stringcachers

I am looking for web sites with tutorials on solving GC type puzzles. I am not looking for specific answers to known caches. I want ideas on ways to go about solving the puzzles in general. Things people have seen, and how they solved them, etc. Any ideas?

Bump Any further information on this topic?

This is something that we do want to do. Thanks for that. That statement together with the previous one makes this whole thread worthwhile for me. I know it may take some time, but at least you are not against the idea.

Just out of curiosity. My pocket queries have not been running this week, and I just checked on them. I had to revalidate the fact that I accepted the license agreeement first before I could go into that page. Did this happen to anybody else, or just me? Was Groundspeak giving me a not so suble hint? Just to make this very clear. I do not personally have a scraping site. I do not share my PQs. I do not publish them. Do I use them personally? Yes. My position in this discussion is as a self proclaimed proxy for local sites that want to provide value to the local community, but have been blocked. A positive method of providing this service to fellow players would be greatly desired by all these sites. But has the previously pointed out thread about Buxleys shows, there were suggestions a year ago that something might happen, and then it was dropped. (I did not know this before starting this thread - FYI). As such - Bump? One of the expressed concerns that GC had with this data sharing was archiving caches, and the fact that other sites might not get these updates. Well, that is true with my PQs as well. Since players like myself agraegate them in GSAK, caches that have been archived are not getting updated because the PQs do not list them. Not even just to show that they are archived. So, my personal GSAK database of PQs from GC is now out of date. Would it not be wise to at least list the demise of caches in a PQ? Elias, I understand you are busy. But is there something that can be done?

Elias, Thank you for your response. It did clarify a few things for me. A couple of things: First: Is this true? Second: Is GC open to some official way to share data? Is this in the "works" now or in the future? Something like a "super PQ". Scraping the site is very inefficient whereas PQs are very efficient. For both sides. Thanks again. I am so very glad you have responded.

Sorry, bad editing on my part.

Help me understand why stats are bad for caching in general. Is it: 1) A privacy issue? (This is an argument that I can appreciate). 2) "This is not a competition activity" attitute? 3) ???? As for being surprised or angry - I am not. I am simply trying to get a clear understanding of the position of GC - from GC. If I am fighting a loosing battle, fine. But you don't stop a battle and run away simply because somebody on the sidelines tells you that you will lose. As for it being a battle, I would rather it not be. I just want to know if peace talks is even possible and who to talk to. That is it. I have greatly enjoyed this game/sport/hobby/activity over the past couple of years. A large part of that enjoyment has come from the friendships I have made with fellow cachers. And, local stats has encourged that friendly interaction. It is simple as that.

Is this true?

So, two questions do come to mind. 1) If what kind of forum does he make his position known, and can you give me examples? 2) How would I go about having a real discussion so that I can come to an understanding about what kind of deal is workable?

Yes, I pay my dues. So, what you are saying is that I am beating my head against the wall for nothing? And that Jeremy is not even will to come out and give a simple "no" (though I would love it if he would give a "maybe")?

Yes, I did. I have not received a reply. How can it help? Maybe by getting some interest generated so they will reply?

I would like to open a subcatagory of memorials for Iwo Jima memorials.

Seek permission? Isn't that what I am trying to do? As for security. I am not suggesting that the remote sites do a direct query of the database. I am suggesting that perhaps, simular to a PQ, that an agreement can be reached as the needed queries, and then the data is sent (ftp, email, scp, rsync, whatever) to the target site. Then, the target can manipulate that data however it wants to. The database is never open directly to the target licensee. What I am asking is whether Jeremy (Groundspeak) is open to the idea at all. Or, is the topic closed, period.

I agree that they have control of the data. That is why I am asking the question whether an agreement can be worked out? There is obviously some demand for these kind of statistics, whether Groundspeak sees a point in them or not. I am not asking them to present the stats, just to work in cooperation with those that do. Nor am I suggesting that these sites should obtain the required data outside an agreement. Which, sans an available cooperative avenue, they will gather the data however they can. If Groundspeak were to cooperate, then a load on the servers could be reduced (not the real issue). And possibly some small revenue could be generated. And, the local caching groups could still see that data the way they wanted. Can GP deny that these satellite sites have provided some benefit to them as well? By driving cachers to them, training new cachers, adding interaction and friendships between local cachers? Is GP just going to dig in their heals and say no? Or, is it going to see an opportunity and/or demand and fill that void?

The question I am trying to ask is: How we can get together with for all sites and allow a cooperative agreement that does not violate the terms of use? If Groundspeak wishes to maintain control, or to block scrapers, then how can we work with them to accomplish the local goals of these types of sites while remaining within bounds. While I have my agenda for certain sites that I like to see working, the reality of it is that there are dozens of sites like these. And, they exist worldwide. Can Groundspeak come to terms with these sites that is benefitial to both? That is my question. Jeremy, are you listening?

I did about a week ago, and have received no replies.

The thoughts of the community are pretty much irrelevant here. You'll have to take it up with Groundspeak and their lawyers. This is why I am hoping that Jeremy would jump in here and give some feedback. Is GC completely against the idea, period. Or, are they open for discussion?

By licensing the access - with queries from within (instead of page scraping), doesn't the bandwidth problem go away (or at least greatly reduced)? And, that allows GC to eliminate sites that are still scraping while still working hand in hand with those sites that do provide a service to local comunities.

I do see that as a potential sticking point. I would argue, however, that these are just the coords. They do not include the logs, the page information, the hints, etc. As such, the cachers need come back to the main page for information. And, this information is available still to the individuals as PQs. If agreements were to be reached that downloadable files of waypoints were not to be available, would that change the issues with GC? By being able to do a couple of queries most of the goals could be reached: 1) All caches in (name your state) with log lists, including archived caches. This might not include the text of the logs, but rather the type and poster ID. 2) Totals stats of all posters in the (name your state). And if this was on a subscription basis (for a MODEST fee), then a large portion of the goals of the other sites could be reached, and most of the site scraping could be elimitated.

They seem to be blocking the source IP addresses of the data mining servers from even looking at the site. I am really curious about this. Is it a question of publishing the actual coords? Is it a load on the servers issue? Is it control of the data? I would think that GC, with special permissions, or a small license fee, or something, would allow groups like this (see link) to work with the site to allow a greater community. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=87157 I love them, because I can see who is active in my area. This allows me to share, and get to know, and interact with the group in a meaningful way. It also allows these groups to think about different ways of generating statistics that are meaningfull to them. Pocket queries come close to what these groups want/need. Create a way to have a special members account with the ability to do full load pocket queries (all caches in a state for example - with all logs - including archive caches). Once a day, or three times a week, then they could do what they wanted with the stats (within limitations). And they could still not be putting too great a load on the GC site. All of these sites seem to come back to GC and help foster additional GC business. I don't understand why GC can't be cooperative with these sites. Geocaching really is about community.

What are the GC policies concerning third party websites? There are a number of them out there for local groups that provide statistics, etc. for local players. They are really community building sites, that all point back to and encourage going to the main GC site. But, they seem to be stymied lately in access to the data from the primary site.

Ok. So, the rock, as we know it, is meant to be touched. So, no harm, no foul. Unless, the person "in charge" mistakes that rock for one that was still pristeen (the case here), or has an agenda. So, she goes balistic, we go balistic, and the war begins. What I personally found interesting is the "New rules are in place here in Arizona" line. What NEW rules is she refering to, and what power is being used to enforce them? This line has yet to be mentioned in the threads, but I think has an overarching clue to the real motives here. I think the issue is less one of a overreacting guardian, and more of a person who has been previously and purposely tainted by some other geocaching hater. We have a couple of persons in authority here who appear to be on an anti-geocaching rampage. If our rock-guardian was previously taught by this person, whatever we may say to help aliviate the situation is of no value, because they have already made a decision, and this picture of a sweet girl doing the unforgivable (leaning on a rock), is just ammo to be fired. That being said, I still believe that the true person in authority should be contacted personally, and the matter discussed in an open minded and forgiving (by both parties) manner. This would go the farthest to aliviate the situation, and also help to establish what the REAL rules are. Who should extend this olive branch? Perhaps the owner of the cache, perhaps some contingent of our greatest Arizona geocachers. A war of words is in neither parties best long term interest. Education, kind words, and excellent conduct becoming of a geocacher are our best allies here. Steve quote: Do not be surprised if it is removed. Geocachers must get permission from land managers before placing a cache if any kind. New rules are in place here in Arizona. I appreciate the removal of the Center from your website. It has attracted some visitors. However, we do not think your website is the kind of PR the Center is seeking.