Jump to content

Pocket Query Limit


Plasma Boy
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

 

Tell you what, why don't you just ask them. Contact@geocaching.com

 

Everything that TPTB have ever said on the subject has been of the opinion that they will not support off line databases. People keep telling you the same thing. Repeatedly. Yet you choose to think that we are all lying to you. Email Jeremy Irish and ask him.

 

Things may change in the future but I highly doubt it.

Well, I did send them my question originally and they said that I should start a forum thread to see if their was support for the idea. They did not at the time tell me that PQs were for immediate use and should be discarded after use. I figure if that were the case they would have informed me at that time.

Edited by Plasma Boy
Link to comment

I'd love to be able to store more than 40 PQs as well. Even better would be PQ folders to store a group of PQs I don't want to delete (but don't need on a regular basis) in case I need them at some future time.

 

An example would be the PQs I created for a vacation through some Southern states a few months back. I've had to delete some of them to make room for new queries since, but it would have been preferable to be able to create a "South Trip" folder and pop them all in there for safe keeping.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Edited by rob3k
Link to comment

I'd love to be able to store more than 40 PQs as well. Even better would be PQ folders to store a group of PQs I don't want to delete (but don't need on a regular basis) in case I need them at some future time.

I'm in the same situation and posted about it a couple weeks ago. Prime Suspect suggested that since I use Firefox I get an auto form filler. I did, and it works great. Basically, once you create a PQ with the info you want, you save all that info which can later be filled in with one click.

 

Yes, you have to delete some PQs to make room for the new ones, but it's no big deal. When you need one that's not in your list, delete a few old ones and create a new one, autofill in all the info and then run it.

Link to comment

I'd love to be able to store more than 40 PQs as well. Even better would be PQ folders to store a group of PQs I don't want to delete (but don't need on a regular basis) in case I need them at some future time.

I'm in the same situation and posted about it a couple weeks ago. Prime Suspect suggested that since I use Firefox I get an auto form filler. I did, and it works great. Basically, once you create a PQ with the info you want, you save all that info which can later be filled in with one click.

 

Yes, you have to delete some PQs to make room for the new ones, but it's no big deal. When you need one that's not in your list, delete a few old ones and create a new one, autofill in all the info and then run it.

That is good for FF users, but what about IE? How about posting the link to get the form filler and let the rest of us try it.

 

It still does not answer the question of why only 39 PQs. I see no reason for it.

Link to comment

I'd love to be able to store more than 40 PQs as well. Even better would be PQ folders to store a group of PQs I don't want to delete (but don't need on a regular basis) in case I need them at some future time.

I'm in the same situation and posted about it a couple weeks ago. Prime Suspect suggested that since I use Firefox I get an auto form filler. I did, and it works great. Basically, once you create a PQ with the info you want, you save all that info which can later be filled in with one click.

 

Yes, you have to delete some PQs to make room for the new ones, but it's no big deal. When you need one that's not in your list, delete a few old ones and create a new one, autofill in all the info and then run it.

 

This is better than just deleting, thanks for the tip. I don't think it will work for caches along a route though?

Link to comment
This is better than just deleting, thanks for the tip. I don't think it will work for caches along a route though?

I think that's right. I don't think it will work with CAaR, at least not an easy way, but they're pretty easy to create once you've got the route itself created.

 

As far as IE, there are some other form fillers (RoboForm I think) that may work. The one I use is Autofill Forms. The author is very supportive. I had a question, and he wrote back in a few hours with helpful info.

 

Basically, once your form is setup and working the way you want, right click in one of the form fields and there will be a menu saying add this form to a profile. I then name the profile something helpful like FL, Orlando 01, FL, Orlando 02 or something like that. I'm not at the computer with the form program installed, so I don't remember the exact wording of the menu.

 

When you're ready to fill in the form, create a blank PQ and go to the options page and then just click the pencil in the toolbar and the info will autofill the form. If you have multiple profiles (saved forms), pick the profile name (FL, Orlando 01) you want first and then click the pencil.

 

My instructions may not be perfect doing it from memory, but it's really straightforward and easy to use.

Edited by Skippermark
Link to comment
It still does not answer the question of why only 39 PQs. I see no reason for it.

Someone in our local forums said the 39 issue has been fixed and we're allowed 40 actual PQs now. I don't have that many created right now to try it, but they do and said it was fixed.

 

One thing I thought of is that by using the method above, all PQs that are created are brand new and will bumped to the front of the line and run quicker than if they were saved and had just been run a week ago. That's a plus. :)

Edited by Skippermark
Link to comment

Perhaps, but it is not meant to be maintained. It is meant to be used and discarded.

Yes, a data "snapshot" is a better term.

 

You guys are clearly making this up as you go along! In searching the GC.com website, we find that GSAK is, indeed, supported software....its main purpose is to maintain a database of geocaches.

Further, in the License Agreement on the Pocket Query page there is no restriction requiring you to use and discard your PQ data. In fact, the following clause allows you to keep it.

 

• Licensee may make only one (1) copy of the original Data for archival purposes unless the right to make additional copies is granted to Licensee in writing by Groundspeak.

 

The License Agreement also allows you to merge and manipulate data sets.....in effect, allowing you to create a de facto database!

 

• Licensee may modify the Data and merge other data sets with the Data for Licensee's own internal use. The portions of the Data merged with other data sets will continue to be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

Link to comment

 

You guys are clearly making this up as you go along! In searching the GC.com website, we find that GSAK is, indeed, supported software....its main purpose is to maintain a database of geocaches.

Further, in the License Agreement on the Pocket Query page there is no restriction requiring you to use and discard your PQ data. In fact, the following clause allows you to keep it.

 

• Licensee may make only one (1) copy of the original Data for archival purposes unless the right to make additional copies is granted to Licensee in writing by Groundspeak.

 

The License Agreement also allows you to merge and manipulate data sets.....in effect, allowing you to create a de facto database!

 

• Licensee may modify the Data and merge other data sets with the Data for Licensee's own internal use. The portions of the Data merged with other data sets will continue to be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

So, now that CP has shown that the data was clearly intended to be used in external database software, let us dispense with the BS.

 

These clauses in the licensing agreement show that databases are expected to be created and as far as I am concerned reinforces my request for the PQ limit to be raised.

Edited by Plasma Boy
Link to comment

 

Anyone else remember when it was just 20 queries, and got increased to 40?

 

Yeah, I do and everybody was happier than a pig you know where. :lol: I don't recall Groundspeak ever saying you couldn't create an off-line database. But they don't want you to and won't support you doing it.

Edited by JPatton
Link to comment

Dial back the vitriol a notch, please.

 

Those describing the official position on offline databases are summarizing that position accurately.

 

Anyone else remember when it was just 20 queries, and got increased to 40?

I don't. When did it happen? Maybe it is time for it to double again, as I am sure the amounts of geocaches have most likely increased a hundred fold, since it was 20 PQs.

Link to comment

Dial back the vitriol a notch, please.

 

Those describing the official position on offline databases are summarizing that position accurately.

 

Anyone else remember when it was just 20 queries, and got increased to 40?

I don't. When did it happen? Maybe it is time for it to double again, as I am sure the amounts of geocaches have most likely increased a hundred fold, since it was 20 PQs.

Hold your breath... :):lol:

Link to comment

Dial back the vitriol a notch, please.

 

Those describing the official position on offline databases are summarizing that position accurately.

 

Anyone else remember when it was just 20 queries, and got increased to 40?

Yes because I was one of those who asked for it, and was somewhat surprised when Jeremy said he would look into it and it was changed. There are good reasons for increasing the number of saved pocket queries that that have nothing to with trying to keep a bigger offline database. You can even make a argument that a few more saved pocket queries would reduce the need for keeping large offline database as you can just schedule a pocket query you have already set up for almost any area you plan to go to.

Link to comment

 

So if you need to do an update every time you head out, what's the point of keeping all that data offline? I use GSAK and I love it, but I'm happy to let Groundspeak maintain the active database. I only need current data for the area where I'm about to go hunting.

 

I don't think you are using GSAK to it's full potential. I know I am not, but the way I use it has improved my caching ability ten fold.

 

When I am out and about, I do not always have a wireless connection for my netbook, so I can not always contact GC for cache info. I have created a few databases for the Atlantic provinces by province. I currently am only using the NS database. I have downloaded my base PQs for NS into GSAK and during the week, I download one or two of my last 7 days PQs which update the database. The older PQs only really need updating once a week while the PQ for the most recent caches I DL daily. This keeps my GSAK up to date and I am not bound to the internet.

 

GSAK has a feature where you DL the PQs directly from your email account. One or two clicks of my mouse updates my database and I can then query that database in infinite ways. Gc does not offer in house data base queries that come anywhere near GSAK. If it did GSAK would not have been invented by Clyde.

 

To stay on message, this thread is about increasing the amount of PQs that can be stored on the GC servers. It has nothing to do with databases, except PQs are integral to database managers like GSAK.

Link to comment

So far in the 66 replies, there have been 25 members.

 

13 for upping the limit

4 against

8 neutral (did not mention limits)

 

I think the yes vote has it so far.

You might be surbrised to find out that Groundspeak is not a democracy. You might also note that polls are turned off in these forums. Now you know why.
Link to comment

So far in the 66 replies, there have been 25 members.

 

13 for upping the limit

4 against

8 neutral (did not mention limits)

 

I think the yes vote has it so far.

You might be surbrised to find out that Groundspeak is not a democracy. You might also note that polls are turned off in these forums. Now you know why.

Oh, I know only too well that Groundspeak is not a democracy. I am not under any illusion that GS listens to it's customers. But, if you do not ask, you get nothing. Result may be the same, but at least I feel like I am a member of the organization. After all I am paying a yearly membership.

Link to comment

So far in the 66 replies, there have been 25 members.

 

13 for upping the limit

4 against

8 neutral (did not mention limits)

 

I think the yes vote has it so far.

You might be surbrised to find out that Groundspeak is not a democracy. You might also note that polls are turned off in these forums. Now you know why.

Oh, I know only too well that Groundspeak is not a democracy. I am not under any illusion that GS listens to it's members. But, if you do not ask, you get nothing. Result may be the same, but at least I feel like I am a member of the organization. After all I am paying a yearly membership.

 

Groundspeak may not be a democracy, but in the real business world (not that I have experience there :laughing: ) a company that doesn't listen to its customers doesn't last long. Thirteen compared to the total number of premium members probably wouldn't even register as a percentage, so it may not be in their best interest to change. We can hope, though, that they live by their Management Ethos

 

# Resolve – problems and issues by proposing solutions and being open to other people's ideas

Link to comment

So far in the 66 replies, there have been 25 members.

 

13 for upping the limit

4 against

8 neutral (did not mention limits)

 

I think the yes vote has it so far.

You might be surbrised to find out that Groundspeak is not a democracy. You might also note that polls are turned off in these forums. Now you know why.

Oh, I know only too well that Groundspeak is not a democracy. I am not under any illusion that GS listens to it's members. But, if you do not ask, you get nothing. Result may be the same, but at least I feel like I am a member of the organization. After all I am paying a yearly membership.

 

Groundspeak may not be a democracy, but in the real business world (not that I have experience there :laughing: ) a company that doesn't listen to its customers doesn't last long. Thirteen compared to the total number of premium members probably wouldn't even register as a percentage, so it may not be in their best interest to change. We can hope, though, that they live by their Management Ethos

 

# Resolve – problems and issues by proposing solutions and being open to other people's ideas

Who said that TPTB don't listen? There is a diference between not listening to customers and not kowtowing every time that people want 'more'.
Link to comment

here's why i'd like to be able to keep more than 40 PQs:

 

i don't maintain a huge offline database. mostly i clear all the waypoints out of my databases and rebuild them before setting out on a long run.

 

but i periodically return to the same areas once or twice a year and in order to cover that territory, i have to keep making new PQs. it would be really handy not to have to do that and instead just run the nine or ten saved PQs that i need for, say the month of october, and likewise those i will use in the month of may. i use the same two or three every labor day, the same two or three the second week of september, and the same two or three the first week of july.

 

they add up, and soon i have to delete PQs that i like.

Link to comment

here's why i'd like to be able to keep more than 40 PQs:

 

i don't maintain a huge offline database. mostly i clear all the waypoints out of my databases and rebuild them before setting out on a long run.

 

but i periodically return to the same areas once or twice a year and in order to cover that territory, i have to keep making new PQs. it would be really handy not to have to do that and instead just run the nine or ten saved PQs that i need for, say the month of october, and likewise those i will use in the month of may. i use the same two or three every labor day, the same two or three the second week of september, and the same two or three the first week of july.

 

they add up, and soon i have to delete PQs that i like.

 

Someone earlier in this thread had a way to save the information in a form filler or some such. That may be a big help for you. If I caught the gist of it with a few clicks you could recreate the old PQs with the advantage of having them be new in the eyes of the system. That puts them at the front of the to run list. You'll get 'em faster.

Link to comment

here's why i'd like to be able to keep more than 40 PQs:

 

i don't maintain a huge offline database. mostly i clear all the waypoints out of my databases and rebuild them before setting out on a long run.

 

but i periodically return to the same areas once or twice a year and in order to cover that territory, i have to keep making new PQs. it would be really handy not to have to do that and instead just run the nine or ten saved PQs that i need for, say the month of october, and likewise those i will use in the month of may. i use the same two or three every labor day, the same two or three the second week of september, and the same two or three the first week of july.

 

they add up, and soon i have to delete PQs that i like.

 

Someone earlier in this thread had a way to save the information in a form filler or some such. That may be a big help for you. If I caught the gist of it with a few clicks you could recreate the old PQs with the advantage of having them be new in the eyes of the system. That puts them at the front of the to run list. You'll get 'em faster.

That is all well and good until Firefox <potty language removed> the bed like mine did recently and I lost all of my add ons and the data that they held. You can not back up add on info. GC keeps their servers backed up quite nicely.

Edited by Motorcycle_Mama
Link to comment

here's why i'd like to be able to keep more than 40 PQs:

 

i don't maintain a huge offline database. mostly i clear all the waypoints out of my databases and rebuild them before setting out on a long run.

 

but i periodically return to the same areas once or twice a year and in order to cover that territory, i have to keep making new PQs. it would be really handy not to have to do that and instead just run the nine or ten saved PQs that i need for, say the month of october, and likewise those i will use in the month of may. i use the same two or three every labor day, the same two or three the second week of september, and the same two or three the first week of july.

 

they add up, and soon i have to delete PQs that i like.

 

Someone earlier in this thread had a way to save the information in a form filler or some such. That may be a big help for you. If I caught the gist of it with a few clicks you could recreate the old PQs with the advantage of having them be new in the eyes of the system. That puts them at the front of the to run list. You'll get 'em faster.

That is all well and good until Firefox <potty language removed> the bed like mine did recently and I lost all of my add ons and the data that they held. You can not back up add on info. GC keeps their servers backed up quite nicely.

 

I wasn't speaking to you.

Edited by Motorcycle_Mama
Link to comment

 

I wasn't speaking to you.

My thread, so you are speaking to me and anyone else who has posted.

 

Rather than requiring their members to jump through a bunch of band aid hoops, I think GC should just allow more PQs that could safely be backed up on their servers. Makes more sense and is safer.

Link to comment

 

I wasn't speaking to you.

My thread, so you are speaking to me and anyone else who has posted.

 

Rather than requiring their members to jump through a bunch of band aid hoops, I think GC should just allow more PQs that could safely be backed up on their servers. Makes more sense and is safer.

Requests for new features often bring suggestions for workarounds using existing features or third party programs. The people making these suggestions are trying to be helpful. They are in fact saying "Your suggestion is a good idea, here's a way to do it now instead of waiting until Grounspeak decides to implement it". Storing information on Groundspeak servers may or may not be more secure than using a FireFox add-in to save forms. I suspect that if you properly back up your system you won't have any trouble if FireFox "s***s the bed" as you so colorfully put it. It just makes me wonder what will you do if GSAK crashes and you lose your offline database. Just another reason to get fresh data in your PQ every time :laughing:

Link to comment

 

I wasn't speaking to you.

My thread, so you are speaking to me and anyone else who has posted.

 

Rather than requiring their members to jump through a bunch of band aid hoops, I think GC should just allow more PQs that could safely be backed up on their servers. Makes more sense and is safer.

Requests for new features often bring suggestions for workarounds using existing features or third party programs. The people making these suggestions are trying to be helpful. They are in fact saying "Your suggestion is a good idea, here's a way to do it now instead of waiting until Grounspeak decides to implement it". Storing information on Groundspeak servers may or may not be more secure than using a FireFox add-in to save forms. I suspect that if you properly back up your system you won't have any trouble if FireFox "s***s the bed" as you so colorfully put it. It just makes me wonder what will you do if GSAK crashes and you lose your offline database. Just another reason to get fresh data in your PQ every time :laughing:

I have not problems with work a rounds. GSAK is one of the best. The autofill forms add on does not keep the saved data anywhere I can find, so it would be difficult to back up. Th forms are hidden somewhere inside the Mozilla folder. Where I have no idea. On the other hand with GSAK it is almost impossible to loose your data. If the system crashes, it will rebuilt your database.

 

Grundspeak already back up all of the PQs as it is, so it would be easy for them to increase the limit and then the PQs will be automatically backed up.

Link to comment

It is all about you after all, right?

I believe I said that you speak to me AND EVERY ONE ELSE WHO POSTED.

 

If you were directing your comments at one person, you should have sent a message, not posted a reply on a general board.

I answered the post I quoted. If Flask got something out of my answer fine. If anyone else did that's a bonus. If you did to, well, that's just the breaks I guess.

Link to comment

It is all about you after all, right?

I believe I said that you speak to me AND EVERY ONE ELSE WHO POSTED.

 

If you were directing your comments at one person, you should have sent a message, not posted a reply on a general board.

I answered the post I quoted. If Flask got something out of my answer fine. If anyone else did that's a bonus. If you did to, well, that's just the breaks I guess.

Yes, you did answer, but your answer in my opinion adds to the problem on GC servers. Your method is to save the form information then delete the PQ and at a later date create it again and run it. If I am not mistaken, one of the previous posters stated that the old PQs are not removed from the server when deleted but are just archived. If this is true (and no one has refuted it), then every new PQ you create after deleting an old one is stacked onto the server, taking up more space than one PQ that you reuse. Yes, it might move you up the que, but you are basically just making the PQ list bigger.

Link to comment

It is all about you after all, right?

I believe I said that you speak to me AND EVERY ONE ELSE WHO POSTED.

 

If you were directing your comments at one person, you should have sent a message, not posted a reply on a general board.

I answered the post I quoted. If Flask got something out of my answer fine. If anyone else did that's a bonus. If you did to, well, that's just the breaks I guess.

Yes, you did answer, but your answer in my opinion adds to the problem on GC servers. Your method is to save the form information then delete the PQ and at a later date create it again and run it. If I am not mistaken, one of the previous posters stated that the old PQs are not removed from the server when deleted but are just archived. If this is true (and no one has refuted it), then every new PQ you create after deleting an old one is stacked onto the server, taking up more space than one PQ that you reuse. Yes, it might move you up the que, but you are basically just making the PQ list bigger.

You are assuming that the problem, if there is one, is a lack of space. I have no idea what the problem is. Nor do I care. I know that I configure a new PQ when I am ready to cache and that it seldom takes more than a few minutes to hit my email. I'm happy.

Link to comment

It is all about you after all, right?

I believe I said that you speak to me AND EVERY ONE ELSE WHO POSTED.

 

If you were directing your comments at one person, you should have sent a message, not posted a reply on a general board.

I answered the post I quoted. If Flask got something out of my answer fine. If anyone else did that's a bonus. If you did to, well, that's just the breaks I guess.

Yes, you did answer, but your answer in my opinion adds to the problem on GC servers. Your method is to save the form information then delete the PQ and at a later date create it again and run it. If I am not mistaken, one of the previous posters stated that the old PQs are not removed from the server when deleted but are just archived. If this is true (and no one has refuted it), then every new PQ you create after deleting an old one is stacked onto the server, taking up more space than one PQ that you reuse. Yes, it might move you up the que, but you are basically just making the PQ list bigger.

You are assuming that the problem, if there is one, is a lack of space. I have no idea what the problem is. Nor do I care. I know that I configure a new PQ when I am ready to cache and that it seldom takes more than a few minutes to hit my email. I'm happy.

I think I remember a quote I heard recently, "It is all about you after all, right?".

 

So, which are you the pot or the kettle?

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