c:geo

[+Sky King 36]

C:GEO doesn't do anything until the user clicks on it...

...It doesn't go out every day or hour and fetch new pages...

What automated process doesn't start with an operator of the process pushing the "go button" to start it? If I push on a button once, and as a result of that one button press, a device repeats an action 30 times for me on my behalf... This is the very definition of automation. If I pull a trigger one time, and as a result of that trigger pull the weapon fires 30 bullets, that is absolutely and unequivocally an automatic weapon.

 

I have never seen ANY definition of automation that suggests that in order to be "automated", a process must initiate itself without user intervention. I have never seen ANY definition of automation suggests that in order to constitute being automated, the process being automated must span several hours or several days.

[+pppingme]

How live maps work:

 

Look at a page such as:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?lat=34.1&lng=-99.9&f=1&dist=10

 

Then (if I'm remembering correctly, I should probably look at the source code again) pulls the loc for that page.

 

{site usage ends here}

 

Now present it graphically instead of textually (again, enhanced browser) using maps and overlaying icons that are all from NON gc/gs sources.

 

Where's the automated part? None of this happens until the user taps the screen for the spot they want to see.

 

Its simply presenting it differently, its not touching the gc maps at all, its simply using the same link almost every one of us uses every day, and presenting it in a graphical format.

 

How many of us haven't grabbed an loc from a page and imported it into some mapping program? Why is this different? The only difference I see is that someone in Seattle seems to have a grudge against the original c:geo author, and somehow this makes c:geo the bad guy.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

C:GEO doesn't do anything until the user clicks on it...

...It doesn't go out every day or hour and fetch new pages...

What automated process doesn't start with an operator of the process pushing the "go button" to start it? If I push on a button once, and as a result of that one button press, a device repeats an action 30 times for me on my behalf... This is the very definition of automation. If I pull a trigger one time, and as a result of that trigger pull the weapon fires 30 bullets, that is absolutely and unequivocally an automatic weapon.

 

I have never seen ANY definition of automation that suggests that in order to be "automated", a process must initiate itself without user intervention. I have never seen ANY definition of automation suggests that in order to constitute being automated, the process being automated must span several hours or several days.

 

Here's another example. There is a GSAK macro available that will create a route from a list of caches. In the macro discussion pages there was a request that the limit of caches which can be used to make up the route be increased. The creator followed up and explained why it would not be increased. In order to create a route with 50 caches, it required over 2400 queries against the Groundspeak API. Increase the number of caches to 100 and it would take something like 9900 queries to create the route, which almost exceeds the quota for a 24 hour period. In this case, the click of a single button could launch thousands of requests on the server, so the creator of the code did the responsible thing and put limits it to prevent that from happening. I have no idea how many queries the c:geo live maps feature takes but, the fact that the app can be configured to make it look like those requests are coming from a browser rather than an automated process just comes across to me that c:geo is trying to fool the Groundspeak servers so that it can get away with doing something it really shouldn't be doing.

[+The Real Boudica.]

Genuine question.

 

"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."

 

If you just used it with PQ's for cache pages and not the live map would that solve the scraping argument as you are not using a robot etc even if the app can?

 

Doesn't address the issue that the live map is the feature most would like to see on the official app that might stop many using c:geo but.....

Edited November 1, 2011 by The Real Boudica.

[+The Real Boudica.]

I also downloaded the new manual for the app yesterday, its much clearer than the old one and quite humourous too It also has clear instructions for newbies on logging finds & trackables, different types of logs including when NM & NA logs should be used etc which might help clear up some of the issues with smartphone loggers (if they read it of course)

[+B+L]

There is simply no "automated" accessing of the gc site, anywhere.

Autostarting is not a necessary precondition for something to be automated. Another example of automation is if you have a list of caches stored in c:geo and you "Refresh all". By your definition, I could write a script to scrape the entire geocaching.com site, but it would not be automated because I had to run the script from the command line before it would do anything.

 

If you wanted to argue that that there are some questions about the enforceability of the TOU, you would be on somewhat firmer ground.

 

[+GeoBain]

C:GEO doesn't do anything until the user clicks on it (well, more technically taps the screen), it doesn't do anything on its own, it doesn't do anything without being asked, where's the "AUTOMATED" that everyone keeps quoting?

 

ITS NOT THERE.

 

It doesn't go out every day or hour and fetch new pages, it can't, there's nothing in the code to do that.

 

At no point, and there is nothing in the code, will it ever go to the gc site without the user explicitly tapping the screen.

 

There is simply no "automated" accessing of the gc site, anywhere.

 

An automated car wash doesn't do anything until I hit a button either.

 

Gotta come up with a better argument than that.

[+pppingme]

Gotta come up with a better argument than that.

Yeah, the fact that gs doesn't ban the word c:geo in the forums anymore, they've dropped their attitude with it, now why can't some users that are stuck in the past?

 

Oh, and I've already stated this.

[The_Hypnotoad]

All this talk has raised another question in my mind. Just how many people worldwide use this free app.

Official App from Groundspeak - Installs: 50,000 - 100,000

 

c:geo - opensource - Installs: 100,000 - 500,000

 

Of course that is only number of installs, not active users. But it seems "free" trumps "pay" even when it [marginally] violates the TOU.

Does that number for c:geo represent the original c:geo that was on the market. For a short time the original and the opensource were both on the market at the same time. Maybe they still are for all I know.

[Keystone]

Gotta come up with a better argument than that.

Yeah, the fact that gs doesn't ban the word c:geo in the forums anymore, they've dropped their attitude with it, now why can't some users that are stuck in the past?

 

Oh, and I've already stated this.

I wouldn't conclude anything from this point except that (1) it's awfully hard for the moderators, and frustrating for the community, to have discussions censored, (2) censorship possibly calls even more attention to the censored subject, so Groundspeak thought it better to allow discussion, and (3) Groundspeak wants the community to be happy and to go out and find geocaches... even if it means finding them with c:geo.

 

The fact that c:geo violates the TOU is entirely separate from the current treatment of c:geo as a forum discussion subject.

[+WarNinjas]

I don't really see it as hurting this site but see it as another tool for it. At the end of the day it is this site that I go to. I have paid for the GS app but often use the c:geo app as well and it helps me to find caches and there for keeps me interested in this site. There is probibly more then I see but I think it is a great service to have out there. Get people interested and then like me they might also buy the app here. Like said just go find some caches!

-WarNinjas

[AZcachemeister]

With all the evidence to the contrary that has been made available...

If there is so much evidence, surely there are links to this evidence that can be posted?

 

... Even GS has backed off there original stance.

They have? When? Cite references please.

 

It is not appropriate to claim "the facts side with me, while the rest of you have only anecdotes"... and then provide no facts and only anecdotes..

 

If you have independently verifiable evidence that c>geo does not screen scrape, or, that Groudspeak has indeed relented and now allows screen scraping under their TOU, post links so we can see who's claims are being based on facts and who's are based on anecdote.

 

The fact that this thread hasn't been closed is evidence enough...

[+geodarts]

The fact that this thread hasn't been closed is evidence enough...

 

It is only evidence that Groundspeak chooses not to make people refer to the "app that cannot be named" or repeatedly have to explain why discussion is not allowed. The last statement regarding the TOU that I am aware of was Jeremy's facebook post last summer:

 

"[The Developer] is well aware that the application violates our site's TOU, but instead of us trying to shut down his application we reached out. [and made the API available]"

This is consistent with every other statement Groundspeak has made regarding c:geo. It is true that Groundspeak seems to tolerate the app (at this point I am not sure how they could put the genie back in the bottle), but enforcement of the TOU and violation of the TOU are two different things.

Edited November 2, 2011 by geodarts

[+The Jester]

The fact that this thread hasn't been closed is evidence enough...

You might want to read Keystone's post two above yours. He said, in part:

The fact that c:geo violates the TOU is entirely separate from the current treatment of c:geo as a forum discussion subject.