The PQ-Limit of 500 caches is outdated!

[+Palpitation]

I think the reason GC.com limits the amount of caches in a PQ to 500 is due to server limits. That's an ICT problem. Every ICT Person should know about the Law of Moore that tells us that every year, limits are doubled. The speed of CPUs, the speed of the Internet, the size of Hard Disk Drivers etc etc. Alas, the limit of 500 has not been increased since at least 2003, when I joined the GC community. If the limit in 2003 was 500 and it should have been doubled each year, it should now, in 2010, be 64,000. Alright, that's really a great number, but it would really be nice to increase the number to, let's say, 1,000 or 2,500 or something. What do you think about this? The density of caches in a region has increased a lot the last years so it takes more than the maximum of 20 PQs per e-mail each week to fetch them all for the desired area. For instance, I live in the Netherlands which had about 2,500 caches in 2003 and required 5 PQs to get them all. Getting all Dutch caches is understandable for a small country (125x190 miles), but now it takes more than 20 PQs to get all Dutch caches. Increasing the limit of PQs would be very nice. Of course, the number of geocachers had also increased, but so has the power of hardware. Why does Groundspeak not increase the limit for PQs to 1,000, 2,000, 2,500 or something? I think many of us would really appreciate it. What is your opinion and does Groundspeak read this and think about this issue?

[+StarBrand]

Ok - Jermey has promised to raise the limit to 1000 per PQ by Early May.

[GOF and Bacall]

You are behind the curve, as well as in the wrong forum. TPTB have stated that they are working on it. Should be a fairly quick upgrade, or as quick as anything that GS does.

[+Palpitation]

You are behind the curve, as well as in the wrong forum. TPTB have stated that they are working on it. Should be a fairly quick upgrade, or as quick as anything that GS does.

 

Thank you both for the answers. I'm sorry for being in the wrong forum. I looked for a specific one but must have overlooked it. I spend a lot of time on caching and not so much in foruming. That must be the reason for being 'behind the curve'. I'm glad to hear it will be doubled soon!

[GOF and Bacall]

Hey, no biggy. Just glad we had the info for you. Trying to search on these forums is a bitch at best. It was discussed on the website forum not all that long ago.

[+debaere]

I think the reason GC.com limits the amount of caches in a PQ to 500 is due to server limits. That's an ICT problem. Every ICT Person should know about the Law of Moore that tells us that every year, limits are doubled. The speed of CPUs, the speed of the Internet, the size of Hard Disk Drivers etc etc. Alas, the limit of 500 has not been increased since at least 2003, when I joined the GC community. If the limit in 2003 was 500 and it should have been doubled each year, it should now, in 2010, be 64,000. Alright, that's really a great number, but it would really be nice to increase the number to, let's say, 1,000 or 2,500 or something. What do you think about this? The density of caches in a region has increased a lot the last years so it takes more than the maximum of 20 PQs per e-mail each week to fetch them all for the desired area. For instance, I live in the Netherlands which had about 2,500 caches in 2003 and required 5 PQs to get them all. Getting all Dutch caches is understandable for a small country (125x190 miles), but now it takes more than 20 PQs to get all Dutch caches. Increasing the limit of PQs would be very nice. Of course, the number of geocachers had also increased, but so has the power of hardware. Why does Groundspeak not increase the limit for PQs to 1,000, 2,000, 2,500 or something? I think many of us would really appreciate it. What is your opinion and does Groundspeak read this and think about this issue?

 

Personally I never do PQ's with 500 caches so its never bothered me. I do find the 500 cache limit on the Google Maps interface a tad annoying (tho thats a discussion for another area of the forums.

 

I do have an issue with your arguments that GroundSpeaks capacity for larger PQs should increase with Moores Law. If the number of users and caches was static then I could buy it, however there are many other factors that affect the resources of their server farm. First the number of users has increased dramatically since 2003. Second, they use Windows as an OS, which also sucks up more resources with each release. Third, you are making the grand assumption that they are buying new hardware, and have the same number (or more) machines than they had in 2003. Fourth, Groundspeak runs multiple services now (geocaching.com, Wherigo, Waymarking) so their resources are being split between them.

 

All of these factors make it possible that the resources/user have not changed nearly at the rate of Moores Law I would be surprised if the ratio hasn't increased tho (and the announcement that the PQ limit will be raised to 1000 seems to point to this) however the lag I see on their servers from time to time seems to indicate its not at the rate of Moores Law.

 

Not to mention that Moores Law doesn't state that computer resources double, but the number of transistors in a chip can double every 18 months. CPUs have not been getting faster at the exponential rate of Moores Law. They have been using those extra transitors to add multiple CPUs in the same chip - this means that the chip can do more processing in parallel. However this assumes that the software running on those CPUs can efficiently handle the extra processors in a machine. If it doesn't, then much of a computers resources will not being utilized.

 

Anyhoo, I don't know if anyone will read this, but I appreciate the mental exercise of explaining it. I didn't proof read it, so YMMV.

[+FreeBird65]

I personally think that 1 million caches should be allowed - per Austin Powers.

[Mr.Yuck]

You are behind the curve, as well as in the wrong forum. TPTB have stated that they are working on it. Should be a fairly quick upgrade, or as quick as anything that GS does.

 

Thank you both for the answers. I'm sorry for being in the wrong forum. I looked for a specific one but must have overlooked it. I spend a lot of time on caching and not so much in foruming. That must be the reason for being 'behind the curve'. I'm glad to hear it will be doubled soon!

 

Yeah, he actually said by the 10th anniversary of Geocaching in early May. I don't have a linky handy though, but you have enough people saying so.

[+Chrysalides]

Yeah, he actually said by the 10th anniversary of Geocaching in early May. I don't have a linky handy though, but you have enough people saying so.

What we tell you three times is true?

 

I just gave the link in another thread in the website forum, but I don't think it is necessary to repeat here again.

 

Edit : oh, what the heck. Here it is : http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...p;#entry4251888

Edited April 8, 2010 by Chrysalides

[+t4e]

tbh even 500 is too much, unless you're out to break the record of 600+ caches in 24 hours, 500 is way more than i will do in one run, the next PQ will exclude the finds and i will still have 500 caches that i won't be able to reach in one trip

 

i would like to hear a good reason for loading all caches in NL in one go, or in any large area for that matter

Edited April 8, 2010 by t4e

[+Chrysalides]

i would like to hear a good reason for loading all caches in NL in one go, or in any large area for that matter

I load all caches within 25 miles of me into my GPSr. It's a reasonable area that I might be in an average day. If I happen to be in an area, I'd like to know if there are caches in there. Currently that's about 4500 geocaches.

 

Having all the caches in GSAK also allows me to run certain queries that Groundspeak does not easily allow.

 

From your post, it appears that you only request a PQ for the caches you're going to attempt that day. That's a valid usage scenario, but not how all of us do it.

[Mr.Yuck]

i would like to hear a good reason for loading all caches in NL in one go, or in any large area for that matter

I load all caches within 25 miles of me into my GPSr. It's a reasonable area that I might be in an average day. If I happen to be in an area, I'd like to know if there are caches in there. Currently that's about 4500 geocaches.

 

Having all the caches in GSAK also allows me to run certain queries that Groundspeak does not easily allow.

 

From your post, it appears that you only request a PQ for the caches you're going to attempt that day. That's a valid usage scenario, but not how all of us do it.

 

Yes, I've seen first hand (or heard tales of) some nice databases out there. Not me though, I'm actually a lo-fi cacher. Don't even have a copy of GSAK, although I have in the past.

[+slukster]

PaLPiTaTioN,

If you set up your PQ's to exclude the caches you have already found it should cut down on the # of PQ's needed.

[+Vater_Araignee]

tbh even 500 is too much, unless you're out to break the record of 600+ caches in 24 hours, 500 is way more than i will do in one run, the next PQ will exclude the finds and i will still have 500 caches that i won't be able to reach in one trip

 

i would like to hear a good reason for loading all caches in NL in one go, or in any large area for that matter

It takes 12-13 PQ's just to get all the not archived caches in Michigan prior to 2008, I'm not done getting it current.

some of us are into using them for statistical analysis.

I would like to know how many people are listing their caches as being placed prior to 2009 in 2010 for one example.

Some want to track archival.

Ferret out the most popular county of the year for overall caches.

Ferret out the most popular county of the year for new caches.

And that,s just on a state level.

Most popular state/county in the country.

Most popular country in the world by square mile.

All of these factors could determine where a person would want to cache.

 

Interested in tracking amounts of archivals, only realistic way to know what has been archived is by loading two two sets of caches taken at different times into gsak, eliminating everything that is duplicated, then removing the individuals from the most recent pq.

 

Back to direct caching. There have been times when I was suppose to go to Grand Rapids on day one and return home on day two only to end up in Grayling before I came home.

One time I was going to Mackinac, said what the heck and ended up at Bodi Lake in the Newberry State Forrest Area less than 2 miles from Lake Superior. 70 miles ATCF from my original destination or about 90 miles by road.

Sounds like compelling reasons to have every cache in Michigan to me.

 

SIDE NOTE: I was surprised to see you couldn't set the date further back than 1995, I swear at one point you could and I had found a cache that claimed to be placed in the 80's and I have heard of a cache claiming placement decades earlier.

[+t4e]

i would like to hear a good reason for loading all caches in NL in one go, or in any large area for that matter

I load all caches within 25 miles of me into my GPSr. It's a reasonable area that I might be in an average day. If I happen to be in an area, I'd like to know if there are caches in there. Currently that's about 4500 geocaches.

 

Having all the caches in GSAK also allows me to run certain queries that Groundspeak does not easily allow.

 

From your post, it appears that you only request a PQ for the caches you're going to attempt that day. That's a valid usage scenario, but not how all of us do it.

 

 

your opinion doesn't count, you live in CA which has an extremely high concentration of caches

most areas though don't have that many

for regular days caching we have a PQ for a 100KM radius, in the weekends we pick and area and run it for that

if we're away on vacation than we'll need a couple extra PQ's to cover everything

 

@ Vater_Araignee...that sounds like you're building your own copy of GC database, that's not "normal" caching needs

 

as for the date, well geocaching is 10 years old this year, i doubt that anything you heard that claims to have been placed prior to that date is listed on GC

Edited April 9, 2010 by t4e

[+Palpitation]

PaLPiTaTioN,

If you set up your PQ's to exclude the caches you have already found it should cut down on the # of PQ's needed.

 

I already do so, which makes the total number of PQs 19. It saves about 1150 caches so 2 or 3 PQs. Why do I want to have all Dutch caches in GSAK up to date? Well, I was used to use GSAK to determine where I'll go geocaching and to make exports to TomTom, OziExplorer and Garmin devices. The new way to find caches with Google Maps has replaced the way I search for caches before I leave my pc, but still I use GSAK to make the mentioned exports. And because I visit a large part of our country multiple times per week, I like to have them all for the country. If I should include only a part of the country, the part I would exclude is the part where the least amount of inhabitants live and thus the part with the least amount of caches. Well, anyways, I visit these forums only so now and then and hadn't found the previous mentioned discussions on the issue. I did look for it, so please don't mind me starting a new thread about it.

 

And thanks all for helping me out!

[+Spl1nt3rC3ll]

I still don't understand how you all are able to fill your GPSrs with so many pocket queries. It only takes two queries to completely fill up my Oregon 400t's memory. How the heck do you guys get 20?!

[+Vater_Araignee]

i would like to hear a good reason for loading all caches in NL in one go, or in any large area for that matter

I load all caches within 25 miles of me into my GPSr. It's a reasonable area that I might be in an average day. If I happen to be in an area, I'd like to know if there are caches in there. Currently that's about 4500 geocaches.

 

Having all the caches in GSAK also allows me to run certain queries that Groundspeak does not easily allow.

 

From your post, it appears that you only request a PQ for the caches you're going to attempt that day. That's a valid usage scenario, but not how all of us do it.

 

 

your opinion doesn't count, you live in CA which has an extremely high concentration of caches

most areas though don't have that many

for regular days caching we have a PQ for a 100KM radius, in the weekends we pick and area and run it for that

if we're away on vacation than we'll need a couple extra PQ's to cover everything

 

@ Vater_Araignee...that sounds like you're building your own copy of GC database, that's not "normal" caching needs

 

as for the date, well geocaching is 10 years old this year, i doubt that anything you heard that claims to have been placed prior to that date is listed on GC

No, I just understand what others may want to do and what else I can do with what I'm getting. My base reason for all caches in Michigan is, never know where I'll be when I head out without purpose or responsibility for days. It doesn't happen often anymore but it does happen.

 

There are waystashes that have been converted to geocaches.

There are letterboxes converted to geocaches and letterbox hybrids.

There are caches that do have older dates because they fit with a theme.

And I never claimed that they where in fact placed on those dates just that the COs listed them as such.

I nada ditiot. Hence the the lines "a cache that claimed to be placed in the 80's" and "a cache claiming placement decades earlier".

If I remember correctly one had an ALR that required you to go back in time to find it, IE post an incorrect found it date. since it seemed as if it could only be interesting because of the ALR I suppose it got archived.

That's all beside the point of the date issue. If a cache has a "date placed" that is before 01/01/1995, it will not show up in a date search.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I still don't understand how you all are able to fill your GPSrs with so many pocket queries. It only takes two queries to completely fill up my Oregon 400t's memory. How the heck do you guys get 20?!

Soft modded Mio running BeelineGPS and 4 gig sd cards.

All my Beeline data bases are county named and I'll brake it down to quadrants if I need to so that I have less than 300 per database.

[+jeepdelfuego]

I still don't understand how you all are able to fill your GPSrs with so many pocket queries. It only takes two queries to completely fill up my Oregon 400t's memory. How the heck do you guys get 20?!

 

I have over 40 PQ's on my Garmin Oregon 300. They cover mostly Southern California, and parts of Nevada and Arizona. I keep them on my 8GB Micro SD card under a directory I created called Backup GPX. But, I only use 4-6 PQ's at a time with a total of 2000 geocaches. When I travel out of my usual caching area, I don't use my computer to move the PQ's around. I pop the memory card into my phone, which has a file manager, and move them in and out of the garmin/gpx directory. My system would be a lot easier if Garmin would incorporate a file manager into their GPSR's.