bjorges
-
Posts
45 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by bjorges
-
-
I am Groundpeak's legal counsel and I am responsible for protecting Groundspeak intellectual property (Trademarks, Copyrights, Patents) as well as enforcing the Terms of Use Agreement.
The GZCII application is using Groundspeak's registered Trademarks and other intellectual property without consent. The GCZII application is an automated tool that scrapes data from the geocaching.com website without authorization in violation of the Geocaching.com Terms of Use Agreement.
At this point, the application developer and I will be meeting shortly to discuss options. Until the issues are resolved between Groundspeak and this developer, we have no interest in allowing the application to be promoted in the Groundspeak discussion forums and we will not be issuing further comments regarding this application.
Sounds just like what's asked for in this thread. Discussions instead of silence. Make GCzII a legal application for WinMo and give WinMo users a choice in addition to their GPSr. You probably can afford to pay Tom Hiro a bit as well, and still manage perfetly OK.
Please let us now the results of your meeting here ASAP, and PLEASE don't just shut the WinMo door.
-
How about contacting Tom Hiro, offer him access to the official API, give him a free PM or two, and let him be the developer of the "official WinMo-app"?
It seems like GS is not able to develop anything else than the site and an app for a fruitcompany.
Why is GS so ignorant to people living outside US, we pay the same ammonut to be PM, but an US citicen gets twice as much for his/her subscription as the rest of the world.
I am impressed that you (moderators) even bother to remove the name of the software Tom Hiro has developed, when you don't bother to forward the questions to GS. What's the harm of mentioning a working software for WinMo, when GS ignores this issue?
Please GS: Do something!
-
You actually can create an unlimited number of PQs with a workaround in the system. PQs aren't ever deleted, they're just archived. Here's the work-around:
- Open a PQ in the edit mode
- Save the URL (either as a bookmark or in some other piece of software)
- Save the PQ
- On the PQ grid, delete the PQ
- Open the URL that you saved, then save the PQ.
- The deleted PQ will be saved again and available on your grid.
Nope, won't work for me either.
Is it possible that it works for you since you are a Volunteer?
- Open a PQ in the edit mode
-
It has to be generated before you can download it so your spot in the queue means everything. It's more complicated than just saying "let me click on the link and I'll download the file". The file has to be created, which isn't an instant operation.
-Raine
But if I were able to choose the time when this PQ should run, I would have been very happy. Of course the time should be related to my local time, so it was easy, but that should not be a problem. After setting a time for the PQ to run, I would have the PQ within one hour after the start time of the PQ.
I guess this could balance out the PQ generation troughout the 24 hours, since people are active at different times around the world.
At the moment I never know when, or wheter, my PQs are coming.
-
As long as they charge accordingly, I am still all for this. Charge per result. Those that keep requesting this can put their money where their mouth is. Groundspeak makes more money to pay for the additional stress on the system.
......
Make this available and charge per result.
But of course, I would be happy to pay for functionality that would help me planning my trips the way I want. If a "Preminum Premium membership" at 60$ would give me 15 PQs a day I'd be happy to pay this.
At the same time I also would expect others to pay for stuff I don't need, such as Geocaching live for Iphone which I don't need, and never will, since I NEVER am going to get such a lousy phone.
Different features could easily get priced, and as a member you could choose wich services you wanted to use. The total yearly cost was a result of your choices
-
.....Why not at least let us get the kind of data in bulk that the GeoJr gets. Skip the logs. This would allow charting and mapping cache runs offline and not wasting online resources.
No problem - you just need better tools to accomplish this. Here is a link to get just the tool you want.
So, tell me: If you are not an U.S. citicen, what use do you have of this electronic gizmo?
The webpage you refer to says "...With approximately 250,000 pre-loaded geocache locations in all 50 U.S. states..." and "...The Update Kit provides access to new U.S. geocache listings..."
Don't forget: Geocaching is an world wide activity, not only in the U.S.
Your argument doesn't help us much :|
-
One PQ can get you 500. You get five PER DAY. 5x500=2500.
I just hate when the moderators joins in to kill a discussion. All geocachers are entitled have their own opinion, but it seems sometimes that the moderators (and some other loudmouths) are fighting to keep GC the way it was when it started. If you are interested in preserving stuff: Become an archeologist or something.
I think a lot of the geocachers are interested in improving GC, and tries to express this in this forum.
This topic about enlarging of the PQs pops up quite often to be a question noone are interrested in.
I would love to have predefined national PQ's who gave me all caches in a country. This could be generated at 05:00 local time every day, and distributed to those who wanted to subscribe to them. Once generated the file could be accessible for instant download via the webpages. Simple and efficient.
Don't bother those who says this discussion is old, keep up wishing.
-
Some just do NOT get it. CR has spoken intelligently on this subject for weeks, I have repeated it, yet the so called veterans around here cry some alleged company line that I still have not heard. It is not a dead horse, it is a matter of progress and efficiency.
Perhaps this is only a dead horse subject in the minds of those who want to look good (as some fan boy) and not cause friction. Without friction we have no energy. Just because some want something better and know there is a way to do it, that yes is different than now, and push for it, does not mean they are not a fan of GS.
No personal digs here - just my observations.
Couldn't agree more.
Unfortunately there are a lot of preservers at this forum, who wants to preserve everything "as it was at origin", and who do not accept that some others might have a different view. Theese persons seems to yell out and kill all debates trying to speak for a improvement. I think this is sad, and not very useful for the debate.
Well, I still could wish for increased PQ's or even standardised national PQ's, and I sure will not stop wishing for it either.
-
Then we expect to be served 24/7, especially because Groundspeak is promoting to not use OLDBs.
But of course, don't forget that geocaching is an global activity, while some of us have night and are sleeping (or doing nightcaching) others have daytime and are out caching.
-
The last days GC-problems shows a perfect need for offline DBs and bigger PQs.
Althoug several live-services (geocaching live, GCzII, and such) are popping up, the problems shows the need of personal offline DBs.
I know someone who were staying in Thaiand at the moment, on vacation, who tried to check the spoiler picture to find a cache, who had to return back home the day after without any finds, because the site was down. If they had an offline DB, with spoilerpics, they probably would have been able to get a find on their holiday.
Please increase the number of caches in PQs so we are able to find caches also when the servers are down.
I see no reason why there should be such small limitation for the PQs.
One possibillity could be National or county PQs set up by GC, where premium members could subscribe to theese. The limit to reduce from National to county-PQs could be 25000 caches inside one PQ. The generation of theese PQs could be 03:00 local time (for the Country of course), which would spread out the generation trough the whole day and night, and you would reduce similar PQs from all the national geocachers who wants the exact same information on a daily basis.
What say you?
Bjorges, lucky to have offline DBs while GC is down
-
Exactly!And this should make me stop asking for a solution I would like to happend?
In my mind it is like this: If enough users ask for the same, TPTB might change their opinion of what to do.
If you don't ask, you don't get!
Therefore: I ignore earlier "won't"'s and ask!
May I have a pony?
Yes you might, just ask your mother. If your mother doesn't read this forum, give her a call and stop naging us about your ponyvwish
-
TPTB have on several occasions indicated that they are not going to increase the number of caches you can download using pocket queries. They have repeatedly indicated that purpose of PQ is not to maintain large offline databases and that they feel 2500 caches per day in more than enough for planning a geocaching outing. sbell111 comment is that you might as well ask for a pony as to ask for running more PQs or getting more caches per day. There is certainly the possibility that TPTB may allow more saved PQs so you don't have to start archiving ones when you get to 40. They did increase this number from 20 to 40 in past. And I believe they may at some time change the limits on caches returned per PQ to make it easier to get the caches in a cache dense area without having to do as many "by date placed" PQs. E.g. instead of 5 PQ each with up to 500 cache separated by date placed, allow one PQ with up to 2500 caches.
And this should make me stop asking for a solution I would like to happend?
In my mind it is like this: If enough users ask for the same, TPTB might change their opinion of what to do.
If you don't ask, you don't get!
Therefore: I ignore earlier "won't"'s and ask!
-
May I have a pony?
Don't ask me, ask your mother
Can't see how your pony is related to my posting.
-
Release Notes - Geocaching.com: March 10th, 2009 Release
19. Increased Bookmark list limit from 20 to 40
How about increasing the numbers of PQs as well, and also allow 10 PQs ran each day?
Or increasing the maximum number of caches in a PQ.
-
baø's test does not do it for me, cause I have used the same texteditor both before and after it worked. Still the only change is wether or not there are more than one date in the file.
-
Make sure you are not checking the box on field notes upload that suppresses older dates as well.
I'd really like to hear about what happens when you try to upload the file with more than one date. Do you get an error? Does it not upload and that's it?
Have tried both version of check on the date without any change.
When I try to upload the file with more than one date, I am immediately transferred to the "There has been an error, - please write what you were trying to do"-page (Probably not the right text but I guess you know which
)This happened in IE, Firefox and Opera.
After entering the first day of loggings manually (by copy/paste from the file), I figured I would have it a go once again.
Guess what, now it worked !?!
My conclution was simple, not more than one date in the file.
-
How are you formatting the dates you include in the log? Does it work with other date formats? Say you input a date like Mar. 12th 2009. Does that work?
I got the original file from a friend with an Colorado, and have just been editing in the same way.
GCXXXX1,2009-02-16T18:55Z,Found it,"" GCXXXX2,2009-02-17T12:00Z,Found it,""
Is there other ways to enter date and time as well?
-
I have had some problems uploading a field note file, and could not figure out why.
I have tried this several times, but all of them has failed.
Yesterday I figured out why
A field note file can not contain several dates!?!
Since I don't have a colorado or a oregon, I have manually edited the file. For a long time I have thought it was my editing of the file who were wrong, but now I know better
Why does the field note files have this limitation?
-
Now, I personally wish that Groundspeak had other priorities. But they don't, and they own the data and the site and they set the TOU. So accept it, already!
You're never going to get archived caches included in PQs.
You're never going to get state-wide PQs.
You're never going to get more than 5 logs in a PQ.
Once again, these things are not Groundspeak's business model. So they are not going to happen.
If enough of the customers want a change, it is possible to change a product offer.
A great example of this is a Norwegian frozen pizza producer who now removes the paprika from their most sold pizza because of some groups at facebook etc. who wanted it removed.
Please: Don't stop suggesting changes because some ignorants tells you it will never happend!
-
As mantioned earlier: I will NEVER have an iPhone, but I haven't complained about GS using "my share" developing this. Actually I give this development a big yawn
, and really don't care, to use a moderators way of speech.
Actually, I am glad you said this too, and I hope that Groundspeak hears my opinion here, just as yours.
They *sell* the iPhone/iPod Touch application. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Very simple. It is going to have to support itself with sales. If it doesn't sell, I would bet it would go away. I really, really, really wish they would offer a PQ with 1,000 results and *sell* that service. Those of you who *really* want this can put your money where your mouth is. I totally agree with TotemLake that if you give 1,000 away, then some people will want 2,000. Sell it, let people decide what level they want to be at, and then we will see how many people will pay $60 a year for PQ's with 1,000 results. Groundspeak makes more money. You are happy, I'm happy (which I am with 500 in a result) and Groundspeak makes more money, which makes them happy.
So, would you pay more for this service?
If the service works out for me: YES.
As Volvo Man has spoken for in several of his postings in this thread: What about a Platinum membership where you pay a little extra and get a little extra?
-
I'm impressed over those of you having the "Moderator" sign around your neck. It seems like you are trying to kill all discussions in a thread by posting as you do.
If in your opinion posting facts kills the discussion, then so be it.
When posting like you do, it might.
Your posting could be seen as a "this has been discussed before, so drop it"-message, especially since you are a moderator.
Actually I don't care if it has been posted once or houndres of times earlier, as long as this was a feature request posted by me. I might even try once more if nothing happends in a while. Probably I would get the same grumpy postings from the same grumpy moderators, but I don't care.
One thing I know for sure: If I want a change, I have to post it as a feature request. I am probably not the only one who want it, even thoug there also will be several posting telling me that others don't need my request. SO WHAT? I want it!!!
-
Reality check. This topic rarely garners much support. You have been told it has been posted a few times before. There hasn't been much support in the past either. That's a fact.
The reality check? Google ads. There were some issues at first where everyone saw them. People POURED into the forums complaining about it. Groundspeak listened. Quickly. Premium Members don't see them now.
There is no flood of people asking for this. Most folks can live well within the parameters given because no one has ever found 500 caches in one day, ever, period. I don't think anyone will ever find 2,500 caches in a day, ever, period.
There are indeed polls here, though informal. There was a poll on Google Ads, and the paying community voted them down. The paying community gives the "I want more than 500 returns in a PQ" informal poll a yawn.
Very few care.I'm impressed over those of you having the "Moderator" sign around your neck. It seems like you are trying to kill all discussions in a thread by posting as you do.
What makes me wonder is that you say the question has been raised a few times earlier as well with little support. I believe in development, and I guess the users of GS are developing their habits and needs as they continue geocaching. Some users might even be able to change their opinion as they see that the thought dey did not need a year ago now would be very helpful
I really think that if you want a change you have to put out your wants, and hope that there are others that see the same need, regardless if the same question is put out before.
Moderators should be careful when posting their comments with "negative vibes", especially since they are moderators (and the forum owners extended hands), unless you want an kommunistic forum where everyone are alowed to post what the moderators have approved
As mantioned earlier: I will NEVER have an iPhone, but I haven't complained about GS using "my share" developing this. Actually I give this development a big yawn
, and really don't care, to use a moderators way of speech.Still, it seems that someone could have use of such a feature as requested, and since the question raises from time to time, I figure some of the users would be happy if it was implemented.
-
Well, this tread started with a simple feature request: Increase or remove the limit of 500 caches in a PQ, and the ability to share a PQ amongst other PMs.
To those of you who keeps posting "memories" from an old thread: I don't care about what GS said four years ago, I still would like to see some changes. I expect development, not a "end of discussion, will not happend, EVER" solution. That is probably aslo why several people have posted their opinions in this thread.
I really support Volvo Man's suggestion of an "platinum membership", that would give us the ability to choose what we want.
To those of you who posts "this we dont need"-postings: Why bother, if you don't need it, maybe others do. The needs of others might give you a bonus too. I don't have a iPhone, and will NEVER get one either, but I don't "yell" around that this is a stupid development. Surely I would welcome a "Geocaching Navigator" for Windows Mobile, but that's not the issue.
Respect other meanings than yours, and to the moderators who have posted "negative" posts here: Remember you have a moderator-sign under your avatar, you should be even more careful when you post a "support" against the suggestion and what can seem to be a solely support to GS.
Hopefully this thread can continue as a constructive thread, not as a "I want, I don't"-discussion.
-
The point I'm trying to make is that while it would be really neat to slice and dice all of the data, Geocaching.com is the constant best source for the data as everything else is instantly stale. If you only download what you need to go hunting and be creative in the ways you use the wonderful system you've got - you'll probably be able to spend more time actually caching.
Exuse me, but does this "defence" of GS follow with the moderator role?
Geocaching.com site update May 4th 2011
in Geocaching HQ communications
Posted
I miss the visual representation of disabled caches in the new maps. To find out if a cache is disabled or not you have to click the icon at the moment.
Will this be fixed as the old map were with the icons greyed out on disabled caches?