as77

I wrote a bookmarklet that decodes ROT13-encoded text. Select the text in the browser and click on the bookmarklet, a window pops up showing the decoded text. Text in brackets will not be decoded. See this page for more info and the bookmarklet itself. If you find it useful, send your registration fee to... nah, I'm just kidding. Ah, it works in Internet Explorer. Didn't try it with other browsers but chances are it doesn't work with any other browser.

The Explorist uses a patch antenna. However, this does not mean that its reception qualities are the same as that of the Etrex. The Etrex is known to be the worst unit on the market as far as sensitivity is concerned. More recent units with a patch antenna are much better.

never mind

Etrex yellow: poor reception Explorist: no computer interface Consider the Geko 201 or the Magellan Sportrak instead. Both have better reception than the yellow Etrex and both have a computer interface.

Yesterday someone stated in another thread that it was "not possible" for someone to have taken an action for a particular reason. Great offense was taken, and the person apologized for the statement. You might learn from this. Since it is clearly possible for someone to feel that they get more from Groundspeak than what they pay for, they are entitled to that opinion, and you ought to be discussing *why* they feel that way rather than arguing in absolute terms about what is "possible." Once again, please respect contrary opinions. Would you please stop lecturing me? I take offense at your trying to prevent me from freely expressing myself. Looks like whatever I say you always have some negative comment on it. I don't appreciate this. It's you who should practice respect in the first place. Besides, please stay on topic.

OK, so let's stay on topic. The original post somehow seems to imply that we get more from Groundspeak than what we pay for. Now that is impossible. Groundspeak is a business, not a charity. But maybe I misunderstood the thought, it's not very clear to me.

I said that the debate was about what I said, not that the original post was about that. I never said that the original poster misunderstood something. We haven't really discussed the original post and the original poster has not contributed anything to the original subject other than the original post. Is there a rule that a thread should be strictly about the original post?

No, it is not. The debate has been about the monopolistic practices of Groundspeak and especially the monopolistic control over the cache database. Nobody cares how much money Jeremy makes. That is a moot point. Still, some people seem to misunderstand and come up with the usual "let him get filthy rich" type arguments.

But that is absolutely not what the debate has been about.

Elias, thanks for the clarification. However, even though I'm not a lawyer myself, it would seem to me that if what you are saying is correct then the wording of the agreement is misleading because it says that the data model and the file format itself is copyright-protected and must not be duplicated. But if what you are saying is correct then other, independent cache listing sites can provide the same GPX format files with the Groundspeak extensions, and that is great because all the software that handles GPX files can be used with the listings retrieved from those sites. (Not just Navicache, I'm thinking about the Hungarian cache listing site at www.geocaching.hu, which has its own, independently created database of Hungarian geocaches.)

The problem is that some people are too generous. They take nothing or they take one small item and then they leave six big items out of pure generosity. And they don't think about the next poor cacher who will have a really hard time reclosing the container. When one has to try various packing arrangements in order to be able to close the container then there is too much stuff in it.

I'm not!

Does that mean that all programs that can write GPX format files with Groundspeak extensions are in violation of that agreement? E.g. gpsbabel, GSAK? BTW since both GPX and LOC are XML files, there is nothing to "reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble" about them. They are cleartext. The only way not to understand their structure is not to look at them. Besides, Groundspeak itself has made the format public by making it available at http://www.Groundspeak.com/cache/1/0/cache.xsd. Reading GPX files is allowed, right? Now if one can read GPX files, one can write them, too. No "reverse engineering, decompiling or disassembling" is required. So this part of the agreement doesn't make any sense.

Yes, that would be worth doing. But you see, this is what should have been done when the hobby was started. Now that Groundspeak has an extensive cache database that most of us rely on, we have a huge obstacle in front of us: we have to buy the database for God knows how much money if we really want to do this. If we start a new database with zero caches, no one will be interested. Even if the majority of people agreed that in principle an open database is desirable, another question is how much they would be willing to pay for the purchase of the database from Groundspeak. We are kinda trapped. I'm not too optimistic about it. Chances are we have to wait until Groundspeak goes out of business by itself.

I don't think you can say that. Most geocachers have not even considered this possibility (they never even heard anyone mention it) and there was no poll or survey to find out what they would think about it.

Read back, I gave arguments why it is bad. I didn't just state it. I'm not talking about a website here. I'm talking about a community, an organization. Surely a national or international geocaching organization would be big enough not to vanish. Again, we are not talking about a "site". The rules of geocaching should be set up in a democratic way, preferably by voting. Sure. But I guess we could buy the database any time. It's just a matter of money

No, because you have no choice and no one can offer an alternative as long as the database is practically owned by Jeremy.

Of course it's bad. But of course if one has no choice then one will agree with the terms if one wants to use the services. "Agreeing" just means that you accept the terms; it doesn't mean that you think these terms are the best possible in the world. I think that quite the contrary is true. Businesses are fragile, they can collapse any time, especially if they depend on a single person. A community is a much more stable entity on the long term and doesn't depend on anyone in particular. BTW there is no such domain as gc.com.

That's self-evident but it has nothing to do with the current discussion. True, but without buying up the geocaching.com database first, it doesn't make any sense.

This discussion is not about me, so I don't understand why you are bringing this up. We are discussing principles here. You should not move the discussion to a personal level. And if they decide tomorrow to format the disk that stores the database then the entire hobby collapses. Geocaching is a hobby and the cache data and logs are the product of the participants. To put this database in the hands of one person or company and give up all the rights to it is not a wise thing to do. We, the geocachers lose all control over it and become entirely dependent on that one person/company. Geocachers should become a self-governing community instead and they should own the cache data. Then they can give licenses to commercial companies to use the data on the terms that the geocachers determine.

I think this (below) says that once you agree to let GC.com provide the initial listing of your geocache, maintain the server that the logs and cache pages are stored on, and promote your cache, all free of charge, they own the data, without respect to who's work created it or the logs. Isn't that what I said as well?

A little too simple. The cache data is not owned by Jeremy. He has full license to use the data any way he wants. That practically amounts to ownership, don't you think? If I can legally do to something anything I want then it's mine.

OK, in simple terms: The cache data are not the product of Jeremy's work. He still owns them. That is not good.

BTW where are those archives? www.archive.org doesn't seem to have the cache pages.

I don't think the hobby would die if GC.com packed up the tent and went away. True the current database would possibly go away, the sport would just have to start over or evlove more drastically than normal. That's what I meant by "killed". It would be catastrophic. Just think about it, all cache pages would have to be retyped, all the logs would be lost, etc. That is death, even though the hobby would be born again. The point is that the hobby currently entirely depends on one person and that is not healthy, regardless of how well-meaning and reliable that person is. Fortunately, there are web archives that contain most of this information. Yes, but... good luck recreating the cache database from the HTML page archives...