Jump to content

OpenCaching.com - now live in UK


Followers 4

Recommended Posts

If this is open source then it might be a good move?

OpenCaching.com is no more open source than Opencaching.org.uk. Call either of them up and ask if you can have a look at the code. :mad:

 

OpenCaching.com is owned by Garmin, that well-known philanthropical institution. So far, it seems that you can place caches, but not log them. :anibad: "Beta" seems a little optimistic.

Link to comment

I'm alright. Cheers.

 

I do agree. What's the point of another site? It says free but is geocaching.com not free? You might want to pay for upgrading but you can just stay a "Member". I wonder if Magellan makes a move and next month launch their FREE website. Perhaps OC would be a forum for those not happy with Groundspeak, just can't think of any other reason why people would use it.

Edited by somloci
Link to comment

Although competition is good, division is not. I'm happy for others to supply options etc, however, Garmin have a fairly large influence and in no time Opencaching will be everywhere. GPS boxes, websites, adverts, Shop posters, Sat Navs etc. They have a good chance of getting a fair amount of business from it.

They have proved they are all out to steal the business with "Import your Hides" and "Import your logs"!

If it takes off you'll get proximity issues pretty quick - "I want to place one there but there is already one on gc.com therefore i'll list it on this other one". Soon caches every 80m...!?!

Link to comment

If it takes off you'll get proximity issues pretty quick - "I want to place one there but there is already one on gc.com therefore i'll list it on this other one". Soon caches every 80m...!?!

 

That's always been the case - at least in this country. And if you include letterboxes in the equation, you ought to try caching on Dartmoor - 10 feet separation isn't unusual.

 

OC.com really isn't going to affect Groundspeaks current user base, is it. And if Garmin manage to get some new cachers involved by directing them to their own site, where's the harm? These forums are always full of threads asking how to get people involved. So what are they really asking - how to publicize caching - or how to get people to sign up to Groundspeak?

Link to comment

They have proved they are all out to steal the business with "Import your Hides" and "Import your logs"!

 

Hmm, I wonder if that would be in breach of the GC.COM T&Cs?

 

Just uploaded my "My_finds" to opencaching.com to see if it would log any duplicate caches that exist on there and I see it's loaded 'em all! Seems kind of odd for it to register finds against caches it doesn't have...

 

J

Link to comment

Had a look and the only listed cache close to me i have already done, and that was from approx 1500 in that same area!

Like all these other sites, it is just not the same as Groundspeak, who have the jump on everyone else.

Not sure whether Groundspeak were here first but they do seem to be the most comprehensive for the listings.

I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating, ask yourselves why do you use Groundspeak?just because it is there, no!

We all use it because we like it and it does the job well, Ok there maybe bits we dont agree with or that could be improved, but all the time it is used it will flourish and unless the other sites hijack the info it will remain the most comprehensive and therefore the best.

As more cachers come into the market place they will look around to see whats available and probably end up here and adding to our numbers making this site bigger and hopefully better.

Link to comment

ask yourselves why do you use Groundspeak?just because it is there, no!

 

To be brutally honest, yes!! I don't have any particular loyalty to GS, but thats probably because I already had a GPS and didn't buy one specifically for the hobby, so don't "owe" GS anything.

 

At the moment it is the easiest way to do this hobby. A bit of competition won't hurt - it often breeds innovation! Look at all the enthusiasm in this very forum for the Chirp, who knows what else in on the cards??

 

Chalky

Link to comment

If it takes off you'll get proximity issues pretty quick - "I want to place one there but there is already one on gc.com therefore i'll list it on this other one". Soon caches every 80m...!?!

 

That's always been the case - at least in this country. And if you include letterboxes in the equation, you ought to try caching on Dartmoor - 10 feet separation isn't unusual.

 

OC.com really isn't going to affect Groundspeaks current user base, is it. And if Garmin manage to get some new cachers involved by directing them to their own site, where's the harm? These forums are always full of threads asking how to get people involved. So what are they really asking - how to publicize caching - or how to get people to sign up to Groundspeak?

Dartmoor does have that problem yes, but the letterboxes i've found up there by mistake are obviously different to caches. A micro stuck to a railing with a scrap of paper in it will not look any different to another film pot/magnet/scrap listed on another site.

What happens if I go and place a cache on OC right in the middle of where I know there are a load on GS. The GS users then choose to list on OC too? Will theirs be able to be ported over when it creates a proximity clash?

 

It hasn't been an issue before because the other sites haven't made it 'big' like GS. I'm not saying that OC will either however Garmin have the resources to get it that way. THAT is when it does start to affect the GS users.

I think the drop in quality of caches and the most irritation people find is down to the volume of caches out there from the masses. That only came from promotion of, something that was, when I discovered it at least, a fairly secretive hobby. I've never really understood the 'get as many people caching as possible' ethos, but maybe that's just me.

 

Don't get me wrong, I quite like the look of OC and I do think that it'll be interesting to see how things go from here (GC.com already sorting the API in reply). I just think there are sticking points with the clear intention of taking caches, logs etc from GC.com. Either keep them separate or merger the database entirely.

Link to comment
I also like the idea of rating caches for "Awsomeness" (but hate that word - if it really is one), however I think this would be improved if finders could vote the awsomeness up or down, which might help weed out some of the real dross caches.

that's how it's supposed to work. the API page explains the mechanism behind the "awesomeness": http://www.opencaching.com/api_doc/concepts/ratings.html

it doesn't seem to be entirely accurate as all caches really start out with a 3.5 rating and not 3.0 though.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment

I HATE the word awesome.

It is has become so overused it's got to the point that even typing it out here grates on me. Not helped by the fact that its usually the preserve of the same people who think they are 'wacky' or 'mad' when they are clearly not.

 

*grumble*

 

Anyway, aside from my gripe about the total un-awesomeness of their vocabulary, I don't think the site looks that bad, but I personally don't think Groundspeak have that much to worry about here.

 

There's much about it that will put peeps off I think, like the fact that you have to tick a box to prove you have permission (rather than it be presumed). There's no events. There are only three cache types - puzzle, multi, trad. No trackables. No PQ's. No stats etc, etc, etc, etc......

 

Ok so Garmin might have a big audience, but we all know that more and more people are getting into caching through means other than traditional handheld devices.

 

Time will tell, but I doubt very much if this will ever be a realistic contender. And even it if is - a bit of competition never did anyone any harm.

Edited by *mouse*
Link to comment

I also like the idea of rating caches for "Awsomeness" (but hate that word - if it really is one), however I think this would be improved if finders could vote the awsomeness up or down, which might help weed out some of the real dross caches.

 

We can weed out "bad caches" by emailing the owner, or even by posting a Needs maintenance log. I did once for a listing appeared in Hungary with German description only. Just think, would you be happy with a cache only with Hungarian description and hints in the middle of the UK? Think I'd receive soma letters shortly after it's been published, some telling me off and some offering help with translation. Anyway, this is a bit off, just wanted to share. As for "good caches", we'll soon have an option to rate, as far as I know.

Link to comment

I just noticed that a beta version of Garmin's Opencaching.com (not to be confused with OpenCaching.org.uk) has gone live in the UK.

 

If this is open source then it might be a good move?

If I were in Groundspeak's shoes, I would be a bit worried about whether they're serious about this site. If they aren't, and it's just been put up by one marketing guy without much support behind him, they have no worries. But if Garmin seriously want to dominate the world of caching web sites, then they probably could, although GS would put up a good fight.

 

This might be of the areas where the first to get in, dominates the field, like Amazon. Or it might be the sort where the second major entrant learns from the mistakes of the first, and takes the market. For now, I'll stay with GS, but Garmin getting into the game is interesting.

 

I had a look. I did a search for London; 1 cache within about 50 miles of the city. I suppose it's early days.

 

Interestingly, that cache involved climbing a big tree; the cache owner said he used two ropes.

This contravenes one of their rules, "Don’t hide your caches on cliffs, down abandoned mines, in trenches or anywhere that might put the safety of geocachers in peril." I think that's a silly rule. I think you should be able to make caches as dangerous as you like. I can decide for myself not to climb that tree. I already have.

Link to comment

I don't think Groundspeak have anything to worry about, when have Garmin ever written any software that you would consider to be a killer app?

 

Wherigo support on their GPSr's? Pants. How many times does it crash before you finish a single cartridge?

Mapsouce? Pants! Very slow and cumbersome! Only use was to get maps onto the GPSr, for anything else, it was very poor.

The on-line mapping that they do let me down big time last year and I finished up using free maps and getting a refund when their City maps wouldn't download! Pants!

Basecamp? Worse pants than Mapsource ever was!

 

In fact they have more pants than Debenhams! I don't hold out much hope of their new app being anything other than Pants!

 

I'm not anti Garmin, I have several of their GPSr's and love them. But whenever I get involved with their software, it always seems rushed to market, error prone and a pain to use.

 

ENJ

Link to comment
Wherigo support on their GPSr's? Pants. How many times does it crash before you finish a single cartridge?

that's really a problem of the Wherigo framework itself, which was invented by you know who :huh:

Mapsouce? Pants! Very slow and cumbersome! Only use was to get maps onto the GPSr, for anything else, it was very poor.

The on-line mapping that they do let me down big time last year and I finished up using free maps and getting a refund when their City maps wouldn't download! Pants!

Basecamp? Worse pants than Mapsource ever was!

i don't know about mapsource, but from my own experience i agree about basecamp.

 

but creating applications for PC is quite a different thing than creating online applications, just as it is a different thing than creating applications for embedded devices, i.e. GPSrs. while their firmwares for their devices aren't perfect and have some annoying bugs, they're solid and offer some great functionalities, better than any other embedded software that i've ever seen, including the Groundspeak smartphone applications. from what i've seen, most of the active components of oc.com aren't their own development, but rather commercially outsourced stuff (akamai) or open source stuff (jquery). the API itself, should it stay as it is, is a killer application in itself. only time will tell if the whole site lives up to its expectations.

Link to comment

I just noticed that a beta version of Garmin's Opencaching.com (not to be confused with OpenCaching.org.uk) has gone live in the UK.

 

If this is open source then it might be a good move?

 

Dunno if it'll be good or not, but it seems disingenuous to the nth degree for them to call it "open" and to blather on their blog about how they believe geocaching should be "free" and, just when I thought I could keep my lunch down apparently GPSr with paperless geocaching are 'eco-friendly' ?!?!?

 

All they were missing was some crap about the Dakota 10 containing friendly bacteria to get rid of that bloated feeling.

 

Presumably they will be sending me the cash I paid for my Dakota 10 soon? So my geocaching can be free like the great outdoors? :huh:

 

Excuse me, I need to fetch a bucket. I can't think of many companies that are more price gouging than Garmin (fair dos to them, we don't have to buy their products, I'm not anti- them, but this opencaching site's blurb is patronising garbage imo)

 

Unless "open" means they are developing some standardised, published spec that any site or gps manufacturer can implement to interface with their site and with any paperless geocaching features on Garmin products? If that's what it means, all power to it. But if not, then saying "open" seems pretty meaningless.

 

But, I think it's moot. If geocaching has a boom phase like CB radio or skateboards it'll be short lived after which, Geocaching will reach a finite, but relatively small size simply because of the nature of it. I can't see the point in lots of sites hosting caches.

 

Nor for that matter that there's any great requirement for innovation or new products - except perhaps hopefully if/ when the EU sats go live. Maybe there'll be some EU company with a product that competes with garmin (I know the US has a few alternatives, but here the expensive end has some but there's not really an alternative - even the US competition like magellan seem thin on the ground in the UK)

 

I thought the memory map adventurer sounded like it could have been good. If they released an SDK so you could develop a real "open" paperless geocaching application on their PDA based receiver, that'd be a great alternative to Garmin. That's really where something new is needed in the UK imo, not another site with caches. This one is fine and the price is trivial. But some competition in the receiver.

 

But I suppose the masses will just get GPS on their iphones, and if they spend one or two weeks messing around with it, that'll be enough for them.

Link to comment

I don't think Groundspeak have anything to worry about, when have Garmin ever written any software that you would consider to be a killer app?

 

Wherigo support on their GPSr's? Pants. How many times does it crash before you finish a single cartridge?

Mapsouce? Pants! Very slow and cumbersome! Only use was to get maps onto the GPSr, for anything else, it was very poor.

The on-line mapping that they do let me down big time last year and I finished up using free maps and getting a refund when their City maps wouldn't download! Pants!

Basecamp? Worse pants than Mapsource ever was!

 

In fact they have more pants than Debenhams! I don't hold out much hope of their new app being anything other than Pants!

 

I'm not anti Garmin, I have several of their GPSr's and love them. But whenever I get involved with their software, it always seems rushed to market, error prone and a pain to use.

 

ENJ

 

I found Mapsource to be quite useful. I never tried Basecamp or Wherigo so can't comment on that. I've often used Mapsource to check out local roads, especially when I'm on the move and can't access Google maps online.

 

The biggest issue I have with Mapsource is the OS Topo maps only let you use a poxy little window in the middle of the screen but I gather that's the OS at work rather than Garmin.

Link to comment

 

I found Mapsource to be quite useful. I never tried Basecamp or Wherigo so can't comment on that. I've often used Mapsource to check out local roads, especially when I'm on the move and can't access Google maps online.

 

The biggest issue I have with Mapsource is the OS Topo maps only let you use a poxy little window in the middle of the screen but I gather that's the OS at work rather than Garmin.

 

Yeah, kinda odd that OS restriction, as it doesn't seem to apply to OS data in Memory Map? Maybe because the data is in a different format than in Memory Map? Or that Garmin's interpretation of the regulations are different? Btw, if you run an older release of Mapsource, you don't get the image size restriction. Still think it's Pants software though! :huh:

 

ENJ

Edited by Dakar4x4
Link to comment

Unless "open" means they are developing some standardised, published spec that any site or gps manufacturer can implement to interface with their site and with any paperless geocaching features on Garmin products? If that's what it means, all power to it. But if not, then saying "open" seems pretty meaningless.

That's exactly what it means - go to their website and use the "API" link near the bottom.

 

This is "free" as in "freedom", as well as being "free" as in price. Once you submit a geocache to the Garmin site, their terms and conditions say they will make that data available through a Creative Commons Attribution licence - which for those not up on such things, basically means you can do what you like with the data as long as you say where you got it from.

 

So, the people who are saying that Garmin's software is rubbish may be slightly missing the point. If Garmin can use their presence in the market to create a large enough database, and then enable *other* people - genuine geocaching enthusiasts - to write software which uses that data, then it could just take off.

 

Compare this to the hugely restrictive licence terms imposed by Groundspeak. Groundspeak's business model is based on locking up its data, meaning that (for example) if you want an iPhone app which connects to live data, then it has to be *their* iPhone app. That's bad for consumers - not so much because you have to give your money to Groundspeak (it's hardly expensive), but because Groundspeak don't have any incentive to deliver excellent products when there is no scope for any competition.

 

So, good for Garmin, I think. It's about time someone shook things up a bit, and it's really only one of the big GPS manufacturers who have the clout to do it. The ideal outcome is that they force Groundspeak to change their rather old-school business model and be more open with their own data - so that we end up with some proper innovation over here as well.

 

[it will be interesting to see whether I get slaps from the moderators for this post... so far, kudos to Groundspeak for allowing discussion of a competing product on their forums.]

 

Cheers

Richard

Link to comment

Compare this to the hugely restrictive licence terms imposed by Groundspeak. Groundspeak's business model is based on locking up its data, meaning that (for example) if you want an iPhone app which connects to live data, then it has to be *their* iPhone app. That's bad for consumers - not so much because you have to give your money to Groundspeak (it's hardly expensive), but because Groundspeak don't have any incentive to deliver excellent products when there is no scope for any competition.

 

I assume this is the bit you expect a slap for. Well I aint gonna deliver it.

 

I would pint you to this which was on the cards long before Garmin came along with their open attitude and hopefully will alay your concerns about the data licence terms re apps.

 

Paul

Geohatter

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

Link to comment

Having had a look at the site I don't like it. Maybe that's because its different to what I'm used to and I'm turning into a grumpy g!t in my old age. However there are several features that I do like, and hopefully GC.com will have a good look at the site and see what features they can adopt/adapt.

E.G.

 

Awsomness, I hate the word but I like the quality rating. I've read all the arguments about quality being subjective blah blah blah, but I still think it's a good thing.

 

Nano size, it's been discussed before and worth having.

 

The ability for finders to adjust the terratain/difficulty/size/aweseomness ratings, which means over time these figures will tend towards the community view, rather than what the hider originally set.

Link to comment

I assume this is the bit you expect a slap for. Well I aint gonna deliver it.

I didn't say I *expected* a slap - I wouldn't have posted purely to be confrontational, though I accept there are plenty of people round here who would do. I said it would be interesting to see what happened, and that's exactly what I meant.

 

Groundspeak mods certainly have closed down threads about competing products in the past, and I'm genuinely surprised this one is still going. As I said, kudos to Groundspeak (and to you).

 

I would pint you to this which was on the cards long before Garmin came along with their open attitude and hopefully will alay your concerns about the data licence terms re apps.

Thanks for the link, and I wasn't aware that was coming. However, I'm afraid - from the limited information available - it doesn't really address the point.

 

It's great that there's going to be an API, but the issue I was raising was about the terms and conditions which apply to the data. It only becomes "open" if the API is free to use and available to everyone (eventually; it obviously makes sense to offer it to a limited group first). That would be a huge turn-around compared to previous policy, and it's just not clear from the link whether it's going to be the case.

 

But if the winds of change are blowing, that's great! We'll see in the New Year.

 

Cheers

Richard

Link to comment

Yeah, kinda odd that OS restriction, as it doesn't seem to apply to OS data in Memory Map? Maybe because the data is in a different format than in Memory Map? Or that Garmin's interpretation of the regulations are different? Btw, if you run an older release of Mapsource, you don't get the image size restriction.

 

It's most likely a function of the individual licensing agreements between OS and other companies.

Link to comment

Hmm, I wonder if that would be in breach of the GC.COM T&Cs?

 

This doesn't look right either, I Just did a gpx download from Opencaching.com, and the .gpx is using the Groundspeak tags, e.g. :-

 

<Groundspeak:owner id="???">????</Groundspeak:owner>

<Groundspeak:type>Traditional Cache</Groundspeak:type> <Groundspeak:container>Regular</Groundspeak:container>

<Groundspeak:difficulty>2.5</Groundspeak:difficulty>

<Groundspeak:terrain>3</Groundspeak:terrain>

Edited by MartyBartfast
Link to comment

Unless "open" means they are developing some standardised, published spec that any site or gps manufacturer can implement to interface with their site and with any paperless geocaching features on Garmin products? If that's what it means, all power to it. But if not, then saying "open" seems pretty meaningless.

That's exactly what it means - go to their website and use the "API" link near the bottom.

 

Well, I doubt it.

 

I read that blurb about an "api" on their blog and translated it to mean that they've just developed a way to try and get members of geocaching.com who either have lots of caches and / or lots of found stats to leech their data off of this site and move it to theirs.

 

Once you submit a geocache to the Garmin site, their terms and conditions say they will make that data available through a Creative Commons Attribution licence - which for those not up on such things, basically means you can do what you like with the data as long as you say where you got it from.

 

They take something that belongs to someone else and attach a freetard license to it? Doesn't sound good to me.

 

Compare this to the hugely restrictive licence terms imposed by Groundspeak. Groundspeak's business model is based on locking up its data

 

Oh please, Garmin's "business model" is selling GPSr devices. They are closed devices and still are afaict.

it stands to reason that there has to be restrictions on the data, because otherwise someone would just steal it (although as we can see, there's nothing stopping someone creating a crap site and a tool to leech data and trying to get the members here to pinch their own data for Garmin)

 

If Garmin's business was geocaching, they'd probably want the data protecting too. Similarly, I suspect a lot of cache owners want their data protecting as well, and maybe some of the members here who are posting logs and photographs want their data protecting.

 

Telling me how great my data is going to be for your business model (or garmin's or some unnamed developer) isn't selling it very well. Oh, but it's "free" for me? Whoop de doop.

 

The idea that you can only access geocaching.com via their software seems to be flawed, so I'm not sure what you mean (unless they wrote google earth, google chrome and the software on the garmin dakota for just 3 examples of software I've used to interface with their site)

 

Garmin knocking up a site (that at the moment is barely finished and next to useless anyway afaict) and seemingly some api or tool they hope members here will use to leech their own data is all it is. Well ok, like Kellogs they've added a cute mascot too - is that supposed to get the kids to nag us to use it?

Link to comment

That's exactly what it means - go to their website and use the "API" link near the bottom.

Well, I doubt it.

 

I read that blurb about an "api" on their blog and translated it to mean that they've just developed a way to try and get members of geocaching.com who either have lots of caches and / or lots of found stats to leech their data off of this site and move it to theirs.

Have you done what I suggested, followed the link and read what it says?

 

As for "leech their data" (and your later use of the word "steal") - I can't steal something which is already mine! I've given Groundspeak permission to publish my logs, but I can give someone else permission to publish them too. To their credit, Groundspeak have never tried take over the copyright in the way that some less-reputable websites do.

 

They take something that belongs to someone else and attach a freetard license to it? Doesn't sound good to me.

Assuming the "someone else" you are referring to is the cache placer, then if it doesn't sound good to you, presumably you won't submit your listing to that site. That's perfectly fine. But I think that many cache setters don't really see their listings as something they want to closely protect - rather just something they want to get out there and make available to the community.

 

In my own professional life, I release some things I've written under open licences, and other things under restrictive licences. Both have their place, and I derive real benefits from both. In this case I would prefer to be able to use an open licence, but I respect the fact that you would prefer a restrictive one.

 

Telling me how great my data is going to be for your business model (or garmin's or some unnamed developer) isn't selling it very well. Oh, but it's "free" for me? Whoop de doop.

Perhaps I didn't express that very clearly, then.

 

What I would like to see happen is for cache listings to be more openly available, subject to permission from the people who placed the caches or made the logs. That's not for the benefit of Garmin or anyone else, but for the benefit of the community. There are so many really interesting and exciting things people could do if they had access to the data - and there are enough techno-happy enthusiasts around that it would all just happen automatically, if it were allowed to.

 

So that's what I think would be great. The "business model" thing is just a reflection of the fact that everything has to be paid for. If Garmin, or Groundspeak, or anyone else can find a way of creating an open database but still making money... well, then I get what I want, they get what they want, and everybody's delighted.

 

The idea that you can only access geocaching.com via their software seems to be flawed, so I'm not sure what you mean (unless they wrote google earth, google chrome and the software on the garmin dakota for just 3 examples of software I've used to interface with their site)

I was careful to say "live data". Yes, you can take your PQ, process it offline and then use it in various ways. But the ways that you're allowed to use it may be rather more restrictive than you think. You can't even email it to your friend, for example. Have you read the licence agreement?

 

Still - if you can already legally do all the things you want to, that's great, and I can understand why you wouldn't be at all interested in any change.

 

Cheers

Richard

Link to comment

I had a quick look, no caches listed in my area yet. I remain committed to Groundspeak, it would take some major groundbreaking to get me to move (however I'm always open to the competition).

 

What I do like is there simplified GUI with the sliders - but doesn't look like it matches geocaching.com functionality just yet.

 

Agree with other commenters - if they push this beyond being an add-on and put some serious marketing budget behind it - could be a contender for GS.

Link to comment

I remain committed to Groundspeak, it would take some major groundbreaking to get me to move

 

I think you share most people's thoughts on the new site - but why do you think it has to be one or the other? There's plenty of room for another listing site without any of them being exclusive....

Link to comment

Thought i bump this back up to see how everyone else feels about it.

I have had a look again and logged all my duplicate finds and the coverage is still rather poor.

I only managed to log 4 caches out of the 1600 that i have found, and if it continues at this rate i think it will totally die off.

But i think it has pushed GC on a bit, i am fairly sure that opencaching was responsible for the Favourites being added.

What does everyone else feel about it now that the dust is starting to settle?

Link to comment
Thought i bump this back up to see how everyone else feels about it.

 

I remain open minded, but then I have the greatest number of finds for a UK cacher on TerraCaching, NaviCaching and OpenCaching UK, so I'm well used to using other listing sites. For the avoidance of doubt that last one is opencaching.org.uk, not the new Garmin one, who have caused great confusion by using the same name as OpenCaching sites that had already been running for a long time.

 

So far I haven't either hidden or found any on the new Garmin site, but that may change. Or it may not.

 

But i think it has pushed GC on a bit, i am fairly sure that opencaching was responsible for the Favourites being added.

What does everyone else feel about it now that the dust is starting to settle?

You may be right, but probably not in the way you meant. I think Groundspeak probably were working on it before the Garmin site started up shop, but it is likely they copied it from other exisiting sites (for example, the original OpenCaching sites, which have had both a cache rating system and favourites since day 1). I think the impetus to do it probably came from Groundspeak users requests, and they looked at alternatives and decided this was a good way to do it.

 

I certainly have no complaints if they did copy it (and it is identical to the OpenCaching system) - it's a good feature in my view.

 

Rgds, Andy

Edited by Amberel
Link to comment

But i think it has pushed GC on a bit, i am fairly sure that opencaching was responsible for the Favourites being added.

 

I can assure you that Groundspeak's recent development of GC.com was not prompted by OC.com and has been on the cards for quite some time. The changes they've made required a lot more development time than the month or so that actually passed between OC.com opening it's doors and the GC.com site upgrade.

 

I admit the timing looks suspicious so I can see where your assumption comes from, but it is just a major coincidence.

 

If there is something you've seen on another site that you'd like to see here please post a topic in the feedback forum and it will be given serious consideration.

 

Paul

Geohatter

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

Link to comment

Anyway, back on topic.

 

My personal feelings about it are that Garmin made a mistake in releasing the beta version of the site the the global audience.

 

By doing this they created a flurry of activity that quickly died when people realised that the current incarnation wasn't the complete site and was full of bugs.

 

They will now have to do something spectacular with the release of the full, all singing all dancing version to get the committed membership they need.

Link to comment

My personal feelings about it are that Garmin made a mistake in releasing the beta version of the site the the global audience.

 

By doing this they created a flurry of activity that quickly died when people realised that the current incarnation wasn't the complete site and was full of bugs.

Indeed, I entirely agree with you. Maybe Groundspeak should take careful note and learn from it, as they are pretty shocking in this regard themselves. The worst of all was Wherigo, of course, where we had the comment from the programmers "we know it's full of bugs but we just want to get people using it" !!!

 

My own major concern about the Garmin site is the cross listing. Most of the sites, apart from TerraCaching, do permit cross-listing but don't encourage it. Garmin have gone for what I call "aggressive cross-listing", i.e. they positively encourage it, e.g. by providing import facilities for found queries.

 

In think the advantages of this are all very short term, and in time I think the way they have done it will cause them all sorts of problems. In the long term each site needs its own unique caches.

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to comment

A couple of caches within driving distance, if I'm ever over that way.

 

Quite interested in the potential to rectify some (what I consider) wasted opportunities though.

 

For example, there is a small (6 acre) Nature Reserve/Dog Walking/General nice area near me that has a cache in it.

 

Its a blooming film cannister, covered in a couple of dead twigs at the bottom of the largest man-made object in the park - what a waste of a cracking location.

 

The potential to hid a cache by one of the many paths through one of the many copses is there but has been forsaken out of what I can only consider is laziness!

 

I've already contacted the chair of the reserve and they're quite happy for me to put a "proper" cache in there. Once I've finished my prototype testing I shall be putting a "cunning cache" on Opencaching.

 

Hopefully all will be happy, those that like film cannisters and those that like to find something a bit more meaty.

 

Will see how it goes, but if a few more people do it things may move along...

 

C

Link to comment
Indeed, I entirely agree with you. Maybe Groundspeak should take careful note and learn from it, as they are pretty shocking in this regard themselves. The worst of all was Wherigo, of course, where we had the comment from the programmers "we know it's full of bugs but we just want to get people using it" !!!

 

It's interesting to note where the first hint/mention of Wherigo was made. And it wasn't by Groundspeak. There was a sort of situation of being thrown in at the deep end. Seems history is repeating its self.

 

Deci

Link to comment
It's interesting to note where the first hint/mention of Wherigo was made. And it wasn't by Groundspeak. There was a sort of situation of being thrown in at the deep end. Seems history is repeating its self.

 

Deci

I can only assume you mean Garmin mentioned it first in connection with Wherigo on their hand helds? Whether they did or not was no excuse for Groundspeak releasing the PPC version in such an atrocious state. TWICE it crashed in such a horrible way that it required a factory reset, and 4 hours (each time) or reinstalling all my applications and data. I have still, to this date, never managed to complete a Wherigo on any of my PPCs without it crashing the machine (though subsequently requiring only a warm reset, fortunately).

 

But we have strayed off topic. It would have been better for Garmin to have got the software sorted out using a beta test programme before making it an open release. Once you have a reputation for buggy software it's very hard to shake it off.

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to comment

I can only assume you mean Garmin mentioned it first in connection with Wherigo on their hand helds? Whether they did or not was no excuse for Groundspeak releasing the PPC version in such an atrocious state. TWICE it crashed in such a horrible way that it required a factory reset, and 4 hours (each time) or reinstalling all my applications and data. I have still, to this date, never managed to complete a Wherigo on any of my PPCs without it crashing the machine (though subsequently requiring only a warm reset, fortunately).

 

But we have strayed off topic. It would have been better for Garmin to have got the software sorted out using a beta test programme before making it an open release. Once you have a reputation for buggy software it's very hard to shake it off.

 

Rgds, Andy

I created a Wherigo using the beta software some years ago (it was the first Wherigo in Europe). It wasn't perfect software but not too bad, and I had good feedback (it was about 25 stages with several characters to meet, many photos, sounds, items to collect and puzzles to solve). Unfortunately GS rewrote the whole Wherigo system and released it without reference to beta testers like me. I couldn't even convert my very elaborate Wherigo to the new version so gave up on it.

 

The relevant point being, that GS did considerable beta testing on Wherigo.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment
My own major concern about the Garmin site is the cross listing. Most of the sites, apart from TerraCaching, do permit cross-listing but don't encourage it. Garmin have gone for what I call "aggressive cross-listing", i.e. they positively encourage it, e.g. by providing import facilities for found queries.

A little digging reveals that Garmin is deliberately attempting to target cross-listing from exactly one other site, namely Geocaching.com, as shown by the following "features":

- If you import a GPX file from Geocaching.com, GC12345 becomes OX12345 and GC6789 becomes OX6789. There's a one-to-one, no-questions-asked mapping. That's great, until you import a GPX file from another site, in which case TC6789 (say) becomes OX6789 (or, if GC6789 has already been imported, the TC import fails).

- If you retype your cache by hand, you can say "this is cross-listed" and it asks for the original number. At that point, anything that doesn't start with GC is ignored. You simply can't cross-list TC/OC/NC caches this way.

 

The OX site is so full of bugs it needs fumigating. (Just for fun, while messing around with the GPX import, I managed to create a cache with an 8-digit OX code, for example.) That wouldn't be so quite bad if it also wasn't missing some rather elementary features such as putting photos in a cache listing, usable additional waypoints, e-mail notification of new logs, the ability to delete a log, etc.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...