pppingme

Wow, interesting thread to hide/delete.

Because Groundspeak has made no effort to actually negotiate a contract with google, intead only quoting some $4/per 1000 hits that they found on a page that was geared toward low volume users and crying about the millions it would cost them because they have no idea what the real cost would be.

This is so far from the truth. They WANT to use the API, GS is the hangup on this issue, not c:geo. GS seems to oppose open source software for no logical reason and won't issue an API key. First you say there is "no logical reason" then when pressed, you explain the logical reason. Groundspeak doesn't want anybody and everybody getting their hands on the API key and using the same key in dozens of different apps. Seems quite logical to me. I never explained a logical reason, only a reason. You also make a GREAT argument for user keys instead of application keys, the very same request that c:geo has made, and gs seems to oppose. User keys almost always make more sense, I could probably quite easily pull a key from an app that has a valid key and use it maliciously, and all GS could do is either let it be, or kill the key and piss off every single user of that app. (Think if I pulled the key from their very own app, then used it maliciously.) User keys don't have this problem, if a key goes rogue, only one legitimate user loses access. What you're saying goes against the concept of open source, either its open (you have the source code for what you run), or its not. If the "binary" version didn't come from the source code that is also distributed, then its not open, by any definition. It wouldn't even be possible to build a working app from the source code.

And they apparently continue. Fact is, Groundspeak has offered an API license for c:geo. But the folks behind the open-source software decided that since the API is limited to only 3 caches for a non-member, (and 6,000 caches for a PM) that the API is not good enough and so far have refused to use it. It was offered under the anti-open source condition that it couldn't be visible to anyone, i.e. it had to be obfuscated in the source code or compiled in a way that the key wasn't visible. That simply isn't possible with open source. C:GEO even came back and asked what if we just didn't include it and every user was on their own to get it, gs didn't like that either. The fact that its limited for non premium users, while it was icing on the cake, wasn't part of the reasoning.

You might want to heed your own advice... This is so far from the truth. They WANT to use the API, GS is the hangup on this issue, not c:geo. GS seems to oppose open source software for no logical reason and won't issue an API key. Wrong again, c:geo is nothing more than an "enhanced" browser, GS ONLY made this statement about the very first version, well before it was open source. The false rumors have continued since.

They did, back in October, its February. In computer times, thats almost an eternity.

If that were true, there wouldn't be a 6 page thread on it just a day or two after the change.

FYI, straight from google: 3. How much does Premier cost? Annual licenses start at $10,000 and include: - For Public-facing websites or customer-facing extranets: 1 million map page views per year A map page view is defined as a single load of the Google Maps JavaScript by your users' browsers. Page views are different from transactions, in that only the initial load is counted, subsequent activity such as pans/zooms or view changes do not incur extra page views. In the transactions model used in other solutions, transactions are billed for all activity on a map (pan/zooms and view changes). Therefore, on average a single page view equals about 4-5 transactions.

Sure you do, you get a say with your $$$. If you don't like the new burger king fries, go to mcdonalds. GS likes to work under the assumption that they are a monopoly. All it will take is to lose about 1.7% of their current paying customers (1,700 of 100,000) to lose what they are saving by not paying google for the map api. It is pretty sad when a company wants to pinch pennies to that level and doesn't believe it will have a negative effect on their bottom line.

How do you know they aren't? Two incidents, a power failure, and a fire, prove they aren't.

I think you had an error in your math. Based on $4 per 1,000 hits (with the first 25,000 being free), I come up with $7,900 per day and $2,883,500 per year. Not cheap, but not as bad as your calculations show. Those numbers ONLY apply to low volume customers (those that occasionally bump the 25k hits per month). High volume customers only pay pennies compared to those rates. Ask google for a custom quote, you'll see.

Except that the real cost google wants only would amount to about 50 cents per year per premium member (assuming 100,000 premium members, a number that was verified about a year ago). That in no way justifies any kind of price increase for gs/gc customers.

The cost isn't "millions of dollars". The little chart and numbers that everyone keeps throwing around are for low volume customers only. High volume customers (gc is quoting 2 million hits a day) only pay pennies compared to low volume users.

Not that huge.

Mine does.

Yep, assuming thats not a typo in the forum, if the cache page has 42 and it was intended to be 47, then thats a difference of over 5.7 miles.. a little more than 3 feet

Yep, just did the math, assuming you meant 47, this is a difference of only 3.075 feet. But, since most gps units and Groundspeak only handle up to three decimal places, this means that most gps's will only get within about 6 feet anyway (not taking accuracy issues into account).

I assume that the 47 to 42 is a typo, but otherwise, this is a difference of probably less than a couple feet.

Heat is the hardest thing on batteries, and the faster you charge them, the hotter they get. I typically use a 200 mA rate (for 2400mAh batteries). The only time I use a higher rate is if I need a fast turn around (I keep 4 rotating sets of batteries for my gps to avoid this). Also, when charging fast, the batteries won't charge as full, so they don't last as long in terms of either how long they will power your gps that day, or in terms of self discharge rate, a fast charge has a negative effect on both of these. If you can't comfortably hold the back of your hand against the battery while its charging, then you're charging it way too fast.

Do you want to *split* it in parts (of 500 points) or reduce the number of points? A "little bit" of softening of the trail (reducing the number of points) probably wouldn't be objectionable, but the main goal is to split it into parts.

I'm not a fan of cheap chargers, this one lists for $17 and includes $10 worth of batteries, you can do the math. Reading the specs, one thing that they repeated several times that stuck out to me was "auto cut-off", this typically means its running on a timer that just runs for xx minutes then shuts off, NOT the best way to charge batteries. No where did I see the charging current or any other real specs on the unit, google search seemed to turn up the same lack of information. I'd be scared of this unit. A good charger (several have been mentioned) will easily pay for itself because they are easier on the batteries, making them last longer (both in terms of overall life or number of cycles and in terms of how completely they charge the batteries so they last longer per charge).

I was hoping that there was some way to do this with gpsbabel directly, but I couldn't really figure out a way. I'm not sure how many points are in the file, but the trail is actually a little over 2000 miles (and probably averages a couple points per mile), so no matter what I have to break it down. MapSource or EasyGPS aren't really options since I'm not running Windows.

I have a kml trail that is well over the 500 point limitation imposed for CAR. Is there an easy way to split to down?

Altitude isn't stored or tracked by gc. The data just isn't there to query.

The whole story is full of holes, and since the OP can't provide a case number (which is ALWAYS public), its very doubtful any of this is true. Private property, maybe. Public property, doubtful (unless the CO put it in an off limits area). In most cases, liability would first fall on the property owner (the city, county, state, etc. who ever owns it). Of course this assumes that the CO did indeed get permission to place the cache or that the governing body involved has an open caching policy that doesn't require permission.