B+L

That isn't at all what you said earlier, but we'll go with this now. How exactly do you propose that Groundspeak "handle it"? They have made it clear for the past couple of years that c:geo is an unauthorized app (see this topic for official statements on c:geo). Since it would be difficult for them to respond personally to each poster in these forums, the community has taken it upon themselves to make new users aware of the issues with c:geo. I don't see any problem here. If you feel the wording of the TOU doesn't adequately describe the use of the official API, I'd suggest you contact Groundspeak directly. Posting in the "Getting Started" forum won't get their attention. Yes it is. See post #6. As I said, it's not my problem, so i do not need to contact anyone about it. I'm just objecting to the self-proclaimed "community" playing app police.

If you feel you need to get "express written permission" before you'll use any API-enabled app, feel free to send an email to contact@geocaching.com. If you intend to take the "written" part literally, the Groundspeak mailing address can be found here. The rest of us will continue as we are, since we already know that any API-enabled apps are approved for use. OK, I have not said any of that, but I do wonder what makes you think you can pick and choose which parts of a contract to take literally. The TOU is written in relatively plain English. No where does it approve or otherwise give you permission to use API-enabled or other apps, but that's not my point and you know it. My point is simple: If Groundspeak has a problem with an app, then they need to handle it themselves and not just leave it up to the forum scolds to quote the TOU every time someone mentions the app. Yes, I happen to think the TOU outdated, but so what? It's not my problem and it's not going to stop me from using whatever app I want to use. And instead of using an irrelevant clause from the TOU as the justification to harangue other people about the apps they might want to use, how about leaving them alone?

I think this page (http://www.geocachin...ve/default.aspx) IS the express written permission given to end users (us) to use apps like NeonGeo and GSAK (I use both of these and love them!). Implied permission is not the same thing as express written permission.

The TOU does not prohibit using apps that access cache data. The TOU prohibits using apps that scrape the geocaching.com site to obtain cache data. Neongeo does not scrape the geocaching.com site. Neither does GeoBeagle. Neither does Groundspeak's Geocaching app. AIUI, the latest version of GSAK uses the API and does not scrape the geocaching.com site. AIUI, c:geo does scrape the geocaching.com site to obtain cache data. That's where the TOU violation comes from. The TOU prohibits accessting the site using any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access the Site for any purpose without our express written permission. The TOU is an agreement is between you (or me) and Groundspeak and it clearly states that I (or you) need express written permission to use any automated means to access the site. The attempts to shoehorn c:geo into it's own category are missing the point.

You seem to be unaware, weezulguy, that there is no such thing as a ill-placed cache or a negligent cache owner. Any perceived flaws are merely the result of your unfortunate atitude. You really should keep such concerns to yourself or you risk spoiling the fun for everyone else. Whoa. Completely uncalled for. Weezulguy has a right to express an opinion that the caches are dangerous, and even if that doesn't mean the caches that caches should be archived, it's information that other potential seekers of the caches might want to know. A reviewer already stated that caches are not reviewed for safety so there's no chance of weezulguys "attitude" spoiling the fun for everyone else. If weezelguy posted a note or dnf on those caches and explained why he didn't try to find them the CO should have left them intact. It's called sarcasm and it was not even directed at weezulguy.

Briansnat, do you know if Mike teague has a geonick? yngve

See, there really is no need to bring back virtuals. Throwdowns are just variations on the theme.

For software to use the Geocaching API, it requires a unique API key, which can only be issued by Groundspeak. Therefore, if an app or program is using the API, it's implied that it is officially endorsed by Groundspeak. c:geo does not use the API, and therefore does not fall under the same category as the other apps. Sorry, perhaps I have an overlooked an exception for apps that have "implied official endorsement". Otherwise this exception is wishful thinking. The term "express written permission" has a very precise meaning. The TOU neither mentions categories of apps, nor does allow for any exceptions. As an example, Clyde may have received express written permission allowing GSAK to use automated methods such as the API, but the TOU is an agreement between account holders and Groundspeak, not between Clyde and Groundspeak. It looks to me like the TOU needs an adjustment. Otherwise, anyone using GSAK, or Neongeo, or c:geo, or even one of the official Groudspeak apps, is violating the TOU as it is currently written.

People are fond of quoting that clause each time this topic comes up, but is it even applicable? I once received express written permission to use an app that I wrote myself, but I have never received permission to use any of the other apps that I commonly use, such as GSAK. Each of these apps uses automated means to access the site. Am I violating the TOU by using them? If the answer is no, then how can *I* violate the TOU by using c:geo? It is not up to the users of an app to determine if it is in compliance with the TOU, it is up to Groundspeak.

You seem to be unaware, weezulguy, that there is no such thing as a ill-placed cache or a negligent cache owner. Any perceived flaws are merely the result of your unfortunate atitude. You really should keep such concerns to yourself or you risk spoiling the fun for everyone else.

I think you mean "the ropes". The mountaineer types, being mountaineer types, tend to have a strong taciturn streak, but if you peruse the logs of caches where some skills are desired if not required, you can glean the names of some of them. Or at least a list of the blabbermouths who actually log their finds online. There are also a few lurking on sites like nwhikers.net.

If you are not using a serial to USB adapter, you should be able to get things working without needing additional drivers. Otherwise, you should start thinking about what sort of bribe is likely to be the most effective.

I don't think we ever met Bob or Christy in person. The very first geocoin we ever found was one they placed here on Vashon and we always kind of had a soft spot for them after that, especially since we got the impression from their logs that they were really genial people who loved the time they spent together. There aren't enough people like that in the world. Maybe that's the reason their passing makes us so sad, even though we were never fortunate enough to cross paths with them.

Sure, except Prius tires are smaller and cheaper than truck tires (we bought some of them too and not because of road noise as someone else posited). If I am going to compare costs , I am naturally going to compare the two vehicles I actually own and they are about as apple and oranges as you can get. But let's not quibble, I think we've already managed to thoroughly hijack The Jester's thread. I've also been remiss in not saying how glad I am that he escaped from his ordeal unscathed. Glad you're OK, Jester.

At 7 years, you have to replace the battery at a cost of several thousand dollars. That supports your decision to purchase the non-hybrid. The warranty is 8 years (10 in California). Saying the batteries must be replaced at that point is like saying your bumpers will fall off as soon as a 5 year/36,000 mile warranty expires. It is still fairly rare for hybrid batteries to fail, even in vehicles that have in excess of 10 years and 200,000 miles on them. The expected lifespan is more like 300,00 miles, but of course that will vary widely just like the longevity of conventional vehicles does. At 95,000 miles we had to fork out $3500 for a couple of O2 sensors, a timing belt, et cetera for the Tundra and another $1200 dollars for new tires. Hybrid batteries from salvage yards are only about $500. I think the overall costs are still heavily in favor of the hybrid. Besides, as time passes it gets harder and harder for most people to ignore those nagging insecurities the car ads are picking at and they don't keep their vehicles for 8 or 10 years anyway. The average length of vehicle ownership is at an all-time high right now and it is still only about 6 years.

You don't buy a fullsize truck for the MPG's unless you want the heavier towing/hauling + 4WD (& 4lo) capabilities. A midsize truck will get you midsize towing/hauling capabilities and still have 4wd (and 4lo). And usually, if you need the towing/hauling/4lo- you don't care too much about the MPG's. In fact, most V8 vehicles will gulp fuel. But then again...I have a 2001 corvette that gets better gas mileage than anything we own - 32mpg on the highway in 6th gear. You just can't do much with a corvette other than cruise the highway. Sure - you can race 'em, but your MPG's will drop!!! If you're really concerned with MPG's and that's all that matters - then you get a Prius, a Smart Car, a Motorcycle (to name a few). Y U no read? LOL

If we floor it, which we have done once or twice, it's more like tossing hundred dollar bills out the window. We figure we've been saving $2300-$3000 a year. To be fair, the Tundra went through a period where is was getting even worse mileage than normal until we replaced two of the four the O2 sensors, but even so, our average mpg was closer to 10 than 20. Filling a 26 gallon tank about once a week or filling a 10 gallon tank about once a month was a very easy decision for us.

In 2007 we calculated that at $3.00 a gallon, we could pay for about half the price of our Socialist People's Car™ over a five year period compared to driving our V8 Tundra. It is roomy enough to sleep in and we have done so several times. It handles light off-road duties just fine. Our definition of light is no rocks turned up edge, because ground clearance is minimal. However we we've driven it all the way up Hart's Pass and we have seen other people managing the Middle Fork and even topping Corral Pass, which is a hideous road no matter what you are driving. To us, spending as little as possible on fuel is is a bigger deal than anything else. Our Pruis is paid for in another couple of months, but if if we were in the market for another vehicle, the Tundra would be the one we'd replace. It's really painful getting 12-19 mpg when we can be getting 35-45 instead. It feels like driving down the road tossing $5 bills out the window.

The only rails-to-trails path with a tunnel I can think of is the Mosier Tunnels, but dogs are permitted there on leash. There is a fee for that one if you don't have whatever you Oregonians use for a parks pass. I think it was $5.00. There are plenty of good hikes along the gorge. Catherine Creek is nice. If you prefer something more vigorous, Dog Mountain is popular and it's close to Carson which is the location of the do-not-pass-without-stopping hot springs.

The challenge guidelines changed recently. The wording could be better, but it seems to say that you can't allow people to use archived finds, but you can allow existing finds. in fact, it looks like you must allow existing finds to count if those caches are part of your challenge. http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=206 We are very happy, maybe even deliriously happy, to see you doing this.

So you feel it is fair to charge all RV owners an extra $10 tax. (not a fee, a fee is something you pay for a service. Like a fee to get into the parks. This is for all RVs, whether they use the parks or not.) I know a lot of RV owners who never take their rig to a state park. Why should they have to pay? Fair is charging everyone who uses the parks. If you charge some sort of tax on those that don't use the parks, it should be on eveyone who doesn't use the parks. By the way, did you mean to say this was "stuck" or "Struck" before the final bill? I do hope cooler heads prevailed on this. Yes, I meant to say struck, not stuck. I think the fee was misguided at best, although I do find it interesting that it was motivated in part because RV owners were the least likely group among park users to have purchased a Discovery Pass. I have no use for the RV hookups in the parks, but it has never occurred to me to complain about paying for them.

I'm not so sure I'd agree with your idea of what fair is. Also, the language regarding the $10 RV fee (not tax) was stuck before the final bill was passed.

The same can be said about the use of bold fonts and all caps. While I do not deny that your response is true on the surface, I'd like to rebut with something deeper: your response seems to have added zero content that addresses the actual topic. As such, it can really seem to be passive-aggressively snide and hoping to come off as clever. But whether that is true or not is not really important. Instead, please regard Thought #2 above and keep it on topic. Thanks in advance. First you insult most of the participants in this thread. Now you're insulting me personally, but also asking that we keep it on topic. Are you really that self-unaware? No. Don't answer.

The same can be said about the use of bold fonts and all caps. Hiking arguably has less to do with geocaching than driving does, but that didn't matter to the guy who was upset about the recent loss of the hiking forum. His frequent moaning about it was enough to get it restored.

That's a bit of a stretch at best and it's completely irrelevant to the vast majority who read the forums rarely, if at all.