Jump to content

opencaching.com new mascot...


FickFam
Followers 11

Recommended Posts

I've got mixed feelings on this. In general I think a little competition is a good thing as it keeps the quality up. The double listing of caches on both sites reminded me of letterboxing. There are 2 main listing sites: LBNA and Atlas Quest. Each allows you to link to the other, or to your own web page and there does not seem to be a problem. I've also seen letterbox hybrids on GC.com listed on the letterbox sites, although they don't actually link to the other sites. I almost signed up at OC.com, but thought differently when I looked at the terms. With warnings about linking to other websites "at your own risk", I didn't want problems with Groundspeak. I'll wait until we learn Groundspeak's official stance on the subject. It would be a shame if this became a legal issue. Groundspeak has done a lot for us in 10 years, but Garmin has deeper pockets. I sure hope this has a happy ending.

Link to comment
if you come across a cache that violates their guidelines, you click the report button.

Where is that? Is it the same as the email link to "Report a problem with website"?

I found it. I believe it went to their geocaching@garmin.com website. I never heard back on the issues I reported about their website, not even a confirmation email.

Link to comment

I think that the comments regarding the value or the harm of competition is actually a bit of an apples and oranges thing. I suspect that almost all of us would readily agree that business competition is good. But some are concerned about the cache congestion that such competition is likely to result in.

 

Yes, there have been attempts at creating competing sites (including letterboxing) in the past, but none have had the potential to create congestion like this one has.

Link to comment

I just cross-published all of my active caches on Opencaching.com. While their site has flaws, I can remember a time when this site wasn't so great, either. I welcome their efforts and I plan to support those efforts. There is room in this hobby for multiple listing sites and I think it is a very good thing for geocaching. They may not be there yet, but OC will find it's feet and work out their bugs, just like this site did. One thing they have in their favour is the ability to directly market OC to every future Garmin customer right on their devices.

 

I wonder how long before the topic on Opencaching.com becomes a verbotten topic on this site like Navicache did several years ago... GreyWink.gif

 

GreySquint.gif

Link to comment

I think that the comments regarding the value or the harm of competition is actually a bit of an apples and oranges thing. I suspect that almost all of us would readily agree that business competition is good. But some are concerned about the cache congestion that such competition is likely to result in.

 

Yes, there have been attempts at creating competing sites (including letterboxing) in the past, but none have had the potential to create congestion like this one has.

Are you implying that caches listed on GS somehow have more right to exist than those published on other sites? Do you honestly think GS reviewers will reject a cache because it is too close to a cache listed on another site?

 

Listing sites don't cause cache congestion. Geocachers cause cache congestion. The onus is on cachers to ensure their cache is appropriately placed, not the listing sites.

 

GreySquint.gif

Link to comment

I would have trusted the "openness" more if Garmin had not taken that particular name. To me, it is like the big kids moving in on the sandbox in order to put up a stand to sell more chirps (as their initial press release made clear).

 

Many of the problems with the Garmin site have been identified, but it is new and will presumably develop faster than Wherigo.com. Still, at this point, Groundspeak offers a more open tent. From what I can gather, there is more room for puzzles and other cache types over here. There is more room for photography. That controversies rage over here -- from repetitive cache trails to whether earthcaching and virtuals are really caching -- probably shows how big of a tent Groundspeak seeks to accommodate.

 

There are many things that Groundspeak does that I would do differently. For that matter, there are many things about the Garmin units I have used that I would do differently. Both companies will do things that they believe are in their best interest (the nuviphone debacle notwithstanding) and I can either patronize them or not. But I expect that I will continue to find geocaches on this site with my garmin gpsr. Nothing I have seen at opencaching.com leaves me to believe anything else.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

Opencaching has the same rule as cache placement every 1.0 range.

 

You may want to take a look at my 3 new OC listings. Three caches, all at the same coordinates. Nothing and nobody stopped me. I think I'll now go and hide one in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, and maybe one in the White House, just for good measure.

 

So you are one of those type that are trying to make it fail. You know you would get ban from another site for doing that. :ph34r: What are the OC numbers and I can get them fixed. That is what that button is for anyways. :P

Regarding the part bolded, no he absolutely would not be banned from here. His cache simply would not get listed if the coordinates were at the White House. As the reviewer for DC, I would explain why and point to the guidelines. I can give you a prime example. A long time ago a cacher put a micro at one of the doors of the US Mint in DC, and fairly shortly after 9-11. The building is very generic looking, on purpose obviously. I know it though. When I told them where their cache was they were shocked and had it removed. They were visiting and just did not know. On the other site, it would go live and I am sure you can imagine the incident that would cause.

Link to comment
Many of the problems with the Garmin site have been identified, but it is new and will presumably develop faster than Wherigo.com.

any site that sees any changes at all develops faster than Wherigo.com :P

 

of course the real issue here is that the frog is so much cuter than the blue thing they have.

Link to comment

I think that the comments regarding the value or the harm of competition is actually a bit of an apples and oranges thing. I suspect that almost all of us would readily agree that business competition is good. But some are concerned about the cache congestion that such competition is likely to result in.

 

Yes, there have been attempts at creating competing sites (including letterboxing) in the past, but none have had the potential to create congestion like this one has.

Interestingly enough, although I am worried about the 'no review process' thing, I don't find myself very worried about congestion. I find that even though on gc.com we're allowed to pack caches every 0.1 miles, in the vast majority of cache-able land we don't come close to that.

 

And in the relative handful of areas that are super-duper saturated (downtown Seattle, for example), I suspect that we could probably support two caches in each 0.1 mile circle without it causing huge problems.

 

There might occasionally be an issue of caches from different sites being confusingly close to each other, but that happens with Letterboxes all the time. Except for the high annoyance factor for Letterbox owners who have to replace stamps that geocachers think are trade items, I don't think it is a real problem. Certainly I've never seen an indication from Groundspeak that they are unwilling to publish a geocache within a few feet of a Letterbox.

 

I suppose if a particular land manager in a semi-restricted area had a 0.1 mile policy, she could get annoyed if GC's and OC's were on top of one another. I suppose in those jurisdictions, whether or not GC and OC would be able to learn to get along would be a factor. OC doesn't even have reviewers right now so it's a bit of a moot point, but if they did and if they were willing to acknowledge the posted coordinates of GC's that might work. It would depend on GC reviewers behaving reciprocally; I have no sense for how likely that would be.

Link to comment

I think that the comments regarding the value or the harm of competition is actually a bit of an apples and oranges thing. I suspect that almost all of us would readily agree that business competition is good. But some are concerned about the cache congestion that such competition is likely to result in.

 

Yes, there have been attempts at creating competing sites (including letterboxing) in the past, but none have had the potential to create congestion like this one has.

Are you implying that caches listed on GS somehow have more right to exist than those published on other sites? Do you honestly think GS reviewers will reject a cache because it is too close to a cache listed on another site?

 

Listing sites don't cause cache congestion. Geocachers cause cache congestion. The onus is on cachers to ensure their cache is appropriately placed, not the listing sites.

 

I think its pretty clear that I was merely making an observation in an attempt to keep the conversation clear.

 

On the other hand, reviewers here have helped minimize congestion.

Link to comment

I think that the comments regarding the value or the harm of competition is actually a bit of an apples and oranges thing. I suspect that almost all of us would readily agree that business competition is good. But some are concerned about the cache congestion that such competition is likely to result in.

 

Yes, there have been attempts at creating competing sites (including letterboxing) in the past, but none have had the potential to create congestion like this one has.

Letterboxing far preceded geocaching... since 1854 :P

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

Letterboxing far preceded geocaching... since 1854 :huh:

 

And from what I understand letterboxers did not exactly appreciate it when Groundspeak sought to bring letterboxing into its fold. There is still some tension between parts of the two communities. Sort of like what happens when an established company moves into town.

Link to comment

I'm curious. Several "other" geocaching websites have opened their doors (so to speak) in the last few years. Most have nary caused a ripple. Why all the excitement about this new one? :huh:

As opposed to being started by cachers who take issue with how Groundspeak runs its business, it was started by a company with very deep pockets with seemingly very different motivations. That OC.com information can be bundled with hardware units with ease, for example, makes this a very, very different entrant into the market.

 

That it wasn't started in a fit of pique by people unhappy that GC.com isn't edgy enough gives it more wide-ranging appeal out of the gate as well.

Link to comment

I'm curious. Several "other" geocaching websites have opened their doors (so to speak) in the last few years. Most have nary caused a ripple. Why all the excitement about this new one? :huh:

My guess is that the others were, or were perceived to be, attempts by ex-Groundspeak members with an axe to grind and no real programming capability or ability to garner financial support.

 

Garmin has the resources to build a site that works. They have the deep pockets to make it happen.

 

I've predicted for years that it would be Google who did this, it would be a no-brainer development for them and they already have the infrastructure, maybe if Garmin's attempt fails it will cost them enough to dissuade others.

Link to comment

I'm starting to suspect that innovations at this new site might be more effective than 1000 votes on the Feedback site, in terms of driving change.

My inbox just pinged with more status updates started projects on the Feedback site, for features already offered on OC.com.

 

Regardless of the motivations, it's good to see.

Edited by addisonbr
Link to comment

They were visiting and just did not know.

 

No one has brought up the issue of "vacation caches" on opencaching.com. I can see all sorts of new 35mm film can OC caches showing up in Waikiki!

As was proven earlier in this thread when someone was able to list one on OC in my front yard 40' from my existing geocache there is currently no limitation on where you can list a cache. Ability (or even desire) to maintain the cache doesn't seem to mean much on OC.

 

Glaring errors in logic like this are what make me wonder if there's not something else behind this. Currently it looks and works like the product of a single Garmin employee!

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment
Try it! List a new test cache on opencaching.com at N33° 32.013 W086° 42.625.

http://www.opencaching.com/#geocache/OXZTY0P

So it let you put a cache right next to mine. Bummer. There's a link labeled "Report a violation of geocaching guidelines" which links to geocaching@garmin.com but it doesn't work.

 

All of the problems I see should have been discovered in development... this software is so far from being ready to Beta test that I wonder if it's not actually a negotiating ploy of some sort with Groundspeak.

 

I only see a blank page when checking on this cache. Bug? or is it gone?

Link to comment

Has anyone uploaded their finds yet? I am curious if that automatically lists those finds for others to see and find. If so that is both neat and disturbing.

I uploaded mine. It lost a couple hundred finds and the sort mechanism is broken, but it did upload 2200 or so. When I go to my profile it takes almost a full minute for the list of finds to appear.

 

I also uploaded my hides. It lost about half, and of the ones that did upload it copied just two logs - the first and last logs only.

 

This site is no threat to Groundspeak anytime soon!

 

Be careful with your puzzle and multi-caches it shows all the waypoints. Or at, least it did with mine, till I edited them of course.

Edited by Frank Broughton
Link to comment

Opencaching has the same rule as cache placement every 1.0 range.

 

You may want to take a look at my 3 new OC listings. Three caches, all at the same coordinates. Nothing and nobody stopped me. I think I'll now go and hide one in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, and maybe one in the White House, just for good measure.

 

So you are one of those type that are trying to make it fail. You know you would get ban from another site for doing that. <_<:huh:

It is a BETA site. Getting people to try to break it is the whole point of putting a BETA site out.

 

What are the OC numbers and I can get them fixed. That is what that button is for anyways.

 

I recieved an email from them a few minutes ago:

 

Your geocaches, OXZTXZ7, OXZTXZ5, and OXZTXZ6 have been deleted because they did not appear to be a real geocaches. If we are mistaken, and they are real caches, please let us know and we will reevaluate them.

 

I have no problem with that at all... but I'd like to know if you reported them, or if they were somehow detected by their system. Edited by knowschad
Link to comment
snip

So, you think it's a good idea for our fragile "game/hobby/ sport/compulsion/'life'" that is resting on a very slippery slope to have competition in the form of a seemingly no-rules website that has already listed caches that break the 528 ft guideline

snip

 

Did not say that - you did. No I do not. As I also said - "time will tell" - it is a beta site.

Link to comment

As was proven earlier in this thread when someone was able to list one on OC in my front yard 40' from my existing geocache there is currently no limitation on where you can list a cache. Ability (or even desire) to maintain the cache doesn't seem to mean much on OC.

 

Glaring errors in logic like this are what make me wonder if there's not something else behind this. Currently it looks and works like the product of a single Garmin employee!

 

As was shown in the Hmmm opencache, it may not stay on the Garmin site. But the model does not seem to be thought through very carefully, it seems to be more of an attempt provide an easy way to add listings while minimizing staff resources - dealing with the consequences as an afterthought.

 

If I had set out to do a competing site, I would have identified the things that Groundspeak was doing right and provided services that Groundspeak was not offering. Although some of us do not believe it goes far enough, the basic system of reviewing caches before they are published is clearly something that Groundspeak does right.

 

To me, the main thing that opencaching.com brings to the table for consumers is the ability to download multiple gpx files without a membership fee, captcha, or other restrictions. For Garmin to make this work, people will want to plug the information into their Garmin unit and turn on chirp features to have paperless caching with access to the "latest breakthrough in geocaching." (Opencaching Press Release)

 

But the main thing that that Groundspeak does right is to have created a system based on local reviewers, the flexibility of pocket queries, and a database that will remain unrivaled for quite some time. Premium membership remains a great deal for what you get.

 

At least some of the controversies that have driven people to alternate sites seems to be a tension between Groundspeak's business decisions and the kind of transparency that people want in a community-based game based built largely on memberships (and people's sense of "ownership" over their own caches). It is a fine line. As these forums attest, there are aspects to this game that stir people's emotions, whether it be virtual caches or repetitive trails.

 

But at this point its hard to get a sense over what "community" opencaching.com represents and who is in charge. Obviously, the decisions on the Garmin site have been, and will be, defined by Garmin's business interests. The interesting thing for me is why Garmin choose to take this particular course. Earnings had not met expectations, the core business is in decline, the smartphone disaster was officially abandoned a few months ago, while smartphones threaten other aspects of their business - perhaps they sensed something that was ripe for the taking as a way to revitalize a part of their company. I suppose we will never really know.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

In the end, it goes like this: when I plan to go out caching, I will download the caches for the area from one site, and head out. So for me, it is one or the other. For now that site is Geocaching.com. When another site is so sweet that GC.com seems lame, then I will probably start downloading the caches from the new sweeter site.

Link to comment

In the end, it goes like this: when I plan to go out caching, I will download the caches for the area from one site, and head out. So for me, it is one or the other. For now that site is Geocaching.com. When another site is so sweet that GC.com seems lame, then I will probably start downloading the caches from the new sweeter site.

When I go out caching, I download caches for the area from GSAK, so it doesn't matter where the listing originates from. Merging GPX files from multiple listing sites to one database is pretty simple. I do all of my planning from GSAK and rarely look at an actual online cache page so the "lameness" of any given listing site is irrelevant to me. However, I can see your point if you don't use any of the available offline tools for planning your caching day.

 

GreySquint.gif

Link to comment
When I go out caching, I download caches for the area from GSAK, so it doesn't matter where the listing originates from. Merging GPX files from multiple listing sites to one database is pretty simple. I do all of my planning from GSAK and rarely look at an actual online cache page so the "lameness" of any given listing site is irrelevant to me.

the beauty of the open API is that you can have GSAK pull the caches for your area from oc.com directly without you having to do anything. once the number of caches listed on oc.com reaches a certain threshold, you will lose interest in having to run, download and import PQs. GS will have to work hard to beat that.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
the basic system of reviewing caches before they are published is clearly something that Groundspeak does right.

I think this is right.

 

Even some of the pseudo-rogue sites (like TC.com) had some sort of review system in place. As it continues to sink in, I'm kind of shocked that Garmin would roll this out without one.

Link to comment

The beauty of the open API is that you can have GSAK pull the caches for your area from oc.com directly without you having to do anything. once the number of caches listed on oc.com reaches a certain threshold, you will lose interest in having to run, download and import PQs. GS will have to work hard to beat that.

 

Not really. It seems easier for me to set the search terms of a pq, filtering out particular types of caches and including those that I want to find, and then transferring that directly to my gpsr without further thought. If I want to filter things beyond that, I use geosphere (pulling up the pq directly from gc.com) and identify the specific type of caches on a map to help me plan my route.

 

Unless the API is that flexible and there are tools to make it as easy, I have no interest in doing it another way.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment
Not really. It seems easier for me to set the search terms of a pq, filtering out particular types of caches and including those that I want to find, and then transferring that directly to my gpsr without further thought. If I want to filter things beyond that, I use geosphere (pulling up the pq directly from gc.com) and identify the particular caches on a map to help me plan my route.

 

Unless the API is that flexible and there are tools to make it as easy, I have no interest in doing it another way.

my reply was aimed at people who already use GSAK. nobody says you have to use GSAK.

 

and yes, the API is that flexible. there are no tools yet (afaik), but it won't be long till they pop up.

Link to comment
The possibilities would be endless. Very much looking forward to gc.com releasing an API and let the boys and girls with brains amongst us go to work!

i don't think it's gonna happen in a meaningful manner. Groundspeak has always felt it needs to protect and guard the data in its database, which is quite understandable as it's the one thing that keeps them in business, but at the same time limits the possibilities as to what their paying customers can do. of course i'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Link to comment
The possibilities would be endless. Very much looking forward to gc.com releasing an API and let the boys and girls with brains amongst us go to work!

i don't think it's gonna happen in a meaningful manner. Groundspeak has always felt it needs to protect and guard the data in its database, which is quite understandable as it's the one thing that keeps them in business, but at the same time limits the possibilities as to what their paying customers can do. of course i'd be happy to be proven wrong.

 

This is a bit tricky for Groundspeak. They will have to balance their API with their premium features. Opencaching.com is giving everything out for free, so there's no real line there.

 

I expect that opencaching.com will indeed be similar to twitter. You'll see a bunch of clients and they will also have a respectable main page. They're building a community (giving out web tools for free) so that they can have their own geocaching content.

 

Within a year I expect garmin to be marketing a geocaching handheld that allows you to do everything on the GPS you'd ever need to in relation to geocaching, without a computer. With this API and a half-decent web community, and beign able to find/place/log caches directly on your GPS, it won't take long for things to get big fast.

 

I also expect that Groundspeak will soon use OC's API themselves to gather all of their data.

Link to comment

 

Within a year I expect garmin to be marketing a geocaching handheld that allows you to do everything on the GPS you'd ever need to in relation to geocaching, without a computer. With this API and a half-decent web community, and beign able to find/place/log caches directly on your GPS, it won't take long for things to get big fast.

 

I also expect that Groundspeak will soon use OC's API themselves to gather all of their data.

:huh: quite the prognosticator there - eh?

Link to comment

Within a year I expect garmin to be marketing a geocaching handheld that allows you to do everything on the GPS you'd ever need to in relation to geocaching, without a computer. With this API and a half-decent web community, and beign able to find/place/log caches directly on your GPS, it won't take long for things to get big fast.

 

I suppose this is also called a smartphone. Although Garmin abandoned their experiment in that market. Their marketing would have to be very good since it is easy for me to log caches from field notes on the computer (where the input is easier), to write cache descriptions and incorporate graphics from the computer, or to use my existing smartphone to find and log an occasional cache.

Link to comment
I suppose this is also called a smartphone. Although Garmin abandoned their experiment in that market. Their marketing would have to be very good since it is easy for me to log caches from field notes on the computer (where the input is easier), to write cache descriptions and incorporate graphics from the computer, or to use my existing smartphone to find and log an occasional cache.

A GPS unit that can grab cache info over the air without necessarily being an actual smartphone (think Kindle's whispernet) and an easy way to log caches immediately right from the device, could be a pretty neat device. (Would it be easier to write long longs from the computer? Yes, absolutely. But Twitter has its fans too.)

 

For those who get the device for Christmas, there may be some for whom just turning it on and seeing what OC's are nearby is easier than setting up a new GC.com account and loading the caches one-by-one from the computer (or immediately ponying up for a premium membership and doing it in bulk).

 

I'm not sure that would necessarily *work* the way I've imagined it (especially if OC.com doesn't have any nearby caches when you turn the unit on). But whispernet makes me think about over-the-air data in a different way than I did even a couple of years ago. I don't think a killer GPS like that would need to also be a phone.

Link to comment
When I go out caching, I download caches for the area from GSAK, so it doesn't matter where the listing originates from. Merging GPX files from multiple listing sites to one database is pretty simple. I do all of my planning from GSAK and rarely look at an actual online cache page so the "lameness" of any given listing site is irrelevant to me.

the beauty of the open API is that you can have GSAK pull the caches for your area from oc.com directly without you having to do anything. once the number of caches listed on oc.com reaches a certain threshold, you will lose interest in having to run, download and import PQs. GS will have to work hard to beat that.

I think your making an assumption about GSAK the may not be true in the near future. It is true today, it might not be true in a couple months.

Link to comment
Within a year I expect garmin to be marketing a geocaching handheld that allows you to do everything on the GPS you'd ever need to in relation to geocaching, without a computer. With this API and a half-decent web community, and beign able to find/place/log caches directly on your GPS, it won't take long for things to get big fast.

 

I suppose this is also called a smartphone. Although Garmin abandoned their experiment in that market. Their marketing would have to be very good since it is easy for me to log caches from field notes on the computer (where the input is easier), to write cache descriptions and incorporate graphics from the computer, or to use my existing smartphone to find and log an occasional cache.

i don't even think garmin needs to do that. the first thing that's gonna happen is that 3rd party developers will release tools and applications for smartphones, PCs and other websites that will support the API. once those tools gained popularity, cachers will have reason enough to list (at least cross-list) their caches over at oc.com. after a while they'll have a significant number of caches listed there, and once that happens they'll have much more reason to promote the paperless caching capabilities of their more expensive models. right now they have to say, look at the fancy paperless caching stuff, unfortunately you also have to pay someone else to actually make use of it. afterwards they can say, get a unit and you'll get everything else for free from us. in today's world, the difference between free and non-free is quite immense in people's minds, even if it's only $30 per year.

Link to comment

You can place caches in front of peoples house on geocaching.com

 

Things slip through. Nobody is claiming this system is perfect.

 

Opencaching has the same rule as cache placement every 1.0 range.

 

Enforced by whom...?

 

People says on here what keeps them from placing a cache near a geo cache. Well what keeps a goecache getting placed near a opencache? I have seen geocaches place almost on top of a letterbox many times so all the sites can and will have that problem.

 

You cannot compare the scale of caches to the scale of letterboxes. Big apples to itty-bitty apples.

 

So the little apple are no good here. Just push the leeterbow out of the way of the cache since they are not as big. :huh:

 

That's not what I said at all. I said your comparison does not work. I never said that any one site or service was more valuable than the other or more important than the other. It's simply a matter of SCALE and your two points of comparison are not in the same league of numbers.

 

I have no idea what the heck a "leeterbow" is.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 11
×
×
  • Create New...