Petition: mobile Geocaching API

[+jahwe2000]

Hello,

 

I know it has been discussed many times and it has been asked for many times. Anyway, there is a large user base that wants to go caching with non-approved devices and software.

 

I have started a petition to tell Groundspeak that there is a large userbase that wants to have mobile access without buying and iPhone or similar restrictions. It is the aim to show, that a WebService Interface can allow them to keep the control and also raise money, as more people would become premium member.

 

Here is the petition:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/mobile_geocaching

 

Please sign it and spread the word.

 

@Groundspeak: Please realize, that the users are not grabbing caches illegally at the moment, because they are evil, but because they are looking for more comfort and flexibility. You can take the chance and provide the users with the comfort and increase the turnover by additional premium accounts while still having control on how everyone can access the data.

 

Kind regards,

Philip

[jholly]

Well, if your going caching with non-approved devices and software why should the frog be accommodating? Now maybe if your caching with approved device and software ....

 

But why should I support your petition when I would like to have API's that are not specific to mobile devices?

 

But then Jeremy was pretty adamant that there will be no public API's.

 

Jim

[John E Cache]

I prefer that this site has ways to get revenue from their data rather than by cluttering the site with advertisements. Count me out. PQs are not free. Live phone data should not be free for foreign apps, in my opinion.

[+StarBrand]

Your admission to "scraping" the site for info lends little or no credibility to your petition.

 

Why don't some of these really amazing app developers start by creating cool apps for use with Pocket Queries and demonstrate thier coolness to the community. Then maybe Groundspeak can more properly address the need for live data via an API??

[+Indotguy]

Call me old fashioned but I see nothing wrong with getting cache data via PQs. On the other hand, I also prefer using a handheld GPS device for Geocaching and a mobile phone for communicating. I will now crawl back under my rock.

[Andronicus]

Well, I signed the petition! Essentialy the proposal is a "Premium Members" API, not a public API. I would gladly pay to upgraded my membership if that ment that I could use software that had access to an API. I realise that there are a few apps that do, but they all suck! The iPhone app is just now starting to catch up to some of the free ones, and who has an iPhone anyway?

[Andronicus]

Your admission to "scraping" the site for info lends little or no credibility to your petition.

...

 

I didn't see an admission to "scraping". Anyway...

 

Here is my point of view. I do not own a traditional hand held GPSr. I really don't see the point of buying an old fashioned non-wireless data enabled device. There is way too much planning required. An API would allow for true spontaneous caching.

 

GS could even charge an access fee available only to Premium Members, bringing the total anual fee to $60. That would help off-set the cost of potential lost advertising revenue.

[jholly]

Your admission to "scraping" the site for info lends little or no credibility to your petition.

...

 

I didn't see an admission to "scraping".

 

@Groundspeak: Please realize, that the users are not grabbing caches illegally at the moment, because they are evil, but because they are looking for more comfort and flexibility.

 

sounds like scrapping to me.

 

Jim

[Andronicus]

Your admission to "scraping" the site for info lends little or no credibility to your petition.

...

 

I didn't see an admission to "scraping".

 

@Groundspeak: Please realize, that the users are not grabbing caches illegally at the moment, because they are evil, but because they are looking for more comfort and flexibility.

 

sounds like scrapping to me.

 

Jim

 

Sounds like he is saying that there may be some members that are scrapping or something similar. no admission there.

 

Anyway... I think that the OP has a good point about revenue streams. A API could increase fee based revenue, while allowing inovative talented people to make amazing software. I don't know why the official software packages that do have access to the current private API suck so bad. Probably because they are made by companies that are a little too corprate.

[+Tequila]

....... and who has an iPhone anyway?

 

Several hundred thousand people at last count. Probably millions. And a few weeks ago, the Groundspeak app was #1 in revenue generation in the iTunes app store.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Tequila

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Your admission to "scraping" the site for info lends little or no credibility to your petition.

...

 

I didn't see an admission to "scraping".

 

@Groundspeak: Please realize, that the users are not grabbing caches illegally at the moment, because they are evil, but because they are looking for more comfort and flexibility.

 

sounds like scrapping to me.

 

Jim

Might needz our helmet for this one!

 

Edited December 11, 2009 by TheAlabamaRambler

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Moving to the Geocaching.com web site forum.

[+GeePa]

Why don't some of these really amazing app developers start by creating cool apps for use with Pocket Queries and demonstrate thier coolness to the community. Then maybe Groundspeak can more properly address the need for live data via an API??

 

There is one. It is called CacheBerry. However due to the lack of an API, it cannot get data directly from GC.com without violating the terms of service like the iPhone App can. I am a premium member, but would be willing to actually pay even more for the capability of logging from the field or getting updated cache information without downloading from the site, etc.

[+jahwe2000]

But why should I support your petition when I would like to have API's that are not specific to mobile devices?

 

It is not. The petition only talks about a public API and gives mobile caching as a good example.

 

But then Jeremy was pretty adamant that there will be no public API's.

 

Yes, and we want to show that Groundspeak would not have trouble for something that is free, but can gain more revenue this way while at the same time satisfying many customers.

[Andronicus]

I am a premium member, but would be willing to actually pay even more for the capability of logging from the field or getting updated cache information without downloading from the site, etc.

 

That is exactly the point. Not only would people like GeePa pay extra, people like me would upgrade to a primium account, then pay extra!

 

Let's not bash iPhones; that should be a Off-Topic thread. I would enjoy it though, maybe I should start one.

[+Tequila]

 

Let's not bash iPhones; that should be a Off-Topic thread. I would enjoy it though, maybe I should start one.

 

You were the one bashing iPhones by asking "who has an iPhone anyway?"

 

As I pointed out, several million people have iPhones and a large number of geocachers have iPhones.

[jholly]

Yes, and we want to show that Groundspeak would not have trouble for something that is free, but can gain more revenue this way while at the same time satisfying many customers.

 

I suspect if it was simply a matter of more revenue we would have the API. I'm sure there are other reasons, like protecting the business model or protecting the infrastructure.

 

Jim

[CoyoteRed]

As I pointed out, several million people have iPhones and a large number of geocachers have iPhones.

What's the percentage of geocachers who have iPhones versus geocachers who have something else?

 

I suspect the iPhone app serves only a small, if not tiny, percentage of geocachers.

[jholly]

As I pointed out, several million people have iPhones and a large number of geocachers have iPhones.

What's the percentage of geocachers who have iPhones versus geocachers who have something else?

 

I suspect the iPhone app serves only a small, if not tiny, percentage of geocachers.

 

iPhones might serve a small to tiny percentage, but in that percentage is a geocacher that has more than one vote.

 

Jim

[Andronicus]

Yes, and we want to show that Groundspeak would not have trouble for something that is free, but can gain more revenue this way while at the same time satisfying many customers.

 

I suspect if it was simply a matter of more revenue we would have the API. I'm sure there are other reasons, like protecting the business model or protecting the infrastructure.

 

Jim

 

Ok, lets pretend everyone has an iPhone. Great. I still think a API would be good. Other software developers seem to be better at making good software than whoever makes the iPhone app. You could still have other guys making more innovative software that is more sensitive to the needs (wants) of the users, rather than jamming whatever they think you want down your throat.

 

Edit: Not to mention that a large % of smart phone users have either a BlackBerry or a Windows Mobile phone. So far there is no official software that has access to the API for either of these (is there?).

Edited December 11, 2009 by Andronicus

[+baloo&bd]

If you are willing to pay extra for the API than pay for an iPhone or an Android phone. The former already has an API and the later has access that it sound like you want now through programs like GeoBeagle and somewhere in the forum it has already been indicated that an API for it is in the works.

[+jahwe2000]

Yes, and we want to show that Groundspeak would not have trouble for something that is free, but can gain more revenue this way while at the same time satisfying many customers.

 

I suspect if it was simply a matter of more revenue we would have the API. I'm sure there are other reasons, like protecting the business model or protecting the infrastructure.

 

Jim

 

That is why we recommend an API Key per user. Thus, Groundspeak can limit exessive usage. If someone grabs many caches, they can give him a day pause, which will make it a really time consuming way to download whole countries or states and protects the business model.

[Andronicus]

If you are willing to pay extra for the API than pay for an iPhone or an Android phone. The former already has an API and the later has access that it sound like you want now through programs like GeoBeagle and somewhere in the forum it has already been indicated that an API for it is in the works.

 

If GeoBeagle gets access to the API, I would definatly consider moving my phone over to Android. But were does that leave GS. Android is free, GeoBeagle is essentialy free. GS is just giving away the API to GeoBeagle???? (From what I have seen GeoBeagle does not have access, and it's software is not setup at all to benifite from access. It would have to be re-designed from scratch as far as I can tell).

[robertlipe]

Conversations between GeoBeagle and Groundspeak ended (?) with essentially "there is no third party API". That left GeoBeagle - like pretty much everyone that

isn't Trimble or Groundspeak - to pick through ways of making data useful that were compliant with the existing facilities and that didn't violate the TOU.

 

Paying "extra for an Android phone" will get you nowhere today. You can load PQs or you can access the site within TOU, exactly as is true with every other device.

 

Depending on who you ask (US. vs. Eur) there's some squabble about who is #1 today in smart fone market share, iPhone, RIM, or Symbian. The technical problems are totally solvable once the business decisions that they're worth solving are made.

[+baloo&bd]

Sorry, I didn't type that clear at all.

 

There have been several mentions in the forums that GS has a Android app in the works, not that they are doing something for GeoBeagle.

[+Nils-Olov]

I think the petition is good. It is not asking Groundspeak to give away anything for free or loosing control over their information,

 

I have signed it because I think an API or web services that any premium member can use will result in a lot of new programs, not only for mobile devices, that will make it more rewarding to cache. That will of course make a lot of people to become premium members.

 

Those of you who don't like the petition don't sign it. But how will the services proposed in the petition harm you that are so against it?

[+Arrow42]

Those of you who don't like the petition don't sign it. But how will the services proposed in the petition harm you that are so against it?

 

This board isn't an online petition. This is a forum. Forums are for discussing concepts. There is nothing wrong with expressing a dissenting point of view... so long as it is done in a civil way and follows the basic precepts of logic.

 

In any event... I support the basic premise of this idea... open environments are usually good. However, I do worry about the income streams that are represented by the Blackberry and iPhone apps. Maybe an extra +5$ per year to activate the API would cover it?

[+dakboy]

Those of you who don't like the petition don't sign it. But how will the services proposed in the petition harm you that are so against it?

How will those services impact the overall performance of geocaching.com?

 

We already see the PQ servers running near their limits today. When big holiday weekends come up, PQs are often delayed because so many people are running so many of them. We already see site performance degradation during various "high volume" times. Screen-scrapers and other automated methods of pulling data from the site aren't just against the TOU because Groundspeak wants to protect the data; a few bots getting out of control can bring the site down (didn't a lackey say that one user was showing as logging in 30,000 times in one month because of a screen-scrape macro they were running?). We witnessed a massive single point of failure when the power went out at the datacenter hosting Groundspeak's servers last summer and we found out that they didn't even have a secondary DNS server offsite so that people could get pointed to a "sorry, we're down page."

 

Adding access to additional functionality via new APIs isn't going to make the system load drop. IMHO, things can't be "opened up" until the site architecture gets a lot more robust and has enough horsepower to handle the load it will represent.

[+GeePa]

Adding access to additional functionality via new APIs isn't going to make the system load drop. IMHO, things can't be "opened up" until the site architecture gets a lot more robust and has enough horsepower to handle the load it will represent.

 

Well Geez, isn't that part of what my $30 bucks a year is already supposed be paying for. This is why I said that I am willing to pay an additional charge over the premium member charge for the 'right' to use the API. This way the additional cost of handling the additional load would be paid for. Besides, if everyone runs out and buys an iPhone and buys the iPhone app (as Groundspeak seems to want) then won't the problem be the same anyway? I can only figure that Groundspeak wants to make sure they get a piece of every app sold that can Access the site directly. I think that is a stupid business model when they could get yearly revenue from every user of an API on may different devices rather than some money once at the time of some software purchase.

[+tozainamboku]

Once upon a time, Groundspeak encouraged third party development of geocaching tools. Groundspeak worked with TopoGrafix to develop the GPX format and made the Groundspeak geocaching extensions public to encourage third party tools to be developed that used this format. This of course encouraged people to pay for premium memberships as they could use these tools to process the results of Pocket Queries and use them for geocaching.

 

As mobile devices became more popular there were calls for an API to allow these devices to access the website in real time. Groundspeak was reluctant to make such a API available to the general public as they saw an API like this as something that could be abused. They already had a problem with robots and scrapers trying to get information of the site. However the idea of an API was discussed with what Groundspeak calls "trusted partners" Theses included companies that produced GPS software for mobile devices such as Trimble. Working with Groundspeak, Trimble developed Geocache Navigator that allows access to the Groundspeak data from a number of devices and service providers. I don't what, if any, agreements exist with Trimble regarding exclusivity of access to the Groundspeak geocaching data. It is likely that there is some sort of an agreement and Groundspeak may not be in a position any longer where they can provide an open interface to developers even if they wanted to.

 

In the meantime, new devices such as the iPhone came on the market. I don't know if the original idea was that Trimble was to host their application on new devices as they came out, or if Groundspeak was going to look for other partners to support other devices. I was a bit surprised when Groundspeak announced that it had developed the iPhone app on its own. I don't know the specifics, but I suspect that Groundspeak actually contracted with a software company to develop the app with the Groundspeak name - although it could also be that they decided to get into the business of developing these applications, and they simply expanded their development team to be able to build these apps. (Something similar appears to be the case with the Wherigo product).

 

There are some valid marketing reasons for a website like Groundspeak to provide an open API and allow anyone to develop applications that use their data. There are ways to structure the API so that abuse can be controlled and there are way to turn the API into a revenue stream as well. But an open API still gives up some control on who and how the data can be accessed. Therefore there are also valid marketing reasons to have a closed API and to deal only with trusted partners for development of geocaching applications. Groundspeak seems to have made a decision to use the closed model and deal with a limited number of "trusted partners". My guess is that they have no problem finding developers that have established records of supporting products who are willing to develop for various platforms and they would rather deal directly with these companies rather than having a whole lot of applications out there that don't work or that will stop working when Groundspeak makes some change (like renaming Mystery caches to unknown cache) and by that time the developer will no longer be around to fix it. It may take a little longer for applications to be developed and the lack of competition may result in fewer features in what does get released, but Groundspeak ends up knowing that the access isn't being abused and that geocachers will be getting tools and applications that will be supported and will keep up with the changes that Groundspeak makes to the Geocaching site itself. (Assuming they learned their lesson from changing the GPX file without coordinating with DeLorme).

[+Nils-Olov]

dakboy: I see your point in being worried for overloading the servers.

 

I do think the situation today is also creating extra load on the servers. I attended an event where a person was talking about how to use GSAK and create a private database for quite a large region. That person was cooperating with several other persons to PQ requests several times a week in order to cover the area and to not miss any logs made to the individual cahes. I think that this kind of use of PQs do create a lot of unnecessary traffic on the servers. I think new services that access the Groundspeak database directly would make the local databases obsolete. There are of course no way to know for sure how new applications will replace old and what traffic / load it it will create.

 

I do have Geocache Navigator on my mobile phone and I also ask for PQs to download to my Garmin Oregon. When I plan a trip I will make a pocket query for the areas I will visit and that will create some load on Groundspeaks server. If I use Geocache Navigator I will ask for ten caches close to where I am and do it over again when I have moved to a new spot. Wich way of using the information will create the largest load of the servers?

[+jahwe2000]

dakboy: I see your point in being worried for overloading the servers.

 

[...]

 

Wich way of using the information will create the largest load of the servers?

 

To stress this question a little more: Considering one additional server would cost 1500 $ a year, this would be covered by 50 new premium members.

 

And from my personal point of view: I currently have 5 PQs running once a week and would need only two of them, if I had mobile access.

[+Red 07Z]

I enjoy finding a random cache there and there... i need to process 5+ PQs a week to be able to cover everywhere i might be without missing anywhere ... With an application i would not need to do all that, I would just do a search for caches within a half mile of me one or twice a week.

 

Until Groundspeak creates applications for those folk who are tied to 'non-approved devices, they should let third party applications exist... having them only makes geocaching easier for people do and thus encourages more people to geocache.

 

 

some of the things one can do with third party applications blow away what the iphone thing can do. I will not ever by an iphone, I'm pleased with my windows mobile device and will continue to use it.

 

perhaps Groundspeak could create some rules and limitations as to how much a user can pull from the database using the API per day... say you are only allowed to look up 50 caches... It is possible to impose these limits onto API users.

[+sTeamTraen]

To stress this question a little more: Considering one additional server would cost 1500 $ a year, this would be covered by 50 new premium members.

$1500 a year probably wouldn't even pay for the 24/7 availability rack space. Jeremy said somewhere that the hosting service costs more than the office space for 30 people.

[+GeePa]

Groundspeak seems to have made a decision to use the closed model and deal with a limited number of "trusted partners". My guess is that they have no problem finding developers that have established records of supporting products who are willing to develop for various platforms and they would rather deal directly with these companies rather than having a whole lot of applications out there that don't work or that will stop working when Groundspeak makes some change

 

I could understand this approach. However, I think the only company they have chosen to work with (other than themselves) has been Trimble. I am no expert, but I have to think there are many more 'qualified' software developers out there than just one.

[jholly]

Groundspeak seems to have made a decision to use the closed model and deal with a limited number of "trusted partners". My guess is that they have no problem finding developers that have established records of supporting products who are willing to develop for various platforms and they would rather deal directly with these companies rather than having a whole lot of applications out there that don't work or that will stop working when Groundspeak makes some change

 

I could understand this approach. However, I think the only company they have chosen to work with (other than themselves) has been Trimble. I am no expert, but I have to think there are many more 'qualified' software developers out there than just one.

 

In all the discussions about the API's and why it would be good and neat I think there is one thing that is not addressed. Groundspeak might well be contractually prevented from sharing the API's with any others than Trimble and themselves. If Trimble produced the API's or funded the development and is providing GS with a revenue stream there might well be contract language that prevents all but GS and Trimble from making use of the API's. I suspect we will never know the reason why the API's are not made public. We can babble until the cows come home and never really know unless a certain member decided to share the reasons. And I don't see that certain member sharing the reasons anytime soon.

 

Jim

[+jahwe2000]

To stress this question a little more: Considering one additional server would cost 1500 $ a year, this would be covered by 50 new premium members.

$1500 a year probably wouldn't even pay for the 24/7 availability rack space. Jeremy said somewhere that the hosting service costs more than the office space for 30 people.

 

I don't know the SLAs Groundspeak has for hosting, but after the fire they said, that it is no highly avaible setup. 24/7 it would be in any way (in general), unless someone shuts the server down on weekends or something like that. The most interesting thing is what happens when the hardware fails...

[Andronicus]

Groundspeak seems to have made a decision to use the closed model and deal with a limited number of "trusted partners". My guess is that they have no problem finding developers that have established records of supporting products who are willing to develop for various platforms and they would rather deal directly with these companies rather than having a whole lot of applications out there that don't work or that will stop working when Groundspeak makes some change

 

I could understand this approach. However, I think the only company they have chosen to work with (other than themselves) has been Trimble. I am no expert, but I have to think there are many more 'qualified' software developers out there than just one.

 

In all the discussions about the API's and why it would be good and neat I think there is one thing that is not addressed. Groundspeak might well be contractually prevented from sharing the API's with any others than Trimble and themselves. If Trimble produced the API's or funded the development and is providing GS with a revenue stream there might well be contract language that prevents all but GS and Trimble from making use of the API's. I suspect we will never know the reason why the API's are not made public. We can babble until the cows come home and never really know unless a certain member decided to share the reasons. And I don't see that certain member sharing the reasons anytime soon.

 

Jim

 

If that is the case, obvoiusly nothing can be done untill the time limitation of the contract expires. Untill GS comes out an states that this is the case, there will always be people bugging them to open up an API.

 

some of the things one can do with third party applications blow away what the iphone thing can do. I will not ever by an iphone, I'm pleased with my windows mobile device and will continue to use it.

 

Amen to that!!

[+ShotgunPR]

Why don't some of these really amazing app developers start by creating cool apps for use with Pocket Queries and demonstrate thier coolness to the community. Then maybe Groundspeak can more properly address the need for live data via an API??

 

There is one. It is called CacheBerry. However due to the lack of an API, it cannot get data directly from GC.com without violating the terms of service like the iPhone App can. I am a premium member, but would be willing to actually pay even more for the capability of logging from the field or getting updated cache information without downloading from the site, etc.

 

I agree 100% with you! I have expressed my opinion on this subject a LOT of times and every time there is someone that tries to be either an advocate or unsolicited lawyer for GS and the issue is dropped down. An API (controlled with per-user API keys or other methods) would give the Geocaching community a wider range of tools and indirect support on many devices, not just the "trusted" 3rd parties that GS allows access to the private API and no one else! It is easy to criticize people who want immediate up-to-the-minute information from GS, instead of having to download everything from the site at snail-pace. There is a "fairness" and "priviledges" that Premium members are "supposed" to have, but as an user of a "simple" GPS (Nuvi 205) and a non iPhone cell phone I've had to recur to GSAK scripts and third-party apps for my cellphone to enjoy my primary hobby/sport of geocaching just the same as other Premium members who have the "trusted" 3rd party devices/software. It seems like there is a difference in what Premium membership really "gives" the user.

[+dakboy]

To stress this question a little more: Considering one additional server would cost 1500 $ a year, this would be covered by 50 new premium members.

$1500 a year probably wouldn't even pay for the 24/7 availability rack space. Jeremy said somewhere that the hosting service costs more than the office space for 30 people.

 

I don't know the SLAs Groundspeak has for hosting, but after the fire they said, that it is no highly avaible setup. 24/7 it would be in any way (in general), unless someone shuts the server down on weekends or something like that. The most interesting thing is what happens when the hardware fails...

Nobody said it was HA. 24/7 hosting costs include bandwidth, rack space, power, cooling, backups, and someone who will pick up the phone anytime you call, day or night, if there's a problem. But that doesn't mean you'll never lose availability.

 

High Availability is a whole other ball of wax and Groundspeak has no illusions of HA if both their primary and secondary DNS are in the same building (which we found out was the case when that outage happened).