Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by pppingme

  1. Why is everyone blaming Groundspeak? Why not complain to Google?

    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.

  2. C:geo has refused to use the site API

    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.


    I don't know how Android apps work, but I wonder if they could omit the key from the published source code, and only include it in the actual built app in the Android Market. Or is it still easy for another developer to reverse-compile the app and get the key? :unsure:

    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.

  3. The false rumors have continued since.

    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.

  4. You might want to do a little research before you complain

    You might want to heed your own advice...


    C:geo has refused to use the site API

    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.


    and continues to scrape the site

    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.

  5. As I see it any money that GS pays for Google Maps means that there is less money for other areas of the Geocaching website. To me the maps are a very small part of the website.

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

  6. 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.

  7. Hi, welcome to Capitalism. It's an American thing. I didn't get a say when Burger King changed to thicker cut fries last December. I don't get a say when Starbucks starts and stops selling it's season flavors. Think of it kinda like the Canadian healthcare system were you don't get a choice of when or even weather or not they will fund a life saving procedure for you. Where it's all based on if the government thinks that you'll be a productive enough member of society to justify the cost of saving your life. Apparently Google Maps just wasn't cost effective enough to be saved.

    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.

  8. OpinioNate made an Announcement called About Google Maps where he said that "Geocaching.com averages well over 2,000,000 hits to Google per day". With Google Maps new pricing structure that would mean Geocaching.com would have to pay Google about $10,000,000 a day. That comes to about $3,650,000,000 in a year....


    I hope I did that math correctly.

    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.

  9. I am pretty sure I will get hate mail for this, but I would be willing to pay much more for a membership, if.... maps were speedy, reliable, easily usable by techno challenged individuals like myself. I will hold off judging til things have settled down a bit, but if they don't improve A LOT, I will be unhappy. Heck, double the annual fees AND make it members only, everyone has to pay .... and before you have hysterics, that's five (5) dollars a month. Think about how much you pay a month for batteries, or gas, or trade items, or any of the other ways you shell out for geocaching. The extra money could be used for the maps, and for a variety of other things that might be needed. You could have a free trial period of a month or so, but then, pay up, buddy. Five dollars a month is still the cheapest entertainment in town. I don't really understand why Groundspeak lets people play for free forever. I don't remember any geocaching guarantees in the constitution, or the bible, or in any other authority I can think of.


    Alternatively, make the premium memberships 50 bucks, and the ordinary one $25. Would still probably solve the paying for map costs.


    Point to ponder.... people also respect things more if they have to pay for them....


    Let the hate posts begin.

    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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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?


    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.

  12. 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).

  13. 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.

  14. Not so much as a peep. Not a blip on the radar. :unsure:

    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.


    However, I do see where a CO could be on the hook for a major injury or a death in the tort laws under Duty of Care and Standard of Care.


    I'm referring specifically to the part in Duty of Care that speaks of proximity and that clause in the Groundspeak disclaimer that I read (between the lines) to say, "Wasn't us. Talk to the CO. It's their cache."


    I too am not a lawyer, but I truly believe it's a matter of time before there is a legal precedent for a CO getting sued. I also believe that it will have something to do with Duty of Care.

    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.

  • Create New...