Jump to content

opencaching.com new mascot...


FickFam

Recommended Posts

If both GS and OC become popular, we will esentialy have 2 layers of caches. This kind of seems silly. Maybe in this situation, it would be good to combine the databases, and they could each be used as a client of the common data base, rather than compeating overlaping data basses.

One big database with geocaches, trackables, Wherigo's, opencaches, stats, icons, veneers, whatever, with an open API.

 

One place where anyone could create listings for anything, one database with everything in it. Want to change your listing? Change it in one place. Everyone who pulls data would see the change.

 

Then have any listing service or API deliver that data to you however you want to see it.

 

Land-owners and the public (and most geocachers, in my opinion) aren't going to make a distinction between and Garmin geocache and a Groundspeak geocache. Might as well list them all together in one database. :D

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment
Groundspeak owns the data.

uh, no they don't. cache listings and their content are owned by the respective authors. by submitting the listing to Groundspeak, the author grants Groundspeak full, but non-exclusive usage rights. the data is still owned by the author and they're free to do whatever they want with it.

OK, perhaps you're right, but if that's true, then how can Groundspeak say that it is against the TOU to share pocket queries? What is their claim?
Link to comment
Groundspeak owns the data.

uh, no they don't. cache listings and their content are owned by the respective authors. by submitting the listing to Groundspeak, the author grants Groundspeak full, but non-exclusive usage rights. the data is still owned by the author and they're free to do whatever they want with it.

OK, perhaps you're right, but if that's true, then how can Groundspeak say that it is against the TOU to share pocket queries? What is their claim?

 

The data may be yours but the gpx you pulled off their service is theirs. You can plug your own data into gsak and create your own gpx file. But the one you get from the gc.com service, they control how you can use it.

Link to comment
Groundspeak owns the data.

uh, no they don't. cache listings and their content are owned by the respective authors. by submitting the listing to Groundspeak, the author grants Groundspeak full, but non-exclusive usage rights. the data is still owned by the author and they're free to do whatever they want with it.

OK, perhaps you're right, but if that's true, then how can Groundspeak say that it is against the TOU to share pocket queries? What is their claim?

 

When I run a typical pq it contains other authors (cache owners) work, not my own

Link to comment
From my experience in New England, the closer a cache is to the trail, the more likely it is that a geotrail will develop. Most people will walk the trail until their GPS points 90 degrees to the side and bushwhack to the cache. If the cache is 10 feet off the trail, a geotrail will develop quickly. If the cache is 300 feet off the trail, people will approach from different angles, lessening the chance of a geotrail developing.

Super good point, and counter-intuitive (to me). It makes sense when you explain it, but I needed you to explain it.

Link to comment
Groundspeak owns the data.

uh, no they don't. cache listings and their content are owned by the respective authors. by submitting the listing to Groundspeak, the author grants Groundspeak full, but non-exclusive usage rights. the data is still owned by the author and they're free to do whatever they want with it.

OK, perhaps you're right, but if that's true, then how can Groundspeak say that it is against the TOU to share pocket queries? What is their claim?

The data may be yours but the gpx you pulled off their service is theirs. You can plug your own data into gsak and create your own gpx file. But the one you get from the gc.com service, they control how you can use it.

In this post above, Gorak claimed that all he had to do was to save the gpx file from GSAK and it would be "his". My response to that was that if that were true, then the same would be true if I simply loaded the gpx file into a text editor and saved it. Now, you are saying that the data is not theirs, but the gpx is Groundspeak's. So, simply saving Groundspeak's gpx file is enough to make it mine? Don't I save it when I download it to my computer? So... I ask you... at what point does that gpx file and/or its data belong to Groundspeak enough that they can tell me that I can't share it? And yet... they do.

Link to comment
OK, perhaps you're right, but if that's true, then how can Groundspeak say that it is against the TOU to share pocket queries? What is their claim?

because the authors of the data didn't give you permission to use it in any way, they only gave Groundspeak permission. Groundspeak thus has permission to give that data to you, but ultimately it leaves you with no rights on the data at all (neither Groundspeak nor the author gave any rights to you), which is why you can't give it to anyone else.

 

as soon as you get permission to use the data in any other way from the author itself, then you have every right to do so, even if the GPX comes from Groundspeak.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment

In this post above, Gorak claimed that all he had to do was to save the gpx file from GSAK and it would be "his". My response to that was that if that were true, then the same would be true if I simply loaded the gpx file into a text editor and saved it. Now, you are saying that the data is not theirs, but the gpx is Groundspeak's. So, simply saving Groundspeak's gpx file is enough to make it mine? Don't I save it when I download it to my computer? So... I ask you... at what point does that gpx file and/or its data belong to Groundspeak enough that they can tell me that I can't share it? And yet... they do.

 

Just because Gorak says that doesn't make it true. Per the License Agreement. we all agree to when we use a PQ we cannot use the information to upload to a third party site.

 

Anyone who does could have their account locked here at GC.com. Not sure if GC would do that, but they could per the agreement. Or at least block you from using PQ's.

 

The only data that is yours is what you upload. So in a My Finds PQ, the only data in that PQ that you own is your log saying you found a cache. The rest belongs to others.

 

Its not your data to do anything outside the realm of the License Agreement..

 

A PQ also contains copyrighted info beyond just cache info. So while a PQ that shows my hides may contain mostly my data, not all of the data in the PQ is mine.

Link to comment

Just because Gorak says that doesn't make it true. Per the License Agreement. we all agree to when we use a PQ we cannot use the information to upload to a third party site.

This is mostly true. However, a couple sites you can upload your MyFinds to legally. The former ItsNotAboutThNumbers and the MyGeoCachingProfile. In both cases the site owners sought and received permission and a license from GS to use the uploads. Both sites have/had verbiage to that effect in the small print at the bottom of their pages.

Edited by jholly
Link to comment

In this post above, Gorak claimed that all he had to do was to save the gpx file from GSAK and it would be "his". My response to that was that if that were true, then the same would be true if I simply loaded the gpx file into a text editor and saved it. Now, you are saying that the data is not theirs, but the gpx is Groundspeak's. So, simply saving Groundspeak's gpx file is enough to make it mine? Don't I save it when I download it to my computer? So... I ask you... at what point does that gpx file and/or its data belong to Groundspeak enough that they can tell me that I can't share it? And yet... they do.

 

Just because Gorak says that doesn't make it true. Per the License Agreement. we all agree to when we use a PQ we cannot use the information to upload to a third party site.

 

Anyone who does could have their account locked here at GC.com. Not sure if GC would do that, but they could per the agreement. Or at least block you from using PQ's.

 

The only data that is yours is what you upload. So in a My Finds PQ, the only data in that PQ that you own is your log saying you found a cache. The rest belongs to others.

 

Its not your data to do anything outside the realm of the License Agreement..

 

A PQ also contains copyrighted info beyond just cache info. So while a PQ that shows my hides may contain mostly my data, not all of the data in the PQ is mine.

(re: the bolded part) Exactly!!! Please tell that to Gorak. That is the point that I was trying to make with my ridiculous assumption that you could save the file from within a text editor and make it yours. Thank you.
Link to comment

Just because Gorak says that doesn't make it true. Per the License Agreement. we all agree to when we use a PQ we cannot use the information to upload to a third party site.

This is mostly true. However, a couple sites you can upload your MyFinds to legally. The former ItsNotAboutThNumbers and the MyGeoCachingProfile. In both cases the site owners sought and received permission and a license from GS to use the uploads. Both sites have/had verbiage to that effect in the small print at the bottom of their pages.

Can you support that claim? I see nothing in the License Agreement that would imply that My Finds are any different from My Hides or any other data obtained from Groundspeak.

 

This line is the real kicker when it comes to uploading to opencaching.com:

 

Licensee shall not remarket, resell, and/or redistribute the Data or any derived portion(s) of the Data in its digital form to any third party whatsoever.

 

I'm not sure exactly what the implications are of "in its digital form", but I would certainly guess that would preclude uploading en masse to another competing website.

 

I'm guessing that either there was an agreement between Groundspeak and Garmin, or lawyers for both parties are very, very busy right now.

Link to comment
OK, perhaps you're right, but if that's true, then how can Groundspeak say that it is against the TOU to share pocket queries? What is their claim?

because the authors of the data didn't give you permission to use it in any way, they only gave Groundspeak permission. Groundspeak thus has permission to give that data to you, but ultimately it leaves you with no rights on the data at all (neither Groundspeak nor the author gave any rights to you), which is why you can't give it to anyone else.

 

as soon as you get permission to use the data in any other way from the author itself, then you have every right to do so, even if the GPX comes from Groundspeak.

Ah, the Mark Zuckerberg / Julian Assange theory of intellectual property on the Internet. All data is free. Once you post data on the Internet you have given a license to anyone to access the data in any form and do anything they want with it. Any derivative works someone created using your data carries the same license (ala the GNU license and the Creative Commons license.)

 

Only in reality it doesn't work this way, no matter how the open source crowd insist this the way it should be.

 

You grant a license to Groundspeak to use your work. It is non-exclusive so your are free to post your work on other sites. No problem with that. Groundspeak creates a derivative work using your data combined with data from many other users. One form is the GPX file. The have granted a license to premium members to download this derivative work. It allows you to use the data you received in this format for your personal use. You can even save it in an offline database. But you have agreed not to share this data or any work you derive from the data with anyone else. Except - Groundspeak appears to allow you to post your statistics that you derive from the data on your geocaching.com profile. Also Jeremy has indicated that Groundspeak isn't going to go after a small group of friends that use the data to find caches that none have found or create a list of caches they are going to share on a cache outing. Given that Groundspeak seems to have decided that you can share the data in certain limited ways, it may be hard for them to try to enforce the agreement now if you share the data in ways they don't want you to. So you might get away with uploading your finds to opencaching.org - or maybe not :D

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Just because Gorak says that doesn't make it true. Per the License Agreement. we all agree to when we use a PQ we cannot use the information to upload to a third party site.

This is mostly true. However, a couple sites you can upload your MyFinds to legally. The former ItsNotAboutThNumbers and the MyGeoCachingProfile. In both cases the site owners sought and received permission and a license from GS to use the uploads. Both sites have/had verbiage to that effect in the small print at the bottom of their pages.

Can you support that claim? I see nothing in the License Agreement that would imply that My Finds are any different from My Hides or any other data obtained from Groundspeak.

From the bottom of the mygeocachingprofile page ....

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

If you go over to the wayback machine you can see the same statement for INATN.

Link to comment

In this post above, Gorak claimed that all he had to do was to save the gpx file from GSAK and it would be "his". My response to that was that if that were true, then the same would be true if I simply loaded the gpx file into a text editor and saved it. Now, you are saying that the data is not theirs, but the gpx is Groundspeak's. So, simply saving Groundspeak's gpx file is enough to make it mine? Don't I save it when I download it to my computer? So... I ask you... at what point does that gpx file and/or its data belong to Groundspeak enough that they can tell me that I can't share it? And yet... they do.

Read my post again. That's not what I said. I said that I generate my own GPX files from GSAK. After GSAK gets through with it, they are not the same GPX files that come from GS.

 

GreySquint.gif

Link to comment
Exactly!!! Please tell that to Gorak. That is the point that I was trying to make with my ridiculous assumption that you could save the file from within a text editor and make it yours. Thank you.

I think you're reading a lot more into my post than I stated. Let me spell it out for you.

  1. I create a new cache page on GS. The data I enter is mine.
  2. I import that data into GSAK
  3. I generate a new GPX file from GSAK containing only MY caches. I still own the data for my caches.
  4. I import my GSAK GPX file containing MY DATA to OC.

Where is the violation of the TOS?

 

Are we not on speaking terms now, knowschad? Why don't you just tell me yourself instead asking someone else? I promise, you won't be assimilated. AlienBorgAssimilationAnim.gif Well, at least not quite yet. GreyWink.gif

 

GreySquint.gif

Link to comment
You grant a license to Groundspeak to use your work. It is non-exclusive so your are free to post your work on other sites. No problem with that. Groundspeak creates a derivative work using your data combined with data from many other users. One form is the GPX file. The have granted a license to premium members to download this derivative work.

a GPX file is not a derivative work. a GPX file is exactly the same data, just formatted differently to make it computer parsable. formatting is not a creative work and so copyright doesn't apply. theoretically (if it wasn't based on open standards) they could've patented the formatting procedure to ensure their ownership of the "intellectual property", but they didn't. which means that copyright is the only issue here, and the copyright of all contents of a GPX files lies solely with the respective authors and not with Groundspeak.

Link to comment
I said that I generate my own GPX files from GSAK. After GSAK gets through with it, they are not the same GPX files that come from GS.

That's like saying that if you download a legal MP3 file and convert it to WMA format, you can redistribute it freely because it's no longer "Song X in MP3", it's "Song X in WMA". Good luck with that - we'll have a collection to pay your find from the RIAA, I'm sure.

 

Groundspeak's ToU is not especially concerned with the exact format and ordering of the XML tags which make up the GPX file. It's about the data which is between those tags. If you didn't write the cache description yourself, you don't acquire a right to redistribute it simply by laundering the GPX file through another application.

Link to comment
So they must be keeping track internally but not publicly. I imagine if someone else finds GC2FJC9 and uploads it to the site, it will just use the internal (private) ID assigned to that cache, simply for record keeping and to keep the database from filling up with duplicate caches.

This hilarious screw-up suggests that when you upload your finds, Garmin generates a provisional OX12345 number corresponding to the GC12345 number of each cache which you've found. If GC12345 is later uploaded, then the two are tied together. Unfortunately, the cache owner has two ways to mess this up:

1. Editing the GPX file (unlikely to happen by accident, I agree)

2. Cross-listing their cache by hand - typically, because they are not a Premium Member here and so don't have access to a GPX file - and then, when they check the box to say "this cache is being cross-listed from another site", typing GC12346 instead of GC12345.

 

Either way, hilarity ensues, because the person who logged a cache in Australia now has a log on a cache in Poland, and the owner of GC12346 can't upload their GPX file. This is such an elementary blunder that I wonder if Garmin hired anyone with the remotest understanding of error checking while developing their site.

Link to comment
I said that I generate my own GPX files from GSAK. After GSAK gets through with it, they are not the same GPX files that come from GS.

That's like saying that if you download a legal MP3 file and convert it to WMA format, you can redistribute it freely because it's no longer "Song X in MP3", it's "Song X in WMA". Good luck with that - we'll have a collection to pay your find from the RIAA, I'm sure.

 

Groundspeak's ToU is not especially concerned with the exact format and ordering of the XML tags which make up the GPX file. It's about the data which is between those tags. If you didn't write the cache description yourself, you don't acquire a right to redistribute it simply by laundering the GPX file through another application.

 

You're assuming that Gorak's GSAK .gpx starts with a download from Geocaching.com - which isn't how I read it. I can take my coords, my text and create a .gpx in GSAK (or Expert gps). I can distribute that file any way I want.

 

Once data has been munged through the cache report form and published, the .gpx file generated by that form is subject to restrictions.

But your data, arranged by you in software (even software like GSAK, which will mimic a GC.com gpx file) is yours all yours.

Link to comment
I said that I generate my own GPX files from GSAK. After GSAK gets through with it, they are not the same GPX files that come from GS.
That's like saying that if you download a legal MP3 file and convert it to WMA format, you can redistribute it freely because it's no longer "Song X in MP3", it's "Song X in WMA". Good luck with that - we'll have a collection to pay your find from the RIAA, I'm sure.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure Gorak was talking about data for his own caches that he created and granted a non-exclusive license for Groundspeak to use and share.

 

IANAL, but I'm not sure that an illegal download of someone else's song is really the right metaphor, and I don't think Gorak was talking about a PQ of all of the caches published in his area.

Link to comment

Speaking of time, I wonder how long this thread will remain open?

I will not be closing posts/threads that mention alternate sites, so long as they remain on topic, and the discussion is about the sites and not promoting the sites themselves. (e.g. "I noticed that oc.com has a blue mascot now." vs. "I'm cross-posting all my caches to oc.com. You should, too!")

 

Although, as this is still a geocaching-related discussion, it should probably be in the Geocaching Topics forum and not the off-topic forum, so that's where it's going.

I am repeating the above wise advice from my fellow moderator, from way back on page one.

 

Posters are reminded not to use this thread to promote the other listing service. To this, I would add:

 

!. Use Garmin's forums to troubleshoot the many problems with their site functionality.

2. Use Garmin's forums to demonstrate add-ons, workarounds, API functionality, etc.

3. Subjects other than the design and functionality of the two listing services ("I'm moving my listings because Groundspeak hates my chinldren") belong in other threads.

Link to comment

...

!. Use Garmin's forums to troubleshoot the many problems with their site functionality.

2. Use Garmin's forums to demonstrate add-ons, workarounds, API functionality, etc...

That could backfire pretty badly!

 

Does Groundspeak really want us to move to the OC forum, for any reason?

 

I have no interest in changing to OC, or spending time in their forum, but am curious about what they are doing and how it works - it's great that you've let us talk about it in the forum that we choose to 'live in'.

 

I get your point, this forum is for and about Groundspeak, but wouldn't y'all rather have us safely in the Groundspeak fold than leaving it to go play in a Garmin forum community?

Link to comment

Ah, the Mark Zuckerberg / Julian Assange theory of intellectual property on the Internet. All data is free. Once you post data on the Internet you have given a license to anyone to access the data in any form and do anything they want with it. :D

OMG! How could you have left Cook's Source out?!

 

But honestly Monica, the web is considered ‘public domain’

Link to comment
Exactly!!! Please tell that to Gorak. That is the point that I was trying to make with my ridiculous assumption that you could save the file from within a text editor and make it yours. Thank you.

I think you're reading a lot more into my post than I stated. Let me spell it out for you.

  1. I create a new cache page on GS. The data I enter is mine.
  2. I import that data into GSAK
  3. I generate a new GPX file from GSAK containing only MY caches. I still own the data for my caches.
  4. I import my GSAK GPX file containing MY DATA to OC.

Where is the violation of the TOS?

 

Are we not on speaking terms now, knowschad? Why don't you just tell me yourself instead asking someone else? I promise, you won't be assimilated. Well, at least not quite yet.

 

Any data that you enter manually into GSAK is yours. Yes. That I can agree with. But I really don't think that is what this is about... do you?
Link to comment
Exactly!!! Please tell that to Gorak. That is the point that I was trying to make with my ridiculous assumption that you could save the file from within a text editor and make it yours. Thank you.

I think you're reading a lot more into my post than I stated. Let me spell it out for you.

  1. I create a new cache page on GS. The data I enter is mine.
  2. I import that data into GSAK
  3. I generate a new GPX file from GSAK containing only MY caches. I still own the data for my caches.
  4. I import my GSAK GPX file containing MY DATA to OC.

Where is the violation of the TOS?

 

Are we not on speaking terms now, knowschad? Why don't you just tell me yourself instead asking someone else? I promise, you won't be assimilated. Well, at least not quite yet.

 

Any data that you enter manually into GSAK is yours. Yes. That I can agree with. But I really don't think that is what this is about... do you?

 

The real question, at this point, is what is the lily pads stance on the subject. If they are of a mind to alow it the argument is moot. If they are going to take a stand against it then there is ground for debate.

 

So what is it Mr. Irish? Where do you stand on what data we can transmit? Where is the line that we mustn't cross?

Link to comment
Groundspeak didn't start out with the "guidelines" that they have today. Far fewer I would imagine. This will be no different for OC. It's pretty much just starting out, after all.

 

Groundspeak lacked guidelines early on because there was no precedent. They were sailing in uncharted territory, building something new.

 

GarminOC is a new website, but they are not new. They can look at the Guidelines on Groundspeak. If they haven't done their research on how Groundspeak does things and why then they are being most unwise.

 

Groundspeak invented the wheel so to speak. Garmin doesn't need to reinvent it.

Link to comment
Groundspeak didn't start out with the "guidelines" that they have today. Far fewer I would imagine. This will be no different for OC. It's pretty much just starting out, after all.

 

Groundspeak lacked guidelines early on because there was no precedent. They were sailing in uncharted territory, building something new.

 

GarminOC is a new website, but they are not new. They can look at the Guidelines on Groundspeak. If they haven't done their research on how Groundspeak does things and why then they are being most unwise.

 

Groundspeak invented the wheel so to speak. Garmin doesn't need to reinvent it.

 

Perhaps Garmin prefers to hear from its users what the site's functionality should be, rather than copying this site. This site is popular and widely used, but it is not without its flaws. Simply repeating what exists here seems counterintuitive to me.

Link to comment

As was shown in the Hmmm opencache, it may not stay on the Garmin site.

 

That cache link is alive and kicking again, still advertising an eatery.

 

Groundspeak didn't start out with the "guidelines" that they have today. Far fewer I would imagine. This will be no different for OC. It's pretty much just starting out, after all.

 

Groundspeak lacked guidelines early on because there was no precedent. They were sailing in uncharted territory, building something new.

 

GarminOC is a new website, but they are not new. They can look at the Guidelines on Groundspeak. If they haven't done their research on how Groundspeak does things and why then they are being most unwise.

 

Groundspeak invented the wheel so to speak. Garmin doesn't need to reinvent it.

 

Perhaps Garmin prefers to hear from its users what the site's functionality should be, rather than copying this site. This site is popular and widely used, but it is not without its flaws. Simply repeating what exists here seems counterintuitive to me.

 

Then they should have researched 'what cachers want' before they opened the site in the first place.

Edited by joshism
Link to comment

 

Then they should have researched 'what cachers want' before they opened the site in the first place.

 

How can they research what their users want before they have their own users? :D

 

LOL. They could have sent an email survey to the thousands, millions of customer that have their GPS units.

Link to comment

LOL. They could have sent an email survey to the thousands, millions of customer that have their GPS units.

 

How would that data be useful? What proportion of Garmin owners are geocachers? What proportion of Garmin owners take the time to register their products? What proportion of Garmin owners with accounts who geocache would be willing to answer such a survey? And will those people come to the new site even if it meets the criteria they claimed to want when answering a survey?

 

In a case like this it makes far more sense to set up a Beta test of the site and attract a user base that is interested in using the site. Then with time, they can build the site according to what actual users want. That's how *this* site was built.

 

Never mind all the cachers out there who use devices by other manufacturers.

 

"lol" :D

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

I think the data from an email survey could be useful, if worded properly.

Obviously, they should start such a survey with something to identify if a customer is also a geocacher.

As to what percentage of Garmin owners are cachers, I would have to guess it would be pretty small.

Certainly less than 10%. Probably closer to 1%. But both numbers are just guesses. I have no data to support either claim.

As for those cachers who use other devices, for the purpose of such a survey, their opinions would be irrelevant.

As to how many cachers would use such a site, I have no idea.

I will say, I believe that data has value in and of itself. How much value it has would be up to Garmin to decide.

 

I agree though, that creating a Beta site like OC is another way to accomplish similar results.

Since that's the medium Garmin opted to utilize, that's the one we're stuck debating.

If they do send a survey out, at a later time, I will happily answer it the best way I can.

Link to comment

I think the data from an email survey could be useful, if worded properly.

Obviously, they should start such a survey with something to identify if a customer is also a geocacher.

As to what percentage of Garmin owners are cachers, I would have to guess it would be pretty small.

Certainly less than 10%. Probably closer to 1%. But both numbers are just guesses. I have no data to support either claim.

As for those cachers who use other devices, for the purpose of such a survey, their opinions would be irrelevant.

As to how many cachers would use such a site, I have no idea.

I will say, I believe that data has value in and of itself. How much value it has would be up to Garmin to decide.

 

I agree though, that creating a Beta site like OC is another way to accomplish similar results.

Since that's the medium Garmin opted to utilize, that's the one we're stuck debating.

If they do send a survey out, at a later time, I will happily answer it the best way I can.

 

If their goal is to compete with other listing sites, disregarding people who use non-Garmin devices doesn't make much sense.

 

But you're right, the site is out now, so there's little point in crying that they should have done things differently. I'm not thrilled with the site as it currently exists, but I think the huffy doomsday scenarios are a tad premature.

 

I'd like to see this *game* grow in a positive, sustainable manner. Lately, I'm not sure that Groundspeak can be trusted to oversee that growth. I don't know that Garmin can, either, but I'm not going to write them off in the first week of their existence because the Beta version of their site isn't up to par.

Link to comment
Exactly!!! Please tell that to Gorak. That is the point that I was trying to make with my ridiculous assumption that you could save the file from within a text editor and make it yours. Thank you.

I think you're reading a lot more into my post than I stated. Let me spell it out for you.

  1. I create a new cache page on GS. The data I enter is mine.
  2. I import that data into GSAK
  3. I generate a new GPX file from GSAK containing only MY caches. I still own the data for my caches.
  4. I import my GSAK GPX file containing MY DATA to OC.

Where is the violation of the TOS?

 

Are we not on speaking terms now, knowschad? Why don't you just tell me yourself instead asking someone else? I promise, you won't be assimilated. Well, at least not quite yet.

 

Any data that you enter manually into GSAK is yours. Yes. That I can agree with. But I really don't think that is what this is about... do you?

This thread is about a myriad of OC subtopics. But IT IS what I was talking about. People read too much into what others write...

 

GreySquint.gif

Link to comment

I think the data from an email survey could be useful, if worded properly.

Obviously, they should start such a survey with something to identify if a customer is also a geocacher.

As to what percentage of Garmin owners are cachers, I would have to guess it would be pretty small.

Certainly less than 10%. Probably closer to 1%. But both numbers are just guesses. I have no data to support either claim.

As for those cachers who use other devices, for the purpose of such a survey, their opinions would be irrelevant.

As to how many cachers would use such a site, I have no idea.

I will say, I believe that data has value in and of itself. How much value it has would be up to Garmin to decide.

 

I agree though, that creating a Beta site like OC is another way to accomplish similar results.

Since that's the medium Garmin opted to utilize, that's the one we're stuck debating.

If they do send a survey out, at a later time, I will happily answer it the best way I can.

 

If their goal is to compete with other listing sites, disregarding people who use non-Garmin devices doesn't make much sense.

 

But you're right, the site is out now, so there's little point in crying that they should have done things differently. I'm not thrilled with the site as it currently exists, but I think the huffy doomsday scenarios are a tad premature.

 

I'd like to see this *game* grow in a positive, sustainable manner. Lately, I'm not sure that Groundspeak can be trusted to oversee that growth. I don't know that Garmin can, either, but I'm not going to write them off in the first week of their existence because the Beta version of their site isn't up to par.

At this point I see OC more as a marketing ploy on the part of Garmin. I don't see it as a genuine effort to make a world class site for geocaching. Sort of a "Hook your Oregon up to the computer and it will download all these caches, just like a Geomate Jr." Just like the chirp was a ploy to sell more high end units. Currently the caches I have looked at are all cross postings. So, okay, do I go out to find them again or just log from my GC.com log? I choose option three, don't bother. And in my immediate area (say out to 30 miles) there are only a few, certainly less than six at this time. If it is going to be serious competition to GC.com then they will need to be more inclusive on GPS units and definitely have better tools. But somehow I think it will only speak Garmin.

 

In order for this site to be successful they will need to have people use OC.com exclusively for new listings and have people actively finding these new caches and decide to place their own exclusive caches. Until then it is not going to be really successful.

Link to comment
that's exactly the scenario i was refering too. the thing is that somebody already brought this up over at their forum, and the "official" (?) reply was that it's not a problem because if OC12345 got uploaded and received OX12345, and then GC12345 gets uploaded, then GC12345 would simply receive another OX code while the linkage between the OX and the GC code would still exist internally. at least that's how i understood it. of course i didn't actually test that, so i don't know how true that is.

Well, that didn't take long. One of the oldest caches in the world is now unable to have its finds cross-listed correctly because of this astonishing design error.

Link to comment
Any data that you enter manually into GSAK is yours. Yes. That I can agree with. But I really don't think that is what this is about... do you?

This thread is about a myriad of OC subtopics. But IT IS what I was talking about. People read too much into what others write...

Well, I don't think it was unreasonable for me to assume you were referring to a Groundspeak generated .gpx file. After all, the subject at hand was the bulk loading of hides and finds into the opencaching website using their import function. If you enter your hides and finds manually into GSAK, that's fine, but that's not how we mere Earthlings do it.

Link to comment
So, okay, do I go out to find them again or just log from my GC.com log?

Off topic, but something I noticed: I cross posted my hides to test the site, and the folks who already have an active OC account, and previously found the cache at GC, got an automatic find.

 

Yep, welcome to oc.com, the incomplete mirror to the same caches on gc.com.

 

Oc is going to have to develop a completely new, whiz-bang, Type R, 4D Muppet Vision version of caching for this to ever take off and stand on it's own.

Link to comment

Reviewers, Reviewers, Reviewers. This is what will seperate the competition. It would take me about 1 wide goose chase on another site before I would stop using that site. Of into the sunset they go.

 

Maybe. I used to have a lot of confidence in the reviewer system, but I've seen some pretty major gaffes over the past year or so and I don't trust Groundspeak nearly as much as I used to.

Link to comment
Oc is going to have to develop a completely new, whiz-bang, Type R, 4D Muppet Vision version of caching for this to ever take off and stand on it's own.

I think to get existing cachers to switch and/or abandon sites they've grown accustomed to, that's likely true.

 

It's less clear to me from the perspective of new cachers.

Link to comment
Any data that you enter manually into GSAK is yours. Yes. That I can agree with.

huh? no. it's yours if and only if you actually came up with it yourself. then it doesn't matter if you enter it manually into GSAK or get it in there any other way, it's still always your data. on the other hand, you can also manually enter data into GSAK that you copied off elsewhere. then it's not your data.

 

and the term "Groundspeak" still doesn't appear in the equation.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
Any data that you enter manually into GSAK is yours. Yes. That I can agree with.

huh? no. it's yours if and only if you actually came up with it yourself. then it doesn't matter if you enter it manually into GSAK or get it in there any other way, it's still always your data. on the other hand, you can also manually enter data into GSAK that you copied off elsewhere. then it's not your data.

 

and the term "Groundspeak" still doesn't appear in the equation.

Would you mind posting a graphic of your law degree? I'm sure we'd all love to see it.

 

OK, I will concede this: It doesn't matter who types the words to a copyrighted song... the rights still belong to the copyright owner. But I'm not so sure that applies in this case. Regardless, I am not a copyright lawyer and I do not have a law degree that I can post a graphic of. I'm not going to argue the nuances of this issue any further. Dxf and Gorak are free to battle this on their own. I'm done with it, because it really comes down to what battles the companies wish to fight and how good their lawyers are.

Link to comment
Any data that you enter manually into GSAK is yours. Yes. That I can agree with.

huh? no. it's yours if and only if you actually came up with it yourself. then it doesn't matter if you enter it manually into GSAK or get it in there any other way, it's still always your data. on the other hand, you can also manually enter data into GSAK that you copied off elsewhere. then it's not your data.

 

and the term "Groundspeak" still doesn't appear in the equation.

Would you mind posting a graphic of your law degree? I'm sure we'd all love to see it.

 

OK, I will concede this: It doesn't matter who types the words to a copyrighted song... the rights still belong to the copyright owner. But I'm not so sure that applies in this case. Regardless, I am not a copyright lawyer and I do not have a law degree that I can post a graphic of. I'm not going to argue the nuances of this issue any further. Dxf and Gorak are free to battle this on their own. I'm done with it, because it really comes down to what battles the companies wish to fight and how good their lawyers are.

I suppose the argument can be made that it is Groundspeak that came up with GC number and Groundspeak that associates a particular GC number with your cache listing. You may own the name of the cache, the long and short description, even the D/T rating, the size, and the cache type. But once you put the GC number with this information you are using Groundspeak's creativity.

 

Now you may say "The GC number isn;t very much, I certainly can copy it" But it is this number that makes the data valuable. Each cache now has a unique identifier. This identifier allows online logs to be tied to your cache. It allows people to find your cache listing. It is used to put your caches on the geocaching.com map.

 

Now opencaching.com wants to identify the cross listed caches using the GC number. The even go so fat as to use the same numbers and just change GC to OX. Perhaps if you stripped out the GC numbers in GSAK you could upload the data to opencaching.com without violating the waypoint license agreement. But then what would be the purpose of importing this data on opencaching.com?

Link to comment

 

As to what percentage of Garmin owners are cachers, I would have to guess it would be pretty small.

Certainly less than 10%. Probably closer to 1%. But both numbers are just guesses. I have no data to support either claim.

 

 

I think that this would be interesting as well. I would like to see how you figure your percentages as probably 90% of the cachers I know are Garmin owners. Or am I reading into what you are writing and are you saying Garmins customer base flipping the whole thing from a caching thing to just a "I own a Garmin" thing?

 

Does that make any sense at all? It's early for me on a Sunday!

Link to comment

Well, I decided to check out this new geocaching site and the closest listed cache to me is already a problem in my eyes. I'd have posted it over there like Keystone suggested, except their forum is so screwed up it wont let me log in. I even tried to reset my password, but it wont let me log on with the password they emailed me! PFFT!

So anyway, the closest cache to me there is a cache that was listed on GC.com but archived because it was missing. Somehow the cache turned back up at a later date (possibly it was taken by a muggle, and later returned when they figured out what it was. That's happened before) but the cache owner for whatever personal reasons is not interested in unarchiving it or adopting it out. So someone else has taken it upon themselves to list this other person's cache over at OC.com. I don't think they did it to be malicious or anything, they just wanted more people to be able to enjoy an existing cache. But that's still a problem, isn't it? The real cache owner may have his own reasons for not wanting the cache listed on GC or OC. Maybe he wants to keep it as a private cache, or is just waiting until he has a chance to retrieve the container and logbook. In any case someone else has effectively hijacked his geocache and the owner has no control over his own property. Like I said, I don't think in this case it was done with any malicious, but that may not always be the case.

And no, because of all the "beta" issues (more like alpha that should never have been public!) I can not log in and request it be archived, nor am I sure it's my place to do so even if I could.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...