Pocket Query size

[Team Black-Cat]

I think most would agree with you GR, but it’s hard to drive past that stop sign when the arrow is pointing right at it. 🙂

To get back on-topic, having the higher limit on PQs will make it much easier for people (like me) who want to keep an accurate, state-wide database of caches. Maintaining that many PQs has become “unwieldy”.

[gotta run]

How do you purge your DB of archived caches (or don’t you)?

On the Left Side of the Road...

[Team Black-Cat]

Filter on “last GPX date” > X days. I take a glance at the caches listed and if there are any in question I’ll check them, but they’re almost always archived.

[sandlanders]

@Team Black-Cat wrote:

To get back on-topic, having the higher limit on PQs will make it much easier for people (like me) who want to keep an accurate, state-wide database of caches. Maintaining that many PQs has become “unwieldy”.

I like seeing how you use that database, TBC, and we really like when you share some of those stats with the rest of us. Glad the higher numbers will help you with that, but on our outings, we tend to lean towards the Cheezehead numbers instead of the Mojave ones, so 500 or 1000… won’t make much difference to us.

[Crow-T-Robot]

I can’t wait to start reading some of the exciting cut and paste logs from all of those caches.

Fixed that for you.

As for larger PQ’s, it will be nice to have but I don’t see myself benefiting from it that much. I usually run one or two PQ’s on Friday so that I have fresh data loaded on my GPS. Depending on how I filter the info, I usually end up with between 700-800 caches loaded, of which I usually find about 10 on any given weekend.

The thing that surprises me about this is that if I remember correctly, GS discourages members from maintaining offline databases but now they are making it easier to do so. Since I don’t dabble with maintaining databases, I could be wrong about it being easier with larger PQ’s…but it just seems like it would be.

Bruce

[Author]

Posts