, etc. Is that what you propose?

Link to comment

I'm confused. Do you plan to wander around the country stopping on a whim? Is there no where you want to visit? What happens if there is no hotel room available from a rest stop in the middle of Wisconsin? My experience has been that the vast majority of motels and many campgrounds offer WiFi? Also many interstate rest areas offer it. I recently drove cross country from California to NY. I had spent a considerable time planning a route along interstate 40 but there was a winter storm along that more southern cross country route and the weather along the more northern route was better. I had no caches in my laptop for this route. Each evening about an hour or so before we wanted to stop we would check the GPS and the tour materials for a motel in the area. We gave preference to ons that offered Wi-fi and free breakfast. We had computer access ever night although a couple of nights I needed to sit in the lobby. We were however traveling in February. If I was planning to visit tourist areas in mid summer I would make reservations but good luck and I hope you enjoy your trip.

Team Taran

Link to comment

If gc.com would get their act together they would stop this nonsense of forcing people to use pocket queries to get data, and start generating a nightly/weekly file for each state or country. Pocket queries are a joke. I have to run 40 pocket queries over the course of 10 days just to get the caches updated in GSAK. Im always running into caches that are archived because my GSAK database it out of date. Not to mention if they did this approach, they would free up bandwidth and server space to produce these single files. I personally would only need to run a pocket query on a rare occasion if I had a way to download a file of my state regularly.

 

I agree 100%. For example this summer I'll go to USA and Canada and road trip over 8 or 9 states and I don't know the exact route before leaving home, and exact places where I'll stop, so "caches along a route" is a no option for me. My only option is to generate approx. 10 PQs per state (type=traditional, D<=2, T<=2), which gives approx. 40-50K caches. Of which I will search 40-50 if I'm lucky. The problem is that caching is so ad-hoc on a trip like this, because I don't know where the other family members want to stop and where I can opt for caching (while they're shopping etc.). I don't then want to waste 30 minutes to find a WLAN hotspot, create a PQ and wait until I get the e-mail, update the GPSr etc. I want the caches be in the devices all the time. With 1-2 weeks aged descriptions, I have probably 97% chance to find the cache still active. That's good enough for me.

 

Now the point is that I will do those PQs. If there were e.g. daily snapshot .zip files available in gc.com, I would filter what I want from those. That would save gc.com computing resources, not needing to store and process my personal PQs, and it would save my time. I could even download them again some night in a hotel with WLAN. With 5 PQs per 24h, that would be impossible.

I don't want any "we don't support your offline database" comments, they're as old as the opposing opinions. Caching content is one method to bring scalability in many systems, and I don't see why it's not good for geocaching. What is the difference in having a one week old set of PQs on my laptop compared to having a one week old GPX in my Garmin? Should I use WLAN every day in the bottom of the Grand Canyon just to check that I am not going out with an outdated cache description? Following the opposition's comments, why won't we force a transmitter to every cache container so that the database in gc.com is really up to date and not just information about ancient history (= latest log message).

You didn't book motel rooms with WiFi? I find that pretty surprising. I did a drive to to Yellowstone National park and every motel I stopped at had WiFi available. That being said, I knew what my route was generally going to be the next day so downloading a couple of PQs to cover was a no brainer.

 

=-=-edited after I read the remainder comments-=-=

 

Aaargh.... I have not booked ANY motel or hotel rooms. Should I book a hotel room with WLAN every time I stop at a rest stop in a middle of nowhere in Wisconsin, to create a PQ to see if there are any caches around, while my family is losing their nerves, then drive another 293 miles, stop again, notice that the 500 cache PQ does not cover this place, create another PQ, etc. Is that what you propose?

 

Just to be clear, I fed off of a single statement you put in your remarks. So let's not get too pithy ok? Secondly, 5 PQs= 2500 caches which is pretty inefficient for a "planned" travel. The routing PQ handles that much better. Third, If you have your laptop with you, you obviously planned on being near some WLAN. Otherwise you wouldn't have used this argument. I've passed through small town USA where coffee shops had WLAN, eaten at motel and off the wall restaurants where WLAN was available and encouraged for use. There are plenty of places to stop besides rest stops. I've even seen fast food places have WLAN available. I stopped at tourist traps in Yellowstone that had WLAN. We're not so backwater it isn't available someplace near where you plan to be. I don't preach what I don't practice. I gave you a viable option in my previous post, AND I'm giving you more here.

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment

Just to be clear, I fed off of a single statement you put in your remarks. So let's not get too pithy ok? Secondly, 5 PQs= 2500 caches which is pretty inefficient for a "planned" travel. The routing PQ handles that much better. Third, If you have your laptop with you, you obviously planned on being near some WLAN. Otherwise you wouldn't have used this argument. I've passed through small town USA where coffee shops had WLAN, eaten at motel and off the wall restaurants where WLAN was available and encouraged for use. There are plenty of places to stop besides rest stops. I've even seen fast food places have WLAN available. I stopped at tourist traps in Yellowstone that had WLAN. We're not so backwater it isn't available someplace near where you plan to be. I don't preach what I don't practice. I gave you a viable option in my previous post, AND I'm giving you more here.

 

Yes, yes, yes I know you have a lot of WLANs. And I have a phone with GPRS and WCDMA data that most likely works at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and at the top of Mt. Baker. But I don't want to spend my precious time in the greatest country of the world, sitting in front of the laptop, looking at some stupid geocaches, figuring how I should optimally specify the PQ not to waste from my daily quota of 5. I would like to have them in the GPS, finding some if I have time. Do I need to draw a picture?

Link to comment

There really is no point in making any suggestions on here about how gc.com could improve it's services. All you will get is the suggestions back on how the current system works fine, and what you are suggesting is ridiculous. Oh and the always helpful, live with what you get, cuz it works just fine for me.

 

Just a bunch of gc.com loyalists on here who have nothing better to do than to tell others that what they are requesting is useless.

Link to comment

There really is no point in making any suggestions on here about how gc.com could improve it's services. All you will get is the suggestions back on how the current system works fine, and what you are suggesting is ridiculous. Oh and the always helpful, live with what you get, cuz it works just fine for me.

 

Just a bunch of gc.com loyalists on here who have nothing better to do than to tell others that what they are requesting is useless.

 

No really? I haven't noticed that... :)

 

Of course nothing can be changed! It dropped from heaven, programmed in stone with a piece of steel, and we just need to find the best ways to change our behavior and lives so that we can get the most out of it...

 

"Stopping by to use your WLAN because of the magic number 500."

 

-tr1976

Edited by tr1976
Link to comment

Just to be clear, I fed off of a single statement you put in your remarks. So let's not get too pithy ok? Secondly, 5 PQs= 2500 caches which is pretty inefficient for a "planned" travel. The routing PQ handles that much better. Third, If you have your laptop with you, you obviously planned on being near some WLAN. Otherwise you wouldn't have used this argument. I've passed through small town USA where coffee shops had WLAN, eaten at motel and off the wall restaurants where WLAN was available and encouraged for use. There are plenty of places to stop besides rest stops. I've even seen fast food places have WLAN available. I stopped at tourist traps in Yellowstone that had WLAN. We're not so backwater it isn't available someplace near where you plan to be. I don't preach what I don't practice. I gave you a viable option in my previous post, AND I'm giving you more here.

 

Yes, yes, yes I know you have a lot of WLANs. And I have a phone with GPRS and WCDMA data that most likely works at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and at the top of Mt. Baker. But I don't want to spend my precious time in the greatest country of the world, sitting in front of the laptop, looking at some stupid geocaches, figuring how I should optimally specify the PQ not to waste from my daily quota of 5. I would like to have them in the GPS, finding some if I have time. Do I need to draw a picture?

 

No you don't need to draw a picture, but your expectations are set too high for current business practices to change overnight. I'm giving you options you can use during your downtime while eating or just resting your feet.

 

as for this:

There really is no point in making any suggestions on here about how gc.com could improve it's services. All you will get is the suggestions back on how the current system works fine, and what you are suggesting is ridiculous. Oh and the always helpful, live with what you get, cuz it works just fine for me.

 

Just a bunch of gc.com loyalists on here who have nothing better to do than to tell others that what they are requesting is useless.

If you have nothing better to add.... you are a sad sad man.

Link to comment

Just to be clear, I fed off of a single statement you put in your remarks. So let's not get too pithy ok? Secondly, 5 PQs= 2500 caches which is pretty inefficient for a "planned" travel. The routing PQ handles that much better. Third, If you have your laptop with you, you obviously planned on being near some WLAN. Otherwise you wouldn't have used this argument. I've passed through small town USA where coffee shops had WLAN, eaten at motel and off the wall restaurants where WLAN was available and encouraged for use. There are plenty of places to stop besides rest stops. I've even seen fast food places have WLAN available. I stopped at tourist traps in Yellowstone that had WLAN. We're not so backwater it isn't available someplace near where you plan to be. I don't preach what I don't practice. I gave you a viable option in my previous post, AND I'm giving you more here.

 

Yes, yes, yes I know you have a lot of WLANs. And I have a phone with GPRS and WCDMA data that most likely works at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and at the top of Mt. Baker. But I don't want to spend my precious time in the greatest country of the world, sitting in front of the laptop, looking at some stupid geocaches, figuring how I should optimally specify the PQ not to waste from my daily quota of 5. I would like to have them in the GPS, finding some if I have time. Do I need to draw a picture?

 

No you don't need to draw a picture, but your expectations are set too high for current business practices to change overnight. I'm giving you options you can use during your downtime while eating or just resting your feet.

 

Yes thank you for that but I kind of already know all the features and possibilities there are and am

asking to extend them due to the exponentially increasing number of caches no matter how you

filter them.

 

The PQ limit of 5*500 has been the same at least since 2005 so I'm not talking about overnights

here. Look at any stats about the number of caches and think a minute whether those numbers

correlate to each other.

 

-tr1976

Edited by tr1976
Link to comment

 

Just a bunch of gc.com loyalists on here who have nothing better to do than to tell others that what they are requesting is useless.

 

:Raises Hand: Loyalist checking in here. I like geocaching, I like the people who run geocaching, I like that I can download PQ's at all as compared to the other sites. As a card carrying member of the Geocaching.com Loyalist Party I do get a fluffled when incredibly nice, very helpful people get attacked here for practically no reason by people who have never been to HQ and met the people behind the curtain. Make your request for web site updates, people that are posting are trying to help you are giving you options to workaround as the web site is working right now at this moment. It does not invalidate your request by others giving you workarounds.

Link to comment

 

Just a bunch of gc.com loyalists on here who have nothing better to do than to tell others that what they are requesting is useless.

 

:Raises Hand: Loyalist checking in here. I like geocaching, I like the people who run geocaching, I like that I can download PQ's at all as compared to the other sites. As a card carrying member of the Geocaching.com Loyalist Party I do get a fluffled when incredibly nice, very helpful people get attacked here for practically no reason by people who have never been to HQ and met the people behind the curtain. Make your request for web site updates, people that are posting are trying to help you are giving you options to workaround as the web site is working right now at this moment. It does not invalidate your request by others giving you workarounds.

 

You also have a good point. I also like the site a lot. However, which ever year I bring up these ideas

I always get the same workarounds. That's why the last part of my first message in this thread. I write

here because I need no workarounds, I want to vote for changes. To make good better, you know... :)

Edited by tr1976
Link to comment
.....Look at any stats about the number of caches and think a minute whether those numbers

correlate to each other.

 

-tr1976

 

The real question is - should they correlate in any way??? I for one don't see why.

 

Load up 500 queries and go caching - repeat up to 4 addtional times per day. Should keep you plenty busy.

 

Get all the 3/2 micros (if that is your "thing") and have fun with those. Next week, grab the 1/4 regulars with a date placed before 2003. The following week, get all of the larges. Whatever you like.

 

I cannot understand the imperitive nature to HAVE TO have all caches of all description in a given area.

 

Again - if you feel you must - there IS a solution for you. The Trimble Geocache Navigator. All caches and the descriptions in the database at your finger tips near instantly anywhere you can get a cell signal.

Link to comment

I'm going to put forward there were existential reasons for creating a route PQ. The current then and now PQ limitations (whether arbitrary or not) was a show stopper for folks on the move for business or vacations.

 

So far, all "reasons" why the PQ limits should be increased are not show stopper reasons. Viable alternative solutions exist. Come up with a good show stopper reason and you will see this company reasonably accept it and work towards making changes.

 

Backhanding people by calling them "loyalists" and "naysayers" to suppoprt your opinioin is insulting and adds nothing to the debate or the reasoning. If you can't refrain from negative terms against other users in these forums, expect to get reported. I'm getting tired of it.

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment

Backhanding people by calling them "loyalists" and "naysayers" to suppoprt your opinioin is insulting and adds nothing to the debate or the reasoning. If you can't refrain from negative terms against other users in these forums, expect to get reported. I'm getting tired of it.

 

If you refer to me, then I apologize. Don't get too serious! :)

Link to comment

Backhanding people by calling them "loyalists" and "naysayers" to suppoprt your opinioin is insulting and adds nothing to the debate or the reasoning. If you can't refrain from negative terms against other users in these forums, expect to get reported. I'm getting tired of it.

 

If you refer to me, then I apologize. Don't get too serious! :)

Link to comment

Backhanding people by calling them "loyalists" and "naysayers" to suppoprt your opinioin is insulting and adds nothing to the debate or the reasoning. If you can't refrain from negative terms against other users in these forums, expect to get reported. I'm getting tired of it.

 

If you refer to me, then I apologize. Don't get too serious! :)

Nope. I understand your frustrations. I'm not arguing against or for the need. Just coming up with alternatives. There is an individual however whom has a chip on his shoulder and he needs to take it someplace else.

Link to comment

Backhanding people by calling them "loyalists" and "naysayers" to suppoprt your opinioin is insulting and adds nothing to the debate or the reasoning. If you can't refrain from negative terms against other users in these forums, expect to get reported. I'm getting tired of it.

 

If you refer to me, then I apologize. Don't get too serious! :)

 

=> sorry about the same reply several times, the connection was stalling so I hit the button too many times... :)

Edited by tr1976
Link to comment

Here's my reply in a previous thread where there was a request for canned PQs that returned all the caches in a single US state. It's my attempt to explain Groundspeak's philosophy regarding PQs. I can't speak for Groundspeak, but I did get a PM from Michael asking if he could used this elsewhere on the website.

 

Geocaching.com has decided for a small fee you can download a small portion of the geocaching database to use to plan your geocache outings. Some people feel that that means they should get a larger portion of the database, perhaps for an additional fee, and geocaching.com should make it easier for people to get this larger part of the database. Geocaching.com has decided that limiting pocket queries to 500 caches and limiting users to 5 PQ per day gives anyone more than enough caches to find and makes it hard enough to discourage abuse of the system that would involve downloading a significant part of the database that goes beyond what you need for your personal use.

 

But what about people like the OP who want to be able to go anywhere in their state without being tied to their computer and Geocaching.com? Geocaching.com offers a solution where you can access the site using your WAP enabled cell phone and query for nearby caches. Granted that at this point you must load the cache information into your GPSr manually. If you have a GPS enabled cell phone, they offer another alternative. For $6.99 a month you can subscribe to Trimble Geocache Navigator any be able to cache anywhere. You only need to have cell coverage when you are downloading the caches.

 

The pocket query is sometimes difficult to use but it is a flexible solution that allows for cachers to setup queries that cover their most likely caching area whether it is entirely in one state or covers parts of several states. They generally set these queries up to run periodically - once or twice a week is generally sufficient to avoid most caches that are archived. They make sure to always leave a few open slots each day so if they decide to cache outside their normal area they can grab a pocket query for that area or use caches along a route to find the caches along the route they plan to take. While people are always asking for a canned statewide query, I suspect that there are few people who actually cache this way.

 

I agree that sometimes this forum sounds like a bunch of people with frog poop covered noses. I try to understand that people who are making suggestion have a particular problem they are trying to solve. Suggesting ways to solve this problem using the current capability is not dismissing your suggestion. The current methods may be difficult or cumbersome and some new features would be beneficial to many geocachers. However, if you are planning a trip in the next few months, the site is unlikely to implement new features in time. They have a limited programming staff and prioritize new features by what they feel is best for Groundspeak's business. Far more people have issues with day to day caching in their local areas than are planning a trip to the US where they will visit several states yet want to have flexibility as to where they will visit. So long as there are workarounds, however cumbersome to use, you can have a great vacation and find lots of caches. Since you are bringing your laptop and will likely have WiFi access in many places you will visit, you should not have any trouble getting caches to search for. Have a nice trip :)

Link to comment

Here's my reply in a previous thread where there was a request for canned PQs that returned all the caches in a single US state. It's my attempt to explain Groundspeak's philosophy regarding PQs. I can't speak for Groundspeak, but I did get a PM from Michael asking if he could used this elsewhere on the website.

 

Geocaching.com has decided for a small fee you can download a small portion of the geocaching database to use to plan your geocache outings. Some people feel that that means they should get a larger portion of the database, perhaps for an additional fee, and geocaching.com should make it easier for people to get this larger part of the database. Geocaching.com has decided that limiting pocket queries to 500 caches and limiting users to 5 PQ per day gives anyone more than enough caches to find and makes it hard enough to discourage abuse of the system that would involve downloading a significant part of the database that goes beyond what you need for your personal use.

 

But what about people like the OP who want to be able to go anywhere in their state without being tied to their computer and Geocaching.com? Geocaching.com offers a solution where you can access the site using your WAP enabled cell phone and query for nearby caches. Granted that at this point you must load the cache information into your GPSr manually. If you have a GPS enabled cell phone, they offer another alternative. For $6.99 a month you can subscribe to Trimble Geocache Navigator any be able to cache anywhere. You only need to have cell coverage when you are downloading the caches.

 

The pocket query is sometimes difficult to use but it is a flexible solution that allows for cachers to setup queries that cover their most likely caching area whether it is entirely in one state or covers parts of several states. They generally set these queries up to run periodically - once or twice a week is generally sufficient to avoid most caches that are archived. They make sure to always leave a few open slots each day so if they decide to cache outside their normal area they can grab a pocket query for that area or use caches along a route to find the caches along the route they plan to take. While people are always asking for a canned statewide query, I suspect that there are few people who actually cache this way.

 

I agree that sometimes this forum sounds like a bunch of people with frog poop covered noses. I try to understand that people who are making suggestion have a particular problem they are trying to solve. Suggesting ways to solve this problem using the current capability is not dismissing your suggestion. The current methods may be difficult or cumbersome and some new features would be beneficial to many geocachers. However, if you are planning a trip in the next few months, the site is unlikely to implement new features in time. They have a limited programming staff and prioritize new features by what they feel is best for Groundspeak's business. Far more people have issues with day to day caching in their local areas than are planning a trip to the US where they will visit several states yet want to have flexibility as to where they will visit. So long as there are workarounds, however cumbersome to use, you can have a great vacation and find lots of caches. Since you are bringing your laptop and will likely have WiFi access in many places you will visit, you should not have any trouble getting caches to search for. Have a nice trip :)

 

Thanks. I do not dismiss your advise either. And I do not expect the changes to help my next trip. I know the workarounds and I know I will have a great trip, caching or not :D But looking further in the future, I feel something needs to be done, as the number of cachers and caches is increasing almost exponentially now... I'm sure I'm not the only one that have figured that out so perhaps this posting into forums is complete nonsense use of many people's time? :)

Link to comment
There really is no point in making any suggestions on here about how gc.com could improve it's services. All you will get is the suggestions back on how the current system works fine, and what you are suggesting is ridiculous. Oh and the always helpful, live with what you get, cuz it works just fine for me.

 

Just a bunch of gc.com loyalists on here who have nothing better to do than to tell others that what they are requesting is useless.

That is simply not true.

 

The truth is that we all have something better to do. That, howver, doesn't automatically mean that your idea should be implemented.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

But looking further in the future, I feel something needs to be done, as the number of cachers and caches is increasing almost exponentially now... I'm sure I'm not the only one that have figured that out so perhaps this posting into forums is complete nonsense use of many people's time? :)

Of course the number of caches is not increasing exponentially. fizzymagic used to post some statistics yearly showing that caches increase quadratically and had been doing so from the very early on. I believe in his most recent post he detected that rate may actually be slowing down now as caches have saturated some areas.

 

Some people would say that not increasing the number of caches you can get in a pocket query despite the increase in the overall number caches is a good thing. Given the cost of gasoline, most people are looking for ways to reduce the distances they travel to find caches. If the increase in caches now means that 500 caches gives you a radius of 20 km instead of 50 km you are going to find more caches closer to home.

 

I know for sure that the amount of time I have for caching is not increasing (exponentially or even linearly). Having a bigger pocket query isn't going to help me find more caches.

 

I will agree that 500 is a magic number. In a previous thread someone had mentioned that Groundspeak came up with 500 not only because this was the typical maximum number of waypoints you could store in a GPS at the time but also because their tests showed that bigger queries tended to bog down the servers. (Bigger queries require more resources in terms of memory and disk space, so even though 5 x 500 cache PQs may take more CPU time than 1 x 2500 cache PQ, the 2500 cache PQ causes other processes to block waiting for resources. The database server might even be splitting the work into chunks so that the two would be equivalent anyhow). My suspicion is that with new hardware, including more memory, the Groundspeak servers may be able to handle larger queries. They do return the All My Finds query which for some cachers contain 20000 or more caches. Allowing users some flexibility in getting their 2500 caches per day would make things easier than having to break up their PQs so each returns a maximum of 500 caches.

Link to comment

Having a bigger pocket query isn't going to help me find more caches.

 

Not me either. But it will help me save time by letting me create a smaller number of PQs.

 

I will agree that 500 is a magic number. In a previous thread someone had mentioned that Groundspeak came up with 500 not only because this was the typical maximum number of waypoints you could store in a GPS at the time but also because their tests showed that bigger queries tended to bog down the servers. (Bigger queries require more resources in terms of memory and disk space, so even though 5 x 500 cache PQs may take more CPU time than 1 x 2500 cache PQ, the 2500 cache PQ causes other processes to block waiting for resources. The database server might even be splitting the work into chunks so that the two would be equivalent anyhow). My suspicion is that with new hardware, including more memory, the Groundspeak servers may be able to handle larger queries. They do return the All My Finds query which for some cachers contain 20000 or more caches. Allowing users some flexibility in getting their 2500 caches per day would make things easier than having to break up their PQs so each returns a maximum of 500 caches.

 

How could I disagree. However, the fact is that I would pay more, if I could get more (proposed in another thread). If I'm the only one with that opinion then of course it's not worth implementing.

Link to comment

As addressed in the other thread (and this one, I think), you have the ability to pay more for more PQs as it stands.

 

As for the time that it takes to set up PQs, we're only talking about a few minutes initially and then an occasional peak to see if the last PQ is getting too full.

 

I actually enjoy this part of the process as I try to find enough caches to allow me to continually expand the date ranges of the older PQs and, possibly, eliminate the newest one.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...