Time to revist the idea of state wide PQ's

[+Nozzletime]

I was not impressed to see the link that looks like begging on my profile page.

 

If Groundspeak need ways to generate revenue then perhaps looking at the state wide PQ would be a way.

There has been interest in the forums before.

 

I have a premium membership, now if I want to download State wide PQ's that upgrade could be $10/state/year, and be able to run once a week like the "My Finds" PQ.

 

I travel to Quebec and Ontario, and NY.

 

That just increased the revenues, from $30/year to $60/year and I have the ability of easily caching along my routes.

[+Lil Devil]

And in those same previous discussions, it was suggested that you simply create a 2nd premium account for yourself and get another 35 queries per week. Same cost as what you suggested.

[+Yamar]

And in those same previous discussions, it was suggested that you simply create a 2nd premium account for yourself and get another 35 queries per week. Same cost as what you suggested.

 

And a lot more pain. I think the goal of a whole-state PQ is to not have to carefully manage 35 overlapping PQs. Yes you can create more premium accounts, but that isn't nearly as useful as a single PQ with most of the data you need. It's probably a lot less strain on the servers too.

[+Nozzletime]

And in those same previous discussions, it was suggested that you simply create a 2nd premium account for yourself and get another 35 queries per week. Same cost as what you suggested.

 

I could do that, will I ever set up 70 PQ's to do all that, not a chance.

 

Would I pay an additional charge for a state wide PQ?

Yes !!

It will save me time

Edited January 14, 2009 by Nozzletime

[+trainlove]

Nothing beats the always up-to-date database that already exists.

 

But then again, I'm not an electron or other quantum particle with the ability to be in many, different places at the same time.

[+Nozzletime]

 

But then again, I'm not an electron or other quantum particle with the ability to be in many, different places at the same time.

 

I am not either, but I can get in my car and drive for a couple of hours.

 

 

Groundspeak is apparently looking for ways to increase revenues, as can be seen on your profile page now.

 

This is an easy way for them to increase revenues.

 

It is something I would purchase, I believe others would as well and others would not.

[+mtn-man]

I've advocated and suggested it be on a per query basis. Make it a dollar a query. Those of you that want to run it every day can pay an extra $365 per year.

[+trainlove]

I am not either, but I can get in my car and drive for a couple of hours.

Me too.

And in the event that I can't find a library with internet access, or a WiFi access point, then my LapTop with GSAK that has some 'not so fresh' databases that cover every state and province that are within 4 hours drive in any direction will have to do. It only takes about a week to build up such an Groundspeak un-supported offline database.

[+Teddy2k]

Nothing beats the always up-to-date database that already exists.

 

If only that always up-to-date database had the features and expandability that GSAK has, then I wouldn't need to maintain an offline database. For me, the ability to enter corrected coordinates, the ability to add my own child waypoints and the ability to run macros are HUGE for me (among many other features).

 

I would say that I'm happy with PQ's as they are and that the current setup meets my needs. Improvements are always a bonus, but I've never visited many parts of BC and don't feel the need to have all those caches "just in case". If I ever travel up that way, I'll just run a new PQ at that time so that I have the caches for the trip.

[+intolerable]

I would love to have state PQs!

 

The new link actually might be an attempt on Groundspeak's part to address issues people had with buying gift certificates for others. I vaguely recall a thread not too long ago where people were having a hard time doing that easily. I don't really remember what the issues where, but this seems like an attempt to make gifting a premium account easier, which was at the core of the issues.

 

I'm not really sure how good of an idea it is to put on premium accounts. If someone tried to 'extend my membership', no idea what it would accomplish as it already automatically does that as I have my account set up to auto renew premium membership.

 

Anyways, thought I'd toss it out there that the nature of the link immediately made me think of the thread with complaints about gift certificates so Groundspeak may have actually put that in as a feature rather than just an opportunity for one to send money their way (but I really have no idea )

[+sbell111]

... I'm not really sure how good of an idea it is to put on premium accounts. If someone tried to 'extend my membership', no idea what it would accomplish as it already automatically does that as I have my account set up to auto renew premium membership. ...

If someone gifted you, it would extend your renewal date. If you have PayPal set up to autopay your membership renewal, it would simply submit the payment prior to when it was due, advancing your renewal date into the future. Edited January 14, 2009 by sbell111

[+intolerable]

... I'm not really sure how good of an idea it is to put on premium accounts. If someone tried to 'extend my membership', no idea what it would accomplish as it already automatically does that as I have my account set up to auto renew premium membership. ...

If someone gifted you, it would extend your renewal date. If you have PayPal set up to autopay your membership renewal, it would simply submit teh payment prior to when it was due, advancing your renewal date into the future.

 

Very good to know, thanks

[+StarBrand]

.... and I have the ability of easily caching along my routes.

Can't you already do that??

[+Allanon]

I was not impressed to see the link that looks like begging on my profile page.

 

If Groundspeak need ways to generate revenue then perhaps looking at the state wide PQ would be a way.

There has been interest in the forums before.

 

I have a premium membership, now if I want to download State wide PQ's that upgrade could be $10/state/year, and be able to run once a week like the "My Finds" PQ.

 

I travel to Quebec and Ontario, and NY.

 

That just increased the revenues, from $30/year to $60/year and I have the ability of easily caching along my routes.

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but do you have any idea how big some of those files would be? California or Texas for example? Would they even be deliverable or useable?

[+Nozzletime]

 

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but do you have any idea how big some of those files would be? California or Texas for example? Would they even be deliverable or useable?

 

I have no idea how big of a file it would be.

 

It sure would be easier for a non computer guy like myself to download one file than try and set up 35 or 70.

 

I understand alot of people are fine with it the way it is.

 

I would be willing to pay for this additional service, others may as well.

 

Others may not, I don't see the problem if it is in addition to a premium membership.

[+W8TTS]

I could do that, will I ever set up 70 PQ's to do all that, not a chance.

 

Would I pay an additional charge for a state wide PQ?

Yes !!

It will save me time

 

I've done it for Ohio, and not fun. Would I pay $10 to do Ohio in one PQ? You bet.

 

And, for the bigger states, GC.com could easily break it into parts.

[+baloo&bd]

And a lot more pain. I think the goal of a whole-state PQ is to not have to carefully manage 35 overlapping PQs.

 

As pointed out in previous threads, there should be no need to have overlapping PQ's. Set the PQ's up by Placed Date. Very few states can not be entirely covered by two premium accounts. I can't see the need since I can't find the 17,000 caches I can download every week as it is.

[+MountainRacer]

I was not impressed to see the link that looks like begging on my profile page.

 

If Groundspeak need ways to generate revenue then perhaps looking at the state wide PQ would be a way.

You seem not to like the appearance of the "Give a gift membership" link beside the status row in your profile. I happen to agree, but I'm not skilled with Greasemonkey, so I don't know how to make a script to remove it. If only there were a Greasemonkey expert in this thread who might be up to the task...

[+Harry Dolphin]

Lessee. I can cover all of New Jersey (excluding finds, and caches on my ignore list) in 9 PQs. Everything else within 75 miles in another 12 PQs. That covers more than my usual caching area. Keeps me happy.

[+Tequila]

I am not either, but I can get in my car and drive for a couple of hours.

Me too.

And in the event that I can't find a library with internet access, or a WiFi access point, then my LapTop with GSAK that has some 'not so fresh' databases that cover every state and province that are within 4 hours drive in any direction will have to do. It only takes about a week to build up such an Groundspeak un-supported offline database.

 

There is a helluva good idea!!!!!

 

"Sorry Boss. I have to wait till next Monday before I can go on the last minute business trip. Gonna take that long to build up all the caching PQ's I need."

[+9Key]

I was not impressed to see the link that looks like begging on my profile page.

 

If Groundspeak need ways to generate revenue then perhaps looking at the state wide PQ would be a way.

There has been interest in the forums before.

 

I have a premium membership, now if I want to download State wide PQ's that upgrade could be $10/state/year, and be able to run once a week like the "My Finds" PQ.

 

I travel to Quebec and Ontario, and NY.

 

That just increased the revenues, from $30/year to $60/year and I have the ability of easily caching along my routes.

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but do you have any idea how big some of those files would be? California or Texas for example? Would they even be deliverable or useable?

What in heck would I do with a database that contained all of the caches in Texas? Why would I want that? If I'm heading to Houston for a weekend I just run a route query and a regular PQ and that suits me fine. I don't understand the need to have an entire state. You would never use most of that data. Just seems like overkill to me.

[+Lil Devil]

Scenario 1

On a whim I decide to go caching somewhere an hour away. In about 10 minutes, I can:

 

Create a route file.

Upload the route to Geocaching.com.

Create a Route PQ based on said route.

Create a normal PQ centered on my final destination. (Sometimes I just add some extra route segments to the end of my route to accomplish this.)

Open Gmail. By this time the first PQ has usually arrived. If not, I spend a minute or two making sure my geocaching bag is in order.

Download the PQ files.

Spin them.

Download the info to my GPS and PDA.

Shut down (or sleep) my computer.

Walk out the door.

 

Now let's say you already have an entire state in your offline database. How long would it take you to do the equivalent things to get the data into your GPS and PDA? Assume you do not already have a route created. I doubt it would be much less than my 10 minutes. So what is the benefit?

 

Scenario 2

You're on the road, happily following your predefined route and finding caches. Something comes up (traffic, construction, boss calls, full moon, whatever) and you decide to go someplace else for which you don't have data. Simply:

 

Pull over.

Get out laptop.

Hook up cell phone to it to use as a modem.

Perform all the steps in Scenario 1.

 

10 minutes later, I'm on the road again, with all the new data I need. Again, even if all the data was already in your offline database, I still don't think it would be any quicker than just getting fresh data.

 

Granted, there have been two times when I was on the road and unable to get cell signal to get new caches. Both these times I was pretty remote in the middle of Nevada and Utah, where there ain't many caches anyways so I figure I didn't miss much. I just got to the next major city that much faster and used the cell signal there.

 

So I still ask, where is there a benefit to having an offline database full of caches?

 

Don't have a cell phone that you can use as a modem? It's a lot easier to get one of those than to get Groundspeak to change their business plan

[+Nozzletime]

Scenario 1

On a whim I decide to go caching somewhere an hour away. In about 10 minutes, I can:

 

Create a route file.

Upload the route to Geocaching.com.

Create a Route PQ based on said route.

Create a normal PQ centered on my final destination. (Sometimes I just add some extra route segments to the end of my route to accomplish this.)

Open Gmail. By this time the first PQ has usually arrived. If not, I spend a minute or two making sure my geocaching bag is in order.

Download the PQ files.

Spin them.

Download the info to my GPS and PDA.

Shut down (or sleep) my computer.

Walk out the door.

 

Now let's say you already have an entire state in your offline database. How long would it take you to do the equivalent things to get the data into your GPS and PDA? Assume you do not already have a route created. I doubt it would be much less than my 10 minutes. So what is the benefit?

 

Scenario 2

You're on the road, happily following your predefined route and finding caches. Something comes up (traffic, construction, boss calls, full moon, whatever) and you decide to go someplace else for which you don't have data. Simply:

 

Pull over.

Get out laptop.

Hook up cell phone to it to use as a modem.

Perform all the steps in Scenario 1.

 

10 minutes later, I'm on the road again, with all the new data I need. Again, even if all the data was already in your offline database, I still don't think it would be any quicker than just getting fresh data.

 

Granted, there have been two times when I was on the road and unable to get cell signal to get new caches. Both these times I was pretty remote in the middle of Nevada and Utah, where there ain't many caches anyways so I figure I didn't miss much. I just got to the next major city that much faster and used the cell signal there.

 

So I still ask, where is there a benefit to having an offline database full of caches?

 

Don't have a cell phone that you can use as a modem? It's a lot easier to get one of those than to get Groundspeak to change their business plan

 

 

 

Why do I need to do scenario 2?

 

Download the PQ file for my state

Throw it in GSAK.

Push the macro button

All caches go to the Colorado

Walk out the door.

 

I just saved alot of time, was it worth it?

To me? Yes!

[+mtn-man]

I am not either, but I can get in my car and drive for a couple of hours.

Me too.

And in the event that I can't find a library with internet access, or a WiFi access point, then my LapTop with GSAK that has some 'not so fresh' databases that cover every state and province that are within 4 hours drive in any direction will have to do. It only takes about a week to build up such an Groundspeak un-supported offline database.

 

There is a helluva good idea!!!!!

 

"Sorry Boss. I have to wait till next Monday before I can go on the last minute business trip. Gonna take that long to build up all the caching PQ's I need."

Give me a break.

 

I'm sorry, but I travel all the time. I have no problem finding caches. If you go on a business trip and you have to have every cache in the state, you are obviously wasting your company's money while you are traveling. I feel sorry for your boss and your company. My boss knows I cache when I am traveling, but he knows I most certainly do not abuse his money on these trips I take. I go for work. Instead of sitting in the hotel at night after I get done working, I cache. I cannot go 30 miles from my hotel to find caches using the company provided gasoline and rental car because at that point I am abusing company resources. I cache usually within maybe 10 miles at the most of where I am working and staying, and most of the time it is maybe 5 miles at the most. The most I ever found on a trip was maybe 15 caches per day and that was pushing it. The argument you put forth is absurd.

 

I had to take a last minute trip back to Florida on Monday. I woke up and left my house at 5AM. I drove 300 miles south and found a couple of caches on the way down taking some "get out of the car for a few minutes to stay awake" breaks. I arrived early to my appointment, worked all day and then drove right back home again. I found a couple of additional caches on the way back traveling along the same road. I got to the end of the pocket query I pulled the night before and pulled over on the side of the road. I wanted a couple of more caches. I popped open the laptop and pulled in a query from about two or three weeks ago when I took roughly the same route. It was a longer PQ-along-a-route where I had found a couple of caches but had plenty of others left. Know what? I was still able to find more caches! Holy guacamole! I had fun and did not need the entire states of Florida and Georgia in my GPS to accomplish that goal! I arrived home at 11:30PM tired, I got the job done for the company and I found caches along the way. I also did not cheat my company in the least.

 

Again, I hope they do sell this type of query. I cache perfectly within the current system. Those of you who have to have this enormous amount of data should pay accordingly per PQ. Pay per PQ and per the number of results delivered. When you have to actually pay for this enormous amount of data, I bet your opinion of how bad you need it will diminish.

[+Yno]

I would love to have a state wide PQ. I could simply download all 59,786 (as of ten minutes ago) caches in California into my 30 Oregon 300's that each only hold 2,000 caches, and I would be ready for anything. Of course, I am closer to parts of Nevada than some parts of my own state, so I guess I would need a few more Oregon's.

 

[+Nozzletime]

I would love to have a state wide PQ. I could simply download all 59,786 (as of ten minutes ago) caches in California into my 30 Oregon 300's that each only hold 2,000 caches, and I would be ready for anything. Of course, I am closer to parts of Nevada than some parts of my own state, so I guess I would need a few more Oregon's.

 

 

Why?

As far as I know, I can load POI's complete with cache descriptions until I run out of memory in my Colorado 300.

I have sucessfully tried with 10000 (My finds plus 5 PQ's)

I may not be able to get all of the state of California, on my Colorado, but it would be easier with one PQ picking the areas I want for a 2 or 3 day trip.

 

Why lug a laptop if I don't have to?

[+Teddy2k]

So I still ask, where is there a benefit to having an offline database full of caches?

 

I can still think of many benefits.... You're only thinking of the scenario where you are traveling out of your local caching area. My GSAK database helps me track just my local caches that I could do on any given day.

 

As I solve puzzle/mystery caches, I keep track of the solved coordinates so that each time I transfer my cache to my Colorado, I know I have the correct coordinates. Your method would only transfer the posted coordinates, which will be wrong.

 

As I research some caches, I will create additional child waypoints in GSAK for where I think the best parking area is or where a trailhead is, which are then transferred to my Colorado. With your method, you can't do this.

 

As I complete a cache series where I need to keep track of clues that will be used to find the final, I keep track of all of my notes in GSAK for easy reference. With your method, you can't do this.

 

Anyway, let's get back on-topic. The real question is why would you need to have every cache in a state or province available in an offline database? I completely agree with you that if you are traveling outside of your local caching area, just run a few quick PQ's and you're set. Having tens of thousands of caches in an offline database is ludicrous and unnecessary.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[+sbell111]

So I still ask, where is there a benefit to having an offline database full of caches?

 

I can still think of many benefits.... You're only thinking of the scenario where you are traveling out of your local caching area. My GSAK database helps me track just my local caches that I could do on any given day.

 

As I solve puzzle/mystery caches, I keep track of the solved coordinates so that each time I transfer my cache to my Colorado, I know I have the correct coordinates. Your method would only transfer the posted coordinates, which will be wrong.

 

As I research some caches, I will create additional child waypoints in GSAK for where I think the best parking area is or where a trailhead is, which are then transferred to my Colorado. With your method, you can't do this.

 

As I complete a cache series where I need to keep track of clues that will be used to find the final, I keep track of all of my notes in GSAK for easy reference. With your method, you can't do this.

I pretty much use Lil Devil's method, except I use GSAK instead of Spinner and I use Sunrise to shove the files to my PDA. My method only adds another minute or two to the process. Edited January 15, 2009 by sbell111

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Man O Man, when I start to read all this MumboJumbo, it makes me really glad that I still just pan around on the map to see if there's anything around that I want to go look for...

Edited January 15, 2009 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[+StarBrand]

Now that we re-visited the idea....can we bury it again??

 

Unless the thinking has changed, Groundspeak simply DOES NOT support the creation and use of offline databases.

[+Lil Devil]

... Your method would only transfer the posted coordinates, which will be wrong.

Apparently you're not familiar with GPX Spinner. It keeps track of puzzle solutions just fine.

 

I'm also working on adding child coordinates functionality, but quite frankly, I've rarely seen the need. The info is added to the description, so I have it in my PDA if I want it, but I can think of only two times I've used it.

 

Series info, I just put it in a note in the Palm notes program. You have to take the time to enter it in GSAK, I do the same but use a different program.

 

Now I'll admit that I forgot about the newer GPS's that hold more than 1,000 waypoints that my 60CSx holds, but you nailed it on the head when you said...

 

Having tens of thousands of caches in an offline database is ludicrous and unnecessary.

 

Groundspeak is on record as saying they don't support offline databases. From a business point of view this makes perfect sense and I highly doubt they will ever change their mind. StarBrand is right... time to bury this discussion again... until next month

[Skippermark]

I still don't see the need for entire state PQs. I have 2 friends who travel all over the world for work. After work they'll grab nearby caches if they have spare time, but they only need 1 or 2 PQs to cover any caches in the immediate area, not the entire state.

 

Even if they didn't send any caches to their GPS before heading out, they could always go online in the hotel and download them.

[+Nozzletime]

"Extend Nozzletime's Membership" since changed to "(Give a gift membership)"

 

That being placed on my profile page, made me think Groundspeak needs more money.

This is my solution.

 

Groundspeak is a listing service.

I would like the lists(that I can get already through alot more steps) made available to me in one file at an additional charge.

 

I can already recieve my finds once a week.

I believe it would cost nothing or very close to nothing for them to implement.

 

This topic keeps coming up because people would like to see state wide PQ's

Would they pay for it?

I would, I am sure I am not alone.

 

Here is where I could use it.

I am going to Ottawa for a weekend there is 3000 caches in the area.

I download all "Unfound by me" caches in Ontario.

Throw it in GSAK

Use a macro to put all in my colorado.

Go caching.

 

How long would it take to set up PQ's to get all the caches in Ottawa, make sure they all overlap.

Minimum 6 PQ's, so 2 days planning to get these.

I know i will not be able to find all the caches, in my GPS, just like i cant find 500 in a weekend with a normal PQ.

I will be able to see on my GPS where caches I want to search for are.

 

 

The new GPS's are capable of thousands of caches loaded on.

Just like they can hold all maps of North America.

 

I know I wont be able to find all caches I load.

I won't be able to visit every state that is loaded.

 

Why do I only load the maps once on the GPS, because it is a pain

Why do I only want to use one PQ, so it is less of a pain.

 

Has Groundspeak ever done state wide PQ's as a trial?

[+trainlove]

How long would it take to set up PQ's to get all the caches in Ottawa, make sure they all overlap.

Minimum 6 PQ's, so 2 days planning to get these.

Have you not read the many people saying "Why do you care about overlap?".

If you design your pocket query "By Placed Date" there is NO overlap and ALL caches are obtained.

Sure in your case it might still be 6 PQ's because of cache density. But you could get ALL caches in Ontario is 26 queries.

[+Tequila]

How long would it take to set up PQ's to get all the caches in Ottawa, make sure they all overlap.

Minimum 6 PQ's, so 2 days planning to get these.

Have you not read the many people saying "Why do you care about overlap?".

If you design your pocket query "By Placed Date" there is NO overlap and ALL caches are obtained.

Sure in your case it might still be 6 PQ's because of cache density. But you could get ALL caches in Ontario is 26 queries.

 

Why do you care why he wants it? If he wants it and is willing to pay for it, give it to him. Price it accordingly.

 

Giving it to him causes you no harm. Why do you care?

 

Why do any of you fight this so much? I don't need or want it but that doesn't mean someone else doesn't want or need it.

 

He is simply requesting the ability to pay extra for a convenience. We all know there are a dozen different ways for him to get what he wants but all of them are cumbersome. He is just trying to use his wallet to save time and effort. And in his opinion, further support Groundspeak.

[+Nozzletime]

How long would it take to set up PQ's to get all the caches in Ottawa, make sure they all overlap.

Minimum 6 PQ's, so 2 days planning to get these.

Have you not read the many people saying "Why do you care about overlap?".

If you design your pocket query "By Placed Date" there is NO overlap and ALL caches are obtained.

Sure in your case it might still be 6 PQ's because of cache density. But you could get ALL caches in Ontario is 26 queries.

 

I can get all of Ontario in 26 Pocket queries, why do i want to set up 26 PQ's when I could just pay for one.

 

One is simple.

One is fast.

 

Why set up an extra 25? Other than I have to right now.

[Skippermark]

This topic keeps coming up because people would like to see state wide PQ's

Would they pay for it?

I would, I am sure I am not alone.

It's only a small percentage of people who are asking for it. The number of people that frequent the forums is minuscule compared to the number of cachers worldwide, and the number that come here and ask for it is small compared to the number of forum users.

 

How long would it take to set up PQ's to get all the caches in Ottawa, make sure they all overlap.

Minimum 6 PQ's, so 2 days planning to get these.

If you set them up by date, you'll use 6 PQs and have no overlap. Setting up something like that should take no more than 30 minutes and probably less.

 

I will be able to see on my GPS where caches I want to search for are.

Why not look at the GC maps before leaving home and pick the area you want to search? That way you need to run only 1 or 2 PQs. This is what we do when we plan number runs, and usually 2 PQs is more than enough for us to get 75 caches in a day.

 

The new GPS's are capable of thousands of caches loaded on.

Don't the newer GPS units hold 2000 caches? That's still not enough to cover all of Ottawa unless you set them up as POIs. Even if they held 10,000 caches, the problem is that after a couple weeks that database will be out of date as new caches get placed and old ones get archived or relocated for various reasons. You'll find yourself going to look for a cache and seeing that it was archived 3 weeks ago or disabled because it went missing, things like that.

[Skippermark]

I can get all of Ontario in 26 Pocket queries, why do i want to set up 26 PQ's when I could just pay for one.

As noted by others, this is something that Groundspeak says they don't plan to implement, so we're probably wasting our time talking about it.

[+Mredria]

Man O Man, when I start to read all this MumboJumbo, it makes me really glad that I still just pan around on the map to see if there's anything around that I want to go look for...

 

This!

The idea of having this much stress over a hobby hurts my head.

[+Allanon]

Groundspeak is a listing service.

Wrong. Groundspeak is a software (for the most part) development corporation.

 

Geocaching.com, one part of Groundspeak, is a listing service.

 

Has Groundspeak ever done state wide PQ's as a trial?

 

I'd guess at an answer of "no". Why?, as previously pointed out, they don't support the concept of offline databases and the only reason to do a 'state wide' PQ is to populate that kind of database...even if that database is only in your GPSr, it's still a database.

[+sbell111]

Why do you care why he wants it? If he wants it and is willing to pay for it, give it to him. Price it accordingly.

 

Giving it to him causes you no harm. Why do you care?

You guys seem to think that TPTB should simply offer this at some higher price. You apparently think that there is no downside to their doing this.

 

What you don't realize is that doing this could be damaging to their business model.

 

Why is it that everytime someone starts a new thread to 'revisit' this issue, they forget all the downsides that were discussed in the old threads?

Edited January 15, 2009 by sbell111

[+Tequila]

Why do you care why he wants it? If he wants it and is willing to pay for it, give it to him. Price it accordingly.

 

Giving it to him causes you no harm. Why do you care?

You guys seem to think that TPTB should simply offer this at some higher price. You apparently think that there is no downside to their doing this.

 

What you don't realize is that doing this could be damaging to their business model.

 

Why is it that everytime someone starts a new thread to 'revisit' this issue, they forget all the downsides that were discussed in the old threads?

 

How does it damage their business model?? He already has the ability, albeit a cumbersome one, to get the data. So you can't argue they are protecting against someone creating a massive 'offline' database and going into competition with them (something I personally think is financially unfeasible).

 

He just wants to make it easier. If they price it such that he is paying as much (or even more) that he would pay through multiple PM's, then it is a win win. He gets the data he can already get only easier. They get additional revenue.

[+sbell111]

Why do you care why he wants it? If he wants it and is willing to pay for it, give it to him. Price it accordingly.

 

Giving it to him causes you no harm. Why do you care?

You guys seem to think that TPTB should simply offer this at some higher price. You apparently think that there is no downside to their doing this.

 

What you don't realize is that doing this could be damaging to their business model.

 

Why is it that everytime someone starts a new thread to 'revisit' this issue, they forget all the downsides that were discussed in the old threads?

 

How does it damage their business model?? He already has the ability, albeit a cumbersome one, to get the data. So you can't argue they are protecting against someone creating a massive 'offline' database and going into competition with them (something I personally think is financially unfeasible).

 

He just wants to make it easier. If they price it such that he is paying as much (or even more) that he would pay through multiple PM's, then it is a win win. He gets the data he can already get only easier. They get additional revenue.

As discussed in the prvious threads, it isn't win-win.

 

(Since it has been discussed so many times before, who wants to bet that TPTB feel no need to restate their position in this thread?)

[+Tequila]

Why do you care why he wants it? If he wants it and is willing to pay for it, give it to him. Price it accordingly.

 

Giving it to him causes you no harm. Why do you care?

You guys seem to think that TPTB should simply offer this at some higher price. You apparently think that there is no downside to their doing this.

 

What you don't realize is that doing this could be damaging to their business model.

 

Why is it that everytime someone starts a new thread to 'revisit' this issue, they forget all the downsides that were discussed in the old threads?

 

How does it damage their business model?? He already has the ability, albeit a cumbersome one, to get the data. So you can't argue they are protecting against someone creating a massive 'offline' database and going into competition with them (something I personally think is financially unfeasible).

 

He just wants to make it easier. If they price it such that he is paying as much (or even more) that he would pay through multiple PM's, then it is a win win. He gets the data he can already get only easier. They get additional revenue.

As discussed in the prvious threads, it isn't win-win.

 

(Since it has been discussed so many times before, who wants to bet that TPTB feel no need to restate their position in this thread?)

 

You didn't answer the question. You said doing this could damage their business model. Please explain.

[OpinioNate]

No one has mentioned the primary reason for Groundspeak discouraging the use of offline databases. This practice could potentially be damaging to you and to the game itself by carrying around stale caches.

 

It would not be practical to update such an enormous list of caches frequently, and the result is a list of caches containing some that are archived; often for very critical reasons such as trespassing concerns or physically risky locations.

 

Obviously business considerations enter into it, but that is no where near the primary concern. Geocaching.com lists the most accurate and up-to-date collection of caches, and nothing can replace that.

[+Nozzletime]

No one has mentioned the primary reason for Groundspeak discouraging the use of offline databases. This practice could potentially be damaging to you and to the game itself by carrying around stale caches.

 

It would not be practical to update such an enormous list of caches frequently, and the result is a list of caches containing some that are archived; often for very critical reasons such as trespassing concerns or physically risky locations.

 

Obviously business considerations enter into it, but that is no where near the primary concern. Geocaching.com lists the most accurate and up-to-date collection of caches, and nothing can replace that.

 

 

The reason I want a single Pocket query is so I can load the GPS with the most current data.

I want to avoid exactly what you said, stale data, possible dangerous caches, incorrect coordinates.

[OpinioNate]

No one has mentioned the primary reason for Groundspeak discouraging the use of offline databases. This practice could potentially be damaging to you and to the game itself by carrying around stale caches.

 

It would not be practical to update such an enormous list of caches frequently, and the result is a list of caches containing some that are archived; often for very critical reasons such as trespassing concerns or physically risky locations.

 

Obviously business considerations enter into it, but that is no where near the primary concern. Geocaching.com lists the most accurate and up-to-date collection of caches, and nothing can replace that.

 

 

The reason I want a single Pocket query is so I can load the GPS with the most current data.

I want to avoid exactly what you said, stale data, possible dangerous caches, incorrect coordinates.

 

But the potential for abuse is there. I trust you not to systematically recreate a mirror of the site on your harddrive, or setup your own website with downloads of each state/region/whatever, because I believe you when you say you just want to download one state and hit the road; but there are plenty of people who would do these things given the opportunity.

 

When you run a website like Geocaching.com you have to guard against the inevitable misuse of the site, while at the same time keeping the site open enough to serve its users. It's very difficult to get the balance right. But I can say that if a feature /can/ be abused, it /will/ be abused, and this is one such feature. I can show you a list of banned IP's for screen scraping as long as my arm to prove this point (6 pt. font).

 

Perhaps in the future we'll find some compromise that satisfies everyone. .

[+Nozzletime]

But the potential for abuse is there. I trust you not to systematically recreate a mirror of the site on your harddrive, or setup your own website with downloads of each state/region/whatever, because I believe you when you say you just want to download one state and hit the road; but there are plenty of people who would do these things given the opportunity.

 

When you run a website like Geocaching.com you have to guard against the inevitable misuse of the site, while at the same time keeping the site open enough to serve its users. It's very difficult to get the balance right. But I can say that if a feature /can/ be abused, it /will/ be abused, and this is one such feature. I can show you a list of banned IP's for screen scraping as long as my arm to prove this point (6 pt. font).

 

Perhaps in the future we'll find some compromise that satisfies everyone.

 

Can they not set up mirrors now using more pocket queries?

A crook will be a crook.

Whatever screen sraping is, will it not still happen?

 

I asked earlier if it had been tried?

I would suggest giving it a try

If it causes problems then you apologize for the trial of an idea that didn't work.

If it works you sit back and enjoy the extra cash.

[+tozainamboku]

But the potential for abuse is there. I trust you not to systematically recreate a mirror of the site on your harddrive, or setup your own website with downloads of each state/region/whatever, because I believe you when you say you just want to download one state and hit the road; but there are plenty of people who would do these things given the opportunity.

 

When you run a website like Geocaching.com you have to guard against the inevitable misuse of the site, while at the same time keeping the site open enough to serve its users. It's very difficult to get the balance right. But I can say that if a feature /can/ be abused, it /will/ be abused, and this is one such feature. I can show you a list of banned IP's for screen scraping as long as my arm to prove this point (6 pt. font).

 

Perhaps in the future we'll find some compromise that satisfies everyone.

 

Can they not set up mirrors now using more pocket queries?

A crook will be a crook.

Whatever screen sraping is, will it not still happen?

 

I asked earlier if it had been tried?

I would suggest giving it a try

If it causes problems then you apologize for the trial of an idea that didn't work.

If it works you sit back and enjoy the extra cash.

Should Groundspeak determine that someone is mirroring Geocaching.com (or a significant portion of it) or is otherwise using PQs in ways not permitted by the license agreement they could of course take legal action. They could do this just as easily if they provided a license to copy a significant portion of the database (such as a whole state) for personal use. However, their lawyers may have suggested that they would have a better standing in court if in fact they only allow limited downloads for personal use. Those who have tried screen scrapping techniques have gotten cease and desist letters as well as getting their IP addresses blocked. So we know that Groundspeak is serious about protecting their business model.

It is unlikely that Groundspeak would ever do what you want because they want the online version of Geocaching.com to be the definitive and most up to date list of geocaches. They provide premium members the ability to download small sections of the database to use for planning geocaching outings and keep personal statistics. They just don't see a need for any user to have a whole state or region. For those that say they travel and might not have access to email for ordering a new PQ, they provide a cellphone WAP interface. They provide an application for the iPhone and partner with Trimble to provide an app on some other platforms to allow people to get caches on the fly and store these if they are headed to an area without cell coverage or WiFi connectivity.

Every so often one or two users start a thread on "why can't I get the whole state". The overwhelming majority of people respond by indicating ways to find caches when they travel using the current capabilities. They are able to set up a few PQs in a few minutes just before a trip, or they use the WiFi in the hotel or visit a library to search for caches, or they use one of the phone applications. Yet for some reason the people asking for the whole state get indignant about being told they don't really need this. After all their GPS can hold tens of thousands of caches as POIs so shouldn't they be able to get the data to create these POIs? Well the answer is sure you can create tens of thousands of POIs for your GPS, but Groundspeak isn't going to make it easy and you're probably not going to have an up to date list. I don't believe the demand for this is great enough to generate any significant revenue for Groundspeak. Given the problems that may be associated with this I really doubt there is a need for a trial.

[+mtn-man]

Should Groundspeak determine that someone is mirroring Geocaching.com (or a significant portion of it) or is otherwise using PQs in ways not permitted by the license agreement they could of course take legal action. They could do this just as easily if they provided a license to copy a significant portion of the database (such as a whole state) for personal use. However, their lawyers may have suggested that they would have a better standing in court if in fact they only allow limited downloads for personal use. Those who have tried screen scrapping techniques have gotten cease and desist letters as well as getting their IP addresses blocked. So we know that Groundspeak is serious about protecting their business model.

It is unlikely that Groundspeak would ever do what you want because they want the online version of Geocaching.com to be the definitive and most up to date list of geocaches. They provide premium members the ability to download small sections of the database to use for planning geocaching outings and keep personal statistics. They just don't see a need for any user to have a whole state or region. For those that say they travel and might not have access to email for ordering a new PQ, they provide a cellphone WAP interface. They provide an application for the iPhone and partner with Trimble to provide an app on some other platforms to allow people to get caches on the fly and store these if they are headed to an area without cell coverage or WiFi connectivity.

Every so often one or two users start a thread on "why can't I get the whole state". The overwhelming majority of people respond by indicating ways to find caches when they travel using the current capabilities. They are able to set up a few PQs in a few minutes just before a trip, or they use the WiFi in the hotel or visit a library to search for caches, or they use one of the phone applications. Yet for some reason the people asking for the whole state get indignant about being told they don't really need this. After all their GPS can hold tens of thousands of caches as POIs so shouldn't they be able to get the data to create these POIs? Well the answer is sure you can create tens of thousands of POIs for your GPS, but Groundspeak isn't going to make it easy and you're probably not going to have an up to date list. I don't believe the demand for this is great enough to generate any significant revenue for Groundspeak. Given the problems that may be associated with this I really doubt there is a need for a trial.

Awesome post. Bravo.