Jump to content

A Couple Of Wishes In Regards To Pocket Queries


Enchanted Shadow

Recommended Posts

Hi, everyone! I'm a new member here, and I have a couple of wishes in regards to Pocket Queries - that I am *sure* are nothing new to you. :)

 

1. Results Limitations

 

I wish that Pocket Queries had a much higher results limit as opposed to the limit of 500 results that exists now. If I do a standard radius search on Geocaching.com, I might come up with 3500 caches. It's sad that, as a paying member, I can only grab 500 of them at a time.

 

2. Using Query Rations to do larger searches

 

Ideally, the Results Limit should be eliminated - or at least raised significantly. However, if nothing else, there should at the very least, be a way to use additional Query Rations to provide the continuing search results of a prior Query.

 

In other words, if a particular search for a radius Query yields 3000 caches, and I'm limited to 500 results per Query, and only 5 queries per day - there should at least be a way for me to construct a Query that will return 2000 results, but perhaps at the cost of counting as 4 Queries worth for that one day.

 

Otherwise, I'm forced to go through a convoluted process of mapping out additional points surrounding my initial one and doing subsequent radius searches in order to try and cover the same area that I would have otherwise been able to - if I had the option of getting more than 500 results.

 

3. Query Count Limitations

 

While I'm on the topic of limits - I hate having a limit of 5 Queries per day. I'm sure I'm not the only one. :P

 

4. Running Queries immediately

 

I wish there was a way to run a Query immediately - or at the very least, clicking a button that will process the query and email it to me within a guaranteed one hour or even two hour period of time.

 

Right now, the closest I can get to this, if I need a Query run immediately - is to specify that I want it run on whatever day of the week today is - and hope that it still gets run. And that's aside from the fact that I have absolutely no idea when, during the day, it will actually run.

 

So, if I need a Query run immediately - the current best I can do, is sometime within the next 24 hours. Maybe. Depending on when I make the request. :D

 

 

Well, that's all that I wanted to say for now. I really like Geocaching.com, and I think it has a lot of potential. However, as a customer who is paying for this service, I just feel that it would be nice if it were a little more.... useful in its execution. :D

Link to post

Ditto what RK said... newly created PQ's come so fast that I've learned to use the preview feature to make sure I'm getting what I want when I schedule the query to run on the current date.

 

I'm not sure when I'd have an immediate need for information about 2,000 caches, but if I did, I'd quickly construct a way that wasn't "convoluted" to retrieve them all. Dividing up multiple queries according to the cache's placement date, or the cache type, are two popular methods.

 

I can get info. on up to 2,500 caches per day -- or 17,500 per week. That's a lot of caches to find. Somehow, I've managed to find a few of those caches while existing within the limitations of the pocket queries.

Link to post
I wish that Pocket Queries had a much higher results limit as opposed to the limit of 500 results that exists now. If I do a standard radius search on Geocaching.com, I might come up with 3500 caches. It's sad that, as a paying member, I can only grab 500 of them at a time.

I am in awe of you. You're the first person I've met than can find 2,500 caches a day and need more caches in his PQ.

 

Will you sign an autograph? Oh wait, I can just go to one of those 2,500 caches you found yesterday and steal the logbook. :):P

Link to post
2. Using Query Rations to do larger searches

 

Ideally, the Results Limit should be eliminated - or at least raised significantly. However, if nothing else, there should at the very least, be a way to use additional Query Rations to provide the continuing search results of a prior Query.

 

In other words, if a particular search for a radius Query yields 3000 caches, and I'm limited to 500 results per Query, and only 5 queries per day - there should at least be a way for me to construct a Query that will return 2000 results, but perhaps at the cost of counting as 4 Queries worth for that one day.

 

Otherwise, I'm forced to go through a convoluted process of mapping out additional points surrounding my initial one and doing subsequent radius searches in order to try and cover the same area that I would have otherwise been able to - if I had the option of getting more than 500 results.

Use the same radius of 50 or 100 miles or whatever, and limit the "date placed" to different queries. Creative limitations (caches placed between 1/1/2000 and 6/16/2003 for one, 6/17/2003-8/23/2004 and 8/24/2004-12/31/2008 as examples) will make it so that the pocket queries get maximum use of results. There will be no overlap in queries, and you'll be able to pull down a full 2500 caches for a given radius with just 5 pocket queries.

 

Having said that, why do you need to pull down a full 2500 caches for a given radius with just 5 pocket queries?

 

Heck I do all of Chicago and it's just over 1300 caches. I only need to pull that once a week at the most...

Link to post

More than 5 PQ a day would be great I must admit.

 

Just signed up myself and did a few for around work and home, then BAM I can generate no more. :P Not that I cannot wait for tomorrow, but I am tying to organized everything today (being a new member and all) in GSAK.

 

Maybe 10 a day would be acceptable? Or maybe 5 on a weekly generator repeat, but you can have more than 5 if you generate immediately - if that makes sense.

 

mrking

Link to post

Just adjust your searches. Remember, this was designed to help you go geocaching, not build yourself an offline database of caches.

 

I think 20mb in Pocket Queries a day is sufficient, thanks.

 

Enchanted Shadow - For 1 find I'm amazed why you need so many caches.

Link to post

One tip - You do not need to have all your pocket queries emailed to you. Just uncheck all the days they run and do a preview of your results. It is a great way to do a quick check before returning them to you.

 

Once you get more familiar with Pocket Queries, you can use them pretty efficiently to get exactly what you need.

Link to post

 

I am in awe of you. You're the first person I've met than can find 2,500 caches a day and need more caches in his PQ.

 

Will you sign an autograph? Oh wait, I can just go to one of those 2,500 caches you found yesterday and steal the logbook. :D  :P

 

 

 

Who said anything about actually finding 2500 caches a day? :) But it's important to know what you have to choose from. :D

Link to post

 

Having said that, why do you need to pull down a full 2500 caches for a given radius with just 5 pocket queries?

 

Heck I do all of Chicago and it's just over 1300 caches.  I only need to pull that once a week at the most...

 

 

Well, if I do a standard radius search, accepting the default 100 mile radius - I'll get around 3700 results, if I remember correctly.

 

:P

Link to post

 

Just adjust your searches. Remember, this was designed to help you go geocaching, not build yourself an offline database of caches.

 

 

With all due respect, the way you do things isn't the *only* way to do things.

 

Frankly, one of the reasons why I paid for this membership was, in fact, to allow me to build myself an offline database of caches.

 

If people didn't care about offline databases of caches, why is GSAK even developed?

 

I'll continue this below...

 

 

I think 20mb in Pocket Queries a day is sufficient, thanks.

 

Enchanted Shadow - For 1 find I'm amazed why you need so many caches.

 

 

If I took that wrong, than let me apologize in advance - but your comment came across as somewhat... patronizing and insulting.

 

What does the number of finds I have logged have to do with anything? *Everyone* starts at 1 - even you. Just because I'm starting out, says absolutely nothing about how interested/involved in this subject I am. Geocaching was not only responsible for my paying a membership fee for this site - but it played a part in my shelling out over $600 on GPS equipment and software. Maybe that kind of money is pocket change for you - but it's certainly not for me. So the fact that I have *only* 1 find so far is patently irrelevant.

 

Now, that being said - I'll tell you (and everyone else) why I would like so many caches. I travel a lot. And as a result, I am trying to incorporate Geocaching into my travels. I don't need to be able to store 3000 caches in my GPS, because that's what my laptop is for. I'll download the appropriate subsection of caches into my GPS on an as-needed basis.

 

However, if I'm traveling through 8 states on a single trip - I would like to know what caches are in the region for my entire route, so that at any time - I can spontaneously pop open my laptop, see what's nearby, and go hunting.

 

In addition, some of the areas I need results for are particularly cache-dense. I'll think nothing of driving 100-200 miles just for the heck of it. But 500 results will only give me a radius of 25 miles. That doesn't give me a lot of geographical choices.

 

But, honestly? I don't think I need to justify anything. I'm a paying customer. I wasn't making demands and I wasn't making unconstructive criticisms. I was only making some wishful commentary based on my initial experiences with your site and services. And frankly, I don't need any other reason for wanting more results - other than "because I would like to have them".

 

I apologize if this has come across as a bit harsh - I didn't want it to. But I'm admittedly a bit annoyed at the fact that my reasoned wishful comments has yielded a number of responses implying that I could have no possibly good reasons for what I was asking for.

 

I have given you some reasons why more results would be useful. And I don't think that any of them are anything other than perfectly reasonable.

 

However, even though your comments would indicate that you have absolutely no intention of giving your paying customers the additional results some of them are asking for - can you honestly tell me that my idea of combining the Query Rations is a bad one? You would not be increasing your output by one byte. And as a matter of fact, you could conceivably lower your server load (based on the number of emails sent out). I think that has some promise. You disagree?

Link to post
If people didn't care about offline databases of caches, why is GSAK even developed?

I don't know. I didn't develop the software.

 

If I took that wrong, than let me apologize in advance - but your comment came across as somewhat... patronizing and insulting.

 

Sorry if it did. Reading is definitely different than talking and many nuances are lost.

 

What does the number of finds I have logged have to do with anything?  *Everyone* starts at 1 - even you.

 

It means you haven't done enough geocaches to know which types of caches you want to do. After you do a bunch you realize you don't need all 3,700 caches from your origin because you only like micros or traditionals or whatever, at x level terrain, etc. With some filtering mechanisms instead of a flood of everything you can get well within the 500 result.

 

20 MB of emails a day from the web site is more than generous for a $3/mo membership.

 

Now, that being said - I'll tell you (and everyone else) why I would like so many caches.  I travel a lot.  And as a result, I am trying to incorporate Geocaching into my travels.  I don't need to be able to store 3000 caches in my GPS, because that's what my laptop is for.  I'll download the appropriate subsection of caches into my GPS on an as-needed basis.

 

That's right. That is exactly what PQs are for. Do your Pocket queries before you head out so you have the most current data about the listings.

 

However, if I'm traveling through 8 states on a single trip - I would like to know what caches are in the region for my entire route, so that at any time - I can spontaneously pop open my laptop, see what's nearby, and go hunting.

 

That's great. We're working on a "caches along a route" functionality for the future that will suit your needs. In the meantime if you have a laptop you can certainly call in occasionally and get the next set of coords. I've done long trips and used the same tools everyone else does. It works fine.

 

In addition, some of the areas I need results for are particularly cache-dense.  I'll think nothing of driving 100-200 miles just for the heck of it.  But 500 results will only give me a radius of 25 miles.  That doesn't give me a lot of geographical choices.

 

Again, get some finds under your belt to figure out what you like, then filter those for your finds. Someone can give you more tips on how to reduce the listing to, say, general drive by caches for longer trips. If you know what city or hotel you're staying at, schedule some pocket queries.

 

But, honestly?  I don't think I need to justify anything.  I'm a paying customer.  I wasn't making demands and I wasn't making unconstructive criticisms.  I was only making some wishful commentary based on my initial experiences with your site and services.  And frankly, I don't need any other reason for wanting more results - other than "because I would like to have them".

 

You don't have to justify anything. However, many experienced geocachers that also travel have no problems using the Pocket Queries to get the results they want. There are some niggling issues with long distance drives but we're working on that.

 

However, even though your comments would indicate that you have absolutely no intention of giving your paying customers the additional results some of them are asking for - can you honestly tell me that my idea of combining the Query Rations is a bad one?

 

I don't know what you mean by combining query rations. Please explain.

Link to post
However, even though your comments would indicate that you have absolutely no intention of giving your paying customers the additional results some of them are asking for - can you honestly tell me that my idea of combining the Query Rations is a bad one? You would not be increasing your output by one byte. And as a matter of fact, you could conceivably lower your server load (based on the number of emails sent out). I think that has some promise. You disagree?

Combining the rationing (allowing a single 2500 cache PQ instead of 5 seperate 500 cache PQ's) would make for some HUGE e-mail files.

Link to post

 

I don't know. I didn't develop the software.

 

 

What I meant by that, is that if keeping an offline database was not important to people - no one would care for software like GSAK. But obviously, software in that category is very popular with users here - which shows that creating an offline database is not a small part of what your customers want.

 

 

If I took that wrong, than let me apologize in advance - but your comment came across as somewhat... patronizing and insulting.

 

Sorry if it did. Reading is definitely different than talking and many nuances are lost.

 

 

That's true. And if that's not what you intended, than I apologize again. :D

 

 

What does the number of finds I have logged have to do with anything?  *Everyone* starts at 1 - even you.

 

It means you haven't done enough geocaches to know which types of caches you want to do. After you do a bunch you realize you don't need all 3,700 caches from your origin because you only like micros or traditionals or whatever, at x level terrain, etc. With some filtering mechanisms instead of a flood of everything you can get well within the 500 result.

 

 

Which is exactly why having more choices is important for someone who is just getting started. :D

 

 

That's right. That is exactly what PQs are for. Do your Pocket queries before you head out so you have the most current data about the listings.

 

 

Yes, but that's also why limiting search results can hinder people. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that the current system is unuseable. All I was saying is that it would be nice if there was more room to maneuver, so to speak.

 

Perhaps in some areas, a limit of 500 queries might give you a 200 mile radius. But in one of my target zones, I get about 24 miles - and that's not much, given how much I move around. :P

 

 

That's great. We're working on a "caches along a route" functionality for the future that will suit your needs. In the meantime if you have a laptop you can certainly call in occasionally and get the next set of coords. I've done long trips and used the same tools everyone else does. It works fine.

 

 

I can't always "call in", and even if I can - it's useless if I can't run a query and get a GPX file with the results immediately. That's why it's important for me to be able to load everything in advance - so I have it while I'm offline, and so I don't have to burden my trip with more chores than would otherwise be necessary.

 

 

Again, get some finds under your belt to figure out what you like, then filter those for your finds. Someone can give you more tips on how to reduce the listing to, say, general drive by caches for longer trips. If you know what city or hotel you're staying at, schedule some pocket queries.

 

 

Perhaps others here can eliminate 80% of caches right out of the box - but I like having choices, and I like variety - and I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

And for what it's worth, my comments on 500 results only giving me a 24 mile radius - *was* with some trimming. I cut out virtual caches, event caches, earth caches, and some others. That statistic is almost solely traditional style caches (including mystery and multi), and that's it.

 

When you consider the fact that I have driven 6 hours away - on whim - just to have dinner at a restaurant I liked, and then drive 6 hours to go home again - perhaps you'll understand why a 24 mile radius means nothing to me. :) And perhaps you'll also understand why I can't always plan ahead which little circle of geography I *might* be driving through. :D

 

 

You don't have to justify anything. However, many experienced geocachers that also travel have no problems using the Pocket Queries to get the results they want. There are some niggling issues with long distance drives but we're working on that.

 

 

I understand, truly I do. But not everyone here is an experienced geocacher. Your website ackowledges that this is a relatively new field. So, how can you ignore the needs of people who are new to this sport?

 

And irrespective of the issue of experience - not everyone has the same requirements. I'll tell you - I could have 5000 finds under my belt, and I would still probably want to have more functionality out of your query system.

 

As I said, I wasn't making any outrageous or unreasonable demands. I was just giving you my opinion, as someone who is new to this field and your site, what I would have liked to see different.

 

If you're interested in welcoming people who are new to this sport, and your site - I would think that you should be particularly interested in the "first impressions" of those new users.

 

 

However, even though your comments would indicate that you have absolutely no intention of giving your paying customers the additional results some of them are asking for - can you honestly tell me that my idea of combining the Query Rations is a bad one?

 

I don't know what you mean by combining query rations. Please explain.

 

 

I mean that if you only want to give people 5 queries a day, with a maximum of 500 results per query - it would be a nice thing if you allowed them to do a single query with 2500 results, and counting that as 5 queries. (or 2000 results would count as 4 queries - heck, maybe even allow 5000 results, but that would count as 10 queries - which means that it could only be run as the sole query over a 2 day period)

 

That way, your server does not increase the load of database queries that it has to pull - but you give your users considerably more flexibility in how they use the resources you are allotting them.

Link to post

 

Combining the rationing (allowing a single 2500 cache PQ instead of 5 seperate 500 cache PQ's) would make for some HUGE e-mail files.

 

 

A PQ of 500 results yields a Zip file of a little over 700 kB. If we could use the daily maximum in a single query, we'd be looking at a file of about 3.5 MB, which really isn't that bad (unless you're on dialup).

 

However, there's no reason why such a query still couldn't be broken up into 500 result chunks. You don't end up with different data, and you could still send it out in 5 seperate emails.

 

The key is that the data contained in the results would be uniform to a single query - as opposed to having to do some sort of mish-mash, figuring out how to construct 5 seperate queries which would yield you results best approximating what you would get if you could run it cleanly as just one query. :P

Link to post

I'm a little surprised at the response to this suggestion. The way I read it, the OP was just asking for a little extra. It's as if he asked for a few more peanuts on his peanut fudge ice cream cone and the girl at the DQ asked him why he could possible want more peanuts because everyone else gets along fine with the regular number of peanuts.

 

Ok, maybe not just like that, but I like thinking about ice cream.

 

My point is, a little more of something is always better, right? That's all he was suggesting.

 

I certainly wouldn't argue if the PQ limit was raised. Mostly it wouldn't change my current PQ habits, which don't even come near the current limits. But I can direct you to a very small number of specific times where I've had to work around the limits in order to get all the caches I want for a road trip of some sort.

 

Now, maybe people would abuse a raise. I don't know. Maybe people abuse the current limits. That part isn't up to me, but I'm here to say that more is better. It's certainly hard to argue against being able to get more cache data.

 

Jamie

 

[edited "That part is up to me" to correctly state, "That part isn't up to me."]

Edited by Jamie Z
Link to post

In the words of the great Harrald:

 

Nobody can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks it is his own.

 

I am not very computer-inclined and I get along great with my pq's and my palm. And I travel. (notice the avatar line) Once you know what kind of caches you like, you can set them up and you can get up to 5 per day! You may discover that while travelling a 5 terrain cache is not even do-able, unless you've got the boat on the car, or the scuba gear or climbing gear etc... with you.

Link to post

Enchanted Shadow,

 

You are new here so you may not understand that this subject is a little touchy for some. There are many more issues than you may realize going on.

 

Don't take what some have said as anything personal. You will find that there are some here that use this site that have their own way of doing things and how they see what geocacing is about. They don't understand that some people look at things differently. But if you don't do or see things their way, you are wrong and you have no valid reason for do it that way.

 

The subject of downloading listings and keeping your own database seems to me to be more about protection than anything else. There is some huge fear that people will take all of the listings and then start their own site with that information. There are reasons for that fear which I won't get into, only beacuse it is rather long and detailed and it depends on how one wishes to read the history.

 

And still there are many other reasons. You may want to do a search on the forums about this. Much of this has been discussed many times and should be able to find many threads that will give you several points of view about this subject.

 

But I do understand fully what you are saying. You do not need to explain or appologize for what you are doing. Many options are always given on how you can or should do things and why you don't need to do what you are doing. But again those things may work for those individuals and not for you.

 

The other point that rarely ever gets mentioned is that PQs are not always working as they should. It seems to have gotten much better than when they first started but there are times when PQs do not work. Even to the point that sometimes you don't get them at all for a day or more at a time. So you would be out of luck if you wanted one then and could not get one, but with your own database you would still have something to use.

 

I could go on and on about this subject and have in many other threads. So I would suggest again that you do some searching on past threads and that may help you get up to speed on this subject. Also keep in mind that everyone here is suposed to have their opinion treated the same way no matter how many finds or posts they have or how long they have been caching. You may find that in fact some people don't really do that, again nothing personal they just see things differently and think their way is the only way.

 

With all of that said don't let it discourage you. Enjoy the hobby/sport how you want. Do it the way you want to. Yes there are limits but over time you will figure out how to work around them. And you will have to figure that out in a way that works best for you.

Link to post

 

I am not very computer-inclined and I get along great with my pq's and my palm.  And I travel.  (notice the avatar line) Once you know what kind of caches you like, you can set them up and you can get up to 5 per day!  You may discover that while travelling a 5 terrain cache is not even do-able, unless you've got the boat on the car, or the scuba gear or climbing gear etc... with you.

 

 

Thank you for your insulting quote. I'll just ignore it for now, if you don't mind, and move on to the rest of your comments...

 

So, Planet - please tell me... if you only get 5 Queries per day, each query yields you a 25-mile radius circle of geography, and you can and do travel on whim *anywhere* within a 400 mile radius - how exactly would you plan out those 5 Queries?

 

You think you can get them to cover the complete area that you might be traveling within? No, I didn't think so.

 

I suppose I could try and increase the effective radius of those queries if I limit them to ONLY caches with a difficulty of 3.45987 and a terrain of 2.9943860, that are between 6x6x10 inches and 6.2x5.8x11 inches in size, that were placed on the full moon of a leap year, and only by a person who had at least 1500 finds under their belt...

 

However, while you might be fine working under such conditions - some people like to have the full set of choices before them. If you don't need or want choices, that's your prerogative - and that's perfectly okay. But please understand that other people can do things differently - and that that's okay, too.

Link to post

 

Enchanted Shadow,

 

You are new here so you may not understand that this subject is a little touchy for some. There are many more issues than you may realize going on.

 

Don't take what some have said as anything personal. You will find that there are some here that use this site that have their own way of doing things and how they see what geocacing is about. They don't understand that some people look at things differently. But if you don't do or see things their way, you are wrong and you have no valid reason for do it that way.

 

 

You know, if we were talking about a sport/field that has been around for 10 generations, I can understand a certain amount of tradition and "this is the way it's always been done" attitude setting in.

 

But it's generally acknowledged that this is a new field - so it seems absurd that people can't accept diversity of opinion under these circumstances. Ai. :D

 

 

The subject of downloading listings and keeping your own database seems to me to be more about protection than anything else. There is some huge fear that people will take all of the listings and then start their own site with that information. There are reasons for that fear which I won't get into, only beacuse it is rather long and detailed and it depends on how one wishes to read the history.

 

 

I'll be honest with you - if this is how newbies are treated here, that temptation is going to thrive - and at some point, someone *will* act on it - and succeed for the very reasons that drove them to start that site in the first place.

 

But by the same token, there's no need to "steal" anything from here. Such a site would be of limited use, unless the people who owned the caches came by to maintain the information - in which case, they would be providing it themselves (no need to "steal" anything).

 

And that's completely seperate from the fact that this site doesn't "own" geocaching. It's like saying that because you drew europe on your map, no one else can draw europe their own maps. :D

 

 

And still there are many other reasons. You may want to do a search on the forums about this. Much of this has been discussed many times and should be able to find many threads that will give you several points of view about this subject.

 

But I do understand fully what you are saying. You do not need to explain or appologize for what you are doing. Many options are always given on how you can or should do things and why you don't need to do what you are doing. But again those things may work for those individuals and not for you.

 

The other point that rarely ever gets mentioned is that PQs are not always working as they should. It seems to have gotten much better than when they first started but there are times when PQs do not work. Even to the point that sometimes you don't get them at all for a day or more at a time. So you would be out of luck if you wanted one then and could not get one, but with your own database you would still have something to use.

 

I could go on and on about this subject and have in many other threads. So I would suggest again that you do some searching on past threads and that may help you get up to speed on this subject. Also keep in mind that everyone here is suposed to have their opinion treated the same way no matter how many finds or posts they have or how long they have been caching. You may find that in fact some people don't really do that, again nothing personal they just see things differently and think their way is the only way.

 

With all of that said don't let it discourage you. Enjoy the hobby/sport how you want. Do it the way you want to. Yes there are limits but over time you will figure out how to work around them. And you will have to figure that out in a way that works best for you.

 

 

GrizzlyJohn, thank you for your support and understanding in this. It was a much needed breath of fresh air, and I appreciate it very much. :D

Link to post

ES, I feel your pain. I sure wish I could get PQs of unlimited size. This would allow me to get all the caches within a few counties of me. Also, planning a road trip would be simple. I could just grab all the cachesin the entire area I was traveling in and pare it down based on caches within x miles of my route.

 

Unfortunately, this is not a service that has been offered. It is not included in my membership. It likely will never be offered.

 

Therefore, I have to get this data in other ways.

 

In order top get all the caches in my area, I can run several different PQs. You might try running PQs broken down by size alone. If you have too many micros (or regular-sized caches, whatever), you can further break it down by difficulty. I suggest running a PQ of caches with a difficulty of 1.5 & lower and another of two & above. If you play around with it, I bet you can work all of the caches in your area into 5 pocket queries. Set these PQs to run all on the same day. With GSAK, you can easily merge all of these into a single file.

 

There are a number of ways to plan a road trip using PQs. If you check Marwell's FAQ, you will find a great explanation of this process. (I'll try to find the link, but if I don't post it, I bet it is in his profile.) It takes a little work to plan out the PQs to get a long trip, but its worth it.

Link to post

I travel for business often and cache more than your average bear and I have gotten by just fine on the current PQ rations. I have figured out how to use my PQ's to make some very large routes, it is really not that difficult.

 

I also use GSAK, but not to maintain a personal database, I erase the db with every gpx that I load, generally. I use GSAK because it is the best program on the market for working these files. GSAK is THE geocaching software.

 

I understand Groundspeak need to protect their db, and I believe that you do as well. I agree with it.

 

In my opinion GC.com and Groundspeak DO own Geocaching. By the same token, terracaching.com owns terracaching, and navicache owns navicaching, gpstash.com owns gpstashing, etc. GC.com does not own the concept of hiding things and posting the coordinates anymore than anyone else does, but they certainly own the concept of a game called geocaching that consists of hiding things and posting the coordinates.

 

I have said many times that I would like to see a larger query so you could get all of your own finds in one query, but I do not want that at the cost of giving "database pirates" a cheap and easy way to steal the info for whatever use.

Link to post

Here what I do and the reason I keep a personal database.

 

What I do is run three sets of PQs twice a week. Each set covers part of the area which we cache. They overlap other areas for obvious reasons. They run twice a week to help ensure I don't miss a log.

 

Which brings me to the second part. I keep a personal database because the 5 log limit can cause useful logs to not be included in the most recent query. Numerous times we've been at ground zero, unable to find a cache, and with logs that stated "Coords way off. Used Joe's from his log and find quickly" Only Joe's log is not in the recent query. So now, from many months of gathering PQs we're much less likely to be caught like that.

 

Yes, the limits suck. Yes, there have been suggestions for improvements like one PQ zipped of a single daily max of 2500 or only receiving the caches which have had any log in the past 7 days. I just got tired of making the suggestions. If TPTB don't care about making it easier on their servers or bandwidth, why should I? So, I pound out 30 of my 35 maxium PQs a week.

Link to post

I would like to have the ability to run one PQ of an entire State.

 

I travel alot on business. I will go to a state and travel all over it during the week. I have to run numerous PQs to cover them. This is a lot of work. For example, in MO, my home state, I run 4 PQs to cover it. (It would be 5 if I had not cleaned out most of the KC area.) Those 4 have a lot of overlap yet still has some gaps. In IL it looks like I will need 5 for an upcoming trip.

 

Being able to cover the entire state with one PQ would be so much easer.

 

My understanding the reason the site limits the PQ is so they will not be harvested by others. By limiting a "State PQ" to a few a day (maybe even fewer then the 5 PQ that can be run) would that not prevent the harvesting as well?

 

Am I the only one would would like to see this change?

Link to post

I would hate to limit the number of PQs. When you are planning for a long road trip, lots of PQs can be required.

 

Are you sure that you couldn't do your PQs more efficiently. According to the state search, there are 1465 caches in MO. If you limit the PQ to only MO and break them down further by size, terrain, or difficulty you should be able to slam them into 4 PQs without overlap.

Link to post

You might also consider weeding out the caches that you will not do. When I cache on a road trip, I make sure that event caches are not in the PQ, for instance. I also don't go for the extremely challenging ones on a road trip; so there goes the high terrain or high difficulty caches. I bet you can get all of MO into three PQs if you really try.

Link to post

I have worked on it quite a bit and maybe I could get MO down to to 3 but I don't think so. The reason is the population areas. If you run a cache in STL, where I have cached very little, the coverage does not extend out very far from the center of town. For KC, an area I have cached a lot, the 500 caches streach out quite a bit but does not include all of Springfield. I run another for the SE that picks up the Rest of Springfield and another in the NE. If I wanted to cover the entire state I need to run one in the NE as well.

 

What I do for MO I have to do for IL, KS, WI, MN, WV, PA, MD and VA before EVERY trip and sometime travel to more than one state on a trip. Having the ability to down load states would be a lot easer.

 

I already remove the types of caches I will not do on the road, such as events and mystery caches.

 

I am not recommending limiting PQ for others, just an option to run a few states PQ instead of all 5 PQ in one day.

Link to post

 

There are a number of ways to plan a road trip using PQs.  If you check Marwell's FAQ, you will find a great explanation of this process.  (I'll try to find the link, but if I don't post it, I bet it is in his profile.)  It takes a little work to plan out the PQs to get a long trip, but its worth it.

 

 

Oh, I know that it's possible to work around the limitations - eventually. It's also possible to walk 200 miles - but that doesn't change the fact that it would be easier and more convenient if you had a car! <_<

 

I was just posting my own observations and opinions on what would make this site and service more useful to me - that's all. :blink:

Link to post

 

I travel for business often and cache more than your average bear and I have gotten by just fine on the current PQ rations.  I have figured out how to use my PQ's to make some very large routes, it is really not that difficult.

 

 

It might not be that difficult for *your* needs. But your needs do not necessarily match anyone or everyone else's.

 

For my needs, I would find it significantly more useful if the current limitations were removed or relaxed.

 

Why is that so difficult for some people to accept?

 

 

In my opinion GC.com and Groundspeak DO own Geocaching.  By the same token, terracaching.com owns terracaching, and navicache owns navicaching, gpstash.com owns gpstashing, etc.  GC.com does not own the concept of hiding things and posting the coordinates anymore than anyone else does, but they certainly own the concept of a game called geocaching that consists of hiding things and posting the coordinates. 

 

 

The name is irrelevant. The concept is all that matters. I don't need geocaching.com in order to hide a cache and post it on a UseNet group, or a Web Log, or to tattoo it on my forehead.

 

Hide and go seek is a fundamental game at heart (not meant to be a direct analogy, although it's very similar) - and no matter who tries to trademark, copyright, or patent it - they will not own the concept of it. And the concept is all that matters, most of the time.

 

 

I have said many times that I would like to see a larger query so you could get all of your own finds in one query, but I do not want that at the cost of giving "database pirates" a cheap and easy way to steal the info for whatever use.

 

 

Well, you know what? It's a generally accepted rule of thumb that if you want something to be private - don't put it on the Internet. Once it's on the Net, anyone significantly motivated and skilled can access it - end of story.

 

You can make it more difficult, sure - but at some point, you will reach a point of diminishing returns.

 

*I* am not a "database pirate". I am a paying customer. I have no need to "steal" the information, because I'm *buying* it. As are you.

 

As a customer, I have the right to express an opinion that the current services are good or not-so-good. You, and everyone else here has that same right.

 

But how far do you want to take your opinion? Because you can also say that you don't want identity thieves to get any personal information on you, so you're against Blogging. And you don't want Spam, so you're against Mail Servers. And you don't want Personal Data Miners to be able to track what you do on the web, so you're against web surfing.

 

I'm sorry, but to some extent, you have to take the bad with the good.

 

Is it possible that someone will "steal" publicly posted cache coordinates? Sure. Although one could argue that if it's public - how much does it count as stealing.

 

But, so what? This means that everyone who has a legitimate use for this information should be denied? I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.

 

If you have a concern that someone might packet-sniff your GPX files as they are being sent to you - feel free to not request them. But please don't stop other people from trying to get the services that they need or want.

Link to post
.........I would find it significantly more useful if the current limitations were removed or relaxed. 

 

Why is that so difficult for some people to accept?

 

You said that very well!!! I don't think we are asking for very much. In my opinion, Geocaching.com provides a fair service but it could be much better for its paying clients by easing up on the PQ restrictions.

Edited by ajayhawkfan
Link to post
I have worked on it quite a bit and maybe I could get MO down to to 3 but I don't think so....

For your driving pleasure, I took a few minutes and got you three PQs that give you all of MO's caches, less events.

 

for all three PQs, select all cache types except events, LCs, and CITO eventsand choose Missouri for state.

 

For the first PQ, choose sizes small, large, and regular; that is active; for terrain, pick less than or equal to 1.5.

 

For the second PQ, everything is the same as the first except terrain is greater than or equal to 2.

 

For the third PQ, choose sizes other, virtual, micro, and unknown. Terrain should be left at greater than or equal to 1.

Link to post

I see that the PQ limitations hit everyone. :P

 

My situation: I have a database of all caches in western Europe. This makes planning a vacation so much more fun. :P I built it with the current limitations, by filtering on country and placed date... the Netherlands uses 4 PQ's at the moment, Germany 11, etcetera. One the database was filled (which took me 2 weeks of daily queries, all within the PQ limitations and stuff), I want to keep it up to date. At least the cache description, since getting all logs is a bit over the top. I can do this within the PQ limitiations, if the filtering would work correctly...

 

My problem, as stated in this thread, is that the "Changed in the last 7 days" also takes logs into account... so it is "logged or description changed". If the filter was on "cache description changed" only, I would have no problems keeping my database up to date.

 

And for those wo want to know why I want a database like this... it is because I like to travel and cache on a whim. If my work takes me 400km's away into a hotel, I like to go caching in my spare time instead of lying on the bed (no good chaires in hotels...) watching television (no good tv in most cases too...). And I don't have the time to do a PQ for the specific area, since it is not specific anyway.

 

I would like to have the filtering do what it should. That means that "changed" is not "changed or logged", for logged there is another filter. And doing one PQ that would count for more PQ's if it produces more than 500 results found be nice too!

Link to post
I see that the PQ limitations hit everyone. :P

Nah. I'm still content with 500 once a week, though I do have my found caches sent to me once a week as well, but I can do without that (I'm over 500... whoops, didn't think about that! :P *scurries off to change PQ*)

 

I don't need to have a database of caches, Jeremy has done that for me! :P

Link to post
I see that the PQ limitations hit everyone. :P...

Surely, you could do this more efficiently.

 

When you go out of town 'on a whim', do you go with absolutely no planning? If you leave some of your PQs free, you can run them very quickly and have updated data for your trips. Also, if you are like many of us, there are some caches that you do not seek on the road. These could be filtered out, allowing you to get the info you need with fewer PQs.

Link to post

I do caches of all sorts, from micro's to multi's, from events to locationless. And of all diff/terrain ratings (although terrain=5 is not one I normally do...). Filtering on that, won't help.

 

And I sometimes leave for bussiness in under 5 minutes, with just enough time to pack my laptop (with GSAK database on it :P) and suitcase. And then I tour around... going to places I didn't know beforehand. The same applies on vacation, but even worse. :P

 

If the PQ filter "Change the last 7 days" would work as expected, I would be a happy man already. The rest is nice but I can do without. :P

Link to post

Amazing thread. Another bashing of a person who is relatively new, has an interesting idea and is pretty much fed a bunch of condescending crap. I predict that in a few days there will be a repeat of the thread wondering if folks at the forums are being scared off by insulting stuff being generated by moderators and frequent posters.

 

Enchanted Shadow, you are not alone in desiring the things you suggest. You are also (sadly) not the first to get this treatment. Someone should have just pointed out early in the thread that the limits are artificial and Jeremy (who, and I know this is hard to believe given his reply to you, is the guy in charge here) is not interested in changing it. It's his game and you are supposed to play it his way. The fact that some of us want to play it a little differently is lost on many individuals here. I do think that Jeremey does understand it, but he feels he needs to do it this way.

 

I will continue to play the game my way (which appears to be similar to the way you want to do it). Finding the work-arounds to achieve that is part of the fun. It's a bit like the fact that the GPS itself is not perfect at showing you where the cache is. You've got to use your skills. I personally am impressed that you got to the PQs and the GSAK information management as fast as you did and I would certainly in interested in exchanging ideas with you.

 

So, don't let the negative feedback stop you from posting your ideas. You just have to ignore some of the rough edges that are exhibited here occaisionally.

Link to post

 

So, don't let the negative feedback stop you from posting your ideas.  You just have to ignore some of the rough edges that are exhibited here occaisionally.

 

 

Thank you as well for your support and understanding, Hynr. As with GrizzlyJohn and a few others, I will take your words to heart. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...