GSAK interaction with geocaching.com website?

[Donald, Daisy and Kids]

I recently posted the following Posted from HERE on the GSAK forum in relation to a question I was looking to have answered from geocaching.com sources:

 

***********

Is it possible...... within V7, the ability to check previously uploaded caching waypoints for changes?

 

I am a preminum member on GC.com and uploaded about 2000 caches for an upcoming trip using PQ's, so it took me 4 days to get the info.

 

During that 4 days a couple of the caches changed from active to not active, even though when I uploaded them they were still active, meant that we found ourselves looking for some dead caches, one had been removed by the owner and 2 were muggled and no longer alive.

 

If GSAK had been able to check the listing's status then this wouldnt have happened as it would have been updated to reflect the caches status changes.

 

Regards,

Donald

****************

 

and I was wondering why I received the reply from GSAK stating that:

 

*************************

This is something I would love to be permitted to do for all GSAK users.

 

Unfortunately, any such "automation" of this task is currently a violation of the Groundspeak TOU

 

Searching the Groundspeak forums reveals many threads where customers have asked to get archived caches in a PQ or at the very least some way to know caches have become archived. Unfortunately, Groundspeak won't budge on this one either.

 

However, there are work arounds that can help you. Please see this thread

**************************

 

It seems totally stupid to me that Groundspeak would not allow GSAK to source this information, for the purpose of keeping cachers upto date with current changes in a cache status etc!

 

I also received a similar response from geocaching.com.au when I enquired on why a cache that is listed on their website isnt shown on geocaching.com.

 

 

My question to Geoching/Groundspeak staff is this:

Why do you not allow the interaction of other sites or programs that will only serve to enhance the geocaching experience and better promote the sport/game for more members to enjoy and use more tools that interact?

[+sTeamTraen]

If GSAK were to check the listing's status in real time like this, it would kill the site. Period. Or more likely, your IP address would be blocked before it got 1/10 of the way down the list, for excessive traffic.

 

GC.com is not set up as a "Web service" (in the technical sense of the term), for the very good reason that Groundspeak - a for-profit company - makes its money selling you the data packaged up their way. In fact they're pretty tolerant about allowing you to use that data once you've got it from the site; many companies would probably have sued the pants off their equivalent of GSAK.net or the other third-party GPX file tools in their world by now. For one thing, when you're looking at caches in GSAK, you aren't looking at advertisements for Groundspeak's fine merchandise!

 

A few tips which might help you to avoid this situation in the future:

- You might not need 4 days to download 2000 caches if you set up the PQs right; you can have 500 caches per PQ and 5 PQs per day. (It must have been a heck of a trip to require 2000 caches. Maybe if you'd chosen slightly less wide criteria, you could have fitted it into your 5 PQs more easily.)

- Once you can get the PQs down to the size where you can run the same one twice in the runup to your trip, the "last update GPX" column in GSAK can help you spot caches which have become archived. For example, if you run the PQ on the 10th and the 13th of the month, then sort on this column, caches with a "last update GPX" of the 10th are good candidates for a quick look with the online view.

 

My estimate of the half-life of a cache is about 4 years. So out of 2000, I'd expect them to be archived at the rate of - very roughly - around one a day; a rate which continues even once you have locked your front door and set off on your trip. Wap.geocaching.com is your friend on trips.

 

PS: You might find you get better results if you try to avoid using phrases like "it seems totally stupid" in online posts. Lots of things seem pretty stupid to all of us from time to time, but I have never come across anyone to whom I said I thought something they were doing seemed pretty stupid, who said "You know what? You're right!". In most cases this is because what they are doing is in fact pretty sensible once you have all the facts, but even if it isn't, there are usually better ways of bringing it to their attention.

 

(Edit: tried to make my comments about GSAK clearer. Thanks Clyde.)

Edited February 12, 2007 by sTeamTraen

[+StarBrand]

TPTB would perfer that you use the website and not 3rd party tools to get the most up-to-date information on caches.

 

Even if you had the latest updates into GSAK just hours before heading out - things can change fast - especially on a set of 2000 caches. Might need to invest in a cell phone that can display the wap site for the best possible information.

[+thedeadpirate]

For one thing, when you're looking at caches in GSAK, you aren't looking at advertisements for Groundspeak's fine merchandise!

 

That's offset somewhat by the fact that in order to get pq's to load into GSAK, you have to be a paying customer in the first place.

[+Semper Questio]

For one thing, when you're looking at caches in GSAK, you aren't looking at advertisements for Groundspeak's fine merchandise!

 

That's offset somewhat by the fact that in order to get pq's to load into GSAK, you have to be a paying customer in the first place.

 

Maybe THAT'S where Groundspeak is missing an opportunity. Another level of membership that would allow that kind of access for another $20 or $25 per year. Third party apps could then pass identifying info to Groundspeak to verify the person making the request is an authorized upper-tier member.

[+pppingme]

If GSAK were to check the listing's status in real time like this, it would kill the site. Period.

 

Wrong... If some type of API were implemented, GSAK (or any 3rd party program) sends a few bytes (the gcID and a 32bit {4 bytes} date stamp of last time updated) and gc responds with a couple bytes that says its current... If all is current, then your talking less than a hundred bytes worst case. Loading a single cache page could easily be several thousand bytes, plus maps and stuff that will probably not be looked at (since there is already a familiarity with the cache), would easily create much more of a load in both traffic and cpu (map generation, etc).

 

WAY LESS traffic You could verify information is up to date for a database of several thousand waypoints with less traffic than it costs to download ONE PQ...

[+Lil Devil]

If you have time before you leave to sit down and trigger GSAK to do some sort of update as is being discussed, then you have time to run fresh PQs.

[+mrking]

If you have time before you leave to sit down and trigger GSAK to do some sort of update as is being discussed, then you have time to run fresh PQs.

 

not true. Lets be honest about this. PQ can take 2 minutes and they can take hours to generate. Sometimes it misses the day all together.

[+Lil Devil]

Lets be honest about this.

Honestly. In the last year or more, 99% of the queries I've asked for were in my Inbox within 5 minutes. The only exception is last week when the email server needed a kick start and it took slightly more than an hour for one query. In that case I just used a week-old query and went out and had no problems.

[pay_it_forward]

If Groundspeak where to allow third party programs to access the DB via some API it could lower the load on the web servers considerably as most of the power cachers could use GSAK or some other third party program and not have to load all of the pages required to check the status of a cache. They could even set-up different servers for the third party programs to access via.

 

This could be one easy solution to the "Server Too Busy" Message that is far to common on such a public site.

 

But hey what do I know I only have 15 years of DB programming experience

[+sTeamTraen]

If GSAK were to check the listing's status in real time like this, it would kill the site. Period.

 

Wrong... If some type of API were implemented, GSAK (or any 3rd party program) sends a few bytes (the gcID and a 32bit {4 bytes} date stamp of last time updated) and gc responds with a couple bytes that says its current...

 

I was talking about things as they are. I have no doubt that there are very good reasons why there is no API at the moment. I'm sure Groundspeak would rather provide data than chase after people who run screen scrapers, so perhaps things are a little more complex than we like to imagine.

[n0wae]

For one thing, when you're looking at caches in GSAK, you aren't looking at advertisements for Groundspeak's fine merchandise!

 

That's offset somewhat by the fact that in order to get pq's to load into GSAK, you have to be a paying customer in the first place.

 

Maybe THAT'S where Groundspeak is missing an opportunity. Another level of membership that would allow that kind of access for another $20 or $25 per year. Third party apps could then pass identifying info to Groundspeak to verify the person making the request is an authorized upper-tier member.

I'd gladly pay the extra money myself just to have the PQs update the archive status of a cache in GSAK. (Yes I know about the workarounds)