Sharing Pocket Queries? Oh no!

[+jeepdelfuego]

What's wrong with sharing my wife's pocket queries. We live in the same household, and we happen to have two GPS's and screen names. What do you think?

 

When money was flowing in my household, paying thirty bucks a year for a premium membership was no problem. But, 60 dollars for two memberships is a large sum of money to us now. My December paycheck was only $54. Hmm, what should I do to quench my geocaching addiction? Load them one by one?

[+sbell111]

What's wrong with sharing my wife's pocket queries. We live in the same household, and we happen to have two GPS's and screen names. What do you think?

TPTB have previously gone on record as not having a problem with this type of PQ sharing.

[+SSO JOAT]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Each "household" need only have 1 premium account. You can add on as many basic accounts to "share" that as you want. That is how GS management explained it to me last year when going through the same thing.

[CacheCoeur]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Each "household" need only have 1 premium account. You can add on as many basic accounts to "share" that as you want. That is how GS management explained it to me last year when going through the same thing.

 

You mean one can share a premium account with other people/accounts? This is news to me

[+narcissa]

I don't think there's anything wrong with sharing a PQ within your household. It's when you start distributing PQs to other non-premium members that it becomes a problem.

 

Someone in my neck of the woods got caught doing this and was banned from the site for a week. I assume that if he's caught again, he'll be banned for longer.

[+42at42]

I don't think there's anything wrong with sharing a PQ within your household. It's when you start distributing PQs to other non-premium members that it becomes a problem.

 

Someone in my neck of the woods got caught doing this and was banned from the site for a week. I assume that if he's caught again, he'll be banned for longer.

 

For the record I don't share PQ's. I will when spring comes and my daughter is caching with me.

 

My question is, how did this guy get caught?

[+wimseyguy]

He probably bragged about it in the forums.

[+kraushad]

The only disadvantage, I would guess, is that the non-premium cacher wouldn't be able to log member only caches, correct?

[jholly]

The only disadvantage, I would guess, is that the non-premium cacher wouldn't be able to log member only caches, correct?

 

wrong. A well known backdoor exists.

[+SSO JOAT]

We have 3 accounts at our house. Mine is the premium and the other 2 family members have a basic. When we log a PMO cache together, it only takes my account to get the ID number of the cache, then we can enter logs with their accounts. Most CO's (including myself) don't have a problem with basics logging PMO caches as part of a premium family group.

[+Team Cotati]

Don't ask.....don't tell.

[jholly]

We have 3 accounts at our house. Mine is the premium and the other 2 family members have a basic. When we log a PMO cache together, it only takes my account to get the ID number of the cache, then we can enter logs with their accounts. Most CO's (including myself) don't have a problem with basics logging PMO caches as part of a premium family group.

 

Actually you don't need the ID number, just replace ID=number with WP=GCnumber and refresh the URL.

[+Team Cotati]

I don't think there's anything wrong with sharing a PQ within your household. It's when you start distributing PQs to other non-premium members that it becomes a problem.

 

Someone in my neck of the woods got caught doing this and was banned from the site for a week. I assume that if he's caught again, he'll be banned for longer.

 

For the record I don't share PQ's. I will when spring comes and my daughter is caching with me.

 

My question is, how did this guy get caught?

 

That is a really good question. If he was blabbing about it, I'm a very pleased that he did get nailed.

 

Some people, amazing.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

I don't think there's anything wrong with sharing a PQ within your household. It's when you start distributing PQs to other non-premium members that it becomes a problem.

 

Someone in my neck of the woods got caught doing this and was banned from the site for a week. I assume that if he's caught again, he'll be banned for longer.

The way I understand it, you can't share PQs with premium or non-premium members.

 

From what others have said above, families can share the data from the one single premium account.

[+bittsen]

I don't think there's anything wrong with sharing a PQ within your household. It's when you start distributing PQs to other non-premium members that it becomes a problem.

 

Someone in my neck of the woods got caught doing this and was banned from the site for a week. I assume that if he's caught again, he'll be banned for longer.

The way I understand it, you can't share PQs with premium or non-premium members.

 

From what others have said above, families can share the data from the one single premium account.

 

I understand why Groundspeak has this policy but I would have to wonder what difference it would make if a PM went caching with a non-PM and shared a PQ result so they could both be hunting with their individual GPS's instead of just one.

Also, what if the PQ wasn't really shared but the GSAK DB resulting from the PQ were downloaded into multiple units.

 

Lots of questions whose answers don't affect me.

[GOF and Bacall]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Each "household" need only have 1 premium account. You can add on as many basic accounts to "share" that as you want. That is how GS management explained it to me last year when going through the same thing.

 

You mean one can share a premium account with other people/accounts? This is news to me

 

The key word is "household". GS will not take action if you and your spouse or kids are all sharing the PQs from one account. But as has been shown sharing with the community at large is a great big no no. This is the main reason that TPTB haven't closed and locked the back door logging issue.

 

At one point there was some talk about the possibility of a family membership option. I have no idea if it ever went past forum chatter.

[+Team Cotati]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Each "household" need only have 1 premium account. You can add on as many basic accounts to "share" that as you want. That is how GS management explained it to me last year when going through the same thing.

 

You mean one can share a premium account with other people/accounts? This is news to me

 

The key word is "household". GS will not take action if you and your spouse or kids are all sharing the PQs from one account. But as has been shown sharing with the community at large is a great big no no. This is the main reason that TPTB haven't closed and locked the back door logging issue.

 

At one point there was some talk about the possibility of a family membership option. I have no idea if it ever went past forum chatter.

 

Who is this? "the community at large"

 

"Also, what if the PQ wasn't really shared but the GSAK DB resulting from the PQ were downloaded into multiple units."

 

Indeed, what if?

Edited January 30, 2010 by Team Cotati

[+Chrysalides]

Who is this? "the community at large"

 

"Also, what if the PQ wasn't really shared but the GSAK DB resulting from the PQ were downloaded into multiple units."

I didn't use the words "community at large", but in this case it is pretty obvious that GOF means "outside your household".

 

As for the prohibition of sharing the PQ, the agreement also prohibits sharing derivative works based on the PQ, which includes a GSAK DB populated by PQ.

 

Here's the agreement.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Chrysalides

[GermanSailor]

What's wrong with sharing my wife's pocket queries. We live in the same household, and we happen to have two GPS's and screen names. What do you think?

Wrong? I don't know. But unnecessary talk about things which are against the terms of use in the forum of the company is maybe not the most clever idea in the world.

My December paycheck was only $54. Hmm, what should I do to quench my geocaching addiction? Load them one by one?

Or, search for a better paid job.

 

GermanSailor

[+brslk]

What's wrong with sharing my wife's pocket queries. We live in the same household, and we happen to have two GPS's and screen names. What do you think?

Wrong? I don't know. But unnecessary talk about things which are against the terms of use in the forum of the company is maybe not the most clever idea in the world.

My December paycheck was only $54. Hmm, what should I do to quench my geocaching addiction? Load them one by one?

Or, search for a better paid job.

 

GermanSailor

 

That's a bit harsh. How do you what the employment situation is like in his area? Maybe he IS searching for a better paying job? Maybe he is injured and unable to work for most of December?

[+bittsen]

Who is this? "the community at large"

 

"Also, what if the PQ wasn't really shared but the GSAK DB resulting from the PQ were downloaded into multiple units."

I didn't use the words "community at large", but in this case it is pretty obvious that GOF means "outside your household".

 

As for the prohibition of sharing the PQ, the agreement also prohibits sharing derivative works based on the PQ, which includes a GSAK DB populated by PQ.

 

Here's the agreement.

 

Ah, that makes sense. I see why they say it but it's not really something they can control unless they somehow look in your computer or GPS.

 

What I find as funny is that Groundspeak somehow owns data that we compile.

[+Team Cotati]

Who is this? "the community at large"

 

"Also, what if the PQ wasn't really shared but the GSAK DB resulting from the PQ were downloaded into multiple units."

I didn't use the words "community at large", but in this case it is pretty obvious that GOF means "outside your household".

 

As for the prohibition of sharing the PQ, the agreement also prohibits sharing derivative works based on the PQ, which includes a GSAK DB populated by PQ.

 

Here's the agreement.

 

Thank you, that was very instructive and helpful.

[+SkellyCA]

I would have to wonder what difference it would make if a PM went caching with a non-PM and shared a PQ result so they could both be hunting with their individual GPS's instead of just one.

 

Because PQ's are probably the main incentive for becoming PM. Therefore if cacher A shares with Cacher B, then cacher B doesn't really have an incentive to become a PM. Thereby taking away support for the site.

[ao318]

I'm one of those people that has one Premium Membership and share my info with my kids. I also see no problem with it.

 

But I have a question about the garmin series GPSr's that share info wirelessly. Here is the product description for the 550:

Share Wirelessly

 

With Oregon 550 you can share your waypoints, tracks, routes and geocaches wirelessly other compatible Oregon, Colorado and Dakota users. Now you can send your favorite hike to your friend to enjoy or the location of a cache to find. Sharing data is easy. Just touch “send” to transfer your information to similar units.

 

Wouldn't this also violate the GC.com guidelines if a PM shared their info with a non PM? Now granted, I believe that most people that would purchase any of these units would also be a PM to take advantage of the ability to load PQ's onto their unit.

[+bittsen]

I'm one of those people that has one Premium Membership and share my info with my kids. I also see no problem with it.

 

But I have a question about the garmin series GPSr's that share info wirelessly. Here is the product description for the 550:

Share Wirelessly

 

With Oregon 550 you can share your waypoints, tracks, routes and geocaches wirelessly other compatible Oregon, Colorado and Dakota users. Now you can send your favorite hike to your friend to enjoy or the location of a cache to find. Sharing data is easy. Just touch “send” to transfer your information to similar units.

 

Wouldn't this also violate the GC.com guidelines if a PM shared their info with a non PM? Now granted, I believe that most people that would purchase any of these units would also be a PM to take advantage of the ability to load PQ's onto their unit.

 

I would think it would not violate the guidelines if you share non pm caches one at a time, which is how they are shared between units.

Non pm's can download caches one at a time so it's no different. Of course someone will likely point out that that may constitute keeping an offline database, etc...

[+Cardinal Red]

I'm one of those people that has one Premium Membership and share my info with my kids. I also see no problem with it.

 

But I have a question about the garmin series GPSr's that share info wirelessly. Here is the product description for the 550:

Share Wirelessly

 

With Oregon 550 you can share your waypoints, tracks, routes and geocaches wirelessly other compatible Oregon, Colorado and Dakota users. Now you can send your favorite hike to your friend to enjoy or the location of a cache to find. Sharing data is easy. Just touch “send” to transfer your information to similar units.

 

Wouldn't this also violate the GC.com guidelines if a PM shared their info with a non PM? Now granted, I believe that most people that would purchase any of these units would also be a PM to take advantage of the ability to load PQ's onto their unit.

I remembered this discussion from two years ago. Worth a read. Sharing a GPX file, New twist with Garmin Colorado

[John E Cache]

It is fairly common around here for accounts to be family accounts. Kind of like the long missing "Vinnie and Sue".

 

The only problem I see with sharing a PQ is that it is custom made for the requester with a tag that tells if the requester found each cache or not.

[+Team Cotati]

It is fairly common around here for accounts to be family accounts. Kind of like the long missing "Vinnie and Sue".

 

The only problem I see with sharing a PQ is that it is custom made for the requester with a tag that tells if the requester found each cache or not.

 

"The only problem I see with sharing a PQ is that it is custom made for the requester with a tag that tells if the requester found each cache or not."

 

And?

[+larryc43230]

Wouldn't this also violate the GC.com guidelines if a PM shared their info with a non PM? Now granted, I believe that most people that would purchase any of these units would also be a PM to take advantage of the ability to load PQ's onto their unit.

The cache information that's transmitted wirelessly is pretty much the same stuff a non-premium member gets via a LOC file, just the cache name and coordinates. The cache description and other good stuff doesn't transfer.

 

I'm guessing that's due to an agreement between Groundspeak and Garmin: Wireless transfer isn't a substitute for a premium account.

 

--Larry

Edited January 30, 2010 by larryc43230

[John E Cache]

It is fairly common around here for accounts to be family accounts. Kind of like the long missing "Vinnie and Sue".

 

The only problem I see with sharing a PQ is that it is custom made for the requester with a tag that tells if the requester found each cache or not.

 

"The only problem I see with sharing a PQ is that it is custom made for the requester with a tag that tells if the requester found each cache or not."

 

And?

I like to filter out found caches because found caches clutter up my GPS in my cache dense area AND someone sharing would not have my found caches.

[+bittsen]

Wouldn't this also violate the GC.com guidelines if a PM shared their info with a non PM? Now granted, I believe that most people that would purchase any of these units would also be a PM to take advantage of the ability to load PQ's onto their unit.

The cache information that's transmitted wirelessly is pretty much the same stuff a non-premium member gets via a LOC file, just the cache name and coordinates. The cache description and other good stuff doesn't transfer.

 

I'm guessing that's due to an agreement between Groundspeak and Garmin: Wireless transfer isn't a substitute for a premium account.

 

--Larry

 

Whatever reason that the garmin transfers only the minimum data, it sucks that you can't transfer all the info as if it were a gpx. Many times I will be out caching with a friend and he or I have downloaded a special cache (outside of a PQ) to go after. When you can't share at that basic level then there is something messed up with the system.

[GOF and Bacall]

Wouldn't this also violate the GC.com guidelines if a PM shared their info with a non PM? Now granted, I believe that most people that would purchase any of these units would also be a PM to take advantage of the ability to load PQ's onto their unit.

The cache information that's transmitted wirelessly is pretty much the same stuff a non-premium member gets via a LOC file, just the cache name and coordinates. The cache description and other good stuff doesn't transfer.

 

I'm guessing that's due to an agreement between Groundspeak and Garmin: Wireless transfer isn't a substitute for a premium account.

 

--Larry

 

Whatever reason that the garmin transfers only the minimum data, it sucks that you can't transfer all the info as if it were a gpx. Many times I will be out caching with a friend and he or I have downloaded a special cache (outside of a PQ) to go after. When you can't share at that basic level then there is something messed up with the system.

 

If you are caching together do you need to share more than the coordinates?

 

"Hey Joe, check out this cache I want to chase down. (Reads description) Want to go for it?

 

"Sure, it sounds like fun. Give me the coordinates."

[+bittsen]

If you are caching together do you need to share more than the coordinates?

 

"Hey Joe, check out this cache I want to chase down. (Reads description) Want to go for it?

 

"Sure, it sounds like fun. Give me the coordinates."

 

We are a little competetive with each other. I'm too busy looking for the cache to answer his questions about "what does the description say" and "when was the last log", etc.

 

I think he does that so I can be looking up the information while he keeps looking for the cache.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

What I find as funny is that Groundspeak somehow owns data that we compile.

You don't compile it, Groundspeak does... you just submit it to them.

 

You need to actually read the agreements you agree to when you list a cache... you as the listing submitter own the data but you give Groundspeak full rights to use and control it when you list a cache. Nothing "funny" about it.

 

You are free to take your submitted data off of Groundspeak's servers anytime you want. As long as it remains on their site, however, you agreed to give them control of it.

 

One of the checkboxes you must check to get a cache listed states that you have read the Terms of Use.

 

From the Terms of Use:

 

6. License to Use Submissions

 

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. If You submit Submissions to Groundspeak, You must adhere to any applicable submission guidelines that may be posted from time to time on the Site. 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.

 

The foregoing license rights are intended to provide to Groundspeak all rights under existing and future laws, including without limitation all rights under copyright and any other rights personal to You to publish the Submission on the Site, use the Submission in publicity and promotional materials for the Site and to create new Sites or derivative works (including without limitation by combining the Submission with other content) for public display or performance via any and all media or technology now known or later developed. The foregoing rights may be licensed and sublicensed through unlimited tiers of third parties.

Edited January 31, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+Team Cotati]

It is fairly common around here for accounts to be family accounts. Kind of like the long missing "Vinnie and Sue".

 

The only problem I see with sharing a PQ is that it is custom made for the requester with a tag that tells if the requester found each cache or not.

 

"The only problem I see with sharing a PQ is that it is custom made for the requester with a tag that tells if the requester found each cache or not."

 

And?

I like to filter out found caches because found caches clutter up my GPS in my cache dense area AND someone sharing would not have my found caches.

 

You must not be using GSAK, sorry, my mistake.

[+bittsen]

What I find as funny is that Groundspeak somehow owns data that we compile.

You don't compile it, Groundspeak does... you just submit it to them.

 

You need to actually read the agreements you agree to when you list a cache... you as the listing submitter own the data but you give Groundspeak full rights to use and control it when you list a cache. Nothing "funny" about it.

 

You are free to take your submitted data off of Groundspeak's servers anytime you want. As long as it remains on their site, however, you agreed to give them control of it.

 

One of the checkboxes you must check to get a cache listed states that you have read the Terms of Use.

 

From the Terms of Use:

 

6. License to Use Submissions

 

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. If You submit Submissions to Groundspeak, You must adhere to any applicable submission guidelines that may be posted from time to time on the Site. 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.

 

The foregoing license rights are intended to provide to Groundspeak all rights under existing and future laws, including without limitation all rights under copyright and any other rights personal to You to publish the Submission on the Site, use the Submission in publicity and promotional materials for the Site and to create new Sites or derivative works (including without limitation by combining the Submission with other content) for public display or performance via any and all media or technology now known or later developed. The foregoing rights may be licensed and sublicensed through unlimited tiers of third parties.

 

I keep forgetting to post the definitions for common words when I post. My bad.

 

compile - To put together or compose from materials gathered from several sources

funny - Strangely or suspiciously odd; curious

 

OK, now that we have defined my words...

We don't own the data we submit. Groundspeak volunteers have assured us, recently, that there is no way to remove an old cache listing from the site. It's archived and remains. So, I maintain that I find it odd, curious, that Groundspeak owns the data that we put together or compose from materials gathered from several sources.

[GOF and Bacall]

What I find as funny is that Groundspeak somehow owns data that we compile.

You don't compile it, Groundspeak does... you just submit it to them.

 

You need to actually read the agreements you agree to when you list a cache... you as the listing submitter own the data but you give Groundspeak full rights to use and control it when you list a cache. Nothing "funny" about it.

 

You are free to take your submitted data off of Groundspeak's servers anytime you want. As long as it remains on their site, however, you agreed to give them control of it.

 

One of the checkboxes you must check to get a cache listed states that you have read the Terms of Use.

 

From the Terms of Use:

 

6. License to Use Submissions

 

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. If You submit Submissions to Groundspeak, You must adhere to any applicable submission guidelines that may be posted from time to time on the Site. 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.

 

The foregoing license rights are intended to provide to Groundspeak all rights under existing and future laws, including without limitation all rights under copyright and any other rights personal to You to publish the Submission on the Site, use the Submission in publicity and promotional materials for the Site and to create new Sites or derivative works (including without limitation by combining the Submission with other content) for public display or performance via any and all media or technology now known or later developed. The foregoing rights may be licensed and sublicensed through unlimited tiers of third parties.

 

I keep forgetting to post the definitions for common words when I post. My bad.

 

compile - To put together or compose from materials gathered from several sources

funny - Strangely or suspiciously odd; curious

 

OK, now that we have defined my words...

We don't own the data we submit. Groundspeak volunteers have assured us, recently, that there is no way to remove an old cache listing from the site. It's archived and remains. So, I maintain that I find it odd, curious, that Groundspeak owns the data that we put together or compose from materials gathered from several sources.

 

Groundspeak is not concerned with the information you gather elsewhere. They only care about that part of your GSAK db. that was acquired from their site. By the terms of use that you agreed to you aren't supposed to share the information with others.

 

• 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.

 

From the Groundspeak DATA LICENSE AGREEMENT linked to from the PQ page.

[+bittsen]

Groundspeak is not concerned with the information you gather elsewhere. They only care about that part of your GSAK db. that was acquired from their site. By the terms of use that you agreed to you aren't supposed to share the information with others.

 

• 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.

 

From the Groundspeak DATA LICENSE AGREEMENT linked to from the PQ page.

 

Right, I understand, completely.

 

I just find it odd that people give them 100% control over data they provide for free.

 

Groundspeak doesn't go and get the data. They just centralize it and provide a way of retrieving it. It's just odd...

 

Not that I am complaining.

[GOF and Bacall]

Not odd at all. The database that GS maintains is the sum total of their business. Sure, they sell TB tags, tracking #s for coins, shirts and other assorted items but without the db. the rest is worthless. As a result if you want to play with their toys you have to agree to treat them in a certain manner. Of corse there is nothing stopping you or I from using another listing service or even setting up shop in competition with La Grenouille. They just don't want us setting up shop by running a bunch of queries against their db. and repackaging the results.

[+Chrysalides]

It's like people selling mailing lists. The data is yours. You even help tag some of that data when you use your store discount cards, filling in those "warranty surveys", requesting information from magazines, and so on. Someone collects all these information, and resells them to other businesses.

[+bittsen]

It's like people selling mailing lists. The data is yours. You even help tag some of that data when you use your store discount cards, filling in those "warranty surveys", requesting information from magazines, and so on. Someone collects all these information, and resells them to other businesses.

Yup, but you can remove your information from most of those services.

 

It's all good.

 

I was just thinking how it was funny that we, the users, who PAY money for the ability to share information with eachother, are restricted in the sharing of the data we provide (as a whole).

 

Of course I do realize that we, the users, could wipe geocaching.com from the face of the earth if we really were ever inclined. All we would have to do is collectively archive all of our caches. Not that I am saying we would or that I even condone such an idea.

 

It's sort of like pondering the thought of Mars and Earth leaving their orbits and colliding someday. Sure it "could" happen but... Well, you get the idea.

[+Chrysalides]

I was just thinking how it was funny that we, the users, who PAY money for the ability to share information with eachother, are restricted in the sharing of the data we provide (as a whole).

I'm not sure how I would view it if somone freely distributes a GPX of only geocaches that he or she owns, without the user logs. If I'm to create it by hand, and offer it for download, does Groundspeak have any grounds for objection?