+DustyJacket Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Rather than request 500 caches so I can find 10 or 20 nearest where I will be, allow a query to be like: Nearest 20 caches to <location> that I have not found. That way, I can keep expanding my area for finding caches, and maybe save some processing power of the servers. Of course, if someone puts in a zip code, I have no idea what they'd get. In this database, is a ZIP code located at the post office that delivers to it, or in the center of the ZIP code area? DustyJacket Not all those that wander are lost. But in my case... [This message was edited by DustyJacket on April 01, 2003 at 09:58 PM.] Link to comment
+Marky Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 I'm not sure what you are asking for here, but it sounds to me like you can already do this with pocket queries. You can set the <location> to be any lat/lon coords and then request any number from 1 to 500 nearest caches. Am I misunderstanding what you are trying to get? --Marky "All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr" Link to comment
+Marky Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Oh, I think it's the "not found" thing that you are asking for, which is also already there in the pocket queries. My pocket queries are always: caches that I haven't found and that I don't own. And just like you said, the more I find, the farther out the resulting list gets. Look close to the second section of checkboxes on the pocket query form and check the box labeled "I haven't found" and "I don't own". I think that will do the trick for you. --Marky "All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr" Link to comment
+DustyJacket Posted April 1, 2003 Author Share Posted April 1, 2003 Sorry, but I must have not explained it well. Right now, you can specify a location, a radius, and the number of caches. To be able to find the 20 closest caches to my house, that I have not found yet, I'd have to constantly tamper with the radius. it would be nice to just specify the "20 closest to <location> that I have not found", and maybe then I would not have to ask for a large number of caches and play around with the distance, to find the closest ones for a wekkend of caching. Either that, or Jeremy and friends could explain the order caches are retrieved in a query. If there are 100 caches within a 10 mile circle and I ask for 20, which 20 make it? By alphabetical order? Date placed? Distance? I doubt it is distance, because I've examine the LOC/GPX files as they are received. DustyJacket Not all those that wander are lost. But in my case... Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Um...what's wrong with picking a radius you like like 10 miles and going with the caches within the radius? If there are more than 20 you have more to chose from. If there are less, sounds like you wouldn't drive that far anyway. ??? Wherever you go there you are. Link to comment
+DustyJacket Posted April 1, 2003 Author Share Posted April 1, 2003 Renegade - I was trying to consider the wasted load on the servers, and wasted bandwidth. My 2 weekly queries that I use return a lot more waypoints than I need, just to get the closest caches, without fiddling with the distance each time. I don't really need 250 caches in my GPS for one week, and maybe it would reduce some of the bottleneck we are seeing on these queries. Or maybe not. DustyJacket Not all those that wander are lost. But in my case... Link to comment
+ClayJar Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 DJ, I believe you have the opportunity to empirically test how the Pocket Queries are generated. I don't know whether they are in order of increasing radius for a center-radius query, but I can tell you how to find out. (Then you could tell us the results and we could add them to the FAQ.) To answer the question, you need to make an identical twin of one of your existing under-the-limit Pocket Queries (perhaps you have one set to max 250 and it only returns, say, 217). Then, on the duplicated query, drop the max down to, say, 10 while leaving everything else the same. Then you'll have a max-limited Pocket Query and an under-the-limit Pocket Query both with the same center, radius, et al. Now just take those two GPX files and compare them. The simplest way to compare them would probably be to start two copies of Watcher and load one of the GPX files in each. Then just sort the cache lists by the same center you used in the Pocket Query and see if the max-limited is the first 10 (or whatever you used) caches of the under-the-limit one. If it is, then you know that they are the first X caches, sorted by ascending distance. (Alternately, if you don't want to do this experiment, please say so and we'll track someone else down to do it.) [Watcher Downloads] - [Official Geocaching Chat] Link to comment
+Markwell Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 I've asked this question repeatedly of TPTB, with no response. If I request a subset of caches that results in more than 500 (the max), which ones get left off? Markwell Chicago Geocaching Link to comment
+ClayJar Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Markwell:I've asked this question repeatedly of TPTB, with no response. If I request a subset of caches that results in more than 500 (the max), which ones get left off? My understanding is that if it is a radial query, the results will be the closest N caches. If it is an areal query (such as a state), the results will be the first N caches by ID. If someone would like to do an experiment to verify the areal queries, just do the same thing as above, but for an areal query instead of a radial query. (It's not at all hard to figure these things out, but I don't have the open PQs to do it myself.) [Watcher Downloads] - [Official Geocaching Chat] Link to comment
+Marky Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 quote:Originally posted by DustyJacket:To be able to find the 20 closest caches to my house, that I have not found yet, I'd have to constantly tamper with the radius. This is confusing to me. If you have your home coords entered in to the PQ, and request: Give me 20 caches of Type Traditional;Multi-Cache;Unknown Cache that I haven't found;I don't own From origin: the Lat/Lon coords of your house; Radius 100 miles This will always give you the 20 nearest caches to your house (until there are less that 20 within 100 miles of your house). What am I missing here? --Marky "All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr" Link to comment
+gnbrotz Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Marky:What am I missing here? I'm with Marky. While I agree that CJ's experiment might help clear some things up, I don't think the results are necessary to solve DJ's problem. I think Marky's got it right. Also, I am currently testing the increasing radius theory. I will post the results when the experiment is complete. Greg N 39 54.705' W 77 33.137' [This message was edited by gnbrotz on April 01, 2003 at 04:45 PM.] Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 This is some interesting reading. My problem is naturally different from the others but knowing what the search results actually picks up would help. In Utah (a geocaching powerhouse) I've got virgin terrirory for my caching endeavors. Within 100 miles of the border I max out my querie at 500. I'd rather have all the caches between the Border and Salt Lake City... But I don't even know what I'm really getting. Closest X caches, or first 500 that came up when the limit hit. Wherever you go there you are. Link to comment
+DustyJacket Posted April 1, 2003 Author Share Posted April 1, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Marky:This will always give you the 20 nearest caches to your house (until there are less that 20 within 100 miles of your house). That was my point. I don't think it will give me the 20 closest. Just 20 within the 100 miles. (At least that is what happened when I tried it a few weeks ago.) I am redoing my test, so I'll have a better clue tomorrow night. Stay tuned! DustyJacket Not all those that wander are lost. But in my case... Link to comment
+ClayJar Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 gnb dropped by the chat to say that he tried the experiment and that for a radial query you do indeed get them from closest to farthest. So, if you did a query for the 25 closest-to-a-spot caches you've not found, that's precisely what you'll get. Distance is the primary order for radial queries. (We could still use someone to do a query to find out about areal or non-radial queries.) Thanks to brdad who donated two of his unused PQs to answer the second question. When you're doing a non-radial query (such as by state or by cache type), the GCID is the basis. The first seven CITOcaches by GCID were included in the max-limited PQ, and all eleven were in the under-the-limit PQ. So, we have no empirically analyzed the situation. If there is a center point (a zip code, coordinates, and the like), you'll get the N closest caches to that point. If there is no center point (a state, a cache type, and the like), you'll get the N earliest submitted caches. Hope this answers any questions that may have been lurking. [Watcher Downloads] - [Official Geocaching Chat] [This message was edited by ClayJar on April 01, 2003 at 06:28 PM.] Link to comment
+DustyJacket Posted April 1, 2003 Author Share Posted April 1, 2003 Yes, it does resolve the differences I was seeing. Thanks. Consider this request officially closed. DustyJacket Not all those that wander are lost. But in my case... Link to comment
Recommended Posts