Buxley's Geocaching

[+Jake39]

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.  Buxley's Geocaching Waypoint---What's new page

 

-I have used - Buxley's - for a long time to find caches to view or to see where they were hidden right around the world, or through my pages directed cachers to find them by just clicking on the 'Spots' that would interest them without having to try to find 'Zip or Postal Codes......

-I had been hoping that some kind of agreement could be worked out between the two parties but to my dismay this does not seem to be the case.

-I for one would certainly like to see the 'CLICKABLE MAPS' appear again soon to be able to zoom in on a Country or State to see where our intrepid 'Geocachers' have stashed their caches. (I would hate to see 'Navicache take over this area)

-I would also like to know how many of you have actually used 'Buxley's' yourself.

[+yumitori]

I've personally never found Buxley's site to be useful. And in my opinion since he's taking information posted on someone else's website and using it for his own purposes, the least he can do is work with the owners of the other website so they are happy.

 

And since this thread has the potential to turn into a big blow-up, hopefully folks will be respectful of each other's views so it doesn't need to be shut down...

[+edscott]

Yes Buxley's page certainly was better for me than anything here for visualizing a group of caches and planning a day of caching. I hope the plan is to upgrade this site to make it competitive in that aspect of searching out caches.

[+budd-rdc]

For cache-sparse areas, Buxley's maps were a good way to get an overview of where the caches were. In my area (San Francisco to San Jose), the density was so high his maps weren't too useful, but it was fun to mouse over a dot and see some of my favorite caches pop-up.

 

I'm going to reserve judgement and wait for new developments. In the meantime, consider visiting some of his GC.com listed caches, which are really good.

[BRTango]

I'm not really familiar with Buxley's site... but looking at the you are referring to, I see the .kml for Google Earth doing the same thing a more useful manner (at least for GC.com caches). Am I missing something?

[+ghazkull]

[...] I see the .kml for Google Earth doing the same thing a more useful manner (at least for GC.com caches). Am I missing something?

Yepp.

Google Earth only shows a limited amount of caches at the same time.

In order to use GE you have to first install it.

So you need a PC with a MS OS.

Then you need a fast internet connection.

 

GE can be fun to play with, and I like to watch my track logs in GE. But for doing that I have to boot Windows :/

 

Sooo, GE can be useful, but it's doing something completely different from what Buxley's maps do.

[+Mopar]

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.  Buxley's Geocaching Waypoint---What's new page

 

-I have used - Buxley's - for a long time to find caches to view or to see where they were hidden right around the world, or through my pages directed cachers to find them by just clicking on the 'Spots' that would interest them without having to try to find 'Zip or Postal Codes......

-I had been hoping that some kind of agreement could be worked out between the two parties but to my dismay this does not seem to be the case.

-I for one would certainly like to see the 'CLICKABLE MAPS' appear again soon to be able to zoom in on a Country or State to see where our intrepid 'Geocachers' have stashed their caches. (I would hate to see 'Navicache take over this area)

-I would also like to know how many of you have actually used 'Buxley's' yourself.

You forgot this quote from the same link you posted:

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.

Since it was Buxley's decision the remove geocaching.com caches from his website, maybe you should be complaining to him instead of here.

[+NoLemon]

I visited the Buxley site once or twice a couple of years ago. His data seemed to be out of date and the maps were not nearly granular enough for the areas that I cache in. Therefore, I never perceived any value (and it rather seemed like he was leaching off of gc.com).

 

I get much more useful results from a combintation of PQs, GSAK and MS Streets and Trips. Sure, you have to work harder to get the data and keep it updated (and it really isn't difficult or time consuming, but yes it is more than just a click on a website) but it is worth it to me.

[+geognerd]

ghazkull, have you been living under a rock? Google Earth became available for OS X 10.4 and up with much fanfare.

 

We had a pretty good discussion about Buxley's maps and the missing geocaching.com caches 2 weeks ago. Check it out.

Edited January 26, 2006 by geognerd

[+welch]

-I have used - Buxley's - for a long time to find caches to view or to see where they were hidden right around the world, or through my pages directed cachers to find them by just clicking on the 'Spots' that would interest them without having to try to find 'Zip or Postal Codes......

-I had been hoping that some kind of agreement could be worked out between the two parties but to my dismay this does not seem to be the case.

-I for one would certainly like to see the 'CLICKABLE MAPS' appear again soon to be able to zoom in on a Country or State to see where our intrepid 'Geocachers' have stashed their caches. (I would hate to see 'Navicache take over this area)

-I would also like to know how many of you have actually used 'Buxley's' yourself.

Yes I have used Buxley's. It was generally helpful for overview, and quick panning. GC.com maps have improved greatly in the last year, but it still had some advantages like pan/zoom were open to everyone, and you did not have to install anything (like googe whatever maps).

Losing gc.com data makes it less useful to me since there are few caches on the other websites.... I think trends at Navicache are a topic for some other forum.

It would be nice if gc.com data was shown at Buxley's. If Ed doesn't want to sign a contract or Groundspeak needs to require some burdensome pledge (whichever way you choose to look it), thats between them. AFAIK neither are offering extra details about whatever the sticking point(s) were.

[+bthomas]

I liked the Buxley maps back when I was using them. Back in the day before the FTF craze, I was happy to watch for the blue dot on a county wide quad. Being a point and click kinda guy, mousing over a dot gave instantaneous feedback about neighboring caches. For those 100's-of-miles caching drives, Buxley maps were quick to use and assess. My territory is 100 mi. N, 200 mi. E, 400 mi. S, and 10 mi. W (ocean). The gc.com maps seem to timeout on me in 2000 cache/100 mi. density, and are bothersome for 1000 mile roadtrips.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Buxley's might be useful on other caching sites that have only dozens of caches per state. For geocaching.com and its thousands of caches in many states, Buxley's serves no useful purpose.

[+nfa]

mmmmmmm.....Buxley bashing and re-bashing

 

it's like watching those nature shows about rams smacking into each other while the ewes look on slightly bored by the brain-cell destruction...

 

we should have these fights scheduled for every month or so...oh...wait...we do

 

Edited January 26, 2006 by NFA

[CoyoteRed]

we should have these fights scheduled for every month or so...oh...wait...we do

ROFL!

 

The responses are predictable, as well. Actually, with all of gc.com caches out of the way we can actually see what kind of populations the sites might have. Pretty cool.

 

In fact, we see some areas have a very heavy NV cache popultion. Heck, it's almost as dense as the gc.com population here.

 

I couldn't find any, but doesn't Scout host some caches at GPSgames.com?

[+Sagefox]

...mousing over a dot gave instantaneous feedback about neighboring caches.

 

My territory is 100 mi. N, 200 mi. E, 400 mi. S, and 10 mi. W (ocean).

Yep! When I had a few minutes idle time and wanted to quickly scan a few caches in my territory, (920 road miles long by 100 wide plus the entire Mohave desert):

 

Click: Favorites; click Buxley's superfast regional map; mouse over dot; click and you're in! Check out three to six others and then back to work in only a few minutes.

 

With ten minutes I could scan many caches along a the route from Eureka to Seattle or make a sweep of the entire Mohave. It was a great pre-planning tool to help determine a final route or to look for a small handful of caches when I had limited time for caching.

 

If I was not sure if I had already visited a highlighted cache: click the red dot to get into the cache page then click nearby caches and you have a list of new and previsited caches for that area complete with those wonderful gc.com red checkmarks.

 

PQ's are far better for large cities and getting high numbers into the pda & gpsr but for those stretches in between, when I just wanted to quickly look at some pages scattered over 700 miles of roads I really found Buxleys to be the best tool.

[+Elde]

The responses are predictable, as well.  Actually, with all of gc.com caches out of the way we can actually see what kind of populations the sites might have.  Pretty cool.

Indeed. It often seems to be forgotten than gc.com is but one of several sites that offer services to geocaching community (like offering a location to publish your cache information.), even if it is the largest.

[adampierson]

Regardless of what anyone things of the Buxley website, no one can deny that it served purpose in the geocaching community. Now that GC.com's caches are no longer included, it appears the issue is now finally be put to rest.

[+sbell111]

It drives me crazy when I think of how there is now absolutely no good way to easily visualize cache locations and plan cache hunts.

 

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

Buxley's might be useful on other caching sites that have only dozens of caches per state. For geocaching.com and its thousands of caches in many states, Buxley's serves no useful purpose TO ME.

There, I fixed it for you.

[+ghazkull]

ghazkull, have you been living under a rock? Google Earth became available for OS X 10.4 and up with much fanfare.

Well, still some operating systems left.

[+Sagefox]

Buxley's might be useful on other caching sites that have only dozens of caches per state. For geocaching.com and its thousands of caches in many states, Buxley's serves no useful purpose  TO ME.

There, I fixed it for you.

Thank you for that edit. Point made with so few words (two to be exact).

 

So far 8 people have politely said they have found B's maps to be helpful in certain situations. A reasonable conclusion then is that there are some features that people found helpful.

 

- - - -

 

The purpose of my comments on this often repeated subject are only to point out some of the nice features of B's maps so that admin and outside programmers are aware of the parts we like and can potentially improve the current systems. This is always a valid forum function.

 

We really have no substantial disagreement here anyway. We ALL don't like the parts of B's program that don't work well.

[+Team Cotati]

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showforum=8

[PC Medic]

I for one would certainly like to see the 'CLICKABLE MAPS' appear again soon to be able to zoom in on a Country or State to see where our intrepid 'Geocachers' have stashed their  caches. (I would hate to see 'Navicache take over this area)

 

I don't think that would be such a bad thing!

 

You forgot this quote from the same link you posted:

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.

Since it was Buxley's decision the remove geocaching.com caches from his website, maybe you should be complaining to him instead of here.

 

And you forgot to include this part "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." The problem (as I understand it) was that without cooperation Ed (Buxley) could not continue to provide accurate cache data from this site. Now like all of us, he would prefer to keep his content up to date, so while it may have been 'his decision' it is not like it was his first choice. After all had he really wanted to take such action, I am sure it would have been done long ago.

Edited January 27, 2006 by PC Medic

[+oldnavy59]

It drives me crazy when I think of how there is now absolutely no good way to easily visualize cache locations and plan cache hunts.

 

Where or betteryet how do you do this?

[+Renegade Knight]

....

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.

Since it was Buxley's decision the remove geocaching.com caches from his website, maybe you should be complaining to him instead of here.

It wasn't that simple. The folks at Groundspeak are pretty sharp. They would have presented an agreement that would have been generally favorable towards goundspeak without actually promising too much. This is SOP for corporations.

 

In other words they would have asked for all kinds of guarantees and assurances from Buxleys and at the same time not really promised to provide data with some level of assurance it's accurate or even fit for Buxleys purpose. Stale data is a bad thing in the geocaching world. I’ve heard that quoted on this site by TPTB.

 

Since Buxley seems pretty sharp he had two choices. Present a counter agreement to Groundspeak that pulls most of the one sidedness out of it. Or give it up and look elsewhere. Groundspeak doesn't need Buxleys so they really don't have any motivation to accept any kind of counter agreement that is what I would call mutually fair.

 

As for me now that it's got the Geocaching.com caches off of it. Buxley’s is a lot more useful. I can use a GPX for GC.com caches.

[+Renegade Knight]

I just checked out Buxleys without the GC clutter. Very nice. There are a couple of caches that I can acutally go find. Cool. There are even dash points. Hooah!

[+Mopar]

First off, PC Medic quoted attributed to me isn't mine.

 

PC Medic and RK :

Why Ed's sudden concern for accurate data? That part doesn't make sense.

I only had 2 issues with Buxley's. One was the data was always horribly stale. Archived caches were only removed from the maps if someone complained. Disabled caches were never removed. Why after 4.5yrs it's a dealbreaker issue is beyond me.

My second issue was there was no way to remove or identify found caches from the maps. Sure, the maps helped if you had few finds. But once you some finds under your belt in an area it became harder and harder to use; since you had to keep looking up each cache to see if you had already found it or not. At least the clickable and zoomable maps we have here allow me to filter out archived and found caches. With 3rd party software I can do MUCH better then either site possibly can (like Sbell111 shows).

[BRTango]

I'm game... what's a 'dashpoint' all about?

 

I see that there are a few near me but have no idea what they are.

Edited January 27, 2006 by BRTango

[+Alan2]

I'm always one for competition as it makes everyone sharper, watching their back and keeping things in top notch shape like their search engine. However, there's pretty much no competition any longer. This site has won the war.

 

I used to dual post my caches on navicache to try to keep the competition going but alas got tired of it. I just checked Busley and notice he has one of my old caches that no longer exists so his caches aren't really up to date any longer.

 

Tis a shame.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I've personally never found Buxley's site to be useful. And in my opinion since he's taking information posted on someone else's website and using it for his own purposes, the least he can do is work with the owners of the other website so they are happy.

 

And since this thread has the potential to turn into a big blow-up, hopefully folks will be respectful of each other's views so it doesn't need to be shut down...

Agreed, agreed, agreed! Thanks for saying this so well!

[+JDandDD]

For me Buxley's was interesting but the maps were often too cluttered to be really useful. With a high cache density it was often hard to click on a specific cache.

 

I have no problem with geocaching.com wanting lots of conditions on the data from the site. Afterall, if the data was just freely and easily available you could have your own geocaching site without having to put in the kind of work and effort that Groundspeak does to make this sport easy for all of us. They could end up doing all the work without getting the rewards of membership for their business.

 

So, Ed should have expected to have to sign complex and restricting conditions its only right. Look how geocaching.com was willing to make things work for google earth. If they can make improvements but retain control and gain benefit from their data and efforts they are obviously willing to do so for the benefit of all cachers. Ed needs to look to google earth as a model and then discuss how is site can benefit without potentially harming geocaching.

 

JDandDD

[+Renegade Knight]

... Archived caches were only removed from the maps if someone complained. Disabled caches were never removed....My second issue was there was no way to remove or identify found caches from the maps....

True enough. Buxleys has issues that prevent it from being useful to as wide an audience as could be. If you could feed it a GPX of your finds and have them removed from what you see it would make a vast improvment. Of course that's a violation of the TOS for the GPX file from this site. You would have to improvise another means.

 

I think the issue comes down to the wording of the agrement itself, but that's not being shared. As for the sudden concern for stale data, it's possible that all along he recognized the limitations of his site and wanted a solution. If he couldn't nail that down with the agreement and the old method didn't work anymore (he was cut off as I recall and even if he wasn't he did have the issue of archived caches) then the only choice you have is to quit because what he was doing did have issues as you have pointed out and without some source of data would only get worse over time.

 

This is all speculation, but then without the right information it always is.

 

Buxleys is a useful tool, some found it handy. It has the potential to be better than it is and I'd hate to see him lose that ability over an agreement that doesn't work (per his lawyer) because it has issues. Does this guy make a profit or do this for the love of it?

[+Renegade Knight]

...So, Ed should have expected to have to sign complex and restricting conditions its only right. ...

Fair means when you reverse it, it's still fair.

 

So would you buy into "So Groundspeak should have expected to have to sign complex and restricting conditions it's only right..."

 

I don't think you would buy into that. But I could be wrong.

[CoyoteRed]

Oh, another thing I liked about Buxley's is though I never used it for planning or such, but I liked being able to see the archived caches.

 

I wonder if Ed has thought about coverting over to a Google Maps based set up. I think it would be interesting to view different "layers" of GPS game activity. Zooming to whatever and where ever you want would be cool. Include some of the other stuff like that from Scout's site and you'd have an interesting application.

 

At present, it looks like the maps at Buxley's can do something Groundspeak can't, show compilations of some of the other GPS games.

 

I wish him well.

[+JDandDD]

...So, Ed should have expected to have to sign complex and restricting conditions its only right. ...

Fair means when you reverse it, it's still fair.

 

So would you buy into "So Groundspeak should have expected to have to sign complex and restricting conditions it's only right..."

 

I don't think you would buy into that. But I could be wrong.

Anyone entering into an agreement has to expect that there will be conditions they have to accept to reach an agreement. In this case, though, this is primarily about Buxley's wanting to use geocaching.com's data. So it is more likley that Ed was going to have to agree to the conditions to get the data, not the other way around.

 

In this case Ed wanted something from Groundspeak so they had the right to set conditions and Ed should have expected them. If he was offering something in return then Groundspeak would have to agree to his conditions for whatever he was offering, if they wanted that offering. That is fair.

 

What I was commenting on was Buxley's statement that there were conditions he couldn't agree with. Well, that's his choice. Groundspeak has a product and they as the owner have the right to set what they think is fair and are not required to change if someone else doesn't want to agree to the conditions.

 

In business fair is not reversal, it is what each party is willing to negotiate in return for the other's product. You don't think it fits your business model or costing and you can't reach agreement then you walk away from agreement and do something else. Ed chose to do something else. That's fair.

 

JDandDD

[+The Canning Clan]

Buxley's was great for those on dialup internet that cannot access Google earth etc.

[CoyoteRed]

Let's make one thing very clear, Groundspeak does NOT own the data. The data is owned by the individual cache owners. Groundspeak owns rights to distribute the data and the copyright to certain artistic compilations.

 

Now that might be splitting hairs, but I'm getting tired of folks saying it's Groundspeak's data. If it weren't for the individual cache owners Groundspeak would have squat. Just remember that.

 

Additionally, Ed is not asking for a complete set of data. In order to create maps all you need is the coordinates, names, and similar data. There is no need for descriptions, logs, or anything else. In fact, making such a list in no way violates anyone's right. It's simply a list little more than a phonebook. Such a dataset, being incomplete, would in no way hurt Groundspeak unless they are afraid someone else could do it better.

[+CYBret]

In fact, making such a list in no way violates anyone's right. It's simply a list little more than a phonebook. Such a dataset, being incomplete, would in no way hurt Groundspeak unless they are afraid someone else could do it better.

Not really. A phone book is a static product that's outdated the instant it's printed. This is more like accessing the phone companies database...and doing it over and over again to keep the information accurate. Isn't that where things start to get a little hinky?

 

Bret

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Let's make one thing very clear, Groundspeak does NOT own the data. The data is owned by the individual cache owners. Groundspeak owns rights to distribute the data and the copyright to certain artistic compilations.

 

Now that might be splitting hairs, but I'm getting tired of folks saying it's Groundspeak's data. If it weren't for the individual cache owners Groundspeak would have squat. Just remember that.

 

Additionally, Ed is not asking for a complete set of data. In order to create maps all you need is the coordinates, names, and similar data. There is no need for descriptions, logs, or anything else. In fact, making such a list in no way violates anyone's right. It's simply a list little more than a phonebook. Such a dataset, being incomplete, would in no way hurt Groundspeak unless they are afraid someone else could do it better.

If each cache owner was to send his or her own data to Buxley, then yes. However, for Buxley to collect data from geocaching.com, the question of ownership doesn't really fall to the cache owner. I know I was never asked if I wanted my cache listed on Buxley's site.

[+nfa]

I liked Buxley's when it had geocaching.com listed geocaches included on its maps.

 

The fact that some did not like or use Buxley's does not change that fact, nor does either viewpoint change the reality of the situation.

 

I can't alter the outcome of the gc.com/buxley interactions any more than I can alter the fact that "shrub" is serving his 2nd term as president despite my wishes (and votes) to the contrary...

 

In spite of both of the above disappointments...my life, my marriage, my relationship with my 3 year-old, my job, geocaching, and the weather (today) are all great, and I'm grateful for these (and myriad other) things that are going the way I would like at the moment.

 

You have to let go of the crap that is both not going your way and a foregone conclusion, and deal with the stuff that is either going well or that you have some hope of effecting.

 

{{{falls off of soapbox}}}

 

Have a nice weekend everyone, go find a cache!

 

Jamie

[Prof. Y. Lupardi]

Let's make one thing very clear, Groundspeak does NOT own the data. The data is owned by the individual cache owners. Groundspeak owns rights to distribute the data and the copyright to certain artistic compilations.

Groundspeak would be in a terrible exposed legal position if they should claim copyright on the data that geocachers send to them to be published on the internet.

Then it should become their text/pictures they publish and are responsible for.

It happened to Microsoft Community (or something like that) in Germany. To become a member you do the 'Yes, I agree' for a lot of text nobody really reads. But in that text they claim ownership of everything you publish with their help on that site.

A professional photographer found a picture he has the copyright of on that site of Microsoft and asked payment. Of course it went to court and M$ had to pay a lot of money.

[+Markwell]

I'm game... what's a 'dashpoint' all about?

Think random virutal.

 

Here's my article from Today's Cacher, September 2004 (was it really that long ago?).

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

Let's make one thing very clear, Groundspeak does NOT own the data.  The data is owned by the individual cache owners.  Groundspeak owns rights to distribute the data and the copyright to certain artistic compilations.

 

Now that might be splitting hairs, but I'm getting tired of folks saying it's Groundspeak's data.  If it weren't for the individual cache owners Groundspeak would have squat.  Just remember that.

 

Additionally, Ed is not asking for a complete set of data.  In order to create maps all you need is the coordinates, names, and similar data.  There is no need for descriptions, logs, or anything else.  In fact, making such a list in no way violates anyone's right.  It's simply a list little more than a phonebook.  Such a dataset, being incomplete, would in no way hurt Groundspeak unless they are afraid someone else could do it better.

If each cache owner was to send his or her own data to Buxley, then yes. However, for Buxley to collect data from geocaching.com, the question of ownership doesn't really fall to the cache owner. I know I was never asked if I wanted my cache listed on Buxley's site.

I'll bet you weren't asked if you wanted your information on superpages.com, either, were you? Unfortunately, once you place your information into the public domain, it's just that, in the public domain.

[+nfa]

While I wish that Buxley's still had gc.com geocaches listed on it, I have to agree that while gc.com does not own the data/information of the cache listings, they do, of course, own the presentation of it that Buxley can access via gc.com's website and servers...and that is where the friction comes from...

 

jamie

[CoyoteRed]

... Isn't that where things start to get a little hinky?

Yes, and that's my point. It's the access to the Groundspeak collection that is at issue. Someone else could do the same thing and have the exact same collection. It doesn't they own that data any more than Groundspeak does.

 

My point is don't say it's Groundspeak's data. It's not. It's our data.

[CoyoteRed]

I know I was never asked if I wanted my cache listed on Buxley's site.

Why should he ask you to list your cache? It's not as if he's making a copy of the descriptions, hints, logs, or what have you. He's only showing the start point of caches along with the name and owner. His listing then links to the the complete listing where it is hosted.

 

He doesn't host anything but a list.

 

Kind of like a list of books you've written. Or as an artist you might someday be on a site similar to imdb.com where it details all of the concerts you've played.

[+CYBret]

... Isn't that where things start to get a little hinky?

Yes, and that's my point. It's the access to the Groundspeak collection that is at issue. Someone else could do the same thing and have the exact same collection. It doesn't they own that data any more than Groundspeak does.

 

My point is don't say it's Groundspeak's data. It's not. It's our data.

Then put your data on your own server and make it available yourself.

 

As long as someone has to hit Groundspeak's server to get the data they're going to have to acknowledge Groundspeak's right to supply the resources that make your data accessible. To go back to your phone book metaphor, the most accurate phone book in the world is pretty useless unless I use the phone company's lines. They don't provide those for free.

 

Bret

Edited January 27, 2006 by CYBret

[CoyoteRed]

... Isn't that where things start to get a little hinky?

Yes, and that's my point. It's the access to the Groundspeak collection that is at issue. Someone else could do the same thing and have the exact same collection. It doesn't they own that data any more than Groundspeak does.

 

My point is don't say it's Groundspeak's data. It's not. It's our data.

The put your data on your own server and make it available yourself.

 

As long as someone has to hit Groundspeak's server to get the data they're going to have to acknowledge Groundspeak's right to supply the resources that make your data accessible. To go back to your phone book metaphor, the most accurate phone book in the world is pretty useless unless I use the phone company's lines. They don't provide those for free.

 

Bret

We're not talking about without knowledge or agreement.

 

We don't know what the agreement was supposed to be, so it's kind of hard to go forward with this angle. Let's just say, there shouldn't be any worries about copyright at the level of coords and cache titles. No different than a list of phone numbers or books.

 

What disturbs me is how tight Groundspeak is trying to hold onto the access to the data when there are clearly useful third-party sites that add value that Groundspeak has no intention of pursuing--and is in no way in direct competition with them.

 

While I have no idea what the hang up was, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the agreement required Groundspeak approval on how the data was presented, i.e. like the design approval of geocoins that are trackable.

[+budd-rdc]

Buxley's was great for those on dialup internet that cannot access Google earth etc.

I think people are so enthused about the "coolness factor" of toys like Goggle Earth that we are forgetting how the "Information Superhighway" is no longer that.

 

If there was a ratio measuring the amount of useful information per given bandwidth, my guess is that it's pretty bad and getting worse - waste is the word I'm looking for. (In my opinion, Geocaching.com is doing OK so far)

 

As for Buxley's site, I was hoping some sort of compromise would be reached, where he would be allowed to list GC.com caches that have been around a long time (like before 2004, then have a sliding scale of "2 years before today's date").

[Mr.Yuck]

I'm game... what's a 'dashpoint' all about?

 

I see that there are a few near me but have no idea what they are.

One of the many GPS games available at GPSgames.org. It's probably the most popular game on the website, although I'd describe it as a "cult" following. No sense in me explaining here, you can read about it at their website: Geodashing at gpsgames.org