Increase of Pocket Query Limits?

[+ecanderson]

First, no matter what number is chosen there will be some that have a need that is greater than the new limit.

True. I remember when PQa were limited to 500 caches and everyone on the fourms was saying "Please, just give us 1000 and we'll be happy."

 

Basically, until you let everyone download the entire database with a single click there will be someone out there who will come up with some use case justifying why the limit needs to be higher.

 

Whether or not they could increase the limit without negatively impacting the server is a question I think should best be left to Groundspeak's I.T. experts.

To counter this a bit ...

 

I am unable to load the entire area in which I cache using the PQ provided by Groundspeak. I AM able to do so with GSAK because I need not deal with areas not wanted but covered by parts of circles. I am even able to do so without using the 'extra' 1000 caches that GSAK's API allows (it's 6,000 total vs. 5 x 1,000).

 

Granted, that just happens to fit my geography and total finds which are substantial in the area, and not everyone will be happy with the total count that is possible with GSAK either, but it does work far better than circles.

[team tisri]

First, no matter what number is chosen there will be some that have a need that is greater than the new limit.

True. I remember when PQa were limited to 500 caches and everyone on the fourms was saying "Please, just give us 1000 and we'll be happy."

 

Basically, until you let everyone download the entire database with a single click there will be someone out there who will come up with some use case justifying why the limit needs to be higher.

 

Whether or not they could increase the limit without negatively impacting the server is a question I think should best be left to Groundspeak's I.T. experts.

 

I'm not asking for the daily limit to be increased, just for a change in how the limit is calculated.

 

At present I can run 5 queries containing 1000 caches each, for a daily total of 5000 caches. If I can run one query containing 5000 caches there is no change in the limit.

 

Over time Groundspeak can raise the limit if they see fit (just as they did shifting from 500 to 1000 caches per query)

[+Markwell]

why cant one pocket query include all the caches inside the county/state/province whatever? How much more bandwidth would that take?

Really?

 

First - there's no "county" listed on the site, so it's not an easy variable (unless you're not talking about the US county).

 

State/Province> Illinois has 31925 current caches. But what if I live in Chicago and routinely travel to Indiana and Wisconsin for business? Indiana has 20601, Wisconsin has 26692. So right now, the PQ does 1,000 caches per query. Three queries would give 3,000. In my example, you're asking for 60678 caches.

 

Don't even START if you live in Alturas, California and want California (126,699), Oregon (33280) and Nevada (22745).

[+HanSolo68]

First, no matter what number is chosen there will be some that have a need that is greater than the new limit.

True. I remember when PQa were limited to 500 caches and everyone on the fourms was saying "Please, just give us 1000 and we'll be happy."

 

Basically, until you let everyone download the entire database with a single click there will be someone out there who will come up with some use case justifying why the limit needs to be higher.

 

Whether or not they could increase the limit without negatively impacting the server is a question I think should best be left to Groundspeak's I.T. experts.

 

I also remember, when the limit was increased to 1000. At that time you could also catch a wide area with that 1000 caches limit.

 

It is not in my interest to download the whole world at once. But I would like to prepare my vacation in a reasonable time. Some time ago, I asked for ready-to-download PQs for whole countries for the same need.

 

Sorry for asking to rise the limit. Of course it is not in the interest of geocachers to spend more time in the wood instead of optimizing PQs to get some more with the current limitations.

 

Best regards,

HanSolo68

[+HanSolo68]

It is really interesting how many people know, what can be done with the hardware, the servers, the software of Groundspeak.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It is really interesting how many people know, what can be done with the hardware, the servers, the software of Groundspeak.

 

There are also people that know that "what can be done" is not always the same as "what should be done".

 

 

[+funkymunkyzone]

What has always amused me with PQs, and limiting them to run only once per day, when you can go to your PQ and run a preview of it, which runs the entire query, any time of day you want and many times per day if you want.

This really isn't the case at all. Yes, it retrieves the list of caches, but only a list of 20 at a time and at that, just a few details of each of those 20 caches. It does not create the GPX file and save it off, etc, etc.

Perhaps, but in fact it does report the total number of results, so while it is not returning all of the columns of all the results, it is running the query over the entire database to find the total number of matching results... So we're both right.

[+funkymunkyzone]

It would probably be nice if the PQ limit could increase somewhat on par with the number of active geocaches in the world. I totally understand those that argue why do you need to download thousands just to find a few, and suggest planning better where you'll be, but some of us just don't travel that way. Personally I find it a lot more fun to just see where the road takes us - very often we travel without any pre-booked accommodation or plans on where we'll be any day/night other than a very *general* idea - so for me, I do like to have a larger area of caches loaded.

[+funkymunkyzone]

If I recall my geometry correctly, more and smaller circles (hence, more PQs made smaller) would cover the greatest area with a minimum of overlap (caches common to two or more PQs) that waste valuable PQ total count. IIRC, a honeycomb pattern of circles works best.

No, you recall your geometry incorrectly. It actually makes no difference.

I may not have correctly stated the problem, but it does make a difference, and it's not a trivial mathematical exercise, and in that, my recollection was correct.

http://stackoverflow...-radius-circles

and many others.

No, it makes no difference. For a particular pattern (yes honeycomb is best) it does not matter what radius you choose - the ratio of overlapped to non-overlapped will be the same.

 

In terms of wasted PQ space, it would only matter if you took it to a bit of an extreme - as in your PQ radius is less than about 161m and the max overlap area is therefore less than 161m long (and only about 45m wide), meaning at most you'd have 1 physical cache located within the overlap area.

[+ecanderson]

If that were the case, then one could adequately define any rectangle with two large circles, which clearly leaves a bit of a mess between the overlap and those portions of the circles outside the bounds of the rectangle.

 

Still, as I pointed out earlier, I operate to a fairly hard line to the west during snow season, and any circle whose west half was entirely unusable certainly wouldn't be of any help to me. Any less than that, and some portion of the area east of the 'line' is missed... hence the use of additional (smaller) circles.

 

For those reasons and more, I much prefer rectangles, but not everyone is in a position to use software that will provide them as bounds for a PQ.

[+Dave.Halpenny]

It is really interesting how many people know, what can be done with the hardware, the servers, the software of Groundspeak.

 

There are also people that know that "what can be done" is not always the same as "what should be done".

 

It is really interesting how many posts came from Groundspeak. That tells me "what will be done".

[+Walts Hunting]

First, no matter what number is chosen there will be some that have a need that is greater than the new limit.

True. I remember when PQa were limited to 500 caches and everyone on the fourms was saying "Please, just give us 1000 and we'll be happy."

 

Basically, until you let everyone download the entire database with a single click there will be someone out there who will come up with some use case justifying why the limit needs to be higher.

 

Whether or not they could increase the limit without negatively impacting the server is a question I think should best be left to Groundspeak's I.T. experts.

 

I'm not asking for the daily limit to be increased, just for a change in how the limit is calculated.

 

At present I can run 5 queries containing 1000 caches each, for a daily total of 5000 caches. If I can run one query containing 5000 caches there is no change in the limit.

 

Over time Groundspeak can raise the limit if they see fit (just as they did shifting from 500 to 1000 caches per query)

 

What you are looking for is the API call on GSAK. You can get up to 6000 caches although it does limit the range to 62 mile diagonal/diameter on a rectangle/circle. Plus you can save the search to run again if necessary. Might take saving a couple of queries to overlap all the area you want but is really nice once setup.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Walts Hunting

[+ecanderson]

@Walt

Ran up against that annoying 62 mile corner-to-corner measurement as well. Then one day, I accidentally tweaked one of the actual coordinates on an entry to gain some additional coverage in one direction, and without knowing it, I'd gone past the 62 limit and was picking up additional caches in the larger area. It may be just an artificial limit of the rectangle drawing code vs. some limit of the API. Groundspeak seems to cough up whatever is in my box. Here's what I am using, which cannot be duplicated with the map tool, but doesn't seem to leave any area out of the request:

 

Northern Colorado / 40.75,-105.21 / 40.00,-104.45

 

That comes out to a box with a diagonal of 65.47 miles.

[+Walts Hunting]

it appears the limit is the same for circle or rectangle. Diagonal or diameter.i am thinking it is a GS limit for the api

Edited April 4, 2014 by Walts Hunting

[+ecanderson]

I don't seem to be missing any caches within the larger (65-1/2 mile) rectangle. I had re-sized the request manually, forgetting that I'd already used the 'limit' on the map tool, to catch some at the 'eastern edges' of the now larger box, and they're all present and accounted for -- about 270 caches. I may experiment with the manual entry of an even larger box by increasing the extent of the eastern bound (to something on the order of a 70 mile diagonal) to see what happens. Up in the northern part of Colorado, I don't have to worry about going anywhere near 1000 caches, but there are plenty scattered up there to play with.

[+gjhimages]

Yes, I would like to see the pocket queries increased to 2500-4000. The 1000 maximum does seem to be somewhat antiqueted with today's technology.

 

What about we are able to choose an area on a map and then that area is analyzed to see how many caches are in that area, with a query (s) to follow if accepted?

 

It is very hard to get 4 queries (circles) to not have empty spaces with out overlapping caches in two queries. I am constantly moving a waypoint right/left and up/down to determine the correct area without missing some caches and not overlapping. I even have made a small query to get areas that have been missed.

 

Another reason is when going on a trip to different parts of the country, I would like to have available on my GPS caches that I am visiting. Yes I would like to place 12,000 of them on my GPS. I do not have a lap top to download, so I would want to download them on my GPS prior to leaving. Yes I have an iPhone, but placing them in has a waypoint o my GPS is not fun and sometimes I do get the numbers wrong!

 

Please think about increasing the amount of geocaches for each pocket query and also the method of obtaining the query.

[+Walts Hunting]

I may sound like a broken record but GSAK handles that by allowing you to draw a rectangle instead of a circle and ask for the daily API limit of 6000. Make sure the rectangle is small enough to fill with less than that. Then you can work the edges with little or no overlap. I have never gone for 12000 but using it when in new areas like that works pretty good.

Edited April 20, 2014 by Walts Hunting

[+gjhimages]

I may sound like a broken record but GSAK handles that by allowing you to draw a rectangle instead of a circle and ask for the daily API limit of 6000. Make sure the rectangle is small enough to fill with less than that. Then you can work the edges with little or no overlap. I have never gone for 12000 but using it when in new areas like that works pretty good.

 

Thanks for the suggestion but GSAK only works for PC and not Macs. I also choose to not run a parallel system or crossover software. All I am asking that Groundspeak consider allowing more caches in a query and think about adding a different method to make a query. If GSAK can perform what I am asking for then why cannot Groundspeak?

[+frinklabs]

I may sound like a broken record but GSAK handles that by allowing you to draw a rectangle instead of a circle and ask for the daily API limit of 6000. Make sure the rectangle is small enough to fill with less than that. Then you can work the edges with little or no overlap. I have never gone for 12000 but using it when in new areas like that works pretty good.

 

Thanks for the suggestion but GSAK only works for PC and not Macs. I also choose to not run a parallel system or crossover software. All I am asking that Groundspeak consider allowing more caches in a query and think about adding a different method to make a query. If GSAK can perform what I am asking for then why cannot Groundspeak?

 

Someone more cynical than me might suggest because GSAK can perform what you are asking that Groundspeak doesn't feel they have to bother.

 

A win-win solution would be for Groundspeak to host GSAK on their servers and provide a platform-agnostic web interface to its functionality.

[+DonB]

Hello Groundspeak,

 

As we are now in 2014, would you consider an increase of the limits for pocket queries?

 

My suggestion would be:

- PQ limit to 2500 when downloaded

- Max. 10 per day

 

I am very sure your hardware could handle that.

 

Best regards,

HanSolo68

Not arguing, just asking. Why would anyone need to download 25000 caches a day?

[+niraD]

Not arguing, just asking. Why would anyone need to download 25000 caches a day?

Maybe they're going to spend a few weeks in a remote location with no internet connection, where they're going to do 10 numbers run trails, each the size of the ET Highway trail.

 

Or maybe not...

[+dprovan]

Not arguing, just asking. Why would anyone need to download 25000 caches a day?

Maybe they're going to spend a few weeks in a remote location with no internet connection, where they're going to do 10 numbers run trails, each the size of the ET Highway trail.

This is an interesting point. I don't bump into the limit too often, but when I do, it's a one time thing like this. So I'd be perfectly happy if the limit was changed from 5 a day to 35 a week. Even 15 a week would have been enough to keep me from ever hitting the limit in any PQs I've done in my 4 years of caching. But, of course, this would be a real problem if you did hit the limit in one day, 'cuz then you'd be locked out for the rest of the week.

 

Although as it is, I don't have any problem with 5 a day. It just means I have to remember it soon enough to do a couple low priority queries a day ahead. Or I get to cuss when I don't remember...

 

By the way, as long as I'm here: increasing the number per PQ wouldn't help me much at all. My GPSr only support 1500 per PQ.

[+Walts Hunting]

I may sound like a broken record but GSAK handles that by allowing you to draw a rectangle instead of a circle and ask for the daily API limit of 6000. Make sure the rectangle is small enough to fill with less than that. Then you can work the edges with little or no overlap. I have never gone for 12000 but using it when in new areas like that works pretty good.

 

Thanks for the suggestion but GSAK only works for PC and not Macs. I also choose to not run a parallel system or crossover software. All I am asking that Groundspeak consider allowing more caches in a query and think about adding a different method to make a query. If GSAK can perform what I am asking for then why cannot Groundspeak?

 

Someone more cynical than me might suggest because GSAK can perform what you are asking that Groundspeak doesn't feel they have to bother.

 

A win-win solution would be for Groundspeak to host GSAK on their servers and provide a platform-agnostic web interface to its functionality.

 

GSAK will always be way ahead of GS because it is one guy whose only job is to respond to customers. GS has a HUGE amount of requests that they have to prioritize and do in that order. Just the way a business is. Plus the Macro writers will often whip out a macro to do a task that is requested sometimes within hours while GS has to allocate current resources. Project-PC does a lot of things that have been requested here also. I know the MAC people don't like the continual reference to that and sometimes feel discriminated against but they do have the option to run it in an emulator. Whether they want to do that or not is their choice of course.

 

While GS does the best they can responding to requests there have always been other programs that will take the data and massage it to produce what people want.

Edited April 20, 2014 by Walts Hunting

[+DonB]

Not arguing, just asking. Why would anyone need to download 25000 caches a day?

Maybe they're going to spend a few weeks in a remote location with no internet connection, where they're going to do 10 numbers run trails, each the size of the ET Highway trail.

 

Or maybe not...

I just don't know any cachers personally that have done that many caches since they have been caching.

[+Walts Hunting]

As always happens when information becomes available there are those who want it all. All in New Jersey not so much. All in California a bunch. Most of the large file collectors probably don't have a rational reason but just like to collect it. The comment about long periods without internet probably means long periods without power so how would you rin the device in that rarest of situations. If you are traveling and have an android phone just run pocket queries and upload field notes from it or your handhold as needed. If you have iOS and a air router with usb it can also be done. And of course there are internet access points (friends, coffee shops, library, etc) everywhere.

 

Some will say I want all of the US because I don't know where I will be. I am not sure i buy that one since as pointed out there are so many ways to get info to your device. I don't use my phone very often but when I am some place that I haven't prepared for it works great for a couple.

 

25,000 a day is 175,000 a week. Throw in the 42,000 from API and you get 212,000 a week not Alamongul needs that many available.