grenoble

It's not entitlement... A large part of the geocaching experience comes from the efforts of volunteer cache placers, maintainers and reviewers. Even those who simply find caches are partly responsible for their upkeep and keeping them hidden. It is GC.com that acts as the steward for the data we all so carefully and religiously enter into their database. We are all part of a community that comes together to create the caching experience. Without the efforts of all of us, this hobby would fail. So, GC.com is not entitled to our data anymore than we are entitled to a decent API. That said, it sounds like there is a significant number of people who think they'd rather have GC.com focus on building a strong database system and allow a healthy ecosystem of developers innovate in how we access that data. C:GEO was one example of a developer creating an innovative experience built on the GC.com hosted database. I, for one, do not think Groundspeak should be in the business of creating apps... it is just a distraction from what is at the center of their business. Build a robust database, web interface and API and leave the rest to the community (just like Twitter and Facebook, for example). Make sure they integrate into their API and business model a way to make money to support the database (I favor a system in which PM's have free API access and non-members have limited access... this would encourage more PM's). It is frustrating that (as of yet) we do not have an open and publicly available API which is free to any developer to use to access the database WE created. I believe this wonderful community brought together by the very notion of sharing of data (our cache information) and by the common thrill of cache hunting is held back by the restrictive access policies that are currently in place. The death of C:GEO and the absence of other truly innovative interfaces are examples. It is great to hear an API is in the works and I look forward to it being published. Rob

Largely correct. But to put a finer point on it: It's to control who can access Groundspeak's servers and how they do it, and to ensure that as a business, Groundspeak makes money for it. And I have no problem with that. Neither do I. As I said in my original post, I completely agree that Groundspeak should be able to make money off their services. But, allowing open access to the API and making money are not mutually exclusive (it's "free" as in "free speech" not as in "free beer."). I also believe that a more open policy will yield more innovation in client apps, more publicity for the hobby and a larger user base for GC as a whole... meaning more money for Groundspeak. Some legitimate models for access and making money might include. charge app developers either a one time or per user fee charge users a premium for API access require app developers to (for non-premium members) display ads do nothing special and expect that some people will sign up for premium membership (the same way they do with the web interface) The only real issue is whether Groundspeak can design an API which ensures that one bad client doesn't mess up access for everyone. I am fully convinced they can and see Twitter and Facebook as models of database services (after all that's what these ultimately boil down to) with a well designed, public API.

This is exactly why I don't buy the server load argument. If they can support the load of adding more platforms (e.g.: Android or WebOS) then they should be able to support the load as a result of releasing the API (and thus giving more folks access to the same functionality). I am happy that Groundspeak has decided to support more platforms than just the iPhone but it doesn't inherently change the fact that their policies about access really seem to be about maintaining control over who can write apps. As users we lose because we don't gain the benefit of the innovation that all these developers are itching to provide.

As far as server load goes, I think the fear is that by allowing more queries of the form "I'm here, tell me what caches are nearby" (due to an uptick in applications with access to the API), there would be a higher demand on the servers. I'm not sure I buy it either but it is a legitimate question to ask. The entire model for the geocaching experience is based on open community development and maintenance of a resource (in this case, the individual caches we place and post). It is striking that the organization that runs the web and database architecture in support of this community is so closed in its access policies to this data. It doesn't seem consistent with the spirit of the hobby. -rob

I too dropped in on this thread after doing a Google search for "geocaching api" and feel the need to weigh in... I am completely aware this has been discussed ad-nauseum and that the Groundspeak owners (and perhaps many cachers who have systems that work for them) don't seem to care. I have been Geocaching for about a year and a half and do not (nor plan to) own an iPhone. What brought me to geocaching was the marriage of high technology (GPS and web) and the distinctively low-tech of walking around finding things. I often don't plan on geocaching. When I get a few minutes free, I want to look around and see what caches are near by and go on a hunt. This can happen anywhere. Sometimes I am near my normal haunts (home, work and Fry's Electronics) and other times I'm in some random location. The standard responses I see to the discussions about a public API are either: Get an iPhone, it does everything you want You can do that with Pocket Queries Opening up the API would swamp the already loaded GC servers Groundspeak is trying to make money off this and need to control access to the interface What all of these arguments seem to miss is the tremendous opportunity that is lost in not allowing other developers to build modern applications built on the same access model that is used by the iPhone app and the website itself. I am talking about free development and marketing labor that is taken on by those who develop and promote their own GC applications. I am talking about people who are passionate about improving the geocaching experience but are hamstrung by the lack of API. I do not believe Groundspeak should be in the business of writing client applications. Does any iPhone app user really care that the app was written by Groundspeak? They just care that it does everything they want and that it is reliable. Groundspeak's business is the data and the community that surround this hobby. To grow their business (assuming that is the goal) they want to do everything they can to encourage more paying customers. The current business model is to either charge annual membership fees for access to "premium" services or to charge a fee for the iPhone client. I maintain that access to the GC data using a modern interface should be part of their service and will benefit GC and the community in the short term. The GC website is a model of both good and bad interface design in the same place and I am happy to support its continued improvement through my premium membership fees. That said the "premium" Pocket Query model was designed for a world in which our GPS devices are separate from our computers. It is now (or very soon will be) more common for someone to have a GPSr in their phone or netbook directly connected to the network than for someone to have a dedicated GPSr device. The pocket query model, while still quite useful for some purposes, is no longer a truly modern feature and, as the only approved way to get access to GC data, shows its age. If you look at any of the recent big successes in the web sector (e.g. Twitter, Netflix or Facebook) their businesses jumped as soon as they published a public API. They got themselves out of the business of creating client software (other than their web interface) and allowed the developer market to take care of itself. In all cases, they continued to maintain control of their data through access controls built into the API. Groundspeak could choose to go this route (possibly charging a premium or requiring premium membership to access data with the API) and focus their development energy on a well-designed API and making sure the server infrastructure can handle the load. What saddens me is that the geocaching experience, which is built on technology and a strong volunteer community, seems to be held hostage by a restrictive access policy. This hobby and the way each of us experience it is a uniquely personal thing and it seems strange that we should be limited in that experience by the relatively few client options we have. I do not fault the Groundspeak owners for making the decisions they have but I do not agree with them. An open API (with appropriate access control) would grow the community and make the caching experience better for all users rather than focusing on the limited market of one phone device. -rob