Buxley's Geocaching

[Mr.Yuck]

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?

 

He absolutely does, but the vast majority would be cross-listed on both geocaching.com and Navicache (which would appy to the 25 or so I have listed on his website, for example). Even Scout's own hides are listed on his site and Navicache.

EDIT Completely revamping this post after playing around with his website and eventually finding a "newest caches" search feature, the last cache listed a few days ago has a cache ID of 404 meaning it's the 404th cache in the world listed there. I can tell you that cache #403, hidden the day before near Syracuse, N.Y. is listed only on that website, no where else. But I feel confident in saying 95%+ of the caches are cross-listed elsewhere.

Edited January 27, 2006 by TheWhiteUrkel

[SAWKS]

I was starting to wonder why new caches weren't showing up on the Buxley Maps.

 

A Sad Loss, It is...

[PC Medic]

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

 

My appologies, something most have gotten lost in the editing and I have corrected that post.

[PC Medic]

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).

Well as for the 'staleness' of the data you complain about, that was his main reason for the change a few weeks ago. While I would hardly call his (Ed's) concern 'suddden' it also was not something that took 4+ years. His concern has been there right along (to the best of my knowledge) and he has been trying for quite some time to work out a reasonable agreement to be able to keep data used up to date, but eventually you have to accept that the other party is obviously not interested and do what you have to do I guess. I think it is probably a disappointment to those who would have liked to see otherwise, it should not be a total suprise to any one that has been following the situation.The second issue would have also required more cooperation from others, though I can not say he had plans to offer such a feature in any case.

[PC Medic]

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

Yes< I can see where a business would really take offense to someone directing customers in their direction.

[+Jake39]

PC Medic  Posted on Jan 27 2006, 02:41 PM

 

QUOTE (NFA @ Jan 27 2006, 08:48 AM)

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

Yes< I can see where a business would really take offense to someone directing customers in their direction.

PC Medic  Posted on Jan 27 2006, 02:34 PM

The reason I liked 'Buxley's is when I post their maps on my 'HomePage' everyone can see how popular the caches are on the maps displayed, or around the world. (not anymore)

They only post/link to "MY/OUR CO-ORDINATES", not anybody elses, or "ANY DATA" but only links to 'GC.com' which should be to 'Groundspeaks' advantage not detriment.

[+fishingdude720]

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.

 

Google Earth???

[+Markwell]

Looks like Streets and Trips. GSAK will convert GPX files for use in Streets and Trips.

Edited January 28, 2006 by Markwell

[+Markwell]

Streets and trips is really nice to do this...

 

[javaa]

I loved Buxley's as a way to quickly find caches along a route or in an area where you didn't know the zipcode. The instant link was awesome too. No need to click "identify" and no need to constantly refresh the page. (That is particularly annoying for those of us still on dial-up .)

 

However, from a business standpoint it makes sense for Groundspeak not to want Buxley's around. In addition to the easy link, Buxley maps can be panned and zoomed. If this is available for free it takes away some of the incentive to buy a premium membership at GC.com. Can't really blame Groundspeak for that.

 

I stumbled on an interesting link concerning copyrighted geocache data and the past history between Groundspeak and Buxley. It was posted on another forum back in 2001 and includes an series of emails between Ed and Jeremy. It might put the current matter in a little perspective.

 

http://slashdot.org/yro/01/06/05/2222249.shtml

[nateminy]

http://slashdot.org/yro/01/06/05/2222249.shtml

That's golden!

[+JDandDD]

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.

Yep splitting hairs. Your third sentence is exactly what I'm talking about. I operate databases for a living and I know the distinctions. Others may put the information into the database then at that point it becomes data not information (and that is also splitting hairs but an important split). I own the database and have a responsibility to properly manage that within the law and statutes of privacy etc. I have the right to determine what can be put into my databases (i.e. nothing pornographic, hatred oriented, racist) because I have to because the law compels me to. So, when someone comes along who wants to access one of the databases I manage I also have the obligation to make sure everything complies with law, the data won't be misused I certainly have an obligation to make the access doesn't undercut my employer's ability to make money.

 

If you want to go post you information on Buxley's or Navicache then that's your right but once in the database it becomes their data to manage according to the applicable statutes and agreements.

 

So also let not confuse information and data. You own your information but the database manager owns the data.

 

JDandDD

[CoyoteRed]

I operate databases for a living and I know the distinctions.

Now we know the angle from which you are looking at the issue.

 

However, it's been established that databases have very limited copyright protection*. This wouldn't be the case if the person who compiled the data owned it. The only real protection a compiler has for his database is contract law, licensing in other words. Sound familiar? We all agreed to it to the TOU if we've actually been geocaching from data gathered from this site. Sounds like Groundspeak is operating under the same ideas of database copyright protection that I understand. Specifically, they don't own the data, they own the right to distribute it (among other things).

 

Yes, there are important distinctions, but Groundspeak owning the data is not accurate. Quite frankly, this issue probably has nothing to do with any agreement with Ed.

 

* Of course, "they" are trying to change this and extent copyright protections to databases as if they were original works. "They" as in big businesses who aggregate other folks' information.

[+JDandDD]

We aren't really disagreeing that much Coyote. But there is an important distinction between data and information. My area is in health records. From a legal point of view the patient owns the information but not the data. Here's what I mean.

 

Where I live, a person has the right to own their health information and to expect their privacy to be respected. Once it is in the database, however, that information becomes data that I must manage responsibly. Why the distinction that seems odd I suppose. Well, a patient cannot legally remove or change any of the data but they can dispute the information held in the data point. So they can add a dispute of information to the database but the law does not let me or them change the original data.

 

Its a fine hair splitting but it is what lawyers do and for reasons, that I'm not sure I can put properly into words. But here goes my best attempt, the patient can share their information with any doctor or hospital that they wish and my hospital does not own that iinformation. But I cannot share it from my data without extensive authorization procedures, which under law under certain circumstances do not have to have patient authorization. Under most they can refuse disclosure but not all. So the law make a distinction between data and information and the hospital is the custodian and owner of that data so that exceptions can occur and not all transfers under legally necessary conditions will be bogged down in lengthy proceedings.

 

Ok, so Groundspeak would never claim ownership of the information but the dataset is theirs because they are legally mandated to ensure privacy and legally authorized transfer of information. So when I said the owned the data I was using that term exactly as it exists from a legal distinction and its why I said data and not information.

 

The restrictions on health data and information are much more rigid (extremely so) than most databases, even more so than financial, so I've had to get very versed in that distinction especially since we share data across jurisdictions.

 

JDandDD

[CoyoteRed]

We aren't really disagreeing that much Coyote.

Yes, I see that and this is a very good debate.

 

But, let's interject that in this case, for the tables that make up the geocaches, and leaving out any personal information like email addresses and passwords, the data is already open to the public. At issue is only how it is accessed.

 

You or I could conceivably look at every single cache page. Here Groundspeak controls how the data is accessed, not that it is accessed. (Leaving out concequences of abuse.) We could access the data by clicking, and clicking, and clicking...

 

But we can't use some sort of automated mechanism. It is still accessing the same data. (Yes, I understand and agree with why it's frowned upon.)

 

So, we can access it one way, but we can't access it another way even though to the server it looks exactly the same. One could write a script that stepped through each ID at an interval of between 5 and 25 seconds. That's certainly doable by a human and, in fact, I've done it when curiousity hit about the early caches. Of course, I will tire much sooner than a computer. Still, the only difference in on my end.

 

I'm curious about your feelings on this aspect of owning the data versus owning licensing rights.

[+JDandDD]

Licensing is completely out of the healthcare field, at least in my jurisdication. We can share data for research purposes, under subpoena from the courts, when relevant to public health issues (ie. an epidemic like SARS a couple of years ago) but its all very much spelled out in the applicable legislation. So, I can't claim any strong undertanding of licensing issues.

 

That said I'll put my thoughts out thought they could be off. I would believe that as long as they follow appropriate copyright law and privacy protection that as the creators of the database that they can license access to it. In essence, I believe that's what they are doing with each of us through the agreement of use. That is effectively the license to publish in the database and access the data in the database. We also agree to restrictions on how we use the data and information in that database. To me that would seem to be a license. That agreement indicates to me that they have the right to limit use of and access to their database in the way they see fit as long is it meets appropriate law.

 

In effect that's what I also have to manage. I have to enforce what information is allowed to be put in it, who can put what in each database (only Drs can do prescriptions, only pharmacists can enter pharmacy scripts and so on). Some users are 'licensed' only to read data (and not necessarily all, for example even a Dr can only look at data about patients they are working with and not others). So with no money involved I am effectively licensing the specific use and access type (entry, read, limited read, printing/no printing) and if someone abuses the database access rules I have in place (most based on legal necessity) I remove their access which is in effect removing the license to the database.

 

JDandDD

[+yumitori]

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.

Hang on, now. You can't have it both ways. Either geocaching.com owns the data and should be consulted before it's listed on someone else's website, or I own the data for my caches and I should be consulted. At the very least I should be able to block those site that I don't think are doing a good job of maintaining their databases. I'm still awaiting the e-mail from Buxley's site, asking my permission. Meanwhile, I'll leave Groundspeak to fight my battles for me.

 

Buxley's listings put a certain amount of strain on the geocaching.com servers. Personally, I think it's fair that he reach an agreement with them as to appropriate compensation. If geocaching.com are jerks about it and ask for more than he is willing to agree to, that's too bad. (Or if the request for compensation is perfectly reasonable and he's the jerk unwilling to meet their requests, too bad again.)

 

The day Buxley's sets up its own listing service, I'll decide whether or not I want my caches there. Until then, his scrapping of geocaching.com can only slow down my service.

[+SparkyInCali]

So I wonder if the issue with gc.com is why when I tried his cache logger today for the first tinme it didnt seem to work for me

[CoyoteRed]

Hang on, now. You can't have it both ways. Either geocaching.com owns the data and should be consulted before it's listed on someone else's website, or I own the data for my caches and I should be consulted.

Neither of those are relevant.

 

Read my post. He's not hosting your cache data. He is only compiling a list of caches and where they are. Nothing more. He doesn't need your permission for that.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

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.

Hang on, now. You can't have it both ways. Either geocaching.com owns the data and should be consulted before it's listed on someone else's website, or I own the data for my caches and I should be consulted.

Not at all. You gave up any right you had to keep your data private the minute you placed it into the public domain.

[+Allen_L]

I don't know about you but I didn't place my submitted information into the public domain. Even geocaching's TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT recognizes it as still being copyrighted by me.

All comments, articles, tutorials, screenshots, pictures, graphics, tools, downloads, and all other materials submitted to Groundspeak in connection with the Site or available through the Site (collectively, “Submissions”) remain the property and copyright of the original author.

. By my submitting information the TOU does give Groundspeak a lot of rights to the information.

By submitting any Submission to Groundspeak, You grant Groundspeak a worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, fully-paid royalty-free license and right to use, reproduce, distribute, import, broadcast, transmit, modify and create derivative works of, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease or lend copies of, publicly display and publicly perform that Submission for any purpose and without restriction or obligation to You.

So to get a legal right to my submitted information a third party has to get permission from me or Groundspeak, otherwise they don't have a legal access to it.

 

Of course I am not a lawyer and don't even play one on TV, but these sections of the TOU seem fairly clear to non-lawyer.

Edited January 30, 2006 by AllenLacy

[CoyoteRed]

"Public Domain" was a poor choice of words. Still, you're putting it out there for folks to look at.

 

As for access to your submitted information only Groundspeak can give permission. In fact, you don't even have the right to access your own submitted information without Groundspeak's approval. You have to abide by Groundspeak's TOU if you download a PQ of your own caches.

 

On the other hand, you can freely submit the same information to another site or pass it around freely in any manner you choose. It's just that Groundspeak doesn't have to submit to your licensing with third parties, but you do to them. Odd how that works out, isn't it? But that's what we all agreed to.

[+JDandDD]

Well put CoyoteRed. That's basically what all database managers do. Database managers give you access to a medium, the database, in which to post your information. But they own the database design and control all accesses including yours. Its the only way managers can meet legal obligations of search, privacy etc. They get your approval first through the agreement rather than having to ask every time. If you don't want to follow the agreement never use the database. All those agreements we all accept on line and don't read are where the ownership and control comes from.

 

You're also right about "public domain". Putting the information in the database and making it viewable is not public domain and does not void copyright. If it worked that way as soon as a book hit the shelves it would be in the public domain which of course is not the case.

 

JDandDD

[+yumitori]

Nevertheless, it remains my data. Granting one website permission to list it does not creating blanket permission to anyone else wishing to copy it for their own benefit. If Buxley's sold advertising they would be benefiting from the efforts of others who created the data and made it publicly available. But I see nothing in your claims of 'freedom of access' that would prevent them from profiting in such a manner.

 

You have failed to address my concern that by scraping geocaching.com to make his own website a more attractive spot for people to visit, Buxley's is degrading my access to the website I choose to frequent. To maintain an adequate level of service, Groundspeak must increase the ability of their servers to handle the additional load. That costs money. How much has Buxley's paid Groundspeak for the privilege?

[+JDandDD]

Nevertheless, it remains my data. Granting one website permission to list it does not creating blanket permission to anyone else wishing to copy it for their own benefit.

Looks to me like AllenLacy has laid it all out perfectly. The second quote of the agreement shows that we all transferred license to Groundspeak to re-distribute the information as they see fit. So giving them the license has given others the right as well if Groundspeak grants access. And they have no obligation on their part to us in terms of compensation or needing further permission.

 

Note also that the first paragraph indicates we own the copyright to the information we put on there, as it should be, but we don't own the copyright to the database or access rights to the database.

 

To maintain an adequate level of service, Groundspeak must increase the ability of their servers to handle the additional load. That costs money.

 

I think you got that right. Buxley, or anyone else does put a load on Groundspeak who then bear the cost of providing the computing resources to meet the load. You made a really good point there of why Groundspeak MAY be wanting whatever conditions they are asking for.

 

JDandDD

Edited January 31, 2006 by JDandDD

[+Renegade Knight]

What Buxleys did, or didn't pay is in the agreement that isn't being shared.

 

Groundspeak got it's start by using other peoples data. I don't know if he had permission or if things were so new nobody thought about that.

 

What does google pay?

 

AlanLacy did spell it out fairly well. It's my data, Groundspeak has an unlimited right to use it. One critial piece of information. Groundspeak does not assign to us the copyright. They leave it for us to claim. If you don't copyright your data someone else can use it.

[+Jake39]

All I wanted to do is voice my opinion ( comment) about 'Buxley's---lack of 'Geocaching Points' - dated or not!

...Then when I decided to close the topic the comments and discussions flooded in- at this time 75 posts -1659- views about the subject discussed.

I never intented to go into the legalities or right or wrongs , but only to find if his site was useful to anyone besides me.

So now having gone this far I will let it continue it a little longer as it turned out, there is enough informationhere here by now to write 'A Book'

[+BigFurryMonster]

What exactly was the problem/disagreement between Buxley and gc.com? A financial one?

 

I used Buxley quite a lot. For non-dense areas, it was great for visualizing caches. Fortunately, we have gc.nl here in the Netherlands, which does a pretty good job at visualizing caches, although lately the maps become a bit too cluttered in some areas:

 

http://www.geocaching.nl/maps/seek.php?action=nederland

(please note you can zoom in one level)

[+Allen_L]

One critial piece of information. Groundspeak does not assign to us the copyright. They leave it for us to claim. If you don't copyright your data someone else can use it.

Sorry to continue the talk on copyrights but according to 10 Big Myths about copyright explained

"If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."

    This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not.

[+JDandDD]

One critial piece of information.  Groundspeak does not assign to us the copyright.  They leave it for us to claim. If you don't copyright your data someone else can use it.

Sorry to continue the talk on copyrights but according to 10 Big Myths about copyright explained

"If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."

    This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not.

Good link AllenLacv. Those are the ones I run up against all the time in my work when people challenge me on the basis of copyright. I'll be using that link a lot in the future. Thanks for the info.