Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by thomfre

  1. Yes. Other official partner apps are blocked, how is it possible for Groundspeak to continue to let c:geo steal data? Doesn't this give Californian users the ability to sue Groundspeak? If not, why block official partner apps?
  2. Are you really sure that you agree? Did you take the time to read both the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy from start to finish? Maybe the site recognized that you scrolled through it too fast? Or maybe you only clicked on one of the links? Just joking, this is a known bug reported in numerous threads already
  3. Maybe this will change the type of challenges we're allowed to create. This is from the challenge cache guidelines: But they also say: So unless you're able to verify with a checker, I will say that it's up to the finder to prove that they are qualified. If not, you should be allowed to delete the log.
  4. Unless Project-GC is given special permissions, you can't check it anymore for opted-out-users. Edit: just tested. Challenge checkers doesn't work for opted-out-users. And they won't be able to run them themselves either. To be honest, this is just stupid. And has nothing to do with privacy.
  5. I know very well how it works. My question is how Groundspeak can continue to allow that to happen now. Edit: There are ways to detect c:geo, Groundspeak can block the app - if they want to.
  6. With the new crazy API change, where even data for users that have explicitly authorized an app gets blocked, how can you continue to let c:geo operate?
  7. I recommend trying https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm?hl=en and/or https://pi-hole.net/ It will make the whole internet better for you. And it will make geocaching.com work again, if you block cookiebot.com.
  8. Are you sure about that? https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=54
  9. You're probably right. Most of them won't ever know. And in the end, this is for the better for all of us. But since this has been added: I guess that the owners that haven't accepted this, still can make claims towards Groundspeak. I'm just curious if this has been given any thought by Groundspeak. Cleaning up the playing board is in the best interest of all of us.
  10. Yes. I guess most owners of those won't ever log in and accept the new terms.
  11. But how will this be handled with the existing geocaches out there? The ones where the owners haven't accepted the new ToU...
  12. I think this is a combination of a language barrier and misunderstanding from the GDAK developer. I hope so too. GS is a part of the community, I don't think they enjoy disabling API access for a partner. I hope a privacy policy can be created, and that this will be enough to get GS to reenable the access. But I don't know anything about the discussions that led to this, so I don't know if this is enough, or if the bridge has burnt down.
  13. Sure, no problem. It has already been stated in this thread that the reason for this was that HQ required a privacy policy: Geocaching.com has a significant amount of European users. They have to both take GDPR seriously, and take the measures required to be compliant. The API provides access to user's personal information, so they are obliged to have a written agreement with all API partners. This agreement require the partner to follow a set of rules. §4.10 say: It's really that simple. If a partner won't do that, HQ has no other choice than to disable the API keys. And for the argument that the app is not collecting any information, it is. It has access to the API, and just by authorizing, it will get access to personal information. The privacy policy need to explain how that information is used. If it never leaves the device, the policy should say so. If the app use third party services, like analytics, the privacy policy will also need to mention that.
  14. HQ is not hard to work with. The lackies are really nice people, and they don't try to be evil. It's clear that GDAK is valuable to a lot of people. So this sucks. But the GDAK developer is the one to blame here. He has to follow the same API agreement as the rest of us. And HQ have to take care of their legal obligations. They didn't really have any choice here. Maybe someone can persuade him to write a privacy policy? I'm willing to help him write it, if that will make any difference...
  15. If this really is about the lack of a privacy policy, there's really not much Groundspeak can do. They have too many European users to not take GDPR as serious as they can. And having control over all their partners is a vital step in maintaining their own GDPR compliance. This is a legal issue, and not something Groundspeak do to ruin geocaching. I suspect that there's a language barrier here as well. The app does collect personal information, so it need a privacy policy - even if all it says is that the information never leave the app.
  16. That is not quite true. Try looking at the end of the query string on the map after you've added the clue filter
  17. As a developer myself, I know it is close to impossible to not release code that has bugs - unless you don't release at all. That is not any better. But the really great developers monitor and fix those bugs, just like you have done now - including keeping us updated here. That is very much appreciated! The speed in which you fixed the bugs this time (which also was fewer than we have seen with other promotions) at least felt a lot faster than before. If that was simply because you kept us informed, or if it was because you actually did it faster doesn't matter. I felt a lot better than it has done before. Thank you!
  18. The old API is still active. It won't be shut down until June 1st.
  19. I have adjusted my user script to replace /play/map with /map, both in the menu and on the "View large map" link on cache pages. This hides the new map completely for me, and might be useful for you as well: https://thomfre.net/en/tech/adjusting-the-new-experience/
  20. I want to see all caches, including my hides and finds, 90% of the times I open the map. The few times I want to hide something, it's cache types - not hides/finds. The best would have been if the map remembered your last filter, and just used that. That way both you and I would have gotten the starting point we wanted.
  21. It's not. It's simply my opinion. We have an adventure lab in our household as well, so I am very much aware of how annoying the cheaters are. Absolutely not. But we are talking about geocaching. Why spend a lot of time making lab caches very hard, when it's so easy to cheat with the millions of normal geocaches in the world? The current app, with the current implementation, could very easily support offline, without making it easier for "the ordinary geocacher" to cheat. The cheaters will cheat anyway, so just detect and block them. This is how *I* would like it to be. This is not the only possible solution, just the one I would prefer. I don't have any issues with people disagreeing with me about that. I don't disagree with that.
  22. Exactly! This would be the perfect solution! Don't waste time on preventing it (we'll just get better cheaters). But detect and block instead.
  23. In 75% of the cases, it's developers (or managers) embracing the benefits of online ads and tracking... There's a long way from utilizing online capabilities, to requiring being online... Partly offline is much better than no offline support at all. Imagine how hard geocaching would be if the app didn't support offline lists.
  • Create New...