Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: Pocket Queries for the State

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Biddeford, Maine
    Posts
    311

    Default Pocket Queries for the State

    I know there are a couple of people on the forums here who have all the caches of the state loaded into their GSAK program. I know Ekidokai is one of them and I believe brdad is another.

    My question: Is there an easy way to do that, and if so, what are the parameters you use to get all the caches in the state? I'm trying right now, mostly making a query to capture as many caches as possible and then set up another one that is right next to it on the map and have as little overlap as possible.
    Oscilating between remarkable brillance and sheer stupidity with amazing regularity.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Hermon, Maine
    Posts
    6

    Default

    I made an article for that with the dates.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    china,maine
    Posts
    411

    Default

    I have all of the caches in the state loaded in GSAK and I did it by the date each cache was placed. It will currently take 13 pq's to get them all but if you do not care about the cache after you find it then you can eliminate those ones from your pq's therefore lessening the number needed to have all of the caches in GSAK. I also have all of the NH caches in GSAK. Done the same way.
    You can't have everything. Where would you put it?-Steven Wright

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Brewer,ME
    Posts
    2,576

    Default I do also...

    I currently get the the whole state of my unfounds in 6 PQ's. Start with Jan 1 2001 and go out a until you have enough for that query. Then you just need to experiment with the inclusive dates to have it come out under 500 for each one. I try to stay around 485 to 490 leaving space for any that are temporarily disabled. If you are at 500 and some in that date range come back online then it won't catch them. Just continue making new ones until you get to present time. Making sure you set the final end date a few months away to catch future events. Obviously the have to be spread over several days of downloads due to the 5 a day rule. This has worked for me for many years. I will also get a PQ once a week with disabled caches so I can avoid not loading them when I go caching. That is another subject however.
    Happy Trails!
    Yeah it's a Jeep thing!


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Bangor, ME
    Posts
    6,061

    Default

    I believe going by placed date is the only way to get gc.com PQs without missing caches or having duplicates. People a lot smarter than me tried many methods and figured that out when PQs were first introduced.

    My article on the subject, Unfound caches PQ's should explain easily how to create the PQs. It is tailored towards your unfound caches PQs, but if you would like all Maine caches as Myself and some others do, you can easily skip the checking of the "I haven't found" and the "I don't own" boxes.

    Ekidokai's Paperless caching all Maine caches for GSAK article on the other hand, gives you the approximate dates you need to create the PQs by date IF you want to have all Maine caches in your PQs. If you want just your unfound, you will have to adjust the dates a bit depending on how many caches you have found.

    There is a GSAK macro named PlacedPQ which can calculate the dates for the PQs as well. It should work well for all caches or unfound provided you filter any archived and found before running. I don't use it because it does not take too long for me to adjust mine using the technique explained in my article when needed.

    I just upped my PQ set to 11 PQs for all Maine caches, I can get them to all fit in ten but #10 is very close to 500 and I like to have some buffer. as caches get archived (and as you find caches if you are just doing unfound) you will need to edit the dates on all your PQs.

    If you need any help following my article, send me a PM or check in chat to see if I am around.
    Last edited by brdad; 10-28-2009 at 07:01 AM.
    DNFTT! DNFTT! DNFTT!

    "The funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realize it doesn't say anything it's to late to stop reading it..."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Albion, Maine
    Posts
    324

    Default

    This is a snap shot of the PQ's I'm using today to get all the Maine caches. As BrDad pointed out, number 10 query is pretty close to max'ing out at 500.

    There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.~~Albert Einstein
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Many wise words are spoken in jest, but they don't compare with the number of stupid words spoken in earnest. - Sam Levenson (1911 - 1980)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Bangor, ME
    Posts
    6,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TRF View Post
    This is a snap shot of the PQ's I'm using today to get all the Maine caches. As BrDad pointed out, number 10 query is pretty close to max'ing out at 500.
    Neat idea to put the dates right in the name of the PQ!
    DNFTT! DNFTT! DNFTT!

    "The funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realize it doesn't say anything it's to late to stop reading it..."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Richmond
    Posts
    408

    Default

    I've always used a date name as well.......I like his idea in sequentially numbering them too!
    I'm just nuts about geocaching!!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    [x, y, z, t]
    Posts
    668

    Thumbs up

    I'm using the same approach as NativeMainer. I have set of PQ, each PQ covers a circle of 500 caches around a point. I don't use PQ by dates because it has more disadvantages. First, there is a problem when somebody suddenly enables large number of caches and it will not fit into your PQ. You can leave some room in your PQ but more room you leave more you are wasting your PQ. Second thing is, caches get archived. More caches are archived, less is your PQ utilized and you have to rebuild them. Third thing is you don't know when your most recent PQ will be full to start a new one. As you can see you have to keep an eye on your PQs to make sure you are getting all caches and not wasting your PQ. Which is unacceptable for me. I like set it and forget it approach. Another thing is, if you go geocaching to some area you have to load all your PQs from all dates. Because you don't go geocaching by date, you go geocaching by area, right?. You need to load just one PQ with this area. You may have all your PQ loaded already just in case, but you need to update just one to make sure you will see all the new ones in the area and don't see disabled or archived ones. Minor disadvantage is you will get some duplicates because your PQs will overlap, but that's not an issue since my GPS can deal with it. Major advantage is scalability, that's why I use this method. More PQ you set up the longer it lasts without need to rebuild it no matter what happens. Just set it and forget it. It is possible to cover whole Maine the way so your PQ set will return all caches for as long as it's possible, even when somebody introduce various anomalies like putting large number of caches in one area (hello Ekidokai) or archiving/disabling/enabling large number of caches. It also has a very nice fail safe mechanism. When you get to the point your PQ set can't return all caches in Maine any more, the caches that are not gonna make it are caches far from civilization, you wouldn't want to go there anyway So when your PQ set starts failing because you need more of them, it will fail the safe way, it will be still usable in contrast to when you will not be getting the most recent ones. OK enough of theory.

    How to get the optimal coverage?
    The coverage which has all the good properties I mentioned above. First I printed a map of Maine and tried to do it by hand. It was a time consuming work and I wasn't sure if my coverage is optimal. Then I stopped and started thinking. Hey, why I don't use something what has been here for millions of years and works perfectly? Why I don't just let it evolve out of nothing? I made an evolution algorithm to solve this problem for me. It works the same way like evolution in nature. It starts from set of completely random population of solutions, there are not really a solutions at this moment, it's just a random noise. Then by applying natural selection and random mutations over many generations this will became an optimal solution we are looking for. Longer this simulation runs, more optimal solution you will get. You can stop at any time if the solution is good enough for you, or you can keep it running to the point no more optimal solution can be found. Of course not every random noise will evolve into the optimal solution and for that reason you have to run many instances parallel and discard the wrong ones to save processor power for the good ones.

    I ran this maybe a year ago a here are the coordinates you are looking for, please note that 9 and 10 PQ set no longer covers whole Maine, 11 is OK and will be for a while. I may run this again for 13 PQs so it will be good for another couple of years.

    -- points coordinates for 9 PQs --
    -67.4796853806228, 43.5615122606597
    -71.1598729238754, 43.4862042839903
    -70.307813884083, 43.681665611424
    -69.69150683391, 44.3554635176991
    -67.7924064013841, 46.3598405671762
    -71.1605595588235, 45.5320748230088
    -69.1500155276817, 44.8303752614642
    -70.4983083910035, 44.1170804062751
    -69.8254226211073, 43.8427864400644

    -- points coordinates for 10 PQs --
    -68.2113965397924, 46.8310471922767
    -70.2322126297578, 43.8350498451327
    -70.1593908737024, 44.2211193704747
    -70.2019347750865, 43.2577539621883
    -67.4057924740484, 44.0730874014481
    -69.3841580449827, 43.8536176729686
    -71.2556118079585, 43.8172383990346
    -69.4291243944637, 44.4986999497184
    -70.7045680363322, 45.0761225362027
    -69.0589237889273, 45.0644235760257

    -- points coordinates for 11 PQs--
    -70.2902030709343, 44.9572746158488
    -69.9350150519031, 43.0973012067578
    -69.1225666089965, 44.9881288475463
    -71.8093471885813, 43.9347962469831
    -68.8456879325259, 44.243446069992
    -69.4953874134948, 44.3761315526951
    -69.745058866782, 43.80255614642
    -69.7528590397924, 46.7218018644409
    -70.3867109861592, 43.8070291653258
    -67.2030374134948, 45.1836247304907
    -70.1907618512111, 44.1990537570394

    This will return all caches in Maine, including temporary disabled. If you are looking for custom set of unfound or what ever PQs just for you for given criteria, I can have it evolve just for you
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	MC09x.jpg 
Views:	36 
Size:	214.1 KB 
ID:	411   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	MC10x.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	225.8 KB 
ID:	412   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	MC11x.jpg 
Views:	38 
Size:	224.9 KB 
ID:	413  
    Moo

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Hampden, ME
    Posts
    891

    Default

    Uh.......I just wanted to go for a walk in the woods, maybe even find a cache.

    Quote Originally Posted by cano View Post
    I'm using the same approach as NativeMainer. I have set of PQ, each PQ covers a circle of 500 caches around a point.......(deleted)...... If you are looking for custom set of unfound or what ever PQs just for you for given criteria, I can have it evolve just for you
    Everyone has the right to be an idiot at times. Just don't abuse the privilege.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •