Where exactly did you read this?
Like I said, I may be worng (actually I hope I am). I read the features listed on the [reference to unauthorized application removed by moderator] and I read the other posts here on this thread. The one that got me looking was that they added the ability to log a cache from the phone. Unless they have been given permission by Groundspeak then there is no way I know of to log directly from the phone without automating the access to the geocaching website and thus violating number 5 on the TOU below:
(text bolded by me for emphasis)
I have heard that Groundspeak is going to release an Android app similar to the iPhone one soon so I am wondering if they would actually give this permission.
Currently I know of only two applications that are allowed (e.g. have the express written permission) to automate access the site and these are their own iPhone app and the Trimble app. Using any other app that does that and you risk being booted from the site.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'll add my two bits anyway: "robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access the Site" establishes a certain class of applications - when I think of apps in this class, I think of search robots, etc., that crawl websites for content, images, etc., and typically create a database or index and extract data from the site - where the interaction with a site is completely automated and the intent is to harvest or extract information from websites. See Wikipedia Web scraping article. In other words, apps that run basically without any human (i.e., manual) interaction with the express intention of creating a local database/index of website content.
IMHO, [reference to unauthorized application removed by moderator] is not within this class, but rather falls within the same class as any browser. As long as [removed] does nothing more than a user with a browser would do - i.e., it only issues/receives one (or many, but related to the same url, e.g., images, css, js) HTTP request/response(s) per user action, and presents some representation of the response(s), then I don't see how this could be considered "automated means" - it's a manual means of accessing site content - just like every user accessing the site with a browser. And clearly using a browser is not a violation of the TOU. To me, [removed] is simply a customized browser - one that understands the particular semantics of this site and presents a simplified view of its content.
Additionally (IMHO), gc.com would be shooting themselves in the foot if they decided such apps violated the TOU. These apps are exactly the vehicles that will drive more and more users to sign up for premium subscriptions and make gc.com more and more money. If I were the PTB of gc.com I would welcome such apps with open arms, and in fact encourage further development. A public web service API would be a great way to do this. (But please don't start another API discussion - I read through many many pages of arguments on another thread about why this might be a bad idea, and found nothing convincing. - IMHO, gc.com is missing a great opportunity here.)
