c:geo

[Kawana]

I'm not trying to argue accuracy of a phone or a gpsr. I read in another topic that using c:geo is a violation of the TOU. My question "Is it?" Why would someone put out an app that would make one violate the TOU of another website? If it is a violation, what exactly is the issue? I just want to make sure I'm on the up and up. I just discovered c:geo and I think it's cool, but if I'm violating the TOU by using it, I have to reconsider. Thanks for the help.

[+dakboy]

I read in another topic that using c:geo is a violation of the TOU. My question "Is it?"

Groundspeak says it is, therefore it is. There are portions of the TOU which IMHO are intentionally vague so that they can be applied flexibly. Also, the app directly competes with Groundspeak's own $10 smartphone app (doing a number of things better than it, from what I've heard), and they don't like that.

If it is a violation, what exactly is the issue? I just want to make sure I'm on the up and up. I just discovered c:geo and I think it's cool, but if I'm violating the TOU by using it, I have to reconsider.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx

You agree that you will not use any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access the Site for any purpose without our express written permission.

c:geo is considered an "automated means" for the purposes of geocaching.com Edited March 22, 2011 by dakboy

[+Bullygoat29]

 

5. Access and Interference

Much of the information on the Site is updated on a real time basis and is proprietary or is licensed to Groundspeak by our users or third parties. You agree that you will not use any robot' date=' spider, [/color']scraper or other automated means to access the Site for any purpose without our express written permission. Additionally, you agree that you will not: (a) take any action that imposes, or may impose in our sole discretion an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on our infrastructure; or ( interfere or attempt to interfere with the proper working of the Site or any activities conducted on the Site or other measures we may use to prevent or restrict access to the Site.

 

 

 

I bolded and colored red why c:geo violates the TOU.

 

[NordicMan]

I think any app that requires you to enter your Geocaching "userid & password" is probably guilty of this TOS violation, other than of course the officially sanctioned apps. The app uses your Geocaching credentials to do it's grabbing/scraping.

 

Maybe consider that as your test to know if "your app" is OK?

[+Walts Hunting]

Kind of surprised this topic is still around. It wasn't log ago that just mentioning this app in a posting would get it edited by a moderator and a warning. Guess they have given up that.

 

I have tried it and went over to the official GS app which more than meets my needs and supports the website that has the info I want.

[jholly]

I think any app that requires you to enter your Geocaching "userid & password" is probably guilty of this TOS violation, other than of course the officially sanctioned apps. The app uses your Geocaching credentials to do it's grabbing/scraping.

 

Maybe consider that as your test to know if "your app" is OK?

Did you stop and think that maybe the official app accesses the information in a different manner than the scraping that c:geo does? Just perhaps, maybe, could be, that the official app uses the API that has be available for trusted partners for some time. Since c:geo is not a trusted partner the author choose to ignore the TOU and effectively put all his users at risk.

[NordicMan]

Yes I know that jholly, in fact I state in my post that the official apps are to be excluded from my comment.

[robertlipe]

Kind of surprised this topic is still around. It wasn't log ago that just mentioning this app in a posting would get it edited by a moderator and a warning. Guess they have given up that.

 

True. Groundspeak decided that the buzz of censorship was drawing more attention to this scraper than allowing it to be called out as a violation of the site's TOU.

[+LukeTrocity]

Buy the official app. From what I hear one day it will work properly!

[+dakboy]

True. Groundspeak decided that the buzz of censorship was drawing more attention to this scraper than allowing it to be called out as a violation of the site's TOU.

See also: Streisand Effect

[Kawana]

I think any app that requires you to enter your Geocaching "userid & password" is probably guilty of this TOS violation, other than of course the officially sanctioned apps. The app uses your Geocaching credentials to do it's grabbing/scraping.

 

Maybe consider that as your test to know if "your app" is OK?

See, I thought that made things ok, but I guess not.

 

Buy the official app. From what I hear one day it will work properly!

 

I guess I will, but I hope the bad reviews start turning into positive ones at some point. That, and the $10 price point kept me away but if the one I have is illegal, I'll stop.

 

Thanks everyone for the info, I just found that app on Sunday, and I thought, "This is too good to be true." I guess it was.

[+Bosn Ski]

I think any app that requires you to enter your Geocaching "userid & password" is probably guilty of this TOS violation, other than of course the officially sanctioned apps. The app uses your Geocaching credentials to do it's grabbing/scraping.

 

Maybe consider that as your test to know if "your app" is OK?

See, I thought that made things ok, but I guess not.

 

Buy the official app. From what I hear one day it will work properly!

 

I guess I will, but I hope the bad reviews start turning into positive ones at some point. That, and the $10 price point kept me away but if the one I have is illegal, I'll stop.

 

Thanks everyone for the info, I just found that app on Sunday, and I thought, "This is too good to be true." I guess it was.

Me too...

[+TXHooligans]

I have them both and really most always use the official app. it works well especailly since i have gps status as radar.

 

in the beginning it was lacking.. geobeagle was way better.. now it is much more polished but still has a wayyyyys to go.

 

here is what cgeo has that is great:

 

live map

keyword search

 

as soon as the official app gets these.. i will uninstall cgeo. i have faith it will happen.

[Kawana]

For those that have the Android version, if I switch phones, will I be forced to buy the app again? That would not be cool.

[Kawana]

Also, I emailed the developer of the rogue app and he said everything is cool. In fact his exact words were

 

"Hi,no. c:geo is not violating anything. In addition I change some e-mails with Groundspeak to clarify this... and they see no problem in c:geo and sometimes they're supporting me. Even when they blocks c:geo's name on their forums."

 

Not sure what that last part is supposed to mean, but he seems to think there's not a problem.

[+TXHooligans]

Itd be nice to hear that from Groundspeak. It would help my consience....a little.

[+dfx]

I'd say it depends on the use case. Most functions of c:geo simply work like a browser with a greasemonkey script on steroids. You switch to a certain screen, say a cache listing, it requests the listing off the website, reformats it and then displays it. That's no different than a regular web browser with a highly tailored greasemonkey script.

 

Other functions like the live map definitely make automated requests to the page and so violate the TOU.

[+dakboy]

I'd say it depends on the use case. Most functions of c:geo simply work like a browser with a greasemonkey script on steroids. You switch to a certain screen, say a cache listing, it requests the listing off the website, reformats it and then displays it. That's no different than a regular web browser with a highly tailored greasemonkey script.

Depending upon your interpretation of the TOU, some of the Greasemonkey scripts (or Chrome extensions) a lot of people are using would also be in violation (especially the "view all logs" one - it requests the cache page with all logs shown in the background, then inserts them into the currently-loaded page). It may have even been implied in a discussion of those scripts that they violate the TOU.

[+dfx]

Depending upon your interpretation of the TOU, some of the Greasemonkey scripts (or Chrome extensions) a lot of people are using would also be in violation (especially the "view all logs" one - it requests the cache page with all logs shown in the background, then inserts them into the currently-loaded page). It may have even been implied in a discussion of those scripts that they violate the TOU.

 

True, but the fact that Groundspeak never took any action against any of the greasemonkey scripts tells me that they're ok. At least that's the logical conclusion one would have to draw from that, but it doesn't mean anything really...

[+LukeTrocity]

For those that have the Android version, if I switch phones, will I be forced to buy the app again? That would not be cool.

 

No its linked to the google account you bought it with.

[+dakboy]

Depending upon your interpretation of the TOU, some of the Greasemonkey scripts (or Chrome extensions) a lot of people are using would also be in violation (especially the "view all logs" one - it requests the cache page with all logs shown in the background, then inserts them into the currently-loaded page). It may have even been implied in a discussion of those scripts that they violate the TOU.

 

True, but the fact that Groundspeak never took any action against any of the greasemonkey scripts tells me that they're ok. At least that's the logical conclusion one would have to draw from that, but it doesn't mean anything really...

 

The Greasemonkey traffic is indistinguishable from regular web browser traffic, so they really can't take action against it. Except in cases where large numbers of requests are generated very rapidly.

Edited March 23, 2011 by dakboy

[+dfx]

The Greasemonkey traffic is indistinguishable from regular web browser traffic, so they really can't take action against it. Except in cases where large numbers of requests are generated very rapidly.

 

Oh, I meant in the form of censoring forums posts, banning users using the scripts, things like that. I know they can't actually block the scripts, in the same way they can't block c:geo itself.

[+dakboy]

Oh, I meant in the form of censoring forums posts, banning users using the scripts, things like that. I know they can't actually block the scripts, in the same way they can't block c:geo itself.

robertlipe already addressed that above. Better to ignore it than to draw attention to it by taking those actions.

 

Plus, there are some high-profile people on the forums who've been writing those Greasemonkey scripts, and taking action against their work would probably result in a big community backlash.

Edited March 23, 2011 by dakboy

[NordicMan]

The Greasemonkey traffic is indistinguishable from regular web browser traffic, so they really can't take action against it. Except in cases where large numbers of requests are generated very rapidly.

 

Oh, I meant in the form of censoring forums posts, banning users using the scripts, things like that. I know they can't actually block the scripts, in the same way they can't block c:geo itself.

Groundspeak "could" set up some subtle web format change to take place automatically weekly, couldn't they? Some sort of change that would hardly be noticed by traditional users but would schmucker a scraper like C:Geo? Just wonderin

[+TXHooligans]

i have wondered that myself...

 

i do know that cgeo and other apps are updated with a much greater frequencey than i have seen with the official app which has no name....

[+northernpenguin]

For those that have the Android version, if I switch phones, will I be forced to buy the app again? That would not be cool.

 

Nope. Apps are tied to your Google account. You can burn through as many Android phones as you'd like.

Now, if you switch to another ecosystem - iOS, Blackberry, Windows Phone - then you'll have to buy the app (or another app) again.

[jholly]

Oh, I meant in the form of censoring forums posts, banning users using the scripts, things like that. I know they can't actually block the scripts, in the same way they can't block c:geo itself.

robertlipe already addressed that above. Better to ignore it than to draw attention to it by taking those actions.

 

Plus, there are some high-profile people on the forums who've been writing those Greasemonkey scripts, and taking action against their work would probably result in a big community backlash.

None of the GM scripts scrap the site. Far as I know all of them work on the local browser changing the way the browser displays the information. I have not checked the details of the All Logs script, but it certainly does not scrap the site.

[+dakboy]

Oh, I meant in the form of censoring forums posts, banning users using the scripts, things like that. I know they can't actually block the scripts, in the same way they can't block c:geo itself.

robertlipe already addressed that above. Better to ignore it than to draw attention to it by taking those actions.

 

Plus, there are some high-profile people on the forums who've been writing those Greasemonkey scripts, and taking action against their work would probably result in a big community backlash.

None of the GM scripts scrap the site. Far as I know all of them work on the local browser changing the way the browser displays the information. I have not checked the details of the All Logs script, but it certainly does not scrap the site.

Depends upon your definition of "scrape". IIRC it retrieves the cache page with all logs behind the scenes, then reprocesses that HTML to insert the relevant portion into the page you have loaded already. If you pull up a cache with 200 logs on it, all 200 are not present in the page that you initially load - you have to get them via a second request.

 

Which really isn't much different from any other application acting as a web browser, requesting a page & reformatting it to display differently.

[+Sausage!]

Here's the deal, and how I'm interpreting the ToS. If c:geo is making just HTTP requests, then it's acting as a web browser, and its requests from the site are using it as intended. As long as the functions of the application don't go above/beyond the capabilities of the web browser interface, you can't say it's doing something that violates the terms, because then every web browser is violating the terms.

 

What I don't understand is why members of the community (read: not Groundspeak employees) insist on making statements and conjecture when there isn't an official statement. Considering the email discussion I've had with the app developer, the unwritten, unofficial statement is c:geo is okay.

 

I could just as well say Firefox is violating the terms of service, and my claim has as much validity without and supporting proof as those people making a pariah of c:geo.

[+dakboy]

What I don't understand is why members of the community (read: not Groundspeak employees) insist on making statements and conjecture when there isn't an official statement. Considering the email discussion I've had with the app developer, the unwritten, unofficial statement is c:geo is okay.

 

That's the problem. Groundspeak used to make a point of stating that the app violates the TOU. Now they ignore the app entirely. Are they ignoring it only to prevent the Streisand Effect (see robertlipe's post above), or is the app no longer in violation of the TOU? We're in limbo here. If it's now operating within the TOU, why haven't they made a public statement to that effect - perhaps just because it's a direct competitor to their own application?

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Here's the deal, and how I'm interpreting the ToS. If c:geo is making just HTTP requests, then it's acting as a web browser, and its requests from the site are using it as intended. As long as the functions of the application don't go above/beyond the capabilities of the web browser interface, you can't say it's doing something that violates the terms, because then every web browser is violating the terms.

 

What I don't understand is why members of the community (read: not Groundspeak employees) insist on making statements and conjecture when there isn't an official statement. Considering the email discussion I've had with the app developer, the unwritten, unofficial statement is c:geo is okay.

 

I could just as well say Firefox is violating the terms of service, and my claim has as much validity without and supporting proof as those people making a pariah of c:geo.

Saw this in forming in your argument discussion in the other thread about the same thing.

 

GS says this; you had discussion with developer and he says this. It is GS' site, they say it's a violation of the TOS (yes, they do). Where is your argument?

 

(Won't say more. No, I won't. I won't.)

[+dfx]

Here's the deal, and how I'm interpreting the ToS. If c:geo is making just HTTP requests, then it's acting as a web browser, and its requests from the site are using it as intended. As long as the functions of the application don't go above/beyond the capabilities of the web browser interface, you can't say it's doing something that violates the terms, because then every web browser is violating the terms.

 

What I don't understand is why members of the community (read: not Groundspeak employees) insist on making statements and conjecture when there isn't an official statement. Considering the email discussion I've had with the app developer, the unwritten, unofficial statement is c:geo is okay.

 

I could just as well say Firefox is violating the terms of service, and my claim has as much validity without and supporting proof as those people making a pariah of c:geo.

 

Like I said above, at least some functions of c:geo violate the TOU without any doubt. The live map fits every aspect of their description of a scraper, there's no question about that.

 

The only question that remains is: does that make the whole application the "automated means" to access the site, or is it only when you're actually using the live map? That's up for interpretation, but you can probably guess what Groundspeak's answer would be.

[Pup Patrol]

Kind of surprised this topic is still around. It wasn't log ago that just mentioning this app in a posting would get it edited by a moderator and a warning. Guess they have given up that.

 

True. Groundspeak decided that the buzz of censorship was drawing more attention to this scraper than allowing it to be called out as a violation of the site's TOU.

 

Could someone please unlock this thread in the "Getting Started" forum, so that the newbie can get some help?

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=270863

[NordicMan]

What part of briansnat's response didn't you understand?

[+dakboy]

What part of briansnat's response didn't you understand?

The part where there are mixed messages from moderators. robertlipe posted in this very thread that Groundspeak decided it was counterproductive to censor posts and call out the app as violating the TOU. briansnat has done the exact opposite - he's called out that app as a violator and locked the topic, preventing discussion.

 

And then the part where there is no official message from GS lackeys.

 

From the discussion in this thread alone, it's apparent that there are at least 3 possibilities for what's going on.

1. The application violates the TOU across the board. Using it or even mentioning it in any fashion is a violation.
2. Portions of the app violate the TOU. But those portions haven't been disclosed. Nor is it apparent what the implications are of using the non-violating portions.
3. The app is free & clear of direct TOU violations, but Groundspeak doesn't endorse it and because it directly competes with their own app, they don't want it discussed.

[+Sausage!]

Saw this in forming in your argument discussion in the other thread about the same thing.

 

GS says this; you had discussion with developer and he says this. It is GS' site, they say it's a violation of the TOS (yes, they do). Where is your argument?

 

(Won't say more. No, I won't. I won't.)

As far as I can find, there's nothing written anywhere about c:geo being a ToS violation other than other geocachers who keep telling me it is. Nobody has even proven the fact that the thing requests information off of the page in any manner different than an HTTP web browser.

 

My argument is that I keep hearing, "It's a violation, it's a violation! You could get banned for using it!" but I have information that contradicts that. I'm looking for serious clarification, not "don't use it because they said so".

[Pup Patrol]

What part of briansnat's response didn't you understand?

 

I understood Briansnat's response.

 

I'm pretty darned sure the newbie wouldn't.

 

slatergeneral's post in the "Getting Started" forum:

 

Posted Yesterday, 12:21 AM

Any help please, when I try to do log entry from my droid x I get message "Sorry c:geo can't load data required to log visit"

I would like to be able to log from the field

 

Went online from desktop and loged my visit, how long till it shows on the cache logbook?

 

I do a search for an area that may be 100 miles away, I find caches, I click the map icon and it takes me back to my location???

 

Why does live map not let me move map, keeps going back to my locaction, can only zoom in or out, whats up with that

 

Briansnat's reply:

 

Posted Yesterday, 07:14 AM

c: geo is not a geocaching.com approved application and using it violates the terms of use of this website. You will need to find your answer elsewhere. Perhaps contact the author.

 

robertlipe's post in this thread:

 

Posted 22 March 2011 - 12:24 PM

True. Groundspeak decided that the buzz of censorship was drawing more attention to this scraper than allowing it to be called out as a violation of the site's TOU.

 

What part of the confliction between moderator responses don't you understand?

[+geodarts]

As far as I can find, there's nothing written anywhere about c:geo being a ToS violation other than other geocachers who keep telling me it is. Nobody has even proven the fact that the thing requests information off of the page in any manner different than an HTTP web browser.

 

This thread quotes Elias as saying:

 

Using an application like c:geo which accesses the geocaching.com website in the manner that it does violates our Terms of Use Agreement and Groundspeak does not authorize such activity.

 

It is true that c:geo uses the HTTP protocol on port 80, but that's as close to a web browser as it gets. c:geo queries the site in a manner very differently from a person sitting behind a web browser. It's also telling that the author of c:geo chose to add an option: "identify c:geo as a standard browser" so as to hide its identity from our servers.

 

Groundspeak provides a number of features and services to both basic and premium members for the purpose of Geocaching. Access to the Geocaching.com website via c:geo is not one of them.

Edited March 24, 2011 by mulvaney

[+TXHooligans]

enough said.

 

please go to the feedback sight and request/vote for the live map.

[+TXHooligans]

it has a planned status now... cross your fingers!

[+Sausage!]

As far as I can find, there's nothing written anywhere about c:geo being a ToS violation other than other geocachers who keep telling me it is. Nobody has even proven the fact that the thing requests information off of the page in any manner different than an HTTP web browser.

 

This thread quotes Elias as saying:

 

Using an application like c:geo which accesses the geocaching.com website in the manner that it does violates our Terms of Use Agreement and Groundspeak does not authorize such activity.

 

It is true that c:geo uses the HTTP protocol on port 80, but that's as close to a web browser as it gets. c:geo queries the site in a manner very differently from a person sitting behind a web browser. It's also telling that the author of c:geo chose to add an option: "identify c:geo as a standard browser" so as to hide its identity from our servers.

 

Groundspeak provides a number of features and services to both basic and premium members for the purpose of Geocaching. Access to the Geocaching.com website via c:geo is not one of them.

Thanks, I appreciate it the effort in finding the thread. I was wondering about the actual technology behind it.

[Bazcacher]

If there is a problem with CGEO surely the answer is to develop a better app and the problem will go away. I have the paid for Geocaching App from Groundspeak and the CGEO app. I use the free one mostly because its better. Well, I found it to be for me.

 

Do a deal with the developer and have them charge for a premium version of the app with a royalty to GS.

 

I like this newfound hobby since I got an Android and I haven't followed the politics but I am happy to pay for great tools, within reason. Happier with free tools but development is understandably slower although you wouldn't think it because I prefer the current free app, what does that say?

 

Am I wrong to be using CGEO ?