Google Earth

[+rc&boys]

I am fairly new to Geocaching and this is my first post on this forum so please bear with me if I am not posting this in the correct area. I recently found this cool tool to assist me with some of the harder caches and to help plan my caching days out. I feel like I am Geocheating when I use it but none the less I thought I would pass it on. Google Earth . Google has put satellite maps online and you can search by longitude and latitude for free. If you want to import your .GPX files you will need to upgrade to a plus membership for an annual fee. I am not affiliated with Google at all; I just found a cool tool to help me and thought I would pass it on to the rest the Geocaching community.

Enjoy

[Jeremy]

Google has put satellite maps online and you can search by longitude and latitude for free. If you want to import your .GPX files you will need to upgrade to a plus membership for an annual fee.

The irony is this feature was done by integrating GPSBabel, which is robertlipe's project (who is a famous geocacher). It is a free (open source) application and it is crippled by Google Earth unless you upgrade your subscription.

 

This has been posted many times in the last couple of weeks so it isn't really news to anybody, but we can understand you're excited about it.

[+dogbreathcanada]

If you want to import your .GPX files you will need to upgrade to a plus membership for an annual fee.

Using .GPX files with Google Earth doesn't require an upgrade. I haven't upgraded yet, and am using it with my Pocket Query .GPX files. Just drag a .GPX file onto the app, and voila!, they're all loaded.

 

If you want to download waypoints and tracks directly from your GPSr, then an upgrade is required.

Edited July 13, 2005 by dogbreathcanada

[Jeremy]

If you want to download waypoints and tracks directly from your GPSr, then an upgrade is required.

That's the part that is crippled. Under the covers GPSBabel can do all that already.

[+dogbreathcanada]

If you want to download waypoints and tracks directly from your GPSr, then an upgrade is required.

That's the part that is crippled. Under the covers GPSBabel can do all that already.

I don't know much about GPSBabel ... but it doesn't appear to have any mapping capabilities. I like software with mapping included. I use GSAK only rarely, for instance. I do most of my cache management using MapSource.

 

The thing I like about GoogleEarth is the satellite maps, and the ability to view those maps in relief.

 

After my next long mountain hike, I shall upgrade Google Earth to view my track in 3D.

 

But yeah, like you said ... there are already enough Google Earth threads scattered around the forums.

[Jeremy]

I don't know much about GPSBabel ... but it doesn't appear to have any mapping capabilities. I like software with mapping included. I use GSAK only rarely, for instance. I do most of my cache management using MapSource.

 

The thing I like about GoogleEarth is the satellite maps, and the ability to view those maps in relief.

Yes yes. Many kisses to Google Earth. But just listen: Google Earth runs GPS Babel to provide you with the GPS import capabilities, as well as importing tracks and routes. They intentionally cripple these import features which they get free from GPSBabel. They also don't seem to give any props to the GPSBabel community which has worked hard to allow all kinds of imports. So yes, you get relief maps and whatnot, but what you aren't getting are features which Google got for free.

[+dogbreathcanada]

They also don't seem to give any props to the GPSBabel community which has worked hard to allow all kinds of imports. So yes, you get relief maps and whatnot, but what you aren't getting are features which Google got for free.

Not saying you're wrong ... but if Google isn't giving props to GPSBabel, how do you know they're using their code?

 

Either way, that's one of the downsides of OSS, I guess. And I'm generally a proponent of OSS.

[+dogbreathcanada]

Nevermind ... found Robert Lipe's post on the matter:

 

Unfortunately, probably not. I think I gave up my chance at a revenue stream on this by sticking to those darned ethics.

 

Keyhole came to me last fall ("keyWHO?" I remember wondering) about licensing GPSBabel for inclusion in their 'Pro' product.

 

While I'm clearly the lead guy that puts GPSBabel together, the reality is that that there's a substantial amount of code in it that isn't mine to relicense. Since we already had a license that allowed redistribution (the GNU Public License) and I knew that the odds of getting copyright transfers/relicensing agreements from every author were approximately zero, I steered them to use GPSBabel as allowed by the GPL. I haven't seen the final product yet, but I've leaned on them pretty hard to be sure they comply with the terms of the GPL, too. (The irony of little ole me from my midnight project telling engineering managers of a $59B company to go talk to his laywers wasn't totally lost on me.)

 

After the purchase by Google, the frequency of contact went up and in recent months it was pretty clear to me that GPSBabel was one piece of the huge puzzle that became Google Earth. They have contributed code (yes, THAT is how that KML module got finished after I flaked out on it...) and have been very communicative with me through the process.

 

The end result of that agreement is that anything that Google does to the code to improve their product can be included in "my" version. So by sticking to this license, there's a "rising tides" effect. For example, this is how GSAK now has KML support.

 

Comparing revenue of Clyde & GSAK with Google right now results in a division by zero error. GSAK's revenue stream into the project has been a big help to end the "I don't have this GPS" or that USB adapter or similar problems. So I won't turn down Google Bucks if they're offered - especially if it becomes a pain in my neck. But there's not a royalty agreement or anything in place.

 

In short, if you want to give me a dollar, that's the wrong way to do it. :-)

 

Seems, as per the GNU license, he's seen some benefit as well. And will likely see ongoing benefit through code developed by Google for his module.

[+Tidalflame]

It's bured away in the release notes:

 

GPSBabel - a GPL executable

---------------------------

 

Some versions of Google Earth include the executable binary of

Robert Lipe's GPSBabel program.  That project bas been developed

under the GNU Public License and any copies of it can only be

distributed iff they include a copy of the license. 

 

  The GPL license can be found in:

      C:\Program Files\Google\Google Earth Plus\GPL.txt

      (or similar directory if you custom installed the application)

 

  GPSBabel source code can be found at http://www.gpsbabel.org/.

 

It's a great program for GPS device input and file translations.

 

It does seem kind of lame that they're using OSS for their own profit, but you have to remember that that's kind of the point of OSS. You're supposed to be able to make money off of it if you want to. I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I can tell Google certainly isn't violating the license GPSBabel is released under, so what they're doing doesn't seem morally wrong to me as they're only using GPSBabel as intended.

 

Of course, I definitely agree that it's not cool of them to not even mention GPSBabel except in a release notes file which nobody will ever read.

 

Google is still doing us a favor with the free version of Google Earth. The software was formerly known as Keyhole EarthViewer (or something along those lines), and it was subscription-only.

[Jeremy]

Google is still doing us a favor with the free version of Google Earth. The software was formerly known as Keyhole EarthViewer (or something along those lines), and it was subscription-only.

Yes yes. I know all this. Google obviously wouldn't gunk around with doing things that aren't legal. Yes yes the application is "free"* and that's all well and good. I just wanted to make three points:

 

1. robertlipe is a huge asset to GPS, geocaching and Google Earth. I wanted people who post about Google Earth to be aware of this.

2. Google should give some better props to GPSBabel and robertlipe

3. Charging for an "enhanced" version of Google earth by crippling free stuff from GPSBabel is kinda shady, which goes against "Do not evil" in my book.

 

So go ahead and defend Google. They're the cat's meow and so forth. My points were made.

 

*nothing is free.

[+dogbreathcanada]

2. Google should give some better props to GPSBabel and robertlipe

3. Charging for an "enhanced" version of Google earth by crippling free stuff from GPSBabel is kinda shady, which goes against "Do not evil" in my book.

I agree and agree. But Google's not reading this thread, so nothing is going to change. Yes, the GPSr features should be free.

 

If anyone wants to track down an email for the Google Earth Project Lead, and then post it here, so that we can all email him (or her) with our pleasantly worded opinions on Google's lack of props to GPSBabel and Robert Lipe, I'm sure many of us would take the time to send such an email. And, who knows, it may just work.

[+ReyTheBear]

psh, they dont even have a version for macs yet. disgusting.

[Jeremy]

I agree and agree. But Google's not reading this thread, so nothing is going to change. Yes, the GPSr features should be free.

I couldn't care less if Google reads this thread. I know geocachers read this thread and I am directing my points at this audience. If folks want to let Google know that they are displeased with the crippling of GPSbabel they are welcome to provide feedback to Google.

 

So we agree to agree it seems

[ju66l3r]

There's a distinction to be made in that, GPSBabel as it is doesn't have anything to do with Google Earth/Keystone as software goes. That is still free. You can go from GPSr -> GPSBabel -> Google Earth, so far as I can tell.

 

They spent time/money putting that code into their product for the convenience of going GPSr -> Google Earth and the resulting software is what they charge for (along with high-rez images, and a bunch of other things).

 

For example, the forum software running this page comes in a perfectly free version with the ability to alter the user's Forum Title. You have disabled this feature and charge a membership fee with one of the benefits being to change the Forum Title.

 

Charging for an "enhanced" version of this forum software by crippling free stuff from the forum creators isn't the same kind of shady that you argue against, Mr. "Doing Evil"?

[Jeremy]

Charging for an "enhanced" version of this forum software by crippling free stuff from the forum creators isn't the same kind of shady that you argue against, Mr. "Doing Evil"?

I paid for this software. Try again.

 

Added: "Do no evil" is not my motto anyway. It is Google's.

Edited July 13, 2005 by Jeremy

[ju66l3r]

So, I'm a little bit of an open-source/free-software junkie and after reading all this, I wanted to take a first-hand look at how Google Earth is going to use GPSBabel without being forced to give away their source code under the GPL...

 

It turns out that there is nothing crippled about GPSBabel at all (unlike Jeremy's point #3 above phrases it).

 

They distribute a perfectly in-whole working executable copy of GPSBabel (and the GPL that goes with it). They only disable their sending of a KML file to gpsbabel.exe for translation to GPX/your GPSr format/etc. In this way, since they are sending a program call to a separate program, they don't have to expose their software to the GPL rules.

 

They even send GPSBabel out with the free version, which means all that they're truly "disabling" is the little "GPSr" menu in their software which links to the line in their code that asks GPSBabel to translate between your unit and their KML reader.

 

Hardly a lot of evil, that.

[Jeremy]

Hardly a lot of evil, that.

Interesting spin. So, to recap:

 

They spent time/money putting that code into their product for the convenience of going GPSr -> Google Earth and the resulting software is what they charge for (along with high-rez images, and a bunch of other things).

 

I interpret your position as this: You believe that building off of someone else's freely offered work for free is fine, and as long as you spend time and energy into putting that work into your product you should be able to charge for it correct?

 

And your second opinion is this: If an option is disabled in your software but can be enabled for a fee, it is perfectly fine to do it even if you didn't create that feature but still consider it a "value-add." I'll add that you also had to add a menu item to enable this, but I think we can both agree that the work involved is insignificant.

 

Your third point was you sort of put your foot in your mouth by saying that I was disabling a feature of free software as a comparison, when in fact I paid for the privilege. So that point has been determined as incorrect.

 

I tried not to add my own spin. I'm just trying to understand your perspective as an open source advocate.

[robertlipe]

Garsh. I finally have GPSBabel groupies. :-) Thanx for the kind words.

 

By the percentages, I'm sure that GPSBabel's mojo is a very small part of Google Earth. While I hope to not be "kissy" with them, I will say they've done some innovative stuff in mappingland lately. I do find their integration choices with GPSBabel, err, interesting.

 

I've tried very hard to keep everyone involved with the letter and the intent of the GNU Public license that I chose for GPSBabel when I released it back in '02. They did indeed contribute their improvements to KML and several others back to the project. So I really can't ding them on violations of evil. They've played by the rules. It'll be very interesting to see how it all grows over time.

 

I probably could have removed/replaced the parts of GPSBabel that weren't "mine" in the copyright sense and sold them a non-GPL version. It would have been busy work, probably required hiring lawyers to get all the details worked out, and not really advanced the state of the industry, but I could have surely charged 'em for it.

 

Though I'm the project leader, designer, and the creator of most of the code, the product is certainly the result of many. So even if the Google Money Truck backed up to my door and started unloading, I'd have to figure out the right thing to do with that...

 

I'm suprised that they called me out by name in the release notes. I didn't know that until now. When I asked about that (hey, I want fame and resume filler, too...) I was told that'd be a difficult thing to pull off.

 

I do hope it's a relationship that'll grow.

 

For another odd fly-by with GPSBabel fame, see http://www.mtgc.org/mtgc_forum/viewtopic.php?t=428

[ju66l3r]

Hardly a lot of evil, that.

Interesting spin. So, to recap:

 

They spent time/money putting that code into their product for the convenience of going GPSr -> Google Earth and the resulting software is what they charge for (along with high-rez images, and a bunch of other things).

 

I interpret your position as this: You believe that building off of someone else's freely offered work for free is fine, and as long as you spend time and energy into putting that work into your product you should be able to charge for it correct?

 

And your second opinion is this: If an option is disabled in your software but can be enabled for a fee, it is perfectly fine to do it even if you didn't create that feature but still consider it a "value-add." I'll add that you also had to add a menu item to enable this, but I think we can both agree that the work involved is insignificant.

 

Your third point was you sort of put your foot in your mouth by saying that I was disabling a feature of free software as a comparison, when in fact I paid for the privilege. So that point has been determined as incorrect.

 

I tried not to add my own spin. I'm just trying to understand your perspective as an open source advocate.

Opinion #1 is a yes.

 

Opinion #2 as you state it is a bit tortured. Put simply: You can charge me to enable integration (regardless of the effort involved) of an open source product with your commercial product.

 

My third point was a misstatement. I am involved in a number of communities that use invisionfree.com for their IPB forum needs. I had been under the false assumption that this was provided by IPB, Inc...when it's actually a company that uses a Google Text Ad for compensation of the "free" nature of the software. This mixed with the original debate between IPB and phpBB from when the forum software switched here at GC.com goofed me up when I claimed that this forum software is free.

 

As the FSF (Free Software Foundation) put it: "free" as in "free speech" not "free" as in "free beer". You can charge for "free" software, just be sure that the source is still available to learn from, program better, etc.

[+despot&smitten]

What? Huh? Ok... I've been out in the woods a little too long. Can someone please explain? Using little itty-bitty words? Google Earth satellite pictures- yep, seen 'em. Geocaching -yep, done it.

 

Brain. Working. Slowly.... geocaching can be combined with google earth? I'm really sorry. I've been away from the forums for months. And I think the heat must have addled my brain. This sounds like it could be really cool. But I'm just not getting it. How in the heck am I supposed to make my cache locations appear on the satellite image? Markwell, anyone?

 

Thanks!

[outta here]

I interpret your position as this: You believe that building off of someone else's freely offered work for free is fine, and as long as you spend time and energy into putting that work into your product you should be able to charge for it correct?

 

And your second opinion is this: If an option is disabled in your software but can be enabled for a fee, it is perfectly fine to do it even if you didn't create that feature but still consider it a "value-add." I'll add that you also had to add a menu item to enable this, but I think we can both agree that the work involved is insignificant.

Wow.

 

If a community freely puts its time and money into establishing ... oh, I don't know... let's say: geocaches, would it be wrong for a company that put significant energy into building a top notch listing of those free geocaches to charge a fee?

 

Would it be right if some of the listings were free for all and some only available to paying customers?

 

In the end, folks that don't like the terms of the GPL really shouldn't use it. You want money? Reserve all rights. You want props? Use the old BSD with it's obnoxious advertizing clause. You want what the GPL offers? use the GPL.

 

Whining later that someone is following the terms of the license, but nothing more sounds a bit silly.

[+j2d2]

After my next long mountain hike, I shall upgrade Google Earth to view my track in 3D.

Why upgrade? Just read your track into Mapsource, save as a GPX file, read into GE:

 

[Jeremy]

Whining later that someone is following the terms of the license, but nothing more sounds a bit silly.

Heh. I didn't actually say I agreed or disagreed with either point. I was asking for clarification. In fact, I agree with both of them. I was trying to understand.

 

In actuality you seem like the whiner here.

[ju66l3r]

After my next long mountain hike, I shall upgrade Google Earth to view my track in 3D.

Why upgrade? Just read your track into Mapsource, save as a GPX file, read into GE:

Great image. BTW, there are preferences where you can increase the "height" associated with the topography altitude so that a 3000 ft change in altitude looks bigger than the default...can be fun for bragging about the trail you took.

 

Also, you can replace MapSource with GPSBabel which is distributed with Google Earth (even the free version) (located in the Google Earth Plus directory ...default: c:\program files\Google\Google Earth Plus\ ).

[+dogbreathcanada]

What? Huh? Ok... I've been out in the woods a little too long. Can someone please explain? Using little itty-bitty words? Google Earth satellite pictures- yep, seen 'em. Geocaching -yep, done it.

 

Brain. Working. Slowly.... geocaching can be combined with google earth? I'm really sorry. I've been away from the forums for months. And I think the heat must have addled my brain. This sounds like it could be really cool. But I'm just not getting it. How in the heck am I supposed to make my cache locations appear on the satellite image? Markwell, anyone?

 

Thanks!

Drag a .GPX file onto the satellite image in Google Earth.

 

(earth.google.com)

[+Sliverboy]

 

Why upgrade?  Just read your track into Mapsource, save as a GPX file, read into GE:

 

How do you save a track as a GPX file from Mapsource?

I'd like to see some of my tracks in Google Earth.

[+John & Hazel]

 

Why upgrade?  Just read your track into Mapsource, save as a GPX file, read into GE:

 

How do you save a track as a GPX file from Mapsource?

I'd like to see some of my tracks in Google Earth.

File > Save As > in the dropdown menu click on the bottom line .gpx

[+yourBuddyBill]

My mapsource 6.0 will only save as gdb and and export as mps or dxf, no loc or gpx.

 

So I d/l loc or gpx, bring into EasyGPS, Send to my GPS, then d/l from GPS to Mapsource or Trimble Outdoors. Or I used to.

 

Last two weeks, I switched to just easyGPS and Google Earth ... using the GPS link from Google Earth.

 

Until today, when in the forums above I read about the

"drag and drop a gpx file into GE"

mentioned above, gave it a try and WOW, something so simple it blew me away. Wish more waypoints had elevation data.

[robertlipe]

My mapsource 6.0 will only save as gdb and and export as mps or dxf, no loc or gpx.

Since the update is free, there's no reason to _not_ upgrade.

"drag and drop a gpx file into GE"

mentioned above, gave it a try and WOW,   something so simple it blew me away.  Wish more waypoints had elevation data.

Waypoints in the world at large may or may not have them, but I don't think that waypoints you get from this site (well, not the official ones) ever have alt input as there's not a place to enter it on a cache submission page or log.

[+cachew nut]

Isn't life wonderful? I think that when http://geocache.google.com is finally released, this will be a free feature. Hopefully there will still be people listing here, we need this measly one-horse institution if only to have some place where people can come without crawling to Google.

[ju66l3r]

Wish more waypoints had elevation data.

As I understand it, with Google Earth, you can have it apply its elevation information for that location to the waypoint automatically. I *think* it says something like "lay path to elevation" or something like that...I don't have it right in front of me here at work.

[+piper28]

Personally I'll stick with USAPhotomaps. The maps from microsoft's terraserver source might be older in many cases, but at least most of the country is covered by decent resolution pictures. Google got such a small selection of maps that it's really pretty limited in use. Their software interface does have potential though. Can't say I see myself paying for it though.

[Delaypat]

If you want to import your .GPX files you will need to upgrade to a plus membership for an annual fee.

Using .GPX files with Google Earth doesn't require an upgrade. I haven't upgraded yet, and am using it with my Pocket Query .GPX files. Just drag a .GPX file onto the app, and voila!, they're all loaded.

 

If you want to download waypoints and tracks directly from your GPSr, then an upgrade is required.

or use mapsource to export it all into a gpx and google earth will have it...No need for any $$$............Errrr this was probablly allready covered....I'm slow

[+Lean Wolf]

It's great and it's free. That's a combination bound to arise suspicion. Has anyone heard any rumours about adware or spyware along with Google Earth?

[+robert]

It's great and it's free. That's a combination bound to arise suspicion. Has anyone heard any rumours about adware or spyware along with Google Earth?

Nah, but if they haven't already, wouldn't be surprised to see if they start integrating ads, like in Gmail (which is fine with me--I love Gmail and the ads are barely noticable to me anymore)

[Gecko206]

It's great and it's free. That's a combination bound to arise suspicion. Has anyone heard any rumours about adware or spyware along with Google Earth?

What about their unexpiring cookie?