Jump to content

No Gc-caches On Buxley's


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

No answers yet, anyone?

All his posted caches were Navicaches. As Briansnat said, you need to ask Buxley.

Right. And I was checking to see if he ever got a reply in the 9 hours between the time this post was started and now. Thanks so much.

Why don't you ask Buxley on his own site? It has nothing to do with how this site functions. My caching experience on this site is not enhanced or diminished by anything going on over there.

Link to comment

Since there was an arrangement between Buxley and GC.com, both parties may be equally aware (or even unaware) that there is an issue with the maps not showing GC.com caches.

 

While asking Buxley is one possibility, asking GC.com is another.

 

Both are valid, or is this just a game of "Mod-pile on the Rabbit"?

Link to comment
Since there was an arrangement between Buxley and GC.com, both parties may be equally aware (or even unaware) that there is an issue with the maps not showing GC.com caches.

 

While asking Buxley is one possibility, asking GC.com is another.

 

Both are valid, or is this just a game of "Mod-pile on the Rabbit"?

This is the wrong forum for talking to GC.com about its partners. In fact, I don't know of a forum where you can discuss business issues that GC.com has with its partners.

 

But as long as people keep asking we will keep responding, because we are just helpful people.

Link to comment
With the introduction of the geocaching.com KML for Google Earth last year, I think the use of Buxley's maps for geocaching.com caches has become obviated.

Not quite, since

 

a.) not everyone wants to install additional SW just to find a cache and

b.) Google Earth is not available for any serious operating software, but just for MS.

Link to comment

Groundspeak and Buxley's Geocaching Waypoint are just fine. I don't think Ed Hall makes his web site a daily priority, so you should try emailing him to find out what is going on. I'm guessing his automated code had an issue along the way which dumped the geocaching.com listings.

 

While we have the means necessary to monitor and update the geocaching.com web site, Buxley relies on donations and his own goodwill to keep it running. If you find it to be a good resource, clicky the donate link.

Link to comment
Groundspeak and Buxley's Geocaching Waypoint are just fine.

Thanks, Jeremy (see how easy that was, GPSax/MM/COAd).

 

I'm curious to find out if it's something as simple as having the year hard-coded into his site (since this seemed to happen right about 1/1/06). I did send Ed an e-mail as well when I saw his site drop the GC.com caches and am waiting on that response too.

Link to comment
Groundspeak and Buxley's Geocaching Waypoint are just fine.

Thanks, Jeremy (see how easy that was, GPSax/MM/COAd).

 

I'm curious to find out if it's something as simple as having the year hard-coded into his site (since this seemed to happen right about 1/1/06). I did send Ed an e-mail as well when I saw his site drop the GC.com caches and am waiting on that response too.

You seem to be missing the part where Jeremy said

I don't think Ed Hall makes his web site a daily priority, so you should try emailing him to find out what is going on.

 

Nothing in the original post asked about anything relating to this site, so go to Buxley for answers

Link to comment
Here's an answer

 

Very depressing....

 

Bec

Or, in full print:

 

1-6-2006

 

As I'm sure you have noticed, there are a lot fewer geocaches listed on my maps today than there were a few days ago. In fact, none of the geocaches hosted by the folks at Groundspeak (geocaching.com) are currently listed.

 

Why? Well I only want to show caches on my maps that I know are both accurate and up-to-date and I can't do that anymore.

 

As many of you are aware, Groundspeak Inc. and myself have been in discussions for a long time now (since August of 2003!) whereby they would freely provide the information I needed to keep these maps 100% accurate. The talks seemed to be going well and none of the technical issues seemed all that difficult -- I was given a sample set of data way back in January of 2005. So what was the problem?

 

Legal issues. My lawyers said I'd be foolish to sign the agreement as presented to me by Groundspeak Inc. I can't go into details (again due to legal reasons) but the agreement would bind me in certain very strict ways and yet there was nothing in the contract that would bind Groundspeak to provide my site with geocache data that was 1) accurate 2) timely, or 3) complete. So why *would* I sign such an agreement?

 

So anyway, with the turning of the new year, I have decided to make a clean start by removing all the Groundspeak-related data from my web site. My apologies to all the geocachers affected by this -- it certainly isn't something I want to do, but under the circumstance I feel I must.

 

So what's in the future? Well, I've already been contacted by other geocaching and GPS games web sites asking what they can do to help get their data on my maps. (How refreshing!) I'll be working with Quinn and the kind folks over at Navicache.com to make sure their data is as up-to-date and accurate as possible. And I have a few ideas for map improvements that even those subscription-based corporate geocaching sites haven't thought of yet. ;-)

 

So if you're the owner of a web site and you have GPS-related game data you'd like to see on these maps, contact me at waypoint@brillig.com and we'll talk.

 

-Buxley

Link to comment

I used that site in the past, but have found it increasingly useless. For my home state of Georgia we get two views. One is the whole state. The second is a zoom of Atlanta, which snipped off the west side of town where I live. Even the Atlanta zoom was zoomed out so much that it was just a big unrecognizable blob of dots. You could not do much with the map because it was almost impossible to pick out individual caches.

 

For some time I've been going to the main page of the GC.com site. On the upper right I go to the "Search for caches..." area and select the state of Georgia. When you click "Go" you go to the state page. At the top I use the link that says "map" next to where it says "Geocaching in Georgia". You then get a map that you can zoom in and out and pan around all you want, something you have never been able to do with Buxley. Once you zoom in to where you want to go find some caches, you can then select "Identify" and a tag is put in next to the geocaches and they are all linked down below the map. Bingo -- I've got all the info I need and I can pan and move around as *I* like, not at the whim of the creator of the site.

 

With Buxley being so far behind and never updating his site, I really do not understand why people liked it. You get limited views and only what he wants to give you, not what you want or might need to see. We have had the same two views for Georgia for three or four years now. The only place those maps are useful is in an area where there are not very many caches. As geocaching grows and more caches are placed, his site becomes more and more useless since he won't improve the way you can look at the maps.

 

Frankly, I won't miss it one bit since I quit using the site a couple of years ago. If he wants to run off customers by not updating his site, by not adding new features and then finally removing 99 percent of the caches off of the maps, then so be it. It sounds like an exceptionally poor business decision to me.

 

And I have a few ideas for map improvements that even those subscription-based corporate geocaching sites haven't thought of yet. ;-)

He says he has some great ideas to improve maps? Boy, you think maybe he would actually apply it to his own site don't you think? I hope he isn't paying those lawyers a lot. It sounds like the only people getting a good deal here are his lawyers.

Link to comment

That is so very true, but geocachers that are not premium members do have a free resource to use that is just a few clicks away and it is way better than the clunky maps on the Buxley site. I typically use my GPX files at home but do use the free GC.com maps at the office and such.

Link to comment

I don't believe that the discussion about what is better than Buxley for Cachers based in the US is on-topic. It's disturbing me esp. that a reviewer and (former?) forum moderator goes that way.

 

Back on-topic: It makes me sad that Buxley is the second prominent website (after geocaching.de) which can not accept the "License Agreement" and circumstances to get the cache data in a short time period. The question for me now is if Groundspeak doesn't want to cooperate with external pages or if the license agreement could be worked over in a dialog so that a cooperation can be done. I hope that a dialog between those external partners and Groundspeak is possible and an agreement which can be accepted from all sides can be reached.

 

Greetings,

Tobias

Edited by tobsas
Link to comment

hey, US is not the only part of the world ! sure, GoogleEarth is a nice tool, but only 20% of Europe are provided with fine data. so Buxley´s was a good alternativ to get an overview.

and keep in mind : Groundspeak is providing OUR data and I don´t have a problem that Buxley´s getting MY data ! using Buxley´s means, cacher will be guided to gc.com, provided with all information they need and will get the opportunity to left their money to Groundspeak. so where is the problem ?

There would be no problem, if good maps and statistics where available e.g. for Germany (and also all other countries in Europe). the actual situation is quite bad and beeing premium member doesn´t help very much.

Edited by he3000
Link to comment
I don't believe that the discussion about what is better than Buxley for Cachers based in the US is on-topic. It's disturbing me esp. that a reviewer and (former?) forum moderator goes that way.

 

Back on-topic: It makes me sad that Buxley is the second prominent website (after geocaching.de) which can not accept the "License Agreement" and circumstances to get the cache data in a short time period. The question for me now is if Groundspeak doesn't want to cooperate with external pages or if the license agreement could be worked over in a dialog so that a cooperation can be done. I hope that a dialog between those external partners and Groundspeak is possible and an agreement which can be accepted from all sides can be reached.

 

Greetings,

Tobias

How else is a thread about Buxley's connected to Geocaching? :unsure:

 

Since so many people (the OP) think that discussion of this mapping site (that doesn't use GC.com data anymore) is on topic, then so is suggesting other ways to get the same information, or even better information.

Link to comment

So far this thread seems to have three issues. First, its not technically on-topic, since it is a discussion of another site. Second, Caches still can be easily mapped with very good usability, either using GC.com's maps, on-line tools such as Google Earth, or through third-party software (I'm a big fan of MapPoint and MS S&T). Third, It is not really appropriate for us to comment on GC.com's licensing agreement since a.) most of us are not privy to it, and b.) it is not for us to change as GC.com is run by a private company.

 

edit: grumble, grumble, %#*! smiley.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Here's an answer

 

Very depressing....

 

Bec

Or, in full print:

 

1-6-2006

 

As I'm sure you have noticed, there are a lot fewer geocaches listed on my maps today than there were a few days ago. In fact, none of the geocaches hosted by the folks at Groundspeak (geocaching.com) are currently listed.

 

Why? Well I only want to show caches on my maps that I know are both accurate and up-to-date and I can't do that anymore.

 

As many of you are aware, Groundspeak Inc. and myself have been in discussions for a long time now (since August of 2003!) whereby they would freely provide the information I needed to keep these maps 100% accurate. The talks seemed to be going well and none of the technical issues seemed all that difficult -- I was given a sample set of data way back in January of 2005. So what was the problem?

 

Legal issues. My lawyers said I'd be foolish to sign the agreement as presented to me by Groundspeak Inc. I can't go into details (again due to legal reasons) but the agreement would bind me in certain very strict ways and yet there was nothing in the contract that would bind Groundspeak to provide my site with geocache data that was 1) accurate 2) timely, or 3) complete. So why *would* I sign such an agreement?

 

So anyway, with the turning of the new year, I have decided to make a clean start by removing all the Groundspeak-related data from my web site. My apologies to all the geocachers affected by this -- it certainly isn't something I want to do, but under the circumstance I feel I must.

 

So what's in the future? Well, I've already been contacted by other geocaching and GPS games web sites asking what they can do to help get their data on my maps. (How refreshing!) I'll be working with Quinn and the kind folks over at Navicache.com to make sure their data is as up-to-date and accurate as possible. And I have a few ideas for map improvements that even those subscription-based corporate geocaching sites haven't thought of yet. ;-)

 

So if you're the owner of a web site and you have GPS-related game data you'd like to see on these maps, contact me at waypoint@brillig.com and we'll talk.

 

-Buxley

Reads like a temper-tantrum to me.

Link to comment
That is so very true, but geocachers that are not premium members

...

Are there really cachers who are not allowed to become premium members?

I went back and re-read mtn-man's post (not just the part you snipped) and he doesn't say anything about not being allowed to be premium members. What are you trying to say here? :unsure:

Edited by Team GPSaxophone
Link to comment
I don't believe that the discussion about what is better than Buxley for Cachers based in the US is on-topic. It's disturbing me esp. that a reviewer and (former?) forum moderator goes that way.

 

Back on-topic: It makes me sad that Buxley is the second prominent website (after geocaching.de) which can not accept the "License Agreement" and circumstances to get the cache data in a short time period. The question for me now is if Groundspeak doesn't want to cooperate with external pages or if the license agreement could be worked over in a dialog so that a cooperation can be done. I hope that a dialog between those external partners and Groundspeak is possible and an agreement which can be accepted from all sides can be reached.

 

Greetings,

Tobias

How else is a thread about Buxley's connected to Geocaching? :unsure:

 

Since so many people (the OP) think that discussion of this mapping site (that doesn't use GC.com data anymore) is on topic, then so is suggesting other ways to get the same information, or even better information.

Thank you GPSaxaphone.

 

tobsas, I am sorry that you were offended by me simply offering a suggestion of how some cachers can easily look at caches on a map. I was trying to be a part of the solution by offering a suggestion for some people. I don't see the problem with trying to help people myself. Rather than complain about someone trying to help other cachers, maybe you could be help the discussion by being productive and offer solutions for other cachers as well?

 

:blink:

Link to comment
I used that site in the past, but have found it increasingly useless. For my home state of Georgia we get two views. One is the whole state. The second is a zoom of Atlanta,

You are most likely seeing the box on the map of Georgia and think that that must be the only zoom option. You can click anywhere on the map and it will zoom in. I live in MO and he has the whole state divided up into parts that you can zoom in on but there is only a box around St Louis and Kansas City.

Link to comment
I used that site in the past, but have found it increasingly useless.  For my home state of Georgia we get two views.  One is the whole state.  The second is a zoom of Atlanta,

You are most likely seeing the box on the map of Georgia and think that that must be the only zoom option. You can click anywhere on the map and it will zoom in. I live in MO and he has the whole state divided up into parts that you can zoom in on but there is only a box around St Louis and Kansas City.

Doesnt really matter any more.

Link to comment
That is so very true, but geocachers that are not premium members

...

Are there really cachers who are not allowed to become premium members?

I went back and re-read mtn-man's post (not just the part you snipped) and he doesn't say anything about not being allowed to be premium members. What are you trying to say here? :unsure:

I think it was just a mis-read of my post. What I am saying is that there are people who *choose* not to become premium members, which is perfectly fine. There is no charge to create an account and use the site.

Link to comment

I just want to be able to use a good map. I live in a rural area so I have to drive about 40 miles to get a cache. I like to make a day of it and I used Buxleys because I could follow a road and print of caches on the way. I don't have any real problems with becoming a premium member but I would like the oppertunity to try out there maps before I pay. I have heard good and bad things about them so would feel more confident if I can experiance them for myself.

Link to comment
I used that site in the past, but have found it increasingly useless.  For my home state of Georgia we get two views.  One is the whole state.  The second is a zoom of Atlanta,

You are most likely seeing the box on the map of Georgia and think that that must be the only zoom option. You can click anywhere on the map and it will zoom in. I live in MO and he has the whole state divided up into parts that you can zoom in on but there is only a box around St Louis and Kansas City.

Good call, and I was not aware of that. You still only get one zoom, the zoom is fixed, there is no way to pan, and the zoom is so far out that it is still useless in a cache dense area. As I have said, maybe if he had actually implemented this mapping solution that he talks about in his note, his site would be more functional.

Link to comment
I used that site in the past, but have found it increasingly useless.  For my home state of Georgia we get two views.  One is the whole state.  The second is a zoom of Atlanta,

You are most likely seeing the box on the map of Georgia and think that that must be the only zoom option. You can click anywhere on the map and it will zoom in. I live in MO and he has the whole state divided up into parts that you can zoom in on but there is only a box around St Louis and Kansas City.

Here's Colorado Springs:

 

BuxleyCOS.jpg

 

It doesn't zoom in more than that. In case you think that's a fluke, here's Denver:

 

BuxleyDEN.jpg

 

If I can't zoom in any more than that in the largest city in the state, especially when that map usually displays 1000 caches, then the site is useless to me.

 

For comparison, here's roughly the center of the Colorado Springs map using just plain 'ol geocaching.com maps:

 

MothersDayCaching.jpg

Link to comment
I used that site in the past, but have found it increasingly useless.  For my home state of Georgia we get two views.  One is the whole state.  The second is a zoom of Atlanta,

You are most likely seeing the box on the map of Georgia and think that that must be the only zoom option. You can click anywhere on the map and it will zoom in. I live in MO and he has the whole state divided up into parts that you can zoom in on but there is only a box around St Louis and Kansas City.

Here's Colorado Springs:

 

BuxleyCOS.jpg

 

It doesn't zoom in more than that. In case you think that's a fluke, here's Denver:

 

BuxleyDEN.jpg

 

If I can't zoom in any more than that in the largest city in the state, especially when that map usually displays 1000 caches, then the site is useless to me.

 

For comparison, here's roughly the center of the Colorado Springs map using just plain 'ol geocaching.com maps:

 

MothersDayCaching.jpg

That makes more since.I use it for rural areas so haven't run into that problem

I would love to see a website that worked with mapquest.com or the like. Where you could type in the from adress and the to address and then a route and geocaches along that route would come up. THat is how I cache. I'm a travling cacher, I guess you could say

Link to comment
I used that site in the past, but have found it increasingly useless.  For my home state of Georgia we get two views.  One is the whole state.  The second is a zoom of Atlanta,

You are most likely seeing the box on the map of Georgia and think that that must be the only zoom option. You can click anywhere on the map and it will zoom in. I live in MO and he has the whole state divided up into parts that you can zoom in on but there is only a box around St Louis and Kansas City.

Here's Colorado Springs:

 

<snip>

 

It doesn't zoom in more than that. In case you think that's a fluke, here's Denver:

 

<snip>

 

If I can't zoom in any more than that in the largest city in the state, especially when that map usually displays 1000 caches, then the site is useless to me.

 

For comparison, here's roughly the center of the Colorado Springs map using just plain 'ol geocaching.com maps:

 

<snip>

That makes more since.I use it for rural areas so haven't run into that problem

I would love to see a website that worked with mapquest.com or the like. Where you could type in the from adress and the to address and then a route and geocaches along that route would come up. THat is how I cache. I'm a travling cacher, I guess you could say

I use Microsoft Streets and Trips to do caches along a route. You have to be a premium member to download pocket queries. I dump them into GSAK, merge them together and filter caches close to my route. There are a few ways to work out the details. I think JaimeZ and Markwell have good tutorials if you're interested.

 

One of the best things about S&T is that you can zoom in or out as much as you want. You can also mark caches as found by changing the color or type of icon. Here's a map of my state with finds in blue:

 

ColoradoCachesAndFinds.jpg

Link to comment
I don't have any real problems with becoming a premium member but I would like the oppertunity to try out there maps before I pay. I have heard good and bad things about them so would feel more confident if I can experiance them for myself.

You can sign up for a monthly membership for $3 if you'd like to try out the site and the premium features:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/subscribe/

 

Looks like you need paypal to do it and it will charge $3 monthly but you can cancel it so you're only out $3 if you don't like the extra features.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...