Jump to content

Its time to increase the number of caches in each Pocket Queries

Teddy Steiff

By Teddy Steiff
in Website

Followers 5

Recommended Posts

The A-Team

+The A-Team

Posted
Posted

There is another thread concerning GeoArt and Power caches which I started and many that others have started. We need a band aid to help deal with them. Increasing the cache limits would be a band aid. The band aid will eventually fall off and the infection of Power caches will need to be dealt with. There have been dozens of methods posted for dealing with power caches but raising the cache limit might be the best until the geofathers realize that we are right and there is a problem.

The quickest and simplest way to deal with these situations would be a power trail attribute. New attributes have been created several times over the years (e.g. "Wireless Beacon", "UV Light Required", "Lost And Found Tour", etc.), which indicates that doing so is something that TPTB consider "safe" as far as data consumers go. Once the attribute is available, power trail owners can start the tedious process of adding it to their caches, and cachers can then use it to either include or exclude those caches in pocket queries.

 

So, why would a power trail owner want to add the attribute to their caches if it will help people filter out their caches? Because there are also people that want to search for those caches. There are already many examples of nonsensical attributes being applied to power trail caches for this purpose, like the "Scuba Gear" attribute on the ET Highway caches in the Nevada desert. Providing a dedicated power trail attribute would help prevent these nonsensical attributes and provide a useful way for people to filter out power trails if they wish.

Link to comment
Jake81499

+Jake81499

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

Adding Power Trail and GeoArt as an attribute would help greatly reduce the numbers of PQs needed to cover some areas. But the numbers inside cities and many outlying areas are growing fast even without power caches. We still need to have at least a 5000 cache PQ. Running the API on Get Caches will bring up 6000 with the Data Format set to Full and 10,000 with the Data Format set to Light. You can run them both in one day I think. The problem there is there doesn't seem to be any randomness to what they pick up. So they might grab the same caches over an over and not really find any new ones. There's a million 'work arounds' to the numbers issues but just adding the attributes we've talked about and raising the PQ limit would really help fix the problem.

 

Just added Pole Dancing in Nevada and Lone Star Trail in Texas to the ignore list for another 469 ignored caches.

Edited by Jake81499
Link to comment
igator210

+igator210

Posted
Posted

Just an FYI, You say you haven't seen a lot of power caches. Here's one for you. Look at Highway to H.E.L.L in southern California. It's one of the worst.

 

I looked at that. How does one figure they are contributing to the game by doing that? I bet that person gets hate mail daily.

 

I'm sure there are some people out there that want to increase their find count and do caches like those. How boring.

Here's one near you in List view and in map view.

 

ETA: By the way, this would also be considered a "GeoArt" series. Just mentioning that since you said you were new and so maybe you haven't heard that term before.

 

There is another thread concerning GeoArt and Power caches which I started and many that others have started. We need a band aid to help deal with them. Increasing the cache limits would be a band aid. The band aid will eventually fall off and the infection of Power caches will need to be dealt with. There have been dozens of methods posted for dealing with power caches but raising the cache limit might be the best until the geofathers realize that we are right and there is a problem.

 

I just ignored a Route 66 chain in California and Dear and Antelope Play in Nevada for 747 more added to the list.

 

Wild Ride in Wyoming, and When Two Worlds Collide in Nevada just got ignored for 1031.

 

Using the Ignore option still doesn't help me when I want to go on vacation someplace. I would first have to take all the time to figure out what caches I would want to ignore and then actually go through the process of ignoring them.

 

I want the freedom to find any cache without taking months to preplan every single minute of my vacation. My offline list is only going to last as long as I'm on vacation. I want to hit a couple of highlight caches and then be able to find other caches in the area. If I find a neat park to explore, I want to look for the caches there. If I'm out to eat, maybe I'll do a little urban caching.

 

People will say "Just use Live Mode on the app", I might not be in the best cell area, or want to chew up all the data.

 

It basically comes down to spontaneity. This is whether I'm in home range or on vacation. I don't want to be limited by a small subset. In cache dense areas, I can only do this by setting up so many PQs that it starts to get confusing.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Jake81499

+Jake81499

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just an FYI, You say you haven't seen a lot of power caches. Here's one for you. Look at Highway to H.E.L.L in southern California. It's one of the worst.

 

I looked at that. How does one figure they are contributing to the game by doing that? I bet that person gets hate mail daily.

 

I'm sure there are some people out there that want to increase their find count and do caches like those. How boring.

Here's one near you in List view and in map view.

 

ETA: By the way, this would also be considered a "GeoArt" series. Just mentioning that since you said you were new and so maybe you haven't heard that term before.

 

There is another thread concerning GeoArt and Power caches which I started and many that others have started. We need a band aid to help deal with them. Increasing the cache limits would be a band aid. The band aid will eventually fall off and the infection of Power caches will need to be dealt with. There have been dozens of methods posted for dealing with power caches but raising the cache limit might be the best until the geofathers realize that we are right and there is a problem.

 

I just ignored a Route 66 chain in California and Dear and Antelope Play in Nevada for 747 more added to the list.

 

Wild Ride in Wyoming, and When Two Worlds Collide in Nevada just got ignored for 1031.

 

Using the Ignore option still doesn't help me when I want to go on vacation someplace. I would first have to take all the time to figure out what caches I would want to ignore and then actually go through the process of ignoring them.

 

I want the freedom to find any cache without taking months to preplan every single minute of my vacation. My offline list is only going to last as long as I'm on vacation. I want to hit a couple of highlight caches and then be able to find other caches in the area. If I find a neat park to explore, I want to look for the caches there. If I'm out to eat, maybe I'll do a little urban caching.

 

People will say "Just use Live Mode on the app", I might not be in the best cell area, or want to chew up all the data.

 

It basically comes down to spontaneity. This is whether I'm in home range or on vacation. I don't want to be limited by a small subset. In cache dense areas, I can only do this by setting up so many PQs that it starts to get confusing.

 

Exactly! People don't understand the spontaneous trip. That's what I do. I'm a biker, the handlebars do the driving, if I don't go where the bike wants me to go then it gets mad and does strange things. Non-Bikers, trailer bike people or crotch rocket riders would never understand. That's why I currently have 264,310 caches in my GPS. I don't NEED to plan anything and I can go anywhere the bike wants me to without a fuss. Making the PQ and API limits larger would just help with a serious problem, for those of us who use the PQ system regularly, of Power Caches.

 

As for ignoring, we shouldn't have to create a ridiculously large ignore list for power caches. An attribute would be a wonderful thing. Mine currently has over 15,000 power caches in it and I've only just grazed the surface.

 

But to help make you're life a little easier, try the macro CacheSeries. But DO NOT just select and ignore. The macro picks up everything with the same name and that doesn't always mean they are power caches. Check what you select on a map before you ignore them. Example, if you select the 'Welcome To' group, you will ignore every small town 'Welcome To' cache in your database. The program isn't a fix, it's a band aid.

 

The States API is useful for the every day cacher. Problem is if you run a 10,000 cache query on say 'Nevada' it may only give you ten, 1000 cache power caches.

 

I just ignored, Ferntucky, Eagle Eye, Oklahoma Land Run for 766 caches.

Edited by Jake81499
Link to comment
NYPaddleCacher

+NYPaddleCacher

Posted
Posted

Just an FYI, You say you haven't seen a lot of power caches. Here's one for you. Look at Highway to H.E.L.L in southern California. It's one of the worst.

 

I looked at that. How does one figure they are contributing to the game by doing that? I bet that person gets hate mail daily.

 

I'm sure there are some people out there that want to increase their find count and do caches like those. How boring.

Here's one near you in List view and in map view.

 

ETA: By the way, this would also be considered a "GeoArt" series. Just mentioning that since you said you were new and so maybe you haven't heard that term before.

 

There is another thread concerning GeoArt and Power caches which I started and many that others have started. We need a band aid to help deal with them. Increasing the cache limits would be a band aid. The band aid will eventually fall off and the infection of Power caches will need to be dealt with. There have been dozens of methods posted for dealing with power caches but raising the cache limit might be the best until the geofathers realize that we are right and there is a problem.

 

I just ignored a Route 66 chain in California and Dear and Antelope Play in Nevada for 747 more added to the list.

 

Wild Ride in Wyoming, and When Two Worlds Collide in Nevada just got ignored for 1031.

 

Using the Ignore option still doesn't help me when I want to go on vacation someplace. I would first have to take all the time to figure out what caches I would want to ignore and then actually go through the process of ignoring them.

 

I want the freedom to find any cache without taking months to preplan every single minute of my vacation. My offline list is only going to last as long as I'm on vacation. I want to hit a couple of highlight caches and then be able to find other caches in the area. If I find a neat park to explore, I want to look for the caches there. If I'm out to eat, maybe I'll do a little urban caching.

 

People will say "Just use Live Mode on the app", I might not be in the best cell area, or want to chew up all the data.

 

It basically comes down to spontaneity. This is whether I'm in home range or on vacation. I don't want to be limited by a small subset. In cache dense areas, I can only do this by setting up so many PQs that it starts to get confusing.

 

As someone that geocaches while traveling a lot I've certainly experienced the issues with the lack of real time data. I was recently in Cuba where it's not only illegal to bring a GPS into the country, but other than a few wifi hotspots controlled by the government there is essentially no internet. I still managed to do a little geocaching and add Cuba to my countries list. I also didn't feel that I needed to spend any free time I had geocaching. There *are* other things one can do while traveling.

 

Given the number of PQs we can create and the number caches in each PQ I'm having a hard time agreeing with the notion that we're "limited by a small subset". All those PQs can be downloaded as an offline list and I have a hard time believing that anyone wouldn't be able to make their list last as long as they were on vacation before they had a chance to refresh the list. Even if a cache dense area, caching all day every day, the number of caches one can put on PQ lists is going to keep one busy for a long time.

 

Link to comment
Jake81499

+Jake81499

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just an FYI, You say you haven't seen a lot of power caches. Here's one for you. Look at Highway to H.E.L.L in southern California. It's one of the worst.

 

I looked at that. How does one figure they are contributing to the game by doing that? I bet that person gets hate mail daily.

 

I'm sure there are some people out there that want to increase their find count and do caches like those. How boring.

Here's one near you in List view and in map view.

 

ETA: By the way, this would also be considered a "GeoArt" series. Just mentioning that since you said you were new and so maybe you haven't heard that term before.

 

There is another thread concerning GeoArt and Power caches which I started and many that others have started. We need a band aid to help deal with them. Increasing the cache limits would be a band aid. The band aid will eventually fall off and the infection of Power caches will need to be dealt with. There have been dozens of methods posted for dealing with power caches but raising the cache limit might be the best until the geofathers realize that we are right and there is a problem.

 

I just ignored a Route 66 chain in California and Dear and Antelope Play in Nevada for 747 more added to the list.

 

Wild Ride in Wyoming, and When Two Worlds Collide in Nevada just got ignored for 1031.

 

Using the Ignore option still doesn't help me when I want to go on vacation someplace. I would first have to take all the time to figure out what caches I would want to ignore and then actually go through the process of ignoring them.

 

I want the freedom to find any cache without taking months to preplan every single minute of my vacation. My offline list is only going to last as long as I'm on vacation. I want to hit a couple of highlight caches and then be able to find other caches in the area. If I find a neat park to explore, I want to look for the caches there. If I'm out to eat, maybe I'll do a little urban caching.

 

People will say "Just use Live Mode on the app", I might not be in the best cell area, or want to chew up all the data.

 

It basically comes down to spontaneity. This is whether I'm in home range or on vacation. I don't want to be limited by a small subset. In cache dense areas, I can only do this by setting up so many PQs that it starts to get confusing.

 

As someone that geocaches while traveling a lot I've certainly experienced the issues with the lack of real time data. I was recently in Cuba where it's not only illegal to bring a GPS into the country, but other than a few wifi hotspots controlled by the government there is essentially no internet. I still managed to do a little geocaching and add Cuba to my countries list. I also didn't feel that I needed to spend any free time I had geocaching. There *are* other things one can do while traveling.

 

Given the number of PQs we can create and the number caches in each PQ I'm having a hard time agreeing with the notion that we're "limited by a small subset". All those PQs can be downloaded as an offline list and I have a hard time believing that anyone wouldn't be able to make their list last as long as they were on vacation before they had a chance to refresh the list. Even if a cache dense area, caching all day every day, the number of caches one can put on PQ lists is going to keep one busy for a long time.

 

I have a pretty decent phone provider. They share towers with a less decent phone provider in some areas like south central Colorado. No data service for miles and miles. If I don't have something in the GPS then there's nothing to find should I get tired. I've found a lot of areas like that. So live caching isn't the answer.

 

'Limited by a small subset' gets us back to how each individual cacher does what he does. Everyone has a different idea of how its done which works for that individual. I don't care for cache dense areas for example. That often means cities. I like the wide open and get out of cities to cache unless there's something right where I happen to stop for food or a motel. I've heard several dozen people with different ways of doing things, some good and some were not. The 'Small Subset' thing will bite them in the rear the first time they need a cache route from say Las Cruses New Mexico to Reno Nevada and they want to take a back road or even a main road for that mater. They create the route, don't check it on a map, and when they want to cache they find out all they got was a short section with nothing but a power cache consisting of 1000 caches. Increasing the number to 5000 would have helped greatly even though now it may have only given them five power caches consisting of 1000 caches each.

 

Ignored; Desert Creatures, Team Bad, TS Oh Really Now, and Freedom Trail for 791 caches.

Edited by Jake81499
Link to comment
Jake81499

+Jake81499

Posted
Posted

I was just noticing that MANY of the power caches I've added to the ignore list are set by the same group, Team Sagebrushers in Nevada. They have literally thousands of caches set all in Power Caches. Since we probably won't get the PQ limits increased or an Attribute for Power Caches, Maybe we could try for a limit on the number of caches a person can set. It would make sense.

 

Just ignored, That's HOT, ####-E.T., BAM - ###, PT Element series, BBTS series for 2285 caches.

Link to comment
niraD

+niraD

Posted
Posted
I was just noticing that MANY of the power caches I've added to the ignore list are set by the same group, Team Sagebrushers in Nevada. They have literally thousands of caches set all in Power Caches. Since we probably won't get the PQ limits increased or an Attribute for Power Caches, Maybe we could try for a limit on the number of caches a person can set. It would make sense.
So instead of Team Sagebrushers hiding 1000 caches, you'll have Team Sagebrushers 1 hiding 100 caches, Team Sagebrushers 2 hiding 100 caches, and so on.
Link to comment
Jake81499

+Jake81499

Posted
Posted
I was just noticing that MANY of the power caches I've added to the ignore list are set by the same group, Team Sagebrushers in Nevada. They have literally thousands of caches set all in Power Caches. Since we probably won't get the PQ limits increased or an Attribute for Power Caches, Maybe we could try for a limit on the number of caches a person can set. It would make sense.
So instead of Team Sagebrushers hiding 1000 caches, you'll have Team Sagebrushers 1 hiding 100 caches, Team Sagebrushers 2 hiding 100 caches, and so on.

 

Probably, there's always someone who abuses a privilege.

Link to comment
EngPhil

+EngPhil

Posted
Posted

Here's one near you in List view and in map view.

 

ETA: By the way, this would also be considered a "GeoArt" series. Just mentioning that since you said you were new and so maybe you haven't heard that term before.

 

That's one of the few I have seen. I personally wouldn't consider it art. I'd call it graffiti.

 

Wow. That is quite something. I'd agree with FrankenHipster, but I'm speechless..... :cry:

Link to comment
Jake81499

+Jake81499

Posted
Posted (edited)

Here's one near you in List view and in map view.

 

ETA: By the way, this would also be considered a "GeoArt" series. Just mentioning that since you said you were new and so maybe you haven't heard that term before.

 

That's one of the few I have seen. I personally wouldn't consider it art. I'd call it graffiti.

 

Wow. That is quite something. I'd agree with FrankenHipster, but I'm speechless..... :cry:

 

There's another in Wyoming that's north of Rock Springs that's a bit amazing. I know the people who set it. It's been ignored. There are two cache chains in that area that totally eat a pocket query badly enough that you have need two or three PQ's to get everything around Rock Springs. And THAT's a small city which used only require one PQ and still get a circle with a 100 mile radius. Run Wild Horse Run and Ghost Rail are those Chains.

Edited by Jake81499
Link to comment
sloth96

+sloth96

Posted
Posted
On 3/5/2016 at 12:37 PM, Pup Patrol said:

 

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=117

 

10,000 geocaches a day isn't enough?

 

Where is the area where more than 1,000 new caches are published?

 

Or do you mean the limit for "Instant Notifications" needs to be increased?

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=184

 

B.

Wow.  I just ran into the 40 limit for instant notifications at an event.  folks seemed surprised.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
Followers 5
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...