Finding caches not found by anybody in a group

[+subtlebear]

Before going out caching with friends it can be a drag to find a set of caches that haven't been found by everybody in the group. If I could easily get a list of caches for a cacher I could probably figure out a way to do it with GSAK or even excel.

 

How do other deal with this?

[+The Leprechauns]

Yes, this is a challenge, because the terms of use for pocket queries prohibit you sharing your files with other geocachers for comparison purposes.

 

Fortunately, a solution can be found at It's Not About the Numbers. Get everyone to upload their "All Finds" pocket query to the site (this is authorized by Groundspeak), and then you'll find a nifty comparison tool that examines the finds for two cachers and returns a list of the GC numbers for the cache finds you have in common, and a list of caches that either of you have found. Then there is a GSAK macro for filtering out the finds.

[+Trucker Lee]

Pick some further away.

 

Just take the list of caches, and those who have found it already can stand back and watch.

 

The only way I can picture this on GSAK is to run seperate page for each cacher, filter the finds, print the list, and compare lists to find those caches that appear on all. BUT!--- if you eliminate too many caches in the area, why go out as a group at all. So, back the the suggestion above.

[+Bad_CRC]

hell I have enough problems finding caches that haven't been found by ME (that aren't micros or 50 miles away)

 

[+GRANPA ALEX]

Roger on THAT . . . I have enough problems going out on caches I HAVE found and finding them again - some are my hides. Caches tend to migrate away from original hide spots . . . it is murder!

[+Blaidd-Drwg]

I haven't tried the 'It's not about the numbers' and GSAK combo method yet. I just read about it last night. I have used a tool provided on the Keenpeople site to do a combo listing for two different cachers. The problem there is that it returns a gpx file where every cache is in the eastern hemisphere. To make the points useful, you have to upload the common gpx file into GSAK and then update the coords by importing one of the original gpx files, making sure to only update and not overwrite the entire file.

Either of these techniques is better than doing a manual compare.

[+The Leprechauns]

In my book there's a vast difference. The Keenpeople site is, to my knowledge, not licensed by Groundspeak for the sharing of pocket query data. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

INATN states at the bottom of every page that it operates under a license agreement, and links to the Groundspeak Terms of Use. I am very comfortable using that site.

[+Blaidd-Drwg]

I guess I'm a little out of the legal ramifications on the use of PQs. On the Keenpeople site, you must have a password to view the results. This means that only the person who created the combined list can view the results, or someone they have given the name and password to. To create a combined list, all parties must have contributed a PQ, and this would imply to me that they are premium members at GC.com.

 

So we have two or more premium members using a webtool to create a cache list to search for.

Where is the legal foul? I have never seen where other folks can see a listing of combined PQs for some obscure reason.

 

The difference I see between INATN and the Keenpeople site is that INATN is using PQ to generate statistics available to the world, while the Keenpeople is merely a tool for individual users to manipulate their own data.

[+Markwell]

About a year ago, I asked that same question, but in the GSAK forum.

 

Here's the solution I came up with.

 

I paged through the finds of the potential partners, and download the various loc files (Check All, Download). Since all I really needed to know is IF they found the cache or not - not the details of the caches themselves...

 

I also have a GSAK database of the 2000+ caches in the area already

 

I'll throw one more method into the loop, and it's the one I implemented prior to reading these great responses. It also is a direct result of the end goal: finding an area of caches that none of us have found.

 

The GPX files were ones that were converted from the LOC files mentioned above, but while I had them in GSAK, I also exported them to MS S&T CSV files. I took the 2000 caches, limited it to ones I hadn't found, and exported the single-stage TB-sized caches to the MS S&T CSV version as well.

 

Then I plotted one person's finds with large black, another with large blue, and overlaid the region's caches with small yellow dots. The result was that I could quickly glance at an area and see if either person had cleared out a bunch of caches in a particular area, and specifically look at a concentration of small yellow dots without any big blue and black dots. Once I found the potential areas, I mapped in all of the caches of the area. Cool - we've got a list of about 40 caches in a five mile radius that none of us have found.

 

It was a more graphic way to limit the caches than to do it with a database comparison, but it did work. If I had done it strictly with GSAK or GPSBabel, I would have gotten the caches, but I still would have had to go to some other program like MS S&T or Cache Clusters to find a cache dense area.

 

The last step of course was that I created a bookmark list for them to view and I'll create a PQ right before we go out.

[+The Leprechauns]

I guess I'm a little out of the legal ramifications on the use of PQs.

Yes, I believe that you are. The terms of use say:

 

Licensee shall not sell, rent, lease, sublicense, lend, assign, time-share, or transfer, in whole or in part, or provide access to the Data, Related Materials, any updates, or Licensee's rights under this Agreement to any third party whatsoever.

Given the above language, how is the transfer of the data to the Keenpeople site permissible? It is a "third party."

 

The difference I see between INATN and the Keenpeople site is that INATN is using PQ to generate statistics available to the world, while the Keenpeople is merely a tool for individual users to manipulate their own data.

No, the difference is that INATN operates under a license agreement that gets it past the hurdle described above. If Keenpeople has a license agreement, then I would agree with you. But nowhere on that site does it say that it does, at least not that I could see.

[+gnbrotz]

 

Licensee shall not sell, rent, lease, sublicense, lend, assign, time-share, or transfer, in whole or in part, or provide access to the Data, Related Materials, any updates, or Licensee's rights under this Agreement to any third party whatsoever.

Given the above language, how is the transfer of the data to the Keenpeople site permissible? It is a "third party."

 

Given the above language, how is the transfer of the data to INATN site permissable? They're agreement with Groundspeak aside, that language prohibits me from uploading the data to their site.

[+wandererrob]

Yes, this is a challenge, because the terms of use for pocket queries prohibit you sharing your files with other geocachers for comparison purposes.

 

You're not allowed to compare pocket queries, but you can if you go through this extra site? Isn't this just adding a step to do the same thing?

 

And why?

 

For example, my girlfriend and I often go caching together, though not always. So if we both run PQs for caches we haven't found we're not able to sit down and compare them?

 

I guess I need to go reread the terms of use, it's been a while.

[+Blaidd-Drwg]

I guess if TPTB were upset about the use of the Keenpeople Tool, then they would ask them to remove it. Also it would appear from reading the T&C, that exporting a common file from GSAK for both cachers to use would also be a violation.

[+gnbrotz]

I guess I need to go reread the terms of use, it's been a while.

 

They've been changed not too long ago....they used to stipulate no sharing with "unlicensed third parties", which let to the argument:...if I'm a licensed user, and you're a licensed user, than we can share data with each other, because neither of us are unlicensed.

 

That's why I'm confused about the statement that it's kosher to upload to INATN site. The new language says it NOT.

 

*edited to fix typo

Edited February 21, 2007 by gnbrotz

[+The Leprechauns]

At the bottom of *every* page of the INATN site, the following statement appears:

 

Use of Geocaching.com data is subject to the Geocaching.com Terms of Use located at http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx . Groundspeak Pocket Query uploads permitted under Data License Agreement with Groundspeak Inc.

 

That seems pretty clear to me. Further, the issue was discussed in a forum thread when the INATN site was launched.

 

Therefore to solve the OP's question I would be entirely comfortable using the nifty utility on the INATN site for comparing two users' lists of found caches, as described above.

[+gnbrotz]

I'm not trying to get into a war, but to play devil's advocate a bit: INATN site is giving me permission to do something with Groundspeak data that Groundspeak's TOU tells me NOT to do with "any third party whatsoever"?!?

 

Under the old TOU language, I'd see how it all works. The new language is stricter, but doesn't always apply?

[+Markwell]

The part you missed is that Groundspeak gave INATN permission to give you permission to do something with Groundspeak data that Groundspeak's TOU tells you NOT to do with "any third party whatsoever".

Edited February 21, 2007 by Markwell

[+The Cheeseheads]

I'm not trying to get into a war, but to play devil's advocate a bit: INATN site is giving me permission to do something with Groundspeak data that Groundspeak's TOU tells me NOT to do with "any third party whatsoever"?!?

 

Under the old TOU language, I'd see how it all works. The new language is stricter, but doesn't always apply?

The disclaimer at the bottom of the INATN site is there as part of the license agreement I signed with Groundspeak which gives full permission for the site to operate as it does. You may use that site freely without worry that you are violating the TOU for your PQ data.

[+sTeamTraen]

Getting back on topic: the Geo-Trip feature at www.geocaching-france.com does exactly this (as long as all the caches are in France). You could maybe ask the site owner how he did it.

[+gnbrotz]

The part you missed is that Groundspeak gave INATN permission to give you permission to do something with Groundspeak data that Groundspeak's TOU tells you NOT to do with "any third party whatsoever".

 

I got that part. It just seems like a round-about way to do things. I guess I expected more from highly educated corporate attorneys. But perhaps it's my own humble roots that are the source of the problem. I look for logic, and just failed to see any in the change of language, then circumventing of it.

 

The disclaimer at the bottom of the INATN site is there as part of the license agreement I signed with Groundspeak which gives full permission for the site to operate as it does. You may use that site freely without worry that you are violating the TOU for your PQ data.

 

I also want to clarify that I have no qualms with the INATN site (whatsoever ). I think it's a GREAT tool for cachers to have and I use it myself. After the Buxley situation, I assumed Groundspeak was determined not to explore any licensing options for any reason. I'm glad I was wrong!

[+The Cheeseheads]

The part you missed is that Groundspeak gave INATN permission to give you permission to do something with Groundspeak data that Groundspeak's TOU tells you NOT to do with "any third party whatsoever".

 

I got that part. It just seems like a round-about way to do things. I guess I expected more from highly educated corporate attorneys. But perhaps it's my own humble roots that are the source of the problem. I look for logic, and just failed to see any in the change of language, then circumventing of it.

 

The disclaimer at the bottom of the INATN site is there as part of the license agreement I signed with Groundspeak which gives full permission for the site to operate as it does. You may use that site freely without worry that you are violating the TOU for your PQ data.

 

I also want to clarify that I have no qualms with the INATN site (whatsoever ). I think it's a GREAT tool for cachers to have and I use it myself. After the Buxley situation, I assumed Groundspeak was determined not to explore any licensing options for any reason. I'm glad I was wrong!

Could you please restate your question then, because I'm not sure what your issue is...

Edited February 21, 2007 by The Cheeseheads

[+gnbrotz]

Your own "custom" licensing agreement allows you to receive and process PQ data. I understand that, and appreciate the services offered by your site. As I stated before, I use them.

 

My own generic license agreement absolutely forbids sharing of data that I receive with anyone, no exceptions. Even if Jeremy himself were to post and say it was ok to upload to your site, it still would not change the legality of the language which seems to very clearly state otherwise.

 

While it may be ok to do (from Groundspeak's point of view), the language of their own terms of use contradicts this. What's the point of establishing a terms of use in the first place if it's going to be selectively enforced, ignored or contradicted by other license agreements with other parties?

 

In my mind, I know I won't get into trouble for uploading my data to your site, even though I absolutely believe I am violating the terms of use in their current form by doing so.

[+Markwell]

It's a matter of controlling who does what with the data. Groundspeak (I'm sure) analyzed what my dairy-related friend to the north does with the data and deemed it a Good Thing™. I would guess because in all of the finalized analysis of the data, there are no coordinates given out for the caches.

 

Our organization GONIL worked with Groundspeak to secure a feature on our site that uses PQs and GPX files to show newly placed caches in our region on a Google map. As part of the TOU we established, we needed to round the coordinates to make them "fuzzy". That way, people can't just go to our site and get the coordinates for possibly stale caches. If they want the coords for the cache, they have to go to Geocaching.com.

 

Not everyone's usage of GPX data would be so benign as these two possibilities, so I'm glad that Groundspeak is so protective with the data. I also think they have every right to establish a hard-and-fast rule, only to find the possibilities of exception. That shows that they are not mindless automatons.

[+webscouter.]

This can also be done legally with Watcher. To do so requires a little bit of file renaming but can be done like this.

 

User #1 sends his list.xml file to user #2 This file is in the Watcher directory and contains all the found caches by name.

 

User #2 renames his list.xml file to something different. Then puts user #1's list in his watcher directory. User #2 then opens his unfound PQ in watcher. Filter on caches not found and you will have all of user #2's caches not found by user #1

[+Renegade Knight]

At the bottom of *every* page of the INATN site, the following statement appears:

 

Use of Geocaching.com data is subject to the Geocaching.com Terms of Use located at http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx . Groundspeak Pocket Query uploads permitted under Data License Agreement with Groundspeak Inc.

 

That seems pretty clear to me. Further, the issue was discussed in a forum thread when the INATN site was launched.

 

Therefore to solve the OP's question I would be entirely comfortable using the nifty utility on the INATN site for comparing two users' lists of found caches, as described above.

 

It's groundspeaks organization of other peoples data. Regardless of the exact wording I do think it's a fair use of the GPX file to plan a day of caching with your buddies. Your one site seems to be easy to use and probably the winner. Other programs also do the job such as GSAK, GPSbabel and apparently Keenpeople, while some might consider it a violation of the TOS, I'm willing to bet that the intent isn't to stop people from planning a day of caching.

 

More on topic. When I go with folks if we have our PQ's loaded up we ask "what's next" if we all announce the same cache (having agreed on a general route) we are good. If we don't someone has found it already. Sometimes we stop and let the people who haven't found it catch up. Sometimes we don't. If we do stop, we can flip the crap while they go find the cache that we already found. "It's to your left, No your other left..."

Edited February 22, 2007 by Renegade Knight