500 cache limit on PQ

[+baloo&bd]

better leave a bigger buffer than 5 as all child waypoints usually count when loading into the GPSr.

 

No need, just exclude the child waypoints. It is a feature seldom used anyway.

 

I am still trying to figure out how to get the 17500 caches requested earlier into my GPSr

 

Not a problem, use a laptop. Even with that, the most caches I have gotten in a day is 2354, but then again that was an unfamiliar area and there was no rating to help me pick out the good ones.

[+sbell111]

I have to ask, why is it that every time a thread is started suggesting a new feature that those who are not interested in that new feature have to be automatically AGAINST the feature?

 

That stinks and so does reading all the pile on on such threads.

 

You do not have to be against something others may want but you may not use or need.

 

I would love to see a total update to the PQ system. One that uses a more efficient system of downloading directly instead of the poorest way possible (via email attachments). This would save tons of CPU usage (the single biggest drain on any internet server). Sending by email uses tons of server CPU. Besides email is an ancient and inefficient at best system and not always reliable.

I'd like a pony, but that's not going to happen. Since I can't have a pony, sharing in my desire for a pony would serve no purpose. Therefore, when I express my desire for a pony, people tend to explain why I can't have one and give me alternatives to a pony.

 

The fact that people often ask for a pony and the entire thing has been discussed many, many, many times before tends to cause people to give less attention to explaining the many reasons not to get a pont and more attention to the pont alternatives and workarounds.

But in this case - the subject is no pony. Actually the subject is a HUGE performance hit on the GC servers. Fixing the system should be priority number one for the team - after the forum.

It IS a pony. You see, I really, really want a pony. I neeeeeed a pony. Can I please have a pony???? Please, please, please?

 

As much as I think that having a pony is the most important thing ever, those in charge of giving me a pony disagree. They are firm on my not having a pony and have calmly explained why countless times.

 

Similarly, you appear to really want changes to PQs. You believe that these changes are absolutely necessary, even though TPTB have explained many times why they are simply not going to happen.

 

PQs are your pony.

And just because you think a subject is a pony, you may not be correct. It goes back to my thought weeks ago, around here some people talk too much.... (not directed to anyone specific!)

Isn't it possible that some who that take this stance 'listen' too little?

... No doubt a revamp of the PQ system is in order. Email attachments just do not cut it for best server cpu usage. I wonder how many PQ's emailed out simply get deleted! A system where you had to go and click on a link to get the PQ would cut back on server usage big time.

I wonder if it would. The PQs are run the way they are to minimize impact and distribute PQs fairly. It seems that if it was done your way that impact would be maximized because everyone would choose to 'click on the link' around the same time, causing bottlenecks and an uneven distribution of PQs.

 

Personally, I like not having to come to the website everytime I need a PQ. It's conveniently sent to my email account. It seems that requiring people to go to the website everytime that they need a PQ would likely negatively effect site performance.

... Groundspeak allows 5 queries, 500 caches each, 2500 total for the day. I have to ask, would it really be more taxing on servers to allow the same number of caches, but in a single query? If not, what is the reason for limiting to 500?

I don't know much about server taxation, but I would imagine that this change would cause a greater load. You see, I bet that most PQ users are not like the OP. I bet that most users have a couple of PQs that run once or twice per week. I imagine that if these users had the ability to run one 2500 cache query twice a week instead of their 500 cache query twice per week, they would. I know that I would.

 

Would this result in the server being taxed harder? I have no clue, but I do know that it would be against TPTB's stated reasons for not having larger PQs.

Edited June 23, 2009 by sbell111

[+Mudfrog]

Not easily...

 

I at first thought you had something there when you said run queries by placed date. But then i got to thinking about it and can see that most likely, some caches aren't going to make it into the query, at least on the first try.

 

For instance, i use set dates of 1-1-01 to 1-1-02. The 500 cache limit is reached before getting all the caches that were placed in that time period. Now i have to go back and try another, shorter, date period and see how the results come out on it. I may or may not get them all this time but as you can see, i'm having to run another query just to find out. Unless i'm missing something, there may be quite a bit of trial and error getting an accurate query therefore making this not as easy to accomplish as you make it sound.

 

The part you appear to be missing is that you do not have to run the PQ everytime. Just preview it, which is an option it gives you after setting it up as well as from the list, to check how many caches are in the query and adjust accordingly.

 

I do admit that the 500 limit is more than satisfactory most of the time so this is not a big issue for me. But there is no doubt that having a higher query limit could and would be useful at times. Groundspeak allows 5 queries, 500 caches each, 2500 total for the day. I have to ask, would it really be more taxing on servers to allow the same number of caches, but in a single query? If not, what is the reason for limiting to 500?

 

The server load keeps being mentioned. Apparently GC does not feel it is significant or, at the very least, not significant enough to outweigh the disadvantages.

 

Yes, i know that previewing would keep from wasting an emailed query. I'm just saying that it would be lots easier if we had the ability to run just 1 query for all 1484 caches in a 100 mile radius instead of having to figure out and run 3 queries to get them all.

[+sbell111]

better leave a bigger buffer than 5 as all child waypoints usually count when loading into the GPSr.

If you load your caches as POI you can load as many as you want. Micro SD cards are cheap. Buy a big one.

[+Mudfrog]

I have no clue, but I do know that it would be against TPTB's stated reasons for not having larger PQs.

 

This is what i was curious about. I'm sure i just missed seeing them but, what are or where can we find those stated reasons?

[+pklong]

THIS

 

I wouldn't mind seeing a 2,500 cache limit a day broken up however you see fit. 1 PQ or several.

 

Can't see it happening though

[Skippermark]

You might look at selecting caches by type within the PQs (such as 1=Trads, 2=all others). Depending how you load the GPSr, you can have the cache type in the name, thereby telling you which PQ to look at. You could also use GSAK to put a PQ identifier (number/letter) with the name (this way you could use any PQ selection).

Thanks, Jester. That's so obvious! I never thought of that.

 

In my GPS, I put the cache type in the notes section, plus I use the custom icons so I can quickly see that it's a multi or whatever. I can setup 2 PQs, one with trads and one with all the other types and just load the required PQ, which will save switching back and forth. I think one PQ is enough to grab all the non-traditional caches and 1 PQ will cover all the traditional ones. Thanks!

[Skippermark]

better leave a bigger buffer than 5 as all child waypoints usually count when loading into the GPSr.

If you load your caches as POI you can load as many as you want. Micro SD cards are cheap. Buy a big one.

What we do is load the caches we plan to do as geocaches and the rest as POIs. That way our GPS isn't cluttered up with caches we probably won't find. But, if we decide to do one of the other ones, we still have them in our GPS.

 

POIs work great for that!

[+StarBrand]

...For instance, i use set dates of 1-1-01 to 1-1-02. The 500 cache limit is reached before getting all the caches that were placed in that time period. Now i have to go back and try another, shorter, date period and see how the results come out on it. I may or may not get them all this time but as you can see, i'm having to run another query just to find out. Unless i'm missing something, there may be quite a bit of trial and error getting an accurate query therefore making this not as easy to accomplish as you make it sound....

You can preview a query to see how many caches it is going to contain without actually running the PQ. As has benn noted many times on these forums - previewing a PQ does not "tax" the server in remotely the same fashion as a full PQ.

[+Markwell]

Now you don't even have to preview the query to see how many caches the results will have. On the last upgrade, this was added to the top of the page after you click "Submit":

[+KJcachers]

I've heard from a reliable source that the emailed file will be going away and just a link will be in the email. That should save some server space and time with no more zip files.

BTW, I haven't used the emailed files, other than the My Finds file, since I got the Cache Register program for my DeLorme. The Cache Register logs into my GC account and downloads all my PQ's for me and then I can pick which ones I want to synch with the GPSr.

[+Castle Mischief]

Now you don't even have to preview the query to see how many caches the results will have. On the last upgrade, this was added to the top of the page after you click "Submit":

 

Oddly enough, this doesn't seem to be working with caches along a route.

[+Allanon]

Now you don't even have to preview the query to see how many caches the results will have. On the last upgrade, this was added to the top of the page after you click "Submit":

 

Oddly enough, this doesn't seem to be working with caches along a route.

I mentioned that when the change was made...so it should have been known by TPTB for a few months now.

[+Chrysalides]

It IS a pony. You see, I really, really want a pony. I neeeeeed a pony. Can I please have a pony???? Please, please, please?

 

As much as I think that having a pony is the most important thing ever, those in charge of giving me a pony disagree. They are firm on my not having a pony and have calmly explained why countless times.

Well, I see it this way.

 

I'm not the one responsible for providing you (or not) with a pony. I might suggest alternatives to having a pony, but it would be uncharitable for me to say to you "no, you can't have one - and you don't need one." unless I'm in the business of donating ponies to random people who ask for one. And in this case, I can't even do that, because the contract I signed when acquiring my ponies specifically prohibit me from giving it to others.

 

I think Frank brought up a good point, but missed something. Some people don't need it, and don't care if it is provided (or not) and, since don't have anything real to say, don't bother posting.

 

Unlike me.

[+sbell111]

It IS a pony. You see, I really, really want a pony. I neeeeeed a pony. Can I please have a pony???? Please, please, please?

 

As much as I think that having a pony is the most important thing ever, those in charge of giving me a pony disagree. They are firm on my not having a pony and have calmly explained why countless times.

Well, I see it this way.

 

I'm not the one responsible for providing you (or not) with a pony. I might suggest alternatives to having a pony, but it would be uncharitable for me to say to you "no, you can't have one - and you don't need one." unless I'm in the business of donating ponies to random people who ask for one. And in this case, I can't even do that, because the contract I signed when acquiring my ponies specifically prohibit me from giving it to others.

 

I think Frank brought up a good point, but missed something. Some people don't need it, and don't care if it is provided (or not) and, since don't have anything real to say, don't bother posting.

 

Unlike me.

Apparently, you didn't read the entire post that you referenced. You actually snipped away the bit that referenced your issue:

I'd like a pony, but that's not going to happen. Since I can't have a pony, sharing in my desire for a pony would serve no purpose. Therefore, when I express my desire for a pony, people tend to explain why I can't have one and give me alternatives to a pony.

 

The fact that people often ask for a pony and the entire thing has been discussed many, many, many times before tends to cause people to give less attention to explaining the many reasons not to get a pony and more attention to the pony alternatives and workarounds.

(Come to think of it, your issue was actually the entire point of my analogy.) Edited June 24, 2009 by sbell111

[+Chrysalides]

Apparently, you didn't read the entire post that you referenced. You actually snipped away the bit that referenced your issue:

I'd like a pony, but that's not going to happen. Since I can't have a pony, sharing in my desire for a pony would serve no purpose. Therefore, when I express my desire for a pony, people tend to explain why I can't have one and give me alternatives to a pony.

 

The fact that people often ask for a pony and the entire thing has been discussed many, many, many times before tends to cause people to give less attention to explaining the many reasons not to get a pony and more attention to the pony alternatives and workarounds.

I snipped away that part because I felt it is not relevant to the point Frank brought up, which is why people who don't need the feature are AGAINST the feature (emphasis his, not mine). I don't think all of them are against it, merely that those who are against it tends to post, while those who don't need it but are not against it will keep quiet.

 

Just because someone posts an alternative to a pony, or explain to you why you can't have one, doesn't mean they're against you having a pony. Which I addressed in my post, but perhaps not clearly enough.

 

By the way, just because you asked for a pony and had been denied before, doesn't mean that you won't get one in the future. Your ability to look after a pony, your family's financial situation, moving to the rural areas - all that doesn't remain static. So go ahead and ask again. Of course, presenting why you should have a pony would help a lot with your wishes.

[+Castle Mischief]

I don't know what's going on in this thread anymore, but now I really want a pony.

[+sbell111]

Apparently, you didn't read the entire post that you referenced. You actually snipped away the bit that referenced your issue:

I'd like a pony, but that's not going to happen. Since I can't have a pony, sharing in my desire for a pony would serve no purpose. Therefore, when I express my desire for a pony, people tend to explain why I can't have one and give me alternatives to a pony.

 

The fact that people often ask for a pony and the entire thing has been discussed many, many, many times before tends to cause people to give less attention to explaining the many reasons not to get a pony and more attention to the pony alternatives and workarounds.

I snipped away that part because I felt it is not relevant to the point Frank brought up, which is why people who don't need the feature are AGAINST the feature (emphasis his, not mine). ...

Basically, I think it comes down to the fact that those people find the limit to be reasonable and the request to be a little unreasonable.

By the way, just because you asked for a pony and had been denied before, doesn't mean that you won't get one in the future. ...

Just because someone keeps asking for something even though it has been repeatedly denied is no reason to give them that thing. In fact, it's a pretty darn good reason not to.

 

Can I have a pony?

Can I have a pony?

Can I have a pony?

Edited June 24, 2009 by sbell111

[+Chrysalides]

Basically, I think it comes down to the fact that those people find the limit to be reasonable and the request to be a little unreasonable.

 

Just because someone keeps asking for something even though it has been repeatedly denied is no reason to give them that thing. In fact, it's a pretty darn good reason not to.

First point, I agree. I also feel that there's also a certain amount of "I don't need it, so it is not important, so there's no reason for TPTB to provide it to you". Definitely not in all, or even most of the replies, certainly. But that feeling does come across in some replies.

 

As for the second point, I think that you are whining and pestering, not asking. And "a pretty darn good reason" would be to deny out of spite. Some would argue that it is to teach the other party that whining is a really bad idea, but part of it comes from the emotional satisfaction of being able to figuratively slap the whiner down. I do not know if the OP has repeatedly asked for the feature in the past, but he wasn't whining, presented his reasons for such a request, and deserves at least a mature and reasoned response.

 

The answer can be "sorry, not at this time" but certainly not "shut up, ride your bicycle and be happy with it". Especially from people who are in no position to grant or deny you a pony.

 

FWIW, I don't need the limits increased, it would be convenient to have, I'm not asking for it, but I certainly won't object to it.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Chrysalides

[+sbell111]

Basically, I think it comes down to the fact that those people find the limit to be reasonable and the request to be a little unreasonable.

 

Just because someone keeps asking for something even though it has been repeatedly denied is no reason to give them that thing. In fact, it's a pretty darn good reason not to.

First point, I agree. I also feel that there's also a certain amount of "I don't need it, so it is not important, so there's no reason for TPTB to provide it to you". Definitely not in all, or even most of the replies, certainly. But that feeling does come across in some replies.

 

As for the second point, I think that you are whining and pestering, not asking. And "a pretty darn good reason" would be to deny out of spite. Some would argue that it is to teach the other party that whining is a really bad idea, but part of it comes from the emotional satisfaction of being able to figuratively slap the whiner down. I do not know if the OP has repeatedly asked for the feature in the past, but he wasn't whining, presented his reasons for such a request, and deserves at least a mature and reasoned response.

 

The answer can be "sorry, not at this time" but certainly not "shut up, ride your bicycle and be happy with it". Especially from people who are in no position to grant or deny you a pony.

 

FWIW, I don't need the limits increased, it would be convenient to have, I'm not asking for it, but I certainly won't object to it.

A couple quick points:

 

First, no one ever said that the OP has repeatedly made the request, only that the request has repeatedly been made.

 

Second, no one has told the OP to 'shut up'.

 

Still, it is reasonable for those that want this expansion of services to 1) understand that it has been brough up many times before and TPTB have made it very clear that it isn't going to happen, 2) realize that people explain the work-arounds in an attempt to help the OP, 3) come to grips with the fact that just because people don't support an idea or give alternatives to a suggestion, doesn't mean that they are attacking the suggester. Those that find all contrary comments to be personal attacks ought not post to public forums.

Edited June 25, 2009 by sbell111

[+smerrall]

It's a perennial problem. 3.5 years ago people were lobbying for an increase from 500. At that time a 500 cache PQ covered everything within a 60km (37 mi) radius from home, now it's 22.5 km (14 mi) and I need 3 PQ's to cover the same area as it took 3.5 years ago.

 

Groundspeak don't want people to keep offline databases, but increasing cache density make it harder and harder to manage without one. As cache density increases further and further 2500/day won't go anywhere far enough. In theory 2500 caches would fit in a 3 mile radius circle!

 

At some point a new PQ model will have to be established or we'll need to plan what block we'll cache on a week in advance.

[+Frank Broughton]

Groundspeak don't want people to keep offline databases, but increasing cache density make it harder and harder to manage without one.

 

I keep hearing this mentioned, but in the year or so I have been reading the forum I have not seen it said by those who are alleged to have said it. Besides how could they make this stand when the geojr is a huge offline DB and cannot even be updated yet?

 

It would be ridiculous to not have an OL DB. This is the age of fast available information, surely only a dinosaur would not allow such information to be stored in a reliable way.

[+sbell111]

... Groundspeak don't want people to keep offline databases, but increasing cache density make it harder and harder to manage without one. As cache density increases further and further 2500/day won't go anywhere far enough. ...

17,500 should still give you a reasonably sized search area, I imagine.

 

... It would be ridiculous to not have an OL DB. This is the age of fast available information, surely only a dinosaur would not allow such information to be stored in a reliable way.

I'm not sure that insulting them will make them want to make your changes.

[+baloo&bd]

It would be ridiculous to not have an OL DB. This is the age of fast available information, surely only a dinosaur would not allow such information to be stored in a reliable way.

 

I probably wouldn't have been so insulting to all those that do not own iPhones as in the above comment, since that app is live and such fresh information so much more reliable than needing antiquated PQs. Offline DB's are so 2007.

 

The simple matter of fact is those with very high find counts are making the system work as is, in fact two in the area I cache with occasionally simply load up what they need in GPSr's that, until very recently, only held 500 caches and went out without laptops or PDAs.

 

Last night I spoke with another cacher in the area who has relatively high numbers who came up with the only logical and reasonable argument in favor of larger PQs I have heard. Due to their higher then average find counts, they live now in this big donut hole with the nearest cache being some distance away so since they do not maintain a GSAK DB offline, it would be easier if the PQ's were larger. The emphasis place (by me) on easier, even they admitted not impossible. As you talk with those with higher find counts, many in very cache dense areas (this case Chicago) you will be surprised how simple some of the tools those operating in the 5K plus find counts tools really are. Note should be made that they want it to actually cache, not collect and go stale in an offline DB.

 

Having said that, the majority that ask for the larger PQs do not have the big find numbers and, as such, are not impacted the same way. They also often mention the "need" to maintain an ofline database. Quite simply, with the tools in place, Groundspeak keeps their business model intact, everyone gets more info then they can possibly use and all can still find their caches. I just can't see them changing for the minuscule number of people who consistently whine about this.

 

During the conversation last night, this cacher made a comment about how they are considering responding to the pony analogy, I'll let them share that, but mine is this; You do have your pony, in fact a full grown horse (500 Cache PQ), now you are insisting on a breed you simply would not use, a Clydesdale (1000 + cache PQ). More horse (PQ) than you will ever need and certainly more than you will ever use.

 

Want to convince the TPTB? Simply find 501 caches a day consistently for a while and then they may take the need seriously. They may even drop the email and send the PQ to you via a more efficient method like First Class mail like suggested previously.

 

Why have you not heard from Groundspeak regarding their position on offline DBs or even larger PQ's in a while? I would suspect it is because they responded so often in the past, combined with the fact that their reasoning in really none of our business, they feel their time is better spent elsewhere.

 

Regarding my opening sentence; I do not own, nor see my self owning in the near future, an iPhone.

[+Chrysalides]

First, no one ever said that the OP has repeatedly made the request, only that the request has repeatedly been made.

 

Second, no one has told the OP to 'shut up'.

 

Still, it is reasonable for those that want this expansion of services to 1) understand that it has been brough up many times before and TPTB have made it very clear that it isn't going to happen, 2) realize that people explain the work-arounds in an attempt to help the OP, 3) come to grips with the fact that just because people don't support an idea or give alternatives to a suggestion, doesn't mean that they are attacking the suggester. Those that find all contrary comments to be personal attacks ought not post to public forums.

I concede to both your points. It was in response to your pony analogy and I got sidetracked and distracted.

 

By the way, I don't see anyone attacking the suggester either, but some appear somewhat hostile to the idea of increasing the PQ limit. In some cases, it is probably, as you suggested, be the automatic reaction from someone who has seen this asked many times before.

 

I have not been around long, obviously. I have never seen TPTB stating that it is not going to happen. More importantly, I've not seen TPTB stating it will never happen, ever. I'm not disputing it has never been said, just that it seems to be one of those things that all the old timers know, and newcomers quote as common wisdom but never know the source. I can see myself repeating this to someone later on, despite never seeing the official statement.

 

Hmm, off topic, but I'm going to have to think through the common knowledge I've learned in the forums that are attributed to TPTB, and either find a statement from TPTB, or start a thread asking for help.

 

FWIW I'm not even sure whose words are equivalent to stone tablets from Mount Sinai. Jeremy, certainly. But I don't think all moderators set policy, although their opinions would obviously carry a lot of weight. I don't think they all start off as mods either.

[+Frank Broughton]

... Groundspeak don't want people to keep offline databases, but increasing cache density make it harder and harder to manage without one. As cache density increases further and further 2500/day won't go anywhere far enough. ...

17,500 should still give you a reasonably sized search area, I imagine.

 

... It would be ridiculous to not have an OL DB. This is the age of fast available information, surely only a dinosaur would not allow such information to be stored in a reliable way.

I'm not sure that insulting them will make them want to make your changes.

 

I still do not see them saying what many are saying. So, it is no insult. If it is true that offline DB's are taboo - show me. I do not see it, only what others are saying they say.

 

It is no insult to give an opinion on how I would consider such an action if it was true (show me that it is true they said it). The actions of GS show otherwise. The creation of a unit that holds information on 250,000 caches, and that with no means of updating as of right now.

[+Chrysalides]

I still do not see them saying what many are saying. So, it is no insult. If it is true that offline DB's are taboo - show me. I do not see it, only what others are saying they say.

The most official statement I've seen (I don't know what is the official relationship between Markwell and Groundspeak, other than he is a volunteer and moderator, and that his shoes are wet) is the one here:

 

http://markwell.us/archivedcaches.htm

 

Which I interpret as:

 

1. It is not taboo, but

 

2. Groundspeak would not go out of their way to help you create or maintain one

 

As was pointed out in another thread, there is nothing inside the TOS that prohibits the use or maintenance of an offline DB, as long as it is for your personal use.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Chrysalides

[+sbell111]

First, no one ever said that the OP has repeatedly made the request, only that the request has repeatedly been made.

 

Second, no one has told the OP to 'shut up'.

 

Still, it is reasonable for those that want this expansion of services to 1) understand that it has been brough up many times before and TPTB have made it very clear that it isn't going to happen, 2) realize that people explain the work-arounds in an attempt to help the OP, 3) come to grips with the fact that just because people don't support an idea or give alternatives to a suggestion, doesn't mean that they are attacking the suggester. Those that find all contrary comments to be personal attacks ought not post to public forums.

I concede to both your points. It was in response to your pony analogy and I got sidetracked and distracted.

 

By the way, I don't see anyone attacking the suggester either, but some appear somewhat hostile to the idea of increasing the PQ limit. In some cases, it is probably, as you suggested, be the automatic reaction from someone who has seen this asked many times before.

 

I have not been around long, obviously. I have never seen TPTB stating that it is not going to happen. More importantly, I've not seen TPTB stating it will never happen, ever. I'm not disputing it has never been said, just that it seems to be one of those things that all the old timers know, and newcomers quote as common wisdom but never know the source. I can see myself repeating this to someone later on, despite never seeing the official statement.

 

Hmm, off topic, but I'm going to have to think through the common knowledge I've learned in the forums that are attributed to TPTB, and either find a statement from TPTB, or start a thread asking for help.

 

FWIW I'm not even sure whose words are equivalent to stone tablets from Mount Sinai. Jeremy, certainly. But I don't think all moderators set policy, although their opinions would obviously carry a lot of weight. I don't think they all start off as mods either.

For the longest time, Jeremy was quite active in the forums. Often, his comments were very amusing. He remarked on this issue in three or four threads. If memory serves, in one of the last threads on this topic in which he was active, someone (I don't recall who) pretty much insisted on being offended by everything he posted.

 

He no longer tends to be active in discussions such as this one. I've wondered if that thread wasn't the reason why. That, and the fact that it must be terribly wearing to have to keep posting the same thing over and over.

Edited June 25, 2009 by sbell111

[+Chrysalides]

Last night I spoke with another cacher in the area who has relatively high numbers who came up with the only logical and reasonable argument in favor of larger PQs I have heard. Due to their higher then average find counts, they live now in this big donut hole with the nearest cache being some distance away so since they do not maintain a GSAK DB offline, it would be easier if the PQ's were larger.

Why not select the checkbox "That I Haven't Found" in their PQ?

[+Frank Broughton]

It would be ridiculous to not have an OL DB. This is the age of fast available information, surely only a dinosaur would not allow such information to be stored in a reliable way.

 

I probably wouldn't have been so insulting to all those that do not own iPhones as in the above comment, since that app is live and such fresh information so much more reliable than needing antiquated PQs. Offline DB's are so 2007.

 

Note: The insult is only in the eye of those who did not read the post properly.

 

I have an iphone and geocaching app here in my hand. I do like the app, but there is no comparison as to what I can do with my UP TO DATE offline DB and GSAK, not even close. DB's are so 2010 and on for ever, the whole dynamic Web 2.0 is all about DB's.

 

The simple matter of fact is those with very high find counts are making the system work as is, in fact two in the area I cache with occasionally simply load up what they need in GPSr's that, until very recently, only held 500 caches and went out without laptops or PDAs.

 

That is just it, those with said numbers find everything, some of us like to study out and plain what we find. We filter out the ones that do not interest us at this time. Hard to do that with the app. So much for the system today, PQ's are wacked once again and not being sent out. They would be out of luck caching for today. I am loaded up and ready to go, 70 miles in any direction - over 5,000 caches to find. Can pick and choose and make my route to make an efficient trip. My car Nuvi allows route creation for multiple POI's.

 

Please do not try to rob fun from some of us who like playing with data and find almost as much fun in the planning as the hunt. Just way to inefficient using the current geocaching.com map that is online right now or with the iPhone app.

 

I have a legal OL DB for my use and I do keep it up todate, I do not share it with others and still have plenty of weekly PQ's to spare. All within the rules of the TOS.

 

******I will ignore what you think is my business or not. You have no idea what is or is not my business.

 

In summary, some of us love playing with data, reading cache pages, reading past logs, finding the oldest cache in our area, finding the cache with the oldest not found date on it in our area and tons of other fun stuff we like to do. The true insult is by those who tell us we cannot have this kind of fun. Much of this fun is only available via our up to date off line data bases. The rest is so much more efficient and less drain on the system with our trusty OLDB!

[+sbell111]

In summary, some of us love playing with data, reading cache pages, reading past logs, finding the oldest cache in our area, finding the cache with the oldest not found date on it in our area and tons of other fun stuff we like to do. The true insult is by those who tell us we cannot have this kind of fun. Much of this fun is only available via our up to date off line data bases. The rest is so much more efficient and less drain on the system with our trusty OLDB!

Seems like you could still have that fun with the 17,500 cache limit or the allowed expansion to 35,000 or 52,500 or 70,000 or 87,500 or 105,000 or whatever floats your boat.

[+baloo&bd]

Note: The insult is only in the eye of those who did not read the post properly.

 

I have an iphone and geocaching app here in my hand. I do like the app, but there is no comparison as to what I can do with my UP TO DATE offline DB and GSAK, not even close. DB's are so 2010 and on for ever, the whole dynamic Web 2.0 is all about DB's.

 

The simple matter of fact is those with very high find counts are making the system work as is, in fact two in the area I cache with occasionally simply load up what they need in GPSr's that, until very recently, only held 500 caches and went out without laptops or PDAs.

 

That is just it, those with said numbers find everything, some of us like to study out and plain what we find. We filter out the ones that do not interest us at this time. Hard to do that with the app. So much for the system today, PQ's are wacked once again and not being sent out.

 

They would be out of luck caching for today. I am loaded up and ready to go, 70 miles in any direction - over 5,000 caches to find. Can pick and choose and make my route to make an efficient trip. My car Nuvi allows route creation for multiple POI's.

 

Please do not try to rob fun from some of us who like playing with data and find almost as much fun in the planning as the hunt. Just way to inefficient using the current geocaching.com map that is online right now or with the iPhone app.

 

I have a legal OL DB for my use and I do keep it up todate, I do not share it with others and still have plenty of weekly PQ's to spare. All within the rules of the TOS.

 

******I will ignore what you think is my business or not. You have no idea what is or is not my business.

 

In summary, some of us love playing with data, reading cache pages, reading past logs, finding the oldest cache in our area, finding the cache with the oldest not found date on it in our area and tons of other fun stuff we like to do. The true insult is by those who tell us we cannot have this kind of fun. Much of this fun is only available via our up to date off line data bases. The rest is so much more efficient and less drain on the system with our trusty OLDB!

 

Now I am confused. In all your prior posts you appear to be whining about how the current PQs need to be modified, then in this post you go on and on about how efficiently it is working for you.

 

I guess you are owed an apology as well. Had I known you were a primary partner, investor or on the board of directors for Groundspeak, I would not have made the comment about reasons being none of our business.

 

I too maintain an offline DB and I too like looking through and planning my outings. If you go through my posts both in this thread and others, you would see that databases are not my issue nor did I ever say that Groundspeak does not allow offline databases, simply that they do not officially recognize nor support them. As you pointed out in the last lines above, the current 2500 that are available per day appear to be more that adequate to meet our needs as well as meeting the needs of those who choose not to use an offline database.

 

I think all the early responses to the OP were simply to explain why it probably wouldn't happen and to offer methods that work well within the current system. All this back and forth started because of some decided they need to beat down any offer to help that did not meet a given agenda of change for change sake.

Edited June 25, 2009 by baloo&bd

[Skippermark]

I've heard from a reliable source that the emailed file will be going away and just a link will be in the email. That should save some server space and time with no more zip files.

This has been mentioned a few times before, but it won't really save server space because the PQ files are being stored online for 7 days. This feature is currently being use for the iPhone app. Within the app, you can download any PQ on the fly that have been generated within the past 7 days. When you download them, you're downloading the archived file.

[knowschad]

 

Can I have a pony?

Can I have a pony?

Can I have a pony?

 

Oh..... ALL RIGHT!!!

 

Edited June 25, 2009 by knowschad

[+Chrysalides]

OMG! Ponies!

 

Erm, what's this thread about?

 

.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Chrysalides

[+tozainamboku]

In summary, some of us love playing with data, reading cache pages, reading past logs, finding the oldest cache in our area, finding the cache with the oldest not found date on it in our area and tons of other fun stuff we like to do. The true insult is by those who tell us we cannot have this kind of fun. Much of this fun is only available via our up to date off line data bases. The rest is so much more efficient and less drain on the system with our trusty OLDB!

Of course you may keep an off line database. The use of GPX files is governed by the agreement you agreed to before you could download a GPX or get a PQ. It specifically allows you to "modify the Data and merge other data sets with the Data for Licensee's own internal use." and to "use, copy, alter, modify, merge, reproduce, and/or create derivative works of the on-line textual content [including the about geocaching content, links content and cache hiding tutorial] for Licensee's own internal use." But the agreement makes it clear that the data is the intellectual property of Groundspeak. In order for this claim of intellectual property to stand up in court (should someone use the data collected in a manner that is inconsistent with the agreement) Groundspeak may have to show that they took reasonable care to protect their intellectual property. One way they do this is by limiting the amount of data that can be downloaded by any one individual. The amount they allow you to download is what they consider sufficient for anyone's personal internal use. If this is not enough for your personal internal use you might want to indicate what personal use you have that requires more data.

 

Playing with data may not be a personal use that Groundspeak recognizes. They did add the My Finds query because they do agree that people have personal use of generating personal statistics of their own finds. They have even entered into agreements with some 3rd party statistics sites to allow you to upload your My Finds PQ to these site for the purpose of generating statistics (which would otherwise violate the agreement) On the other hand, Groundspeak tends to want to retain ownership of general statistics for geoaching. They post such things as number of active caches and number of new logs on the front page of the webites, and other counts are easily determined by online queries. There are some statistics that Groundspeak prefers for on one reason or the other to keep private.

 

TPTB have on several occasions posted that they have no plans to increase the number of PQs you can run or the number of caches per pocket query. However, this does not mean these limits will never change. They did after all add the My Finds Query, change the time you have to wait between running the My Finds query (so you could actually get it every 7 days without creep), added Route queries, added querying on attributes, increase the number of saved PQs you can have, report the number of caches returned when you create or edit a query (so you don't have to preview it to see if it exceeds 500 caches), and they continue to make enhancements to the pocket query system - including what we will probable see in a short time (since it is already in place for the iPhone and DeLorme applications) the ability to download the PQ results from the website instead of using email which has often been unreliable.

[+Frank Broughton]

Now I am confused. In all your prior posts you appear to be whining about how the current PQs need to be modified, then in this post you go on and on about how efficiently it is working for you.

 

I guess you are owed an apology as well. Had I known you were a primary partner, investor or on the board of directors for Groundspeak, I would not have made the comment about reasons being none of our business.

 

 

Blah blah blah you are just talking You speak too much for GS, like you are better than me - phooey on that pooey. Also you are mixing up what I said to others as that I said it to you. I am more important than all that you listed above, I am a customer . Most companies that have high PR ratings do so because they do care what their customers are saying and do allow customers business to be their business.

 

This is whinning? I said this about the PQ system: I would love to see a total update to the PQ system. One that uses a more efficient system of downloading directly instead of the poorest way possible (via email attachments). This would save tons of CPU usage (the single biggest drain on any internet server). Sending by email uses tons of server CPU. Besides email is an ancient and inefficient at best system and not always reliable.

 

The current system does work, but obviously there are performance issues with the various GS servers and need a more efficient system.

 

Today the system puked again - to say it does not need an updating is to say Richard Prior is still alive.

[+Frank Broughton]

I've heard from a reliable source that the emailed file will be going away and just a link will be in the email. That should save some server space and time with no more zip files.

This has been mentioned a few times before, but it won't really save server space because the PQ files are being stored online for 7 days. This feature is currently being use for the iPhone app. Within the app, you can download any PQ on the fly that have been generated within the past 7 days. When you download them, you're downloading the archived file.

 

HD space is dirt cheap and is of no consequence these days. CPU and RAM are not, they need to be used wisely. Bandwidth is also very cheap.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Frank Broughton

[+Frank Broughton]

and they continue to make enhancements to the pocket query system (snip) the ability to download the PQ results from the website instead of using email which has often been unreliable.

 

Yahoo that is what I said is needed, Did I say I wanted more caches to DL? I do not recall that. I mentioned I still have numerous free PQ's to use now. Them (I want more PQ's) be werds others put into me mouth

[+baloo&bd]

Blah blah blah you are just talking You speak too much for GS, like you are better than me - phooey on that pooey.

 

[+sbell111]

and they continue to make enhancements to the pocket query system (snip) the ability to download the PQ results from the website instead of using email which has often been unreliable.

 

Yahoo that is what I said is needed, Did I say I wanted more caches to DL? I do not recall that. I mentioned I still have numerous free PQ's to use now. Them (I want more PQ's) be werds others put into me mouth

Ummm, are you aware of the thread's actual topic?

[+herrozerro]

 

Today the system puked again - to say it does not need an updating is to say Richard Prior is still alive.

 

I have gotton all of my PQs each day you said they had not come in. do you mean to say you havent gotton them yet that day? just because you might not get them first thing in the morning?

[+Totem Clan]

 

Can I have a pony?

Can I have a pony?

Can I have a pony?

 

Oh..... ALL RIGHT!!!

 

But I didn't want that pony! I wanted a different pony!

 

 

Sound familiar?

[+sbell111]

Now I am confused. In all your prior posts you appear to be whining about how the current PQs need to be modified, then in this post you go on and on about how efficiently it is working for you.

 

I guess you are owed an apology as well. Had I known you were a primary partner, investor or on the board of directors for Groundspeak, I would not have made the comment about reasons being none of our business.

Blah blah blah you are just talking You speak too much for GS, like you are better than me - phooey on that pooey. Also you are mixing up what I said to others as that I said it to you. I am more important than all that you listed above, I am a customer . Most companies that have high PR ratings do so because they do care what their customers are saying and do allow customers business to be their business.

 

This is whinning? I said this about the PQ system: I would love to see a total update to the PQ system. One that uses a more efficient system of downloading directly instead of the poorest way possible (via email attachments). This would save tons of CPU usage (the single biggest drain on any internet server). Sending by email uses tons of server CPU. Besides email is an ancient and inefficient at best system and not always reliable.

Are you the cacher formally known as Enchanted Shadow? Edited June 26, 2009 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Today the system puked again - to say it does not need an updating is to say Richard Prior is still alive.

I have gotton all of my PQs each day you said they had not come in. do you mean to say you havent gotton them yet that day? just because you might not get them first thing in the morning?

I got mine just fine, also.

 

I keep reading about PQ problems, but I haven't actually had a problem getting any of my PQs. Strange.

[+herrozerro]

Today the system puked again - to say it does not need an updating is to say Richard Prior is still alive.

I have gotton all of my PQs each day you said they had not come in. do you mean to say you havent gotton them yet that day? just because you might not get them first thing in the morning?

I got mine just fine, also.

 

I keep reading about PQ problems, but I haven't actually had a problem getting any of my PQs. Strange.

 

I have gotton them early in the morning, late in the afternoon and around midnight. THere is nothing in the PQs that say "You will get them at XX time"

[+Totem Clan]

That's why I get my weekly/weekend PQ on Thursday. While I normally do get it early in the morning. Getting it on Thursday guarantee it will be there for Friday no matter what time it arrives.

 

It's been my experience with this as with so many other things in life that most of the time it's not the system that's broke, it's the user.

[+Mudfrog]

After all this thread has been through, there still hasn't been anything reliable to report on the OP's question. The speculation from folks here has been tremendous but why is it that we can't get a definitive answer from GC.com?

 

What is the reason for not raising the 500 cache limit? Is it because of server limitations, or that it's too costly to program, or because GC.com doesn't want anyone else to build a database, or,,, is it because Jeremy wants a pony but no one will give him one?

 

Seems to me that this is a simple and legitimate question to ask. One that should be easily answered but for some reason, isn't.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Mudfrog

[+Frank Broughton]

Are you the cacher formally known as Enchanted Shadow?

 

Nope, I am me only. That name does sound like one I would like though. I just decided a long time ago (before there was a WWW - and even before the GOPHER days) that I am who I am and pretending to be someone else was not for me. I stand behind my words - as anyone can find them with google. No need to have the protection of being behind a handle. ('cept on the various firework forums, 'till this state of mine makes them legal - so close several times!).

 

I have gotton all of my PQs each day you said they had not come in. do you mean to say you havent gotton them yet that day? just because you might not get them first thing in the morning?

 

Do you read what people say? Gotton, what is that? Did I mention more than one day? The system was not right yesterday, that is not to be denied. I did receive what I should have, but not when the system usually sends them (as there was a problem after the updates) I do realize that I am not guareenteed anything as far as timing. This only adds to the fact of keeping an OLDB as being the way to go.

 

Ummm, are you aware of the thread's actual topic?

 

Yup... I am and you realize that I am razing you on..... (it is fun )

 

Just as you, I was!

[+sbell111]

After all this thread has been through, there still hasn't been anything reliable to report on the OP's question. The speculation from folks here has been tremendous but why is it that we can't get a definitive answer from GC.com?

 

What is the reason for not raising the 500 cache limit? Is it because of server limitations, or that it's too costly to program, or because GC.com doesn't want anyone else to build a database, or,,, is it because Jeremy wants a pony but no one will give him one?

 

Seems to me that this is a simple and legitimate question to ask. One that should be easily answered but for some reason, isn't.

Jeremy no longer pops into these threads to say the same stuff that he said in older threads. I wish he would because he always could be counted to come up with some very amusing stuff. Edited June 26, 2009 by sbell111