GC.com Why don't you create a zip file for each state?

[+The Leprechauns]

Also, since the most waypoints any GPS I've seen has been 2000 or less, what good would 10,000 be to anyone? By the time you had a chance to visit 10%, some would be archived, disabled or new and not in the list anyway.

I have nearly 11,000 caches in my primary database (150 mile circle around home), plus 1100 and 4000 in secondary databases for two other areas outside that circle, but which I visit several times each year. All of these caches are useful to me. I carry them around on my laptop computer wherever I go. I reload my GPS on the fly, squirting a new batch of waypoints down the wire whenever I drive out of range of the current batch. Others use the Garmin POI loader and a PDA to achieve the same portability result for large numbers of caches. So, don't limit yourself by the capacity of your GPS.

 

As I stated above, I have never once searched for a cache that's been archived since my last data update. The odds of one particular cache out of 11,000 being archived, and my choosing to hunt for that cache, are miniscule. Even if it were archived, my review of the recent logs would likely make me steer clear of a cache that's probably missing, though still marked in my four-day old dataset as available.

 

The ability to head off on a moment's notice, drive 100 miles to an area I feel like visiting, and having all the caches at my fingertips is liberating, and a key part of the freedom I enjoy through geocaching. I have cached in nearly every corner of the 150 mile circle covered by my pocket queries. I don't know if I'll go to Maryland or Cleveland next weekend, or cache close to home. That is part of the fun for me.

 

I'd prefer to approach this thread and the OP's question from the perspective of helping him understand how to efficiently work with the 17,500 unique caches that can be downloaded each week. Posts explaining the date separation method for PQ's, how to spot recently archived caches and weed them out of GSAK, etc., ought to be very helpful.

 

Finally, as a reminder, Groundspeak has said that only one enhancement is on the horizon for pocket queries. That is the ability to download queries on demand, as an alternative to having them delivered by e-mail.

[+PJPeters]

I like the pocket query setup as it sits right now. When I go caching, or when I'm getting ready to go caching, I really don't have a need for puzzles - I need time to solve them. Maybe I'll work on those next week, when I have some free time, and go get them when I head out that way. Don't need those loaded into the GPS. Multis? I'm looking for a cache or two as I'm headed to the office in another part of the state. I won't be hitting any multis. No need to download them. What's that? A five star terrain? I don't have any rock-climbing gear. They're gone. Virtuals? Hate 'em, don't do 'em (actually, I do like them - this is only an example). They're off the list.

Can you see where this is headed? Many of the caches you'd get in this 12 megabyte (for Utah) file would be absolutely useless. Pocket queries allow for flexibility. You can choose what you want to do, when you're ready.

As others have noted, if you really want to get all the caches in your state, you just need to do a little homework and tweak your pocket queries a bit.

If you were to download that monster file, chances are it wouldn't be available to you again for a week, just like the my finds query. So, you'd be working with stale data, anyway.

Don't forget, the 'new 500 a month' will, as mentioned earlier, taper off. And, you've forgotten to account for caches archiving for one reason or another - loss, theft, making room for a new cache, etc. So, net gain? Could be 30 or 40 a month, could be more, could be a lot more.

I much rather filter my query on the site, then on GSAK, rather than dealing with that mess, thankyouverymuch. But to each his (or her) own.

[geode hunter]

I too, have maxed my pq's each day and convert them into cachemate data bases loaded on a pda. I have all of Indiana and Kentucky caches and benchmarks loaded. I can at a whim connect the gps and sort out the nearest then upload to the gps, read the cache page and begin searching.

 

Anything Groundspeak would do to make that much more easier would be great. I don't know if a general file located for download on the page would work though. I really don't want to look for some of the ones I have all ready found.

[Skippermark]

I have done this for Utah, but we are adding over 500 caches a month now, and I will run out of queries by this year. Also this means my caches or always up to 10 days out of date, which means I am hitting disabeld, archived caches on occasion

 

I'm from New England, and there are tens of thousands of caches between all the nearby states, all within a 2-3 hour drive. There's no way I could run enough PQs to cover all the caches in NY, NJ, PA, MA, NH and so on.

 

So, a couple days before the weekend, we decide where we want to go, NJ for instance, and then run some PQs around that area. Then, we'll run a couple caches along routes to cover different ways of getting there. In one or two days, we've run 5 or 6 PQs containing 3000 caches. Now, if we can find 3000 caches in a weekend, that's a great caching day. Also, by running them only a couple days before we go, the chances of picking up archived caches is greatly reduced.

 

Now, I do keep a couple "full databases" for some states, like CT and RI because they're so small. RI requires only one PQ for me now, 2 if you haven't found any there. But, if I were to live in a big state, like you do, I'd keep an up to database of caches within 30 or 40 miles of my house and then do exactly what I described above if I were to venture outside the 40 mile radius.

 

With the caches along a route feature and the ability to generate PQs so quickly, I don't see the need to have so many caches stored on your computer.

[+DavidMac]

Here's something to ponder: if they allowed you do download a GPX file for an entire state, people would start trying to download PQs for every state.

 

I frequently travel through five different states for work. So, I'd want to download queries for MS, AL, GA, NC, and TN on a regular basis. That's tens of thousands of caches. If they limited it to, say, one or two states a day, I'd have reason to complain. Much more so in New England, where you can take a wrong turn and end up in another state.

 

For now, I have five queries to cover the areas I regularly travel through. One route query, and four circular (two of which are by date). It scales well, too, so I won't have to worry about new caches maxing out the queries for a while. It took a bit of work to set up, but has worked well for my purposes for almost two years.

[Skippermark]

Here's something to ponder: if they allowed you do download a GPX file for an entire state, people would start trying to download PQs for every state.

 

You never know. You might have to make rush travel plans to an obscure state, so it would be smart to have them all.

 

Much more so in New England, where you can take a wrong turn and end up in another state.

 

Agreed, visitors often grab a cache in each state during a one day journey through the area.

 

For now, I have five queries to cover the areas I regularly travel through. One route query, and four circular (two of which are by date). It scales well, too, so I won't have to worry about new caches maxing out the queries for a while. It took a bit of work to set up, but has worked well for my purposes for almost two years.

 

It sounds like you set yours up like I do. Using dates is very powerful, but often overlooked. Once you've set your radius, I think it's the only way to avoid duplicate caches or worse, missing some.

[+StarBrand]

....

I think it's the only way to avoid duplicate caches or worse, missing some.

 

Help me understand......

 

Just why is it so bad to be missing a cache or two in your device while you drive by??

 

Are you really that compelled to go to all of them??

 

Seriously - this is the part I have a hard time with.

[+TotemLake]

There's an easier way for getting the entire state with the current PQ strategy and I do this for Washington.

 

In your PQ setup, can select the entire state, then you do it by date. Starting with May 1, 2000, increase your ending date until you reach near 500. For instance mine is 20000501-20020922. You'll get a shot gun collection of the caches hidden in your state by this method, but you'll be able to build a nice PQ spread that you can easily maintain and update as needed to condense when caches are archived.

 

For WA this means 25 PQs plus 2 to handle updates and inactive caches. Every week I have a realtively up to date database to plan from.

 

That leaves me 13 PQs I can do with whatever I want.

You got me to thinking about how to keep up with a growing number of caches that will eventually max out your PQs. The above scheme captures all the active caches but once this done, you really don't need them anymore. Utilizing a PQ to grab just updates from the last 7 days can easily overwhelm the 500 cache limit. However, using a hybrid of the above and the updates from the last 7 days has cut the number of PQs I have to run by 11 PQs and that isn't getting near the max of 500 per PQ. I managed a set of PQs with a built in buffer of 80-150 to accomodate that rush of cache hunts and logging. That is, my PQs are downloading from 350-420 updates.

 

Use the date based scheme, make sure caches placed is off, and updated last 7 days is on. Select your state, and adjust your dates placed at the bottom and voila. You've reduced your need to run as many and you still work within the system. My updates can happen across three maxed days +1 PQ now instead of 5 maxed days +2 PQs.

 

The beauty of this scheme is the built in reduction that occurs over time. You will eventually get to stretch out your dates as the initial rush of new caches thins out. The older the cache, the less likely it will be hit as much.

Edited May 8, 2008 by TotemLake

[CoyoteRed]

However, using a hybrid of the above and the updates from the last 7 days has cut the number of PQs I have to run by 11 PQs and that isn't getting near the max of 500 per PQ.

How are you eliminating archived caches? The problem with using a "last 7 days" based PQ without some sort of other full set as a backup is you can't tell the caches that are archived from the caches that simply haven't been visited. Neither would be included in the PQ so you don't know its status.

 

You're pretty much stuck with pulling full data sets. I'm pulling nearly everything I'm allowed. I just have to pare back when I bump the limits. Sure it hits the servers harder, but apparently Groundspeak doesn't mind as they've not given us better tools.

[+TotemLake]

However, using a hybrid of the above and the updates from the last 7 days has cut the number of PQs I have to run by 11 PQs and that isn't getting near the max of 500 per PQ.

How are you eliminating archived caches? The problem with using a "last 7 days" based PQ without some sort of other full set as a backup is you can't tell the caches that are archived from the caches that simply haven't been visited. Neither would be included in the PQ so you don't know its status.

 

You're pretty much stuck with pulling full data sets. I'm pulling nearly everything I'm allowed. I just have to pare back when I bump the limits. Sure it hits the servers harder, but apparently Groundspeak doesn't mind as they've not given us better tools.

You don't get archived caches anyway so no loss there. You will get disabled updates. But to be sure, the +1 PQ is to chase after the caches that have been disabled but not yet archived.

[geode hunter]

How are you eliminating the archived and deleted caches from your original data set?

[+TotemLake]

How are you eliminating the archived and deleted caches from your original data set?

I'm pretty sure there are macros for that. But what I do is look at what the last GPX update was within 3 months of the current date and then if they are not set to archive, I manually set the flag. I've caught a few caches that haven't been disabled and the owners are still active but the cache hasn't been found for a couple of years. I have some of them planned for future Hikes of the Month; which is why I don't use macros. I'm not about the numbers but more about the adventure. The cache is the means to an end.

[Skippermark]

....

I think it's the only way to avoid duplicate caches or worse, missing some.

 

Help me understand......

 

Just why is it so bad to be missing a cache or two in your device while you drive by??

 

Are you really that compelled to go to all of them??

 

Seriously - this is the part I have a hard time with.

 

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not talking about missing a couple caches here or there. I was saying that, if you don't setup PQs correctly, you can end up missing whole clusters of caches, like a couple hundred in several towns or more. I probably shouldn't have used the word "some" but rather "a bunch."

 

For instance, in CT, if I run a PQ centered around the northwest, northeast, southwest and southeast corners and one in the center, you think that it would get all the unfound caches in the state, but it doesn't. The caches in the lower central part of the state won't get picked up. By setting up caches using dates and not worrying about where they're centered, you eliminate that problem and actually end up with fewer PQs.

Edited May 9, 2008 by Skippermark

[+Markwell]

For instance, in CT, if I run a PQ centered around the northwest, northeast, southwest and southeast corners and one in the center, you think that it would get all the unfound caches in the state, but it doesn't. The caches in the lower central part of the state won't get picked up. By setting up caches using dates and not worrying about where they're centered, you eliminate that problem and actually end up with fewer PQs.

 

It's a little off-topic to this thread, but in a broader sense, quite germain to the topic. If you set up Connectictut with overlapping circles, that's not the best way to get the caches in the state with as few PQs as possible. With overlapping circles like the image above, you'll miss areas, and when the PQs fill to 500 the caches will fall off the rims of the circles, decreasing the radii of the PQs widening the gaps of non-coverage.

 

CT has 3,240 non-event caches (both enabled and disabled). Instead, if you set up a PQ for CT as a state (not from a point of origin - although I much prefer the point of origin method), you can set the PQ up to capture just under 500 caches by setting a date placed range:

Jan 01 1998 - Nov 23 2004: 499 caches

Nov 24 2004 - Mar 01 2006: 494 caches

Mar 02 2006 - Nov 01 2006: 494 caches

Nov 02 2006 - May 17 2007: 499 caches

May 18 2007 - Oct 03 2007: 499 caches

Oct 40 2007 - Mar 15 2008: 498 caches

Mar 16 2008 - Dec 31 2009: 265 caches

 

Admittedly, Connecticut still has enough caches that it would take more than one standard day of PQs. But in setting up the PQs in this method, you maximize the efficiency of the PQs. No single cache can be in more than one date range, and your getting ALL of the caches you want, just in 500 cache chomps.

 

Two other major points that I tend to bring up when people ask for increases to the PQ limit or for the state-wide download:

 

Consider whittling out types and styles of caches you don't particularly enjoy finding. For example, my preferred "on the go" caches are traditional in type of cache, regular or large in container, and have difficulty and terrain levels less than or equal to 3.5. I also weeded out the disabled caches, and that first date range of Jan 01 1998 - Nov 23 2004 now only contained 389 caches. That's 110 caches in that PQ alone that I probably wouldn't be hunting. If you eliminate the caches you don't want to seek, you'll be able to pull more of the caches you DO want to seek.

 

People with offline databases tend to complain that their data is stale. Yes it is - by definition it is stale the minute it comes off of the Groundspeak server. But at what point is the data so stale that it loses its usefulness?

 

I looked at the data I received May 1, and the data I received May 8. On May 1, there were 3,821 non-archived caches the Chicago area. Since then, 9 have been archived and 29 were disabled. There have also been an additional 82. That means that 1% of the caches in the Chicago area were made void by a week's worth of stale data. So my chances of not finding a cache because it was disabled or archived while I had stale data, was only 1 out of 100. There were 82 additional caches that I didn't have on my GPS at the time I went out on a whim, but they'll be there in the future.

 

So with that in mind, if you can live with a 1% chance of going on a great hike and not finding the cache because it was archived or disabled, you can just refresh your PQs weekly. That means that you have the POTENTIAL for 17,500 caches in your database, reasonably fresh. Use the other suggestion from above and you'll have 17,500 caches of the type you wish to hunt ready to go in your GPS at the drop of a hat.

 

What many of the nay-sayers have a problem with is that this should be enough. If it isn't purchase a second account, and get an additional 17,500. That's 34,000 caches per week. For a third account ($90 per year), you can download all of California's 50,955 caches in a week.

Edited May 9, 2008 by Markwell

[vagabond]

Funny. It's always the cachers with just a few finds that scream the loudest for larger pocket queries. Those of us with literally thousands of finds, who find hundreds of caches a week, are fine with the current setup.

 

Guess we're just used to the system

[+TotemLake]

How are you eliminating the archived and deleted caches from your original data set?

I'm pretty sure there are macros for that. But what I do is look at what the last GPX update was within 3 months of the current date and then if they are not set to archive, I manually set the flag. I've caught a few caches that haven't been disabled and the owners are still active but the cache hasn't been found for a couple of years. I have some of them planned for future Hikes of the Month; which is why I don't use macros. I'm not about the numbers but more about the adventure. The cache is the means to an end.

Ok, my updates method just ran today. 5 updates so far out of 16 total to run. None of these were set to catch any specific cache, disabled or not. But it looks like I still got all of the information I would have normaly received on a full set, but it would have taken a couple of days longer to gain this information using the full set method. I'm content the updates method works as planned and the full sets are not necessary once uploaded the first time.

 

Totals

Waypoints in file(s) loaded 1488

New waypoints added to GSAK 94

Existing Waypoints updated in GSAK 624

Waypoints already up to date in GSAK 770

Additional child waypoints added 10

 

Waypoints in each file

1849849.gpx (20050402-20050831 Updates x1.5) 332

1849815.gpx (20050101-20050401 Updates x2) 139 (the only short one I have -TL)

1849791.gpx (20040213-20041231 Updates x2.5) 332

1849718.gpx (20000501-20040212 Updates x3) 383

393636.gpx (Placed in the last month and updated in the last week) 302 (Name is actually misleading. The only restrictions on this one was ones I haven't found and placed in the last month -TL)

1849849-wpts.gpx (children) 24

1849815-wpts.gpx (children) 3

1849791-wpts.gpx (children) 25

1849718-wpts.gpx (children) 24

393636-wpts.gpx (children) 38

Status from Available to Unavailable

GCPT84 Brandon’s Just Before Dusk Cache by Pappa Bear and Brandon, Unknown Cache (2/2)

GCMCTC Flag Hill Hide by Dream Cache R, Multi-cache (2/3)

GCMTWR Walk the Walk by Claycat, Traditional Cache (2/1)

GCMZD4 No Trespassing by xy,xx,xy,xy,xy,xy, Multi-cache (2/1.5)

GCKA65 The Dog That Barked In The Night by HaFamily, Multi-cache (2.5/1.5)

GCKEA3 Jury Duty Day 2 – Been There, Seen That #5 by ohjoy!, Traditional Cache (1.5/1.5)

GCKP1D E.C. Valley View by greaser76s, Traditional Cache (2/2)

GCKR7T Blackbird singin' in the dead of night by Nana Bear , Unknown Cache (1.5/2.5)

GC1BGX4 Geology Geocache #7: Angular Unconformity Revisit by legacypac & co (formerly by Bellinghamster) , T

GCGVT5 Hole in the Wall by Scintillefamily adopted by thecluefinderrs, Traditional Cache (1/1.5)

GCH06P Electric Avenue by Quietriot, Traditional Cache (1.5/1.5)

GCH9E1 The Ugly Duckling by CurmudgeonlyGal, Traditional Cache (2/2)

GCHF04 Rosario Rendezvous by Cajonkev, Traditional Cache (2/3)

GC1B3M9 Stairway to...Bushes? by Rockaroo, Traditional Cache (1.5/1.5)

Status from Unavailable to Available

GCNG98 Hoagy’s Walkabout by CascadeChuck, Multi-cache (2.5/4)

GCNYAY Beryllium - Element 4 by Allondro, Traditional Cache (2/2)

GCN136 septic cache by >---^---: ), Traditional Cache (1.5/1)

GCM9BH The Sound of Music by Billie&Mike, Traditional Cache (1.5/1.5)

GC1BTJH Triple Culvert by Outdoor Academy, Traditional Cache (2/2)

GC1BTKD Das Boot by Outdoor Academy, Traditional Cache (2/2.5)

GC1BTJW Nurse Ratched by Outdoor Academy, Traditional Cache (2/1.5)

Edited May 10, 2008 by TotemLake

[+PJPeters]

Funny. It's always the cachers with just a few finds that scream the loudest for larger pocket queries. Those of us with literally thousands of finds, who find hundreds of caches a week, are fine with the current setup.

 

Guess we're just used to the system

Another thing to consider: If they create a PQ with all caches in a state, region, territory, ZIP code, whatever, how would it customize? Suppose I've found over 3000 caches, with most in Michigan. Why would I want to download the caches I've already found? You'd be almost required to have GSAK to filter out the things you've found.

 

Doesn't make sense.

[CoyoteRed]

How are you eliminating the archived and deleted caches from your original data set?

I'm pretty sure there are macros for that. But what I do is look at what the last GPX update was within 3 months of the current date and then if they are not set to archive, I manually set the flag. I've caught a few caches that haven't been disabled and the owners are still active but the cache hasn't been found for a couple of years. I have some of them planned for future Hikes of the Month; which is why I don't use macros. I'm not about the numbers but more about the adventure. The cache is the means to an end.

That was my point it the ability to distinguish archived caches from the caches that haven't been found in a while. There's caches around that don't get a log in years. Having to manually go through all of the archived caches to see if it's actually archived or not is a pain.

 

I get a full data set and then 95% of the caches that weren't in the last update (a lot fewer than an incremental set) have been archived. The other 5% seem to have become micros which I filter out of all PQs out of state.

 

It really all boils down to which ever way is easiest for you. I get full sets, but I'm able to do so in our area and still get a decent area coverage.

[Neos2]

I suppose I don't understand the desire to have "the whole state" in a database. I don't get the argument that "I never know what part of the state I'll be in" because I think most of us know what parts of a state we are likely to be in---or at least which parts we aren't likely to ever be sent. Maybe it's because I live in a larger state that is densely populated with caches?

 

Even if I do go to another part of my state I won't go anywhere near some of the caches in the state--so why clutter up my database and have to continually updating it "just in case" I have to go somewhere?

 

More specifically, I live in southern Indiana, near Louisville, KY. I do keep a PQ centered on my home area updated weekly. I wouldn't keep a PQ of the entire state of Indiana and the entire state of Kentucky though. I can't use info on caches near Gary, IN--it's a six hour drive for me--and some of the caches in Kentucky and Indiana are in tiny little towns down backroads that I may never travel in my entire life. Even if I do go to Gary, I won't need every cache on both side of I-65 from one side of the state to the other for the trip. Plus, as PJPeters pointed out, I've already done many of the caches between here and Gary--why pull them in again just to filter them out as soon as I get them?

 

When I travel through the "up East" states later this year, I'll be hugging the coast on I-95 when I go through CT. If you look at the map that Markwell has on this thread, you can see that I may want to detour a bit to visit a cool cache in Weston or Essex, but it's not very likely I would want to know about the caches in Simsbury or Vernon--I'm sure they have lovely caches there, but I won't be anywhere near those places. Why pull them in just to filter them out again?

 

For trips to places outside my usual area, caches along a route are the way I prefer to go. I can run a PQ on a route in minutes and be out the door.

 

I did a route last year for spring break from Indiana to Crater of Diamonds state park in Arkansas and back home again. We took the long way, through Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana along I-40 to Texas -- then up through Oklahoma to Crater of Diamonds state park --and then back home again through Missouri and Kentucky.

 

It only took me a few PQs to get everything we would posibly want to do within two miles of our route and then I ran a few additional PQs for the towns we planned to stay in along the way and one bookmark PQ that grabbed some outliers we knew we wanted to do along the way. I've deleted them, so I can't check to be sure, but I think I did the whole trip in about 10 PQs. Anyway, my point is that even that long trip with a very specific path and selective choice of caches took me only a couple of hours total to figure out, get the PQs, filter, and get them into my PDA and three GPS units...if I had just wanted everything within 2 miles of the road I could have run a couple-three PQs and been out the door in ten minutes.

 

I know my gps unit will hold thousands of caches as points of interest, but then it's so cluttered I can't see what I want to find. I much prefer to load only the caches I've already decided I'm at least minimally interested in going after in my PDA and GPS. Then I can use my 60 CSx like it is meant to be used, and I don't have to scroll through 10 thousand caches on a PDA to find just one, either.

 

If I don't use up all my PQs trying to manage a huge database that holds caches I'll never visit, then I always have plenty of PQs to run at the last minute, when I really need them.

[geode hunter]

 

A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.

--Lao Tzu

 

My work may take me to southeastern Kentucky then I find out that I need to run across state on some mountain road that I would never have thought of in planning caches. I am obviously supposed to be working, but the rest areas and occasional time out of the car works wonders for the kidneys.

 

Sure is handy to have all the caches in my PDA ready for uploading to the gps.

 

I religiously replace last weeks queries with this weeks to eliminate my finds and the newly archived. This also inputs all the new ones.

 

When it comes time to plan a trip to another state, I merely postpone a few queries to run the one time trip query. I use the route tool for that one. Works great.

[Skippermark]

Admittedly, Connecticut still has enough caches that it would take more than one standard day of PQs. But in setting up the PQs in this method, you maximize the efficiency of the PQs. No single cache can be in more than one date range, and your getting ALL of the caches you want, just in 500 cache chomps.

 

Markwell, this is a great explanation. Thank you.

 

One additional thing. When setting up PQs this way, it makes it easy to know if a cache has been archived. Archived caches don't appear in a PQs, so if an existing cache in the database isn't updated when new PQs are run, that means it's been archived.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Skippermark

[+FireRef]

I found it interesting that the OP seems to have disappeared. I highly doubt, based on his zeal for pursuing this issue, that he decided to drop out voluntarily. I would love to know if this is true, or if, as with many vocal people, he was suspended for voicing irritation with the current system.

 

There has been much discussion on this site about the people who would like to see more features, more options, even if we can pay for them. The site is very protective of their (read, our) data, and they way they have collected it. Honestly, I am surprised they allow PQ's at all. And what really doesn't make sense is that they allow people to create multiple accounts, tying up multiple usernames that won't be used for anything and keeping them from other people, but are unwilling to allow people to scale up the account they already have to achieve the same purpose.

 

I highly doubt they will do the state PQ option. They are just too protective of our data that we have given them.

 

The one thing I would like to see is people on here to do less of "You're stupid for suggesting something I don't want or couldn't use" and be more tolerant of people's suggestions and ideas, even if they don't have a use for them themselves. Just because you can't use it or don't see a need to do it, doesn't mean some people could find a use for it or it make their lives/caching experience better. Suggesting workarounds is a nice idea. But to say that you have to use the workaround and the idea for improvement is bad is, in my opinion, poor judgement.

[+TotemLake]

I found it interesting that the OP seems to have disappeared. I highly doubt, based on his zeal for pursuing this issue, that he decided to drop out voluntarily. I would love to know if this is true, or if, as with many vocal people, he was suspended for voicing irritation with the current system.

 

There has been much discussion on this site about the people who would like to see more features, more options, even if we can pay for them. The site is very protective of their (read, our) data, and they way they have collected it. Honestly, I am surprised they allow PQ's at all. And what really doesn't make sense is that they allow people to create multiple accounts, tying up multiple usernames that won't be used for anything and keeping them from other people, but are unwilling to allow people to scale up the account they already have to achieve the same purpose.

 

I highly doubt they will do the state PQ option. They are just too protective of our data that we have given them.

 

The one thing I would like to see is people on here to do less of "You're stupid for suggesting something I don't want or couldn't use" and be more tolerant of people's suggestions and ideas, even if they don't have a use for them themselves. Just because you can't use it or don't see a need to do it, doesn't mean some people could find a use for it or it make their lives/caching experience better. Suggesting workarounds is a nice idea. But to say that you have to use the workaround and the idea for improvement is bad is, in my opinion, poor judgement.

Pretty nice back handed slap in a drive-by shooting way. Your recent posts smack of a chip on your shoulder. Is that you Conrad?

 

Workarounds are good suggestions (and not poor judgement) because they WORK with the system when it is a known the system IS NOT going to change.

[+TotemLake]

I suppose I don't understand the desire to have "the whole state" in a database. I don't get the argument that "I never know what part of the state I'll be in" because I think most of us know what parts of a state we are likely to be in---or at least which parts we aren't likely to ever be sent. Maybe it's because I live in a larger state that is densely populated with caches?

 

===edited for brevity===

The state is my area. I hike and choose locations to hike in and use the database to research those locations off line.

[+PhxChem]

I would love to know if this is true, or if, as with many vocal people, he was suspended for voicing irritation with the current system

 

Well, you seem to still be here. Who are the "many" who have been "suspended" for "voicing" their "irritation?" Can you back up this assertion?

 

Let me guess, you were suspended after this post?

 

My best guess was, for the first time, the fairly green OP finally learned what the larger, more-experienced community actually thought.

 

(For full disclosure, I'm also fairly green...)

[+Michael]

Or he just doesn't live in the forums and only looks once or twice a month? There are many more logical reason that he was suspended. But its so much more fun to go with the drama.

 

Some people really do think Zebras.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Michael

[+FireRef]

Workarounds are good suggestions (and not poor judgement) because they WORK with the system when it is a known the system IS NOT going to change.

 

I have no problems with workarounds per se. I have a problem when people say "We can already do this by following these 42 steps, so your idea is stupid." - You have to read between the lines for the second portion of that for some posts, but for others, it is blatently obvious. Some people on here argue against any changes, even when they would benefit some people and harm no one. This kind of thing makes no sense, nor does preferring a 42 step method to do something over a simple 1-2 step method should TPTB change the settings on the site.

[+FireRef]

Or he just doesn't live in the forums and only looks once or twice a month? There are many more logical reason that he was suspended. But its so much more fun to go with the drama.

 

Some people really do think Zebras.

 

Think..."like" zebras?

 

If so, I do prefer black and white thinking... much more clear than a lot of "sometimes", "depends", and other type answers given to many questions that are often asked. I am, after all, a referee.

 

That is a possibility - that he got involved, and then got distracted. Just seems curious when someone completely drops out of a topic without conceding their point, especially when they were very gung-ho about it in the first place.

[+sbell111]

... That is a possibility - that he got involved, and then got distracted. Just seems curious when someone completely drops out of a topic without conceding their point, especially when they were very gung-ho about it in the first place.

Sure, he was gung ho. He was gung ho for those twelve posts that he made in 45 minutes late last Wednesday afternoon.

 

I think what really happened is his work day ended and he went home. Of course, I don't see a conspiracy around every corner.

[+PJPeters]

Perhaps he's been out geocaching? That's where I'm off to...

[+sbell111]

Perhaps he's been out geocaching? That's where I'm off to...

Sure, go caching while the rest of us are stuck at work.

[+Zop]

Finally, as a reminder, Groundspeak has said that only one enhancement is on the horizon for pocket queries. That is the ability to download queries on demand, as an alternative to having them delivered by e-mail.

 

This, I like!

[+Zop]

Finally, as a reminder, Groundspeak has said that only one enhancement is on the horizon for pocket queries. That is the ability to download queries on demand, as an alternative to having them delivered by e-mail.

 

This, I like!

 

----

Sorry for the duplicate post - I received an error the first time and rather than take a look, I hit the back button, waited a few minutes and posted again.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Zop

[+FireRef]

... That is a possibility - that he got involved, and then got distracted. Just seems curious when someone completely drops out of a topic without conceding their point, especially when they were very gung-ho about it in the first place.

Sure, he was gung ho. He was gung ho for those twelve posts that he made in 45 minutes late last Wednesday afternoon.

 

I think what really happened is his work day ended and he went home. Of course, I don't see a conspiracy around every corner.

 

That may be true also.

 

If you're referring to me, I don't see a conspiracy around every corner. But there are many times when I think something is up beyond what I am being told by the people in charge that I later find out I'm right. Reading between the lines is a skill - some are better at it than others.

[+kb1ujs]

Finally, as a reminder, Groundspeak has said that only one enhancement is on the horizon for pocket queries. That is the ability to download queries on demand, as an alternative to having them delivered by e-mail.

 

This, I like!

 

I'd have to agree. This is the one feature I've wanted for a while.

 

Ken

[+Ambrosia]

... That is a possibility - that he got involved, and then got distracted. Just seems curious when someone completely drops out of a topic without conceding their point, especially when they were very gung-ho about it in the first place.

Sure, he was gung ho. He was gung ho for those twelve posts that he made in 45 minutes late last Wednesday afternoon.

 

I think what really happened is his work day ended and he went home. Of course, I don't see a conspiracy around every corner.

 

That may be true also.

 

If you're referring to me, I don't see a conspiracy around every corner. But there are many times when I think something is up beyond what I am being told by the people in charge that I later find out I'm right. Reading between the lines is a skill - some are better at it than others.

 

And some read a little too much into things.

[+adam_w]

I dropped off this thread because it was going nowhere. I made a simple suggestion for what I thought would make my geocaching experience more enjoyable and less time consuming to manage, and saw a win win solution where gc.com could even profit from a service like what I suggested.

 

However others feel like they need to flex their geocaching expertise to tell me where I can stick my suggestion. I do not feel the need to respond to people who want to attack me personally or tell me how I should geocache. I simply suggested something that I would find useful, and would be willing to pay for. Obviously people see that they should be loyal to gc.com for some reason and defend them. I like having my entire state in an offline database and I like having the data as fresh as possible. I like to analyze the data, and play with it. So sue me....well scratch that, it seems some of you take this suggestion so personally that you may just sue me, so I retract that statement. I will pursue my suggestion directly with gc.com instead of through a bunch of gc.com loyalists who seem to have nothing better to do than sit at their computer and squash any idea of improving the user experience.

[+ReadyOrNot]

When you think about it, it's really OUR data... they just happen to have a great method of storing and displaying it.

 

This data is our data, this data is your data

From the Emerald City to the pits of Florida.

This data was made for you and me

 

Myth: Groundspeak owns the data. Sorry.

[+StarBrand]

I dropped off this thread because it was going nowhere. I made a simple suggestion for what I thought would make my geocaching experience more enjoyable and less time consuming to manage, and saw a win win solution where gc.com could even profit from a service like what I suggested.

 

However others feel like they need to flex their geocaching expertise to tell me where I can stick my suggestion. I do not feel the need to respond to people who want to attack me personally or tell me how I should geocache. I simply suggested something that I would find useful, and would be willing to pay for. Obviously people see that they should be loyal to gc.com for some reason and defend them. I like having my entire state in an offline database and I like having the data as fresh as possible. I like to analyze the data, and play with it. So sue me....well scratch that, it seems some of you take this suggestion so personally that you may just sue me, so I retract that statement. I will pursue my suggestion directly with gc.com instead of through a bunch of gc.com loyalists who seem to have nothing better to do than sit at their computer and squash any idea of improving the user experience.

You badly misunderstand......

 

The bulk of folks in this thread are actually trying to help. We KNOW that your suggestion has been made before (many times) and that folks from HQ (gc.com) have consistently responded that they will not be building any such wide access to the data. So we have given you suggestions on how to compensate. The owner of the website once said that he would be persuing a model by which you can have real time access to the data via cell phone internet access. (Geocache Trimble Navigator). That solution sounds perfect for you. They never intended that PQs be used for creating an off line database (well documented). They have valid reasons to want you to visit the website (often).

 

I myself would like to have wide access to the data but I fully unnderstand why I do not have it. I accept that.

[+adam_w]

I dropped off this thread because it was going nowhere. I made a simple suggestion for what I thought would make my geocaching experience more enjoyable and less time consuming to manage, and saw a win win solution where gc.com could even profit from a service like what I suggested.

 

However others feel like they need to flex their geocaching expertise to tell me where I can stick my suggestion. I do not feel the need to respond to people who want to attack me personally or tell me how I should geocache. I simply suggested something that I would find useful, and would be willing to pay for. Obviously people see that they should be loyal to gc.com for some reason and defend them. I like having my entire state in an offline database and I like having the data as fresh as possible. I like to analyze the data, and play with it. So sue me....well scratch that, it seems some of you take this suggestion so personally that you may just sue me, so I retract that statement. I will pursue my suggestion directly with gc.com instead of through a bunch of gc.com loyalists who seem to have nothing better to do than sit at their computer and squash any idea of improving the user experience.

You badly misunderstand......

 

The bulk of folks in this thread are actually trying to help. We KNOW that your suggestion has been made before (many times) and that folks from HQ (gc.com) have consistently responded that they will not be building any such wide access to the data. So we have given you suggestions on how to compensate. The owner of the website once said that he would be persuing a model by which you can have real time access to the data via cell phone internet access. (Geocache Trimble Navigator). That solution sounds perfect for you. They never intended that PQs be used for creating an off line database (well documented). They have valid reasons to want you to visit the website (often).

 

I myself would like to have wide access to the data but I fully unnderstand why I do not have it. I accept that.

 

Fair enough. I have already implemented the suggested work arounds, and will continue to use them. Thanks to those with positive suggestions. It is a poor business model to continue to ignore the requests of your customers though, and eventually gc.com will have to come up with a solution or lose their customer to someone who comes along and does it better.

[Neos2]

I suppose I don't understand the desire to have "the whole state" in a database. I don't get the argument that "I never know what part of the state I'll be in" because I think most of us know what parts of a state we are likely to be in---or at least which parts we aren't likely to ever be sent. Maybe it's because I live in a larger state that is densely populated with caches?

 

===edited for brevity===

The state is my area. I hike and choose locations to hike in and use the database to research those locations off line.

I suppose I can see that.

 

I prefer to do my research online. Every time I do use my GSAK database, I find myself running across something I need to see online. I can see Geode Hunters Point about being sent across the state unexpectedly better than I could envision myself needing all of Kentucky and all of Indiana loaded all the time just so I could have them in a database to look at while offline. Of course, I run a fast computer on a fast connection--The online maps load as fast as my offline maps do.

 

Tell me this, though. If you were planning a trip across 10 states, would you use "caches along a route" or would you load all ten "whole state" PQs (if they were available)?

(I'll ask Geode Hunters the same thing --or anyone else who wants to chime in).

[+PhxChem]

 

However others feel like they need to flex their geocaching expertise...

 

That's what it's there for. That what mentors are. I think many in the thread did want to help you...flexing or not.

 

 

It is a poor business model to continue to ignore the requests of your customers though, and eventually gc.com will have to come up with a solution or lose their customer to someone who comes along and does it better.

 

It is probably also a poor business model to do EVERYTHING any customer asks for. Since no one is currently up to Groundspeak's level (they do a pretty good job), I think we will be waiting for awhile for someone to do it better.

[geode hunter]

'Neos2' date='May 12 2008, 06:31 PM' post='3469914'

 

Tell me this, though. If you were planning a trip across 10 states, would you use "caches along a route" or would you load all ten "whole state" PQs (if they were available)?

(I'll ask Geode Hunters the same thing --or anyone else who wants to chime in).

 

Check out my public routes for route 66

 

Though I will load quite a few through the middle of North Carolina. Really don't know where we will end up when we are there. Recently We routed our way to Hiddenite to go gem mining then took a back road towards Franklin that we weren't planning on the way home.

 

Our family won't go out to breakfast with us any more. We sometimes end up in Tennessee before making our way home in southern Indiana.

Edited May 12, 2008 by geode hunter

[+adam_w]

I suppose I don't understand the desire to have "the whole state" in a database. I don't get the argument that "I never know what part of the state I'll be in" because I think most of us know what parts of a state we are likely to be in---or at least which parts we aren't likely to ever be sent. Maybe it's because I live in a larger state that is densely populated with caches?

 

===edited for brevity===

The state is my area. I hike and choose locations to hike in and use the database to research those locations off line.

I suppose I can see that.

 

I prefer to do my research online. Every time I do use my GSAK database, I find myself running across something I need to see online. I can see Geode Hunters Point about being sent across the state unexpectedly better than I could envision myself needing all of Kentucky and all of Indiana loaded all the time just so I could have them in a database to look at while offline. Of course, I run a fast computer on a fast connection--The online maps load as fast as my offline maps do.

 

Tell me this, though. If you were planning a trip across 10 states, would you use "caches along a route" or would you load all ten "whole state" PQs (if they were available)?

(I'll ask Geode Hunters the same thing --or anyone else who wants to chime in).

 

I would use the caches along a route for a road trip, and have mine all set up for my road trip to GeoWoodstock next week. I think PQs are a sufficient solution for something like that. I don't know if I am unique in my situation or not, but I work and cache 30 miles away from where I live and cache. Generally speaking I mainly cache in those two areas, and I understand everyone's point about just running PQs for those areas, but I end up extending outside of those areas quite often as I have family and friends who live outside of the range of 500 caches within those two areas. I also enjoy analyzing the data about caches in my state, as it is a frequent subject of conversation at get togethers with other geocachers. I also like to have the puzzle caches in my offline database so I can work on solving the puzzles when I am not out caching.

 

Although everyone has given their opinions on what I should do with my suggestion, or how to work around the system. I have yet to hear a good reason why gc.com would not consider accomodating such a thing, as I know I am not the only person who wants this, as it has been mentioned several times that this has been brought up many times over the years and rejected by gc.com. So without jumping down my throat, I would like to hear from people not only the reasons why gc.com won't/can't do this, but also ideas on how gc.com could provide more data and fresh to those of us who want it.

 

The majority of people are using offline databases, so why wouldn't gc.com embrace that and figure out a way to make more money from it. It's like the music industry pretending that people didnt want affordable digital music. Once they finally embraced it they figured out a way to sell songs at $0.99 a song and people started to buy them instead of being forced to buy a whole crappy album.

 

Here are some random ideas/possibilities of how gc.com could turn this issue into a money maker.

 

1. Build their own offline database software and charge for it. If they built it in such a way that it was propietary they could even protect the data from being shared if they wanted to. I don't know if their concerns with providing more data are around protecting their asset (someone taking the data and starting a new site), or losing money from those people who might not register for premium memberships because they share the data with friends. It would seem that they are already at risk for both of these, as anyone could register enough accounts to get enough PQs to get their entire database if they so desired, and so it seems that they have already accepted either of these two possibilities.

 

2. Create files that can be picked up from their server on a nightly basis. These files can't be that big, can they? They could charge for each file. How many PQs would stop being run each day?

 

3. Allow for larger PQs,?

 

Anyways, I have other thoughts, but I can start with these. Please don't respond if all you have to say is, suck it up, it is what it is, live with it. All companies must evolve to meet the demands of their customers, or else someone else will, so there is no harm in letting gc.com know that we would like more and we are willing to pay for it.

[geode hunter]

 

3. Allow for larger PQs,?

 

Anyways, I have other thoughts, but I can start with these. Please don't respond if all you have to say is, suck it up, it is what it is, live with it. All companies must evolve to meet the demands of their customers, or else someone else will, so there is no harm in letting gc.com know that we would like more and we are willing to pay for it.

 

I am all for the larger pq's. Almost all new gpsr's hold more than 500 caches. Larger pq's -- maybe fewer per day would surely be easier on the bandwidth and better for us.

Edited May 12, 2008 by geode hunter

[+TotemLake]

I dropped off this thread because it was going nowhere. I made a simple suggestion for what I thought would make my geocaching experience more enjoyable and less time consuming to manage, and saw a win win solution where gc.com could even profit from a service like what I suggested.

 

However others feel like they need to flex their geocaching expertise to tell me where I can stick my suggestion. I do not feel the need to respond to people who want to attack me personally or tell me how I should geocache. I simply suggested something that I would find useful, and would be willing to pay for. Obviously people see that they should be loyal to gc.com for some reason and defend them. I like having my entire state in an offline database and I like having the data as fresh as possible. I like to analyze the data, and play with it. So sue me....well scratch that, it seems some of you take this suggestion so personally that you may just sue me, so I retract that statement. I will pursue my suggestion directly with gc.com instead of through a bunch of gc.com loyalists who seem to have nothing better to do than sit at their computer and squash any idea of improving the user experience.

You badly misunderstand......

 

The bulk of folks in this thread are actually trying to help. We KNOW that your suggestion has been made before (many times) and that folks from HQ (gc.com) have consistently responded that they will not be building any such wide access to the data. So we have given you suggestions on how to compensate. The owner of the website once said that he would be persuing a model by which you can have real time access to the data via cell phone internet access. (Geocache Trimble Navigator). That solution sounds perfect for you. They never intended that PQs be used for creating an off line database (well documented). They have valid reasons to want you to visit the website (often).

 

I myself would like to have wide access to the data but I fully unnderstand why I do not have it. I accept that.

 

Fair enough. I have already implemented the suggested work arounds, and will continue to use them. Thanks to those with positive suggestions. It is a poor business model to continue to ignore the requests of your customers though, and eventually gc.com will have to come up with a solution or lose their customer to someone who comes along and does it better.

Said many many times, and yet the membership continues to grow. Predictions like this one are futile.

[+TotemLake]

I suppose I don't understand the desire to have "the whole state" in a database. I don't get the argument that "I never know what part of the state I'll be in" because I think most of us know what parts of a state we are likely to be in---or at least which parts we aren't likely to ever be sent. Maybe it's because I live in a larger state that is densely populated with caches?

 

===edited for brevity===

The state is my area. I hike and choose locations to hike in and use the database to research those locations off line.

I suppose I can see that.

 

I prefer to do my research online. Every time I do use my GSAK database, I find myself running across something I need to see online. I can see Geode Hunters Point about being sent across the state unexpectedly better than I could envision myself needing all of Kentucky and all of Indiana loaded all the time just so I could have them in a database to look at while offline. Of course, I run a fast computer on a fast connection--The online maps load as fast as my offline maps do.

 

Tell me this, though. If you were planning a trip across 10 states, would you use "caches along a route" or would you load all ten "whole state" PQs (if they were available)?

(I'll ask Geode Hunters the same thing --or anyone else who wants to chime in).

I spot check where I'm going and download PQs based on areas I might have an interest in or a need to do a quick drop off if I have a TB. This is not theoretical. I did this last August when driving to Yellowstone from WA and back. I'm not interested in stopping at every nook and cranny for a cache. I'm interested in where the cache might take me.

[+FireRef]

I dropped off this thread because it was going nowhere. I made a simple suggestion for what I thought would make my geocaching experience more enjoyable and less time consuming to manage, and saw a win win solution where gc.com could even profit from a service like what I suggested.

 

However others feel like they need to flex their geocaching expertise to tell me where I can stick my suggestion. I do not feel the need to respond to people who want to attack me personally or tell me how I should geocache. I simply suggested something that I would find useful, and would be willing to pay for. Obviously people see that they should be loyal to gc.com for some reason and defend them. I like having my entire state in an offline database and I like having the data as fresh as possible. I like to analyze the data, and play with it. So sue me....well scratch that, it seems some of you take this suggestion so personally that you may just sue me, so I retract that statement. I will pursue my suggestion directly with gc.com instead of through a bunch of gc.com loyalists who seem to have nothing better to do than sit at their computer and squash any idea of improving the user experience.

You badly misunderstand......

 

The bulk of folks in this thread are actually trying to help. We KNOW that your suggestion has been made before (many times) and that folks from HQ (gc.com) have consistently responded that they will not be building any such wide access to the data. So we have given you suggestions on how to compensate. The owner of the website once said that he would be persuing a model by which you can have real time access to the data via cell phone internet access. (Geocache Trimble Navigator). That solution sounds perfect for you. They never intended that PQs be used for creating an off line database (well documented). They have valid reasons to want you to visit the website (often).

 

I myself would like to have wide access to the data but I fully unnderstand why I do not have it. I accept that.

 

Fair enough. I have already implemented the suggested work arounds, and will continue to use them. Thanks to those with positive suggestions. It is a poor business model to continue to ignore the requests of your customers though, and eventually gc.com will have to come up with a solution or lose their customer to someone who comes along and does it better.

Said many many times, and yet the membership continues to grow. Predictions like this one are futile.

 

Only because they hold a monopoly on the business. They have the website name which is the name of the game, they have the largest (current) database, and the easiest interface at this time. No one has attempted to challenge them. I would say the main reason is for most people, they're happy to accept what they have. For the people who want more, they just get beaten down by, as they were called here, the "loyalists", and gc.com does what they want. Like the kleenex of facial tissues, geocaching.com is the site for the game of geocaching... mainly because of the name recognition.

 

You are right - any business which does everything everyone wants is doomed to fail. But they do need to be more responsive. This is not the Catholic Church where what the pope says, goes. It is a business. It needs to listen to its members. The churches which split off of catholicism over fundamental differences in their beliefs (read - ways to do things) are, for the most part, doing just fine. If someone started up a website, and took enough people with them, GC.com might revise its "Our way or the highway" approach to things.

 

But that is unlikely to happen, because the masses are almost always happy with what they have, and unwilling to work for something better. They just don't know, or are unwilling to try to find, something better. The newspaper in our town is like that. No serious competition, they do whatever they want, but they're the only paper in town, so you're stuck with them if you want a paper.

 

I'm not saying it's a bad website. I'm saying they need to be more responsive to their users, and less concerned with income. It's a game. If they are more concerned with their income than the quality/status of the game and the happiness of the players, I feel they need to rearrange their priorities (as should anyone in that position).

 

And also, I'm glad to see I was wrong - he wasn't silenced - I am wrong sometimes too

Edited May 12, 2008 by FireRef

[+tozainamboku]

Although everyone has given their opinions on what I should do with my suggestion, or how to work around the system. I have yet to hear a good reason why gc.com would not consider accomodating such a thing, as I know I am not the only person who wants this, as it has been mentioned several times that this has been brought up many times over the years and rejected by gc.com. So without jumping down my throat, I would like to hear from people not only the reasons why gc.com won't/can't do this, but also ideas on how gc.com could provide more data and fresh to those of us who want it.

Did you read my post #42?

 

Geocaching.com had decided to allow limited downloads of the database for a limited use. You agreed to a license before you could download any data. Groundspeak seems to feel that number caches you can download with the current limitations are more than enough for people to use to plan a day or two of caching. If you find that you prefer the flexibility to retrieve nearby caches at anytime they offer a WAP interface that most cellphone users can access. The Trimble Geocache Navigator application allows a GPS enabled cell phone access to the data online as well.

 

The majority of people are using offline databases, so why wouldn't gc.com embrace that and figure out a way to make more money from it. It's like the music industry pretending that people didnt want affordable digital music. Once they finally embraced it they figured out a way to sell songs at $0.99 a song and people started to buy them instead of being forced to buy a whole crappy album.

First of all, I don't know how you can claim the majority of people are using offline databases. Perhaps the majority of people you have talked to about this at events in your area are using offline database but you can't really infer that most people are from this. I suspect most people still just browse online and decide where they are going to go caching and download those caches. They may even be Premium Members and order a GPX file for where they are going just before they are ready to leave. Second, I don't understand the online music analogy. I'd rather get my custom GPX file for where I'm planning to go caching than to get the whole crappy state. Of course, you mean that one should have the option to buy either individual songs or get the whole album rather than being forced to buy just the songs he wants.

 

Here are some random ideas/possibilities of how gc.com could turn this issue into a money maker.

 

1. Build their own offline database software and charge for it. If they built it in such a way that it was propietary they could even protect the data from being shared if they wanted to. I don't know if their concerns with providing more data are around protecting their asset (someone taking the data and starting a new site), or losing money from those people who might not register for premium memberships because they share the data with friends. It would seem that they are already at risk for both of these, as anyone could register enough accounts to get enough PQs to get their entire database if they so desired, and so it seems that they have already accepted either of these two possibilities.

They are probably not interested in developing their own software. Several people in the geocaching community have developed tools that work with the Geocaching.com GPX file and it is probably in Groundspeak's interest to continue to support these. While some could get more data and share it with friend or start their own site, remember that they agreed to the license for using this data.

2. Create files that can be picked up from their server on a nightly basis. These files can't be that big, can they? They could charge for each file. How many PQs would stop being run each day?

This is a possibility to the extent that there are pre-canned queries that people would run instead of their custom query. My suspicion is that there are far more people who will continue to run custom queries than will switch to a canned query and that it would not result in any savings to Groundspeak. In addiition these files could be rather large. There are 51124 active caches in California.

3. Allow for larger PQs,?

Larger PQ might make it easier to setup PQs. Using the placed by date to get more than 500 cache in a area is somewhat clumsy to setup. I used to think that the 500 cache limit bought Geocaching.com some value in limiting the resources (CPU, memory, and disk) needed to run each PQ. A large PQ may exceed certain machine limits which would cause it to block or force the database server to run it in smaller chunks anyhow. However the All My Finds query can be rather large for some of the high number cachers so I suspect the hardware is up to running larger PQs. Perhaps Geocaching.com will take a look and see if the limits can be changed.

 

All companies must evolve to meet the demands of their customers, or else someone else will, so there is no harm in letting gc.com know that we would like more and we are willing to pay for it.

Geocaching.com has been very responsive to its customers. They did develop the Pocket Query as people demanded a way to get more caches in order to use offline tools to plan their geocaching. They did change the limits on the number of saved PQs when people said 20 wasn't enough. They did provide caching along a route PQ. They added attributes and after several years finally got them to work in PQs They did add the All My Finds PQ so people could process their statistics using various 3rd party tools. Politely explaining your needs and listening to suggestions from fellow cachers and then explaining again if the workarounds don't work for you will go a lot farther than starting off with "Pocket Queries Suck". I do sometimes refer to this section of the Forums as the brown-nosed section because people take the attitude that if Groundspeak hasn't changed it yet it must be perfect. Geocaching is always changing. With new people, new GPS units with extended capabilities, and many new caches to find there are good reasons to look at whether the current PQ system needs to be changed to meet the times.

[+StarBrand]

....I'm not saying it's a bad website. I'm saying they need to be more responsive to their users, and less concerned with income. It's a game. If they are more concerned with their income than the quality/status of the game and the happiness of the players, I feel they need to rearrange their priorities (as should anyone in that position)......

The first thing all of us need to understand in any business - is that the business must make money. For all the fluff and grandious mission statements that are touted about, the bottom line remains the same and that is you make money or pack your bags and go home. That singular fact must drive all else a company does. How, where, when and with whom are secondary to getting in a position to turn a profit.

 

That said - I believe in large part, this website does a great service to the customers (players) while also balancing well the need to pay salaries.