MnGCA

5savages · Geocacher Joined: 13 Feb 2005 Posts: 204

<<EDIT: Never mind this post. Rubber Toes provided a much better solution below.>>

You may have figured this out already, but I just discovered it this weekend.

I get PQs every week for the entire state of MN. You're limited to 500 caches per PQ and with the filter I have set, that takes 10 PQs. I want to minimize the number of PQs, so I need to maximize the number of caches each one grabs. The addition of new caches and archiving of old caches creates the need to revise the dates every so often. I used to do this by trial and error in the PQ filter page. Very tedious and time consuming.

I decided I'd try to figure out a way to make GSAK filter based on date while limiting the filter to 500 or less. I couldn't get this to work, but then a solution struck me...I get 29 lines of caches on a screen. 500/29 = 17+ pages, so if I page down 17 pages (and if I've sorted the caches based on date placed), I get very close to 500 caches. I note the dates and enter those into the PQ filter. Doing this I quickly had 10 PQs, the first 9 of which had between 490 and 500 caches each.

RubberToes · Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 3:26 pm Post subject:

Here's a macro that will take a look at your database and tell you the dates you need for your PQs.

If you want, you can set a filter within the macro. I've done this to filter out caches I've found, so at the moment, I'm only requesting 8 PQs for the entire state.

5savages · Geocacher Joined: 13 Feb 2005 Posts: 204

Thank you!! This is even more elegant! I knew I should have posted a question rather than a tip. I thought that macros might do what I wanted but I haven't had time to learn how to create or use them.

RubberToes · Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 3:38 pm Post subject:

Macros are tres cool. Play with the ones on the GSAK forum and you'll have hours of fun. After awhile you might find yourself messing with the code to make them exactly what you want. More fun!

pfalstad · Geocacher Joined: 02 Feb 2006 Posts: 962 Location: Edina

Thanks! My 11th query just hit 500, so this came in handy.

celticwulf · Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:38 am Post subject:

hmmm...am I the only one amused by the fact that GC.com keeps having database problems, and yet right here we've got 3 people running PQ's all the time to get the whole state. Makes ya wonder if the servers would run better if they did a weekly PQ for the whole state for people that live there Laughing

CW

(and no, I didn't come up with that myself...I'm pretty sure I heard some surfer dude saying something similar at one time)
_________________
Who put this trail here???

5savages · Geocacher Joined: 13 Feb 2005 Posts: 204

I think they need to remove the 500 waypoint limit. It'd be nothing to have state-wide files available, or for larger states, area-wide files.

It'd be nice if someone set up a central repository for state-wide PQ's, updated weekly, for anyone to access but gc.com would scream about that. I don't really need weekly PQ's for the state, but I when I want to reload my GPS/PDA, it's nice to have them there.

Marsha and Silent Bob · Past MnGCA President Joined: 02 Sep 2003 Posts: 6261

Get an X series GPS and put the waypoints on the SD card. I realize that there's no way to do it directly but if you add them as some other kind of waypoint there is no limit on how many you can utilize.

I don't understand the necessity for this kind of use but that's me.
_________________
Sad state of affairs.

LucidOndine · Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:24 pm Post subject:

Marsha and Silent Bob · Past MnGCA President Joined: 02 Sep 2003 Posts: 6261

5savages · Geocacher Joined: 13 Feb 2005 Posts: 204

Hey SB, I think we're talking about two different things.

I do have a X series (Legend Cx) and do put the state caches on the memory card as POIs. When I say I want to reload it, what I mean is update the GPS/PDA with current data. And when I talked about the 500 waypoint limit, I was talking about limit of 500 caches in a PQ, not the limit on the GPS. 500 waypoints on the GPS is enough for me, but as long as I can put the whole state in as POIs, I will.

LucidOndine · Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:08 pm Post subject:

They probably have to consider the number of paid users who do not currently get an entire state that would if it were readily available. CPU cycles are cheap compared to bandwidth, even though with geocaching.com as mucked up as it is you'd think they'd change the way they manage their data. The real bottleneck with gc.com appears to be the database being tied up at high traffic times. It is my understanding that there is a queue set up for PQs and they're only processed when the database is relatively free.

Even so, if they generated state PQs every week, how many cachers would in addition generate a PQ for new caches placed and one for caches that have been disabled? I know I run this PQ daily and many others who run it too. They have to draw the line somwhere.

I'd argue that generating a 10-15 megabyte state PQ file once per week and having a smaller "recent changes" PQ always updated would not only cut back on server time but probably cut bandwidth needs too.
_________________
The Lucid Network (tm)-- More Bars in More Places!

Arcticabn · Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:16 pm Post subject:

Me if I was doing it. I wouldn't push the state PQ to everyone. I'd prevent it from happening.

What I would do is do it at the site and host it as a FTP. Link each state PQ to a US based map. Click on the state and it would download. That way everyone is not trying to actually run a PQ. It gets run once a week and serverd to those that want it.

Then if you want an update between the last time it was pulled then you just run a PQ for the state with a newer then posting date.
_________________
Airborne All the Way!

RubberToes · Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:16 pm Post subject:

The real issue isn't bandwidth. The real issue is that gc.com doesn't want to make the full database easily available to others who might use it in competition with them.

All manner of sane ideas for PQ optimization have been rejected out of hand over the years. There's no reason for gc.com to take a different stance now.