Team Four Paw

I used the GPS Averaging app, a 60cs, and a 62s. I hung all three from a tree and stepped away to let them avg for 5 or so minutes. Surprisingly the two Garmins avg'd identical coordinates. The phone was one digit different. If you let it average long enough you should be able to get reasonably accurate coordinates. Really though.. the phones just don't have good GPS antennas in them. Should only be a problem under heavy cover. btw, I have a Galaxy S, the Fascinate actually. The GPS is quite fine on it but I'm also running a custom ROM which has fixed most of the issues with the GPSr. It's more a software issue than a hardware issue.

I can't in good faith recommend the Official GC Android app. The free apps are better.

Confused by this comment, c:geo and the Geocaching App on Android both use Google Maps. Maybe he meant the locus mapping program.

I'm assuming you meant "ceases". Legal notice? Good luck with that. Given the circumstances around which the author has operated on the net (that ".cc" top level domain sure has an interesting history, BTW), just where would you have them deliver that cease-and-desist order? You could have it pulled from sites like androlib and android.com and it would still be available from the author's website at cgeo.carnero.cc. The wild, wild web can make 'normal' legal remedies a whole lot harder (or downright impossible) to pursue. So don't assume that because gc.com hasn't tried or succeeded with a legal remedy that they don't believe it's a problem. They know how to contact each other. The developer isn't hiding in a cave. Thanks for pointing out my typo. I can always count on big green.

Maybe not hundreds of links.. but maybe the data used from a search query.

One other thing that c:geo apparently does, I'm not a developer and haven't dug into the software myself to know 100% but, it doesn't identify itself as a mobile app. It was programmed to identify itself to the web servers as a desktop browser. This was done deliberately to allow it to scrape the pages for the information that it needs to function. I have two browsers on my phone including c:geo that allow me to change the user agent (browser identity). Most modern browsers on your computer also allow you to change the user agent and has been a feature for many many years now. This is not a valid argument but it sure does like to be throw around a lot in this debate as a means to question the developers integrity. If you've been around long enough.. You'll know that Groundspeak is no saint either... jholly, I have no interest in debating you. If it makes you sleep better at night that you've won some debate on the internet then all all means sleep tight my friend.

Here is the problem: Please explain how this application gets its data to operate in real time without violating that section of the TOS. c:geo is a scrapper, pure and simple, and therefore violates the TOS. There is no other way for live map to function. Of course it is not the author that has the problem, you the user do. Once the API is released I almost bet that if c:geo is fixed in it's present form there will be some really unhappy folks. The problem is far more than icons. "...other automated means" By that definition I'm almost certain you're violating the TOS by simply browsing GC.com with your favorite browser. I've seen your reply many many times. I think it's a grey area and open for interpretation so I don't need to explain anything. You have your opinion and I have mine. Until GS by legal notice requests that c:geo seizes it's operation it will continue to be a legit program. I'm pretty sure the anti-c:geo folks don't follow the developer and therefore have no clue what he has actually done with the app let alone use it. I really don't need to say anything else that hasn't already been said. Quite frankly I don't know why I bother.

This thread is full of disappointment and bad information on both sides. C:Geo is fine. In the beginning it used GS's icons without their permission. That's it. That was quickly rectified. Since then by the DEV's own words has flirted with the TOS but has not violated said TOS. However from what I understand GS has never officially or publicly provided tangible proof and or asked him to stop. GS created this problem by ... waiting to long to release their own app ... then charging $10 for it. I've been using both apps since their inception and following this ridiculous saga since the beginning and I have to say my faith in humanity has dropped a few points. The good news is that some kind developers have stepped up and will continue development of C:Geo.

You're debating semantics now and creating your own context while missing the point. I'm sorry I disagree with you. Guidelines or not. Besides... guidelines are not definitive rules. Otherwise they would be called rules. Feel free to debate the semantics if want... As for being out of line that would be a violation of your own belief system in which the cacher may not share.

There is no confusion. If the logbook was signed and you are requiring some other action or else you will delete the log, then you have created an ALR in violation of the guidelines. At 19k posts you obviously have gotten very good at stating your point while completely missing others. I understand your logic and I would agree with you if this was a discussion about Logging Requirements.

The difference is that a reviewer is asking the cache owner to go to the cache and verify that there is no problem. If you are paranoid that a blank log might be bogus, do the same, go to the cache and verify. Actually I really don't care either way. My point and my opinion which will not change is that without proper communication the cache owner has reasonable cause to delete the cacher's logs. The cacher at that point can do the leg-work necessary to prove their find to Groundspeak and get it reinstated. The problem with your argument is that proper communication for a 'find' log is the log itself. Requiring additional activity, such as an email response, is no longer allowed per the guidelines. If, as a cache owner, you believe that a log is bogus, the onus is on you to prove it by going out and checking the physical logbook. You're confusing the topic with the Guidelines pertaining to Logging Requirements. Regardless of context if a cacher doesn't respond to an email/message then a cache owner is well within their right to assume it's an automated bot/script and therefore delete the log.

The difference is that a reviewer is asking the cache owner to go to the cache and verify that there is no problem. If you are paranoid that a blank log might be bogus, do the same, go to the cache and verify. Actually I really don't care either way. My point and my opinion which will not change is that without proper communication the cache owner has reasonable cause to delete the cacher's logs. The cacher at that point can do the leg-work necessary to prove their find to Groundspeak and get it reinstated.

If he gets no response from the emails then I don't see why there is a problem with deleting the logs. It's no different than our reviewer posting a note to the cache asking if maintenance is forth coming. If the reviewer gets no response the cache is archived. Deleting the logs in this case sounds like a responsible cache owner to me. Lots of people like me look at the logs for possible hints. A bunch of TFTC logs doesn't help me when I need a little extra info and only have access to the last 5 or so logs. IMHO...

I just noticed on the ideas that the mood selection is being counted. It's on the right. So post your dislike and select the frown...

It's a better avenue than the forum. It will or should reach more cachers than the forum does. It's better than what we've had to date. If you don't like an "idea" say for example virtuals why not create an "idea" for "Please don't allow virtuals". I haven't seen anywhere that all the ideas have to be happy shining fluffy ones...?

It isn't voting when your choices are agree with the idea or don't vote. If you are going to vote on ideas then dang it vote on the ideas. It's just a matter of semantics.. but I think I made my point fairly clear.

I like it. I think only the minority of the caching community is represented in these forums. Most of which I think have too much influence and don't give Groundspeak the proper information for evolving. There are a lot of people that get turned off by these forums and therefore don't visit. This feedback system gives these folks a voice without having to come into the GS forum. The voting seems to be fairly well handled and hopefully the majority will be represented.

fyi - the url for the Houston GeoCaching Society is http://hgcs.org I like that As a rule bit... made me laugh...

I'm interested too as well. I would like to see what they come up with. [reference to unauthorized application removed.]

Autopager is sweet... why haven't I seen this before... More on topic, Being able to sort would be a nice feature.

I think it's more like the conspiracy theorists forums... Yes, all of us conspiracy theorists are just a bunch of blind ignorant fools who have a complete lack of foresight. Maybe some day we'll be as smart as you. Fortunately at your age you'll probably be gone before you get to witness the dissolution of your freedoms. So why stress over this thread? Move on and enjoy your life while you still have it. Honestly, you guys are sounding more than a little paranoid. A little? That's a gross understatement! My advice to the one telling me to not stress and move on, follow your same advice before you give yourself a heart attack... Well, I'm still young enough to get away with acting like an idiot. What's your excuse? You're posting like mad in this thread. I have what 3,4, maybe 5 replies.

I think it's more like the conspiracy theorists forums... Yes, all of us conspiracy theorists are just a bunch of blind ignorant fools who have a complete lack of foresight. Maybe some day we'll be as smart as you. Fortunately at your age you'll probably be gone before you get to witness the dissolution of your freedoms. So why stress over this thread? Move on and enjoy your life while you still have it.

My mom never wore her seatbelt until she was made to pay the fine for said offense...funny, she now wears it religiously. Wonder if that was taught to her through the enforcement of the law?? Your mom was probably driving before they made seat belts mandatory in cars and not to mention the laws regarding seat belts didn't show up until quite some time later. And that has to do what with learning the laws through enforcement of them? She never did wear one and now does because she was ticketed...'nuff said about that! The laws about phones were likely implemented before most of us drove since cell phones didn't even exist when most of us started driving, I bet the law enforcement will have the same effect though! My point was that your mother grew up in a different era and I'm sure didn't fully understand the importance of seats belts. More so you completely missed my point in my previous post. My nephew who has no experience driving, no classroom time, no training. He can't put his iPod, cell phone, etc. down for 5 seconds. Now we're going to throw him behind the wheel of a 4000lb car. ...and you honestly think some law is going to help educate him after he gets ticketed. Will that be before or after he kills someone? Complete lack of education and training because it's no longer a requirement. There is a whole new generation of kids just like him hitting the streets.

My mom never wore her seatbelt until she was made to pay the fine for said offense...funny, she now wears it religiously. Wonder if that was taught to her through the enforcement of the law?? Your mom was probably driving before they made seat belts mandatory in cars and not to mention the laws regarding seat belts didn't show up until quite some time later.

How has driver education changed since some of you old timers started driving? I'm fairly young, not quite half way to dead yet, but I had to take a Drivers ED course when I was 15. It was required that I had X amount of time behind a simulator, class time, and real time. My nephew now 18 wasn't required to do any of that. He read a small pamphlet, drove around the block a few times with his mom, and then took his test. The problem is these lawyers and politicians would rather do away with Drivers Education to cut cost then write stupid laws to extort money out of poorly educated/trained/ drivers. Proper education will fix distracted driving, not some stupid law.