Jump to content

What is wrong with c:geo?


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

I have heard in the past that the phone app c:geo is not to be used because of some violation of the TOS. Is this true? And what exactly is wrong with it if this is true? And also, what alternative apps can I use that are FREE for geocaching on my Android phone?

Not sure of what will be free on your phone that will work.

 

As for c:geo, there's not likely much help you're going to find by asking geocaching.com. If you perform a search of the forums, you can get caught up on the story.

 

Short of using your phone for the cache listing and entering the coords into a gps app and seeking that way, you're not going to have many options. I waited forever to get the official app, and I'm happy I finally got it. However, nothing beats my handheld GPS for getting to ground zero without issue.

 

ibtl

Link to comment

According to the geocaching.com terms of use, "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."

 

The c:geo app gets its data by scraping the web site, in violation of the TOU.

 

GeoBeagle is free. It works best with PQ data, but can also be used for spur-of-the-moment caching if you have a data connection.

 

Right now, my favorite app is Neongeo. It isn't free, but it's less than half the price of Groundspeak's Geocaching app. It works best for premium members, given the limitations the API places on basic members.

Link to comment

I have heard in the past that the phone app c:geo is not to be used because of some violation of the TOS. Is this true? And what exactly is wrong with it if this is true? And also, what alternative apps can I use that are FREE for geocaching on my Android phone?

 

That app has a couple of flavors. The first version uses a screen scraping mechanism by programmatically connecting to the site, requesting a a list of caches, then using the result to display caches on a map. Part of the problem was the way the app connected to the site. It had an option which allowed it's users to "spoof" the request so that it made it appear to groundspeaks site that it was coming from a browser, rather than an application that could be identified and "throttled" if the app started using up a lot of server resources. The original author and Groundspeak had a bit of a falling out over the issue so that author essentially abandoned the app and made it open source. There have been claims that the open source version does not violate the TOS but I'm not convinced that it doesn't as all I've seen are claims by some of it's users.

Link to comment

What's wrong with it? It's free. They don't like that. They want you to pay instead.

 

That's just a tad over-simplified.

 

Is it really? What do you think the reasoning behind that clause in the TOU is? Don't say server load, because that's not it.

Link to comment

What's wrong with it? It's free. They don't like that. They want you to pay instead.

 

That's just a tad over-simplified.

 

Is it really? What do you think the reasoning behind that clause in the TOU is? Don't say server load, because that's not it.

We don't know what the reasoning behind that clause is, and anything we come up with would be nothing but pure speculation, which doesn't get us anywhere.

Anyway, there's no cost associated with using the API, so your original statement is completely false. There are lots of apps and websites using the API that are completely free.

Link to comment

there's ways to get around c:geo's issues. Download the maps and store them on your SD card per the instructions on the site. Buy a premium membership, do pocket queries, and load them onto the phone. I do this because I don't have a data plan, and only use wi-fi for the phone's internet. I log my finds when I get home.

Edited by sholomar
Link to comment
Anyway, there's no cost associated with using the API, so your original statement is completely false. There are lots of apps and websites using the API that are completely free.

 

Really? When I search the market on my Android phone, I don't see any apps that are "completely free" and provide the same functionality.

Link to comment

What's wrong with it? It's free. They don't like that. They want you to pay instead.

 

That's just a tad over-simplified.

 

Is it really? What do you think the reasoning behind that clause in the TOU is? Don't say server load, because that's not it.

We don't know what the reasoning behind that clause is, and anything we come up with would be nothing but pure speculation, which doesn't get us anywhere.

 

 

It's because all of your cache data are belong to Groundspeak. Speculatively speaking, of course. :ph34r:

Link to comment

there's ways to get around c:geo's issues. Download the maps and store them on your SD card per the instructions on the site. Buy a premium membership, do pocket queries, and load them onto the phone. I do this because I don't have a data plan, and only use wi-fi for the phone's internet. I log my finds when I get home.

 

I am a PM, and I have tried one or 2 apps which will allow me to read my PQ's, but I like having the ability to log directly from the phone (the official app allowed me to do that on my old iPhone}

 

Also, wasn't there a "lite" version of the official app which only allowed you to see the 3 nearest caches to you?

Link to comment
There are lots of apps and websites using the API that are completely free.

 

Really? When I search the market on my Android phone, I don't see any apps that are "completely free" and provide the same functionality.

I didn't say anywhere in my post that there were Android apps that were equivalent to c:geo and free. I don't know where you got that from. All I said was that there are free apps using the API, contrary to what your earlier statement implied. There is no cost associated with using the API, so cost can't be the reason for the "no scraping" clause.

Link to comment
There are lots of apps and websites using the API that are completely free.

 

Really? When I search the market on my Android phone, I don't see any apps that are "completely free" and provide the same functionality.

I didn't say anywhere in my post that there were Android apps that were equivalent to c:geo and free. I don't know where you got that from. All I said was that there are free apps using the API, contrary to what your earlier statement implied. There is no cost associated with using the API, so cost can't be the reason for the "no scraping" clause.

 

I didn't say there was cost involved in using the API. I don't know where you got that from. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

:drama:

This show never gets old, no matter how many times I watch it.

 

It's usually a short show. :lol: I've never used this stupid thing. Would someone like to tell me what makes it so much better than the official App? Or is free the major factor? I do have the official App, but not on Droid.

Link to comment

Ooooh! Popcorn and donuts! I think I'll have some ice cream too! :mmraspberry:

 

I didn't say there was cost involved in using the API. I don't know where you got that from. :rolleyes:

Really? In referring to c:geo and the API terms of use, you said:

What's wrong with it? It's free. They don't like that. They want you to pay instead.

I was assuming by "they" you were referring to Groundspeak, but maybe you were instead referring to someone else. Can you please clarify what you were saying if it was not that Groundspeak wants you to pay them for use of the API?

 

And don't worry, Mr.Yuck, this show will probably wrap up soon. :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Here's the scoop.

 

With early versions, there was an issue with how it retrieved data. This is no longer an issue and Groundspeak no longer speaks against this app. To the "haters" that keep saying prove it, you have the source code, go look, it is an open source application (meaning anyone can look at and use the source code). The fact that Groundspeak used to have a very strong anti-c:geo attitude (even zapping messages in the forums that dare mention it) and they no longer do should speak volumes to their feeling on this issue.

 

Many people have asked why doesn't c:geo just use the API.

 

The truth to that answer is that Groundspeak is anti-open source. To use the API would require that c:geo would no longer be open source.

 

Here's the issue with the API, Groundspeak says that the key itself can not be given away, and if its in a program it has to be obscured (something that would be the case with most compiled programs anyway). The theory being, that if the API key "got out" it would just be a matter of time before everyone is giving it to each other. I'm not sure why they view this as an issue, since user credentials are still required to use the key. If a key were to "go rogue", the assumption is that Groundspeak would disable that key, which would disable any app that uses that key.

 

I have proposed many times that Groundspeak shift from an application based api key to a user based api key, this would resolve the whole key distribution issue that Groundspeak is against, and also offers additional security to their api keys, I've never seen a response from Groundspeak on this suggestion.

 

It seems pretty obvious that issuing "user" keys would eliminate this whole issue. If a key goes rogue, only one user is affected, not every user of a particular app.

 

As far as protecting the keys, it really wouldn't be that hard to extract a key from a working app, and I'm really surprised it hasn't happened yet (and I would bet that it probably has). What will be interesting is when any extracted keys start getting used in other applications, what will Groundspeak's reaction be? What if the rogue key is from their very own app? Would they disable it or try to keep it quiet?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Thanks Mrs. B for providing the link to that reply from Groundspeak.

It's worth printing. This is really good. I really appreciate knowing this stuff.

 

 

Groundspeak responds about C:geo

DateThursday, February 23, 2012 at 8:49AM

 

I have heard a number of people complain that Groundspeak personally is working to destroy other apps. Especially with this change in maps. It has bugged me because with my work as a moderator, and reviewer, Groundspeak has never mentioned doing anything to hurt another program. Even in the day when they asked me to moderate and pull non-geocaching.comapps out of forum listing. They were more worried about internal affairs then the work of others.

 

Today tBryan at Groundspeak posted this note to C:geo

 

At Groundspeak, we have been contacted by a number of users who are angry about the impact of recent geocaching.com site changes to C:Geo users. In the spirit of transparency, here is some additional information that will hopefully help clarify what happened:

 

For what it's worth, our decision to remove Google maps from our site had nothing to do with C:Geo. The loss of functionality from the Cgeo application was an unintended consequence of our site change and the site change was made out of necessity due to Google's new License fee policy for Map use. We simply removed the Google maps from the site and replaced them with Open Street Maps where our former Beta Maps existed. We didn't realize that it had affected C:Geo until we were told by customers, and we certainly didn't do it with any intent of harming the application or negatively affecting geocachers.

 

We have offered C:Geo (and many other developers in the geocaching community) a royalty free license to use our API for the purpose of building and maintaining their app. This means that we are not asking them for any money, and they are welcome to keep their app free or charge for it. If they choose to use the API, it is fully supported and we won't likely have any similar issues going forward when we make site changes. We currently have over 100 third party developers who are either testing the API or actively using it to develop applications for geocachers (see www.geocaching.com/live and scroll down for a list of active third party api-enabled applications, including other Android apps). The offer to C:Geo stands and we'd be happy to work with them going forward. I believe we can work with them to provide a variety of functions that will ultimately make C:Geo better and more stable (at least as far as geocaching.com site changes are concerned). There may be other issues with implementation but we are happy to work through them with developers. If you ask any of the other API-enabled developers, I believe they'd happily confirm this.

 

Although the API is provided royalty free for the developer, there are some usage limitations. The most notable one is that basic members are limited to viewing the full details of 3 traditional caches per day. Trackable functionality, viewing basic details or caches and other features are virtually unlimited. Hopefully the basic functionality is enough for users to get started geocaching. It also allows developers to innovate, using geocaching data, with no upfront cost from Groundspeak and a built in user base. Premium Members have almost unlimited access to all cache data from geocaching.com via the API, using any API-enabled applications that they own.

 

So, with this new API, one of the new benefits of a $30 Premium Membership is that all geocaching.com api-enabled apps (like those on the list referenced above, and many other third party apps currently in development) have full functionality for all Premium Members. A Premium Membership has been $30/year since we introduced it ten years ago. We have never raised the price and we have worked very hard to add value to it over the years. Hopefully you'll agree that having unlimited access to geocaching data through any application you choose would be worth the price of a Premium Membership. From our perspective, we believe we'd be providing you with fair value and you'd be helping to support geocaching.com and the associated API.

 

So, rather than crippling other apps and C:Geo, I believe that we have opened the door to enabling other apps with geocaching data. We believe that the results will ultimately benefit the global geocaching community, including users of C:Geo. Many third party developers seem to agree and we are excited to see what Geocaching API-enabled products and services they can build for everyone.

 

I hope this helps. Thanks again for your feedback.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bryan

 

I am sure many will not believe it, but he did put it out there. Groundspeak is more worried about making their site better, and making sure changes do not effect the API. There are some cool things coming out in the next few months, and I am sure they are trying to not "break" what is there when new things are rolled out.

 

My two cents worth...

 

c:geo does not use the API. It was their decision to make, and they made it. There is a consequence. Every time there is a site upgrade, programs that do not use the API are at risk of a complete crash, or breaking the software. That is the risk they take. Unfortunately Groundspeak gets the bad reputation for someone else pulling of maps or web pages, and gets the blame far more often than the program creators.

Update on Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 10:09AM by Registered Commenterfirennice

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Ok... to be clear, again... I believe this is the current state:

 

c:geo would use the API, and Groundspeak is not disallowing them to use the API just 'cuz.

 

Being open source is the one condition currently that Groundspeak is not shifting on, which means that as long as c:geo is open source, and as long as Groundspeak only offer App-based API keys, the difference is irreconcilable.

 

I don't use c:geo (I don't have an Android). But it seems now (as far as I understand it) site scraping is no longer an issue. It's simply a matter of difference in how the API is intended to be used, and how c:geo exists as open source. Neither themselves are inherently a Bad Thing, but in this case, they clash.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

What's wrong with it? It's free. They don't like that. They want you to pay instead.

 

That's just a tad over-simplified.

 

Is it really? What do you think the reasoning behind that clause in the TOU is? Don't say server load, because that's not it.

We don't know what the reasoning behind that clause is, and anything we come up with would be nothing but pure speculation, which doesn't get us anywhere.

Anyway, there's no cost associated with using the API, so your original statement is completely false. There are lots of apps and websites using the API that are completely free.

 

No, we don't know the full reasons why the clause is there but the wayback machine shows that same clause existed on June 10, 2004 (see paragraph 5), predating the existence of c:geo or any other Android or iPhone app.

Link to comment

Ok... to be clear, again... I believe this is the current state:

 

c:geo would use the API, and Groundspeak is not disallowing them to use the API just 'cuz.

 

Being open source is the one condition currently that Groundspeak is not shifting on, which means that as long as c:geo is open source, and as long as Groundspeak only offer App-based API keys, the difference is irreconcilable.

 

I don't use c:geo (I don't have an Android). But it seems now (as far as I understand it) site scraping is no longer an issue. It's simply a matter of difference in how the API is intended to be used, and how c:geo exists as open source. Neither themselves are inherently a Bad Thing, but in this case, they clash.

 

It is convenient for c:geo to claim it is because they are open source. But the real reason is that they can not offer the premium benefits for free. They say so in their response

 

What would change with the API?

 

- c:geo only for premium members

- no support for OpenCaching or other platforms than gc.com

- Groundspeak-ads

 

In order to get more than 3 caches worth of information you have to be a premium member. c:geo would rather scrape the site to get the premium benefits rather than tell their users their free app requires they need to buy a premium membership.

Link to comment

Regardless of the TOS issue, since Groundspeak has stopped using Google Maps, C:Geo's live map function has quit working, reducing it's effectiveness as a geocaching tool.

 

Does this mean C:Geo contributed to Groundspeaks total Google Maps API calls?

 

What's wrong with it? It's free. They don't like that. They want you to pay instead.

 

Well, if you're gonna put it like that., what's wrong with supporting a small business by buying their Android App?

Perhaps if there was more support from the community for the home grown app, maybe there would be more emphasis on optimizing and perfecting it for all platforms of Android. Which I understand is not an easy task.

Link to comment

:drama:

This show never gets old, no matter how many times I watch it.

 

It's usually a short show. :lol: I've never used this stupid thing. Would someone like to tell me what makes it so much better than the official App? Or is free the major factor? I do have the official App, but not on Droid.

 

Yah but by paying for the official app your an elitist snob like me. I see you're a premium member too, that's a double whammy.

Link to comment

good points

Or selective quoting that lacks context. It was not "they", but one dev and he had more to say:

 

But correct is, that we must stop scraping the site, but we also want to support basic members. We plan a connector interface so that third-party-developers can provide add-ons. Once this is done we want to outsource all external data sources into add-ons and create one that uses the API. We will not provide a scraping-add-on but I'm sure that somebody will do it. If this is ok for Groundspeak, everything will be fine.

Link to comment

 

It is convenient for c:geo to claim it is because they are open source. But the real reason is that they can not offer the premium benefits for free. They say so in their response

 

What would change with the API?

 

- c:geo only for premium members

- no support for OpenCaching or other platforms than gc.com

- Groundspeak-ads

 

In order to get more than 3 caches worth of information you have to be a premium member. c:geo would rather scrape the site to get the premium benefits rather than tell their users their free app requires they need to buy a premium membership.

Why do you continue to show hate toward an app and situation you obviously don't understand.

 

He listed a state of other things that would change by going to the API, but the ground issue is and still remains that Groundspeak won't issue a key for an open source program.

Link to comment

I have heard in the past that the phone app c:geo is not to be used because of some violation of the TOS. Is this true? And what exactly is wrong with it if this is true? And also, what alternative apps can I use that are FREE for geocaching on my Android phone?

 

You don't need no stinkin' graphical interface. Show that you're a real tough geocacher and use GC's WAP interface. :D

Link to comment
With early versions, there was an issue with how it retrieved data. This is no longer an issue and Groundspeak no longer speaks against this app. To the "haters" that keep saying prove it, you have the source code, go look, it is an open source application (meaning anyone can look at and use the source code).

 

I have looked at the source code. c:geo still obtains its information from the site by violating the TOS. Whether Groundspeak cares about that or not I do not know, but your claim that it does not scrape the site is categorically false.

Link to comment

What's wrong with it? It's free. They don't like that. They want you to pay instead.

 

That's just a tad over-simplified.

 

Is it really? What do you think the reasoning behind that clause in the TOU is? Don't say server load, because that's not it.

 

Scraping data from the site is all about bandwidth regardless if the TOU lays it out in those terms.

Link to comment

Since it has been shown many times in the forums that c:geo does not violate the TOU, there is no point in rehashing it. Some are gonna just believe what they want to regardless of facts. At least until it was handed over to the new developers, carnero maintained that he never received anything resembling a cease and desist.

 

However since some want to point out how it was totally on c;geo for not cooperating, I thought it might be good to hear the other side of the story. Finding carnero, the original developer, posts was difficult as he decided to completely wash his hands of it after handing it of, I did find the blog copied here. You will just have to take the posters word it was on the blog, as well as mine since I had read it there also. While the second half does show someone very angry, some facts outlined in the first half are very relevant.

 

"c:geo

Almost two years ago I bought an Android-powered phone. Back then, Android Market was like a small child. Cute, but incompetent. There were no geocaching apps to be found. I missed Windows Mobile's GCzII. So I've decided to write my own application to be able to go geocaching until there was some better application available. Also, Groundspeak was promising an official one. And they kept on promising for over a year.

 

English part will continue below. Cesky ctenar snad odpusti radoby-anglicky kus textu. Stale neni v mych silach napsat anglicky clanek tak, aby byl skutecne anglicky - coz napravil Case svou korekci. Jelikoz uzivatele c:geo jsou z 95% cizinci, spise prectou neco jako anglictinu nez cestinu.

 

During the c:geo development, I had to keep my eye on Groundspeak. They didn't like c:geo. Ive read their TOS many times and I saw some parts there with the potential to eventually kill c:geo. But the only thing I'd get from Groundspeak was "don't use our icons". Until two months ago they've never said c:geo is illegal from their point of view. They just tried to scare c:geo users away from using it, but they've never said to me anything close to "please, stop". I really don't like their attitude - they'd like nothing better than to make every living and breathing thing on Earth pay for their low-quality services and applications. Remember all those outages caused by the upgrades of some invisible text on their web? And it will be even worse now since they've decided to not allow pretty much anything to non-paying users. Yet they are still unable to introduce any useful improvements. It was pretty much the norm back in 1990, but today it's really outdated. Remember Facebook, Twitter, Google services, Flickr and any other service currently popular? For the most part, they bring very reasonable things to users for free and some of them add many cool bonus features if you're willing to pay a few bucks a year. They also have pretty good APIs from the very beginning. Groundspeak is spreading FUD for free and giving you unstable, ugly looking service for 30 bucks per year and then they're asking more money for their almost four-star application. They still don't have public API. And some rumors I've heard said that their public API will be "version 1", while their own applications will use "version 2". That means Groundspeak is probably trying to hold all the other apps back. Since they are not able to create a good application, they have to restrict everyone else from doing so. All those things don't sound reasonable to me. In short: I'm pissed off by Groundspeak's attitude. Also, one small addition: Because of my new job I don't have as much free time as I did before, so to spend it fighting with Groundspeak is really not that much fun."

Link to comment

Since it has been shown many times in the forums that c:geo does not violate the TOU, there is no point in rehashing it. Some are gonna just believe what they want to regardless of facts.

 

Unintentional irony FTW!

 

Really, if Geocaching.com had a true open API, would we be having this discussion? I mean have you ever heard of a site with a real open API, like Twitter, for example, accuse someone of "scraping" their site? Hello, 2002 called, they want the term "site scraping" back. :ph34r:

Link to comment

:drama:

This show never gets old, no matter how many times I watch it.

 

It's usually a short show. :lol: I've never used this stupid thing. Would someone like to tell me what makes it so much better than the official App? Or is free the major factor? I do have the official App, but not on Droid.

Just keeps getting better and better.

Link to comment

:drama:

This show never gets old, no matter how many times I watch it.

 

It's usually a short show. :lol: I've never used this stupid thing. Would someone like to tell me what makes it so much better than the official App? Or is free the major factor? I do have the official App, but not on Droid.

Just keeps getting better and better.

 

When does the new season start? Can I have some popcorn? I'll share my snowcone! :mmraspberry:

Link to comment

How about this...

 

On iOS, I favour Geosphere over Geocaching.

Geosphere doesn't scrape. And it doesn't use the API. It maintains its own offline database composed of GPX files and PQs (or manual data entry, were anyone to use it without premium membership).

There's no reason a good, quality 3rd party geocaching app can't exist on Android without use of the API and using the tools Groundspeak does provide, both for basic and premium members. It's all in how the developers decide to have their app work with geocaching.com. If basic members aren't provided certain features officially, then, really, what right is it of any developer to effectively 'stick it' to them and find ways around it, claiming they're "supporting basic members"?

 

Anyway... this is coming from past opinions, which are based on facts that are old and outdated. It sounds that much has changed with c:geo. My only point here now is that there's still all this drama - and the only legitimate reason I can see for its existence would be that the app is open source, and the API is incompatible with the open source mindset.

 

There's a fix both sides can employ to produce harmony. 1) Make an API that's open source friendly 2) Don't be open source 3) Make a good app that uses existing tools abiding by the TOU outlined by the provider.

Just sayin'... my 2p.

Link to comment

Does this mean C:Geo contributed to Groundspeaks total Google Maps API calls?

No.

 

Thanks, I was never sure about this. The only question I have about this then is, why did the c:geo maps "break" after gc.com move from Google to OSM. If c:geo was using their own method of accessing Google maps, it shouldn't have mattered what gc.com did.

 

...

During the c:geo development, I had to keep my eye on Groundspeak. They didn't like c:geo. Ive read their TOS many times and I saw some parts there with the potential to eventually kill c:geo. But the only thing I'd get from Groundspeak was "don't use our icons". Until two months ago they've never said c:geo is illegal from their point of view. They just tried to scare c:geo users away from using it, but they've never said to me anything close to "please, stop". I really don't like their attitude - they'd like nothing better than to make every living and breathing thing on Earth pay for their low-quality services and applications. Remember all those outages caused by the upgrades of some invisible text on their web? And it will be even worse now since they've decided to not allow pretty much anything to non-paying users. Yet they are still unable to introduce any useful improvements. It was pretty much the norm back in 1990, but today it's really outdated. Remember Facebook, Twitter, Google services, Flickr and any other service currently popular? For the most part, they bring very reasonable things to users for free and some of them add many cool bonus features if you're willing to pay a few bucks a year. They also have pretty good APIs from the very beginning. Groundspeak is spreading FUD for free and giving you unstable, ugly looking service for 30 bucks per year and then they're asking more money for their almost four-star application. They still don't have public API. And some rumors I've heard said that their public API will be "version 1", while their own applications will use "version 2". That means Groundspeak is probably trying to hold all the other apps back. Since they are not able to create a good application, they have to restrict everyone else from doing so. All those things don't sound reasonable to me. In short: I'm pissed off by Groundspeak's attitude. ...."

 

Wow, that just sounds like sour grapes to me. For a small Internet company I really don't see what Groundspeak did wrong. And, to put Groundspeak to Facebook, Twitter, and Google in the same services is pretty ludicrous. You might as well be comparing an independently owned, corner variety store with Wal-Mart, Dick's Sporting Goods and Best Buy.

Link to comment

Does this mean C:Geo contributed to Groundspeaks total Google Maps API calls?

No.

 

Thanks, I was never sure about this. The only question I have about this then is, why did the c:geo maps "break" after gc.com move from Google to OSM. If c:geo was using their own method of accessing Google maps, it shouldn't have mattered what gc.com did.

 

...

During the c:geo development, I had to keep my eye on Groundspeak. They didn't like c:geo. Ive read their TOS many times and I saw some parts there with the potential to eventually kill c:geo. But the only thing I'd get from Groundspeak was "don't use our icons". Until two months ago they've never said c:geo is illegal from their point of view. They just tried to scare c:geo users away from using it, but they've never said to me anything close to "please, stop". I really don't like their attitude - they'd like nothing better than to make every living and breathing thing on Earth pay for their low-quality services and applications. Remember all those outages caused by the upgrades of some invisible text on their web? And it will be even worse now since they've decided to not allow pretty much anything to non-paying users. Yet they are still unable to introduce any useful improvements. It was pretty much the norm back in 1990, but today it's really outdated. Remember Facebook, Twitter, Google services, Flickr and any other service currently popular? For the most part, they bring very reasonable things to users for free and some of them add many cool bonus features if you're willing to pay a few bucks a year. They also have pretty good APIs from the very beginning. Groundspeak is spreading FUD for free and giving you unstable, ugly looking service for 30 bucks per year and then they're asking more money for their almost four-star application. They still don't have public API. And some rumors I've heard said that their public API will be "version 1", while their own applications will use "version 2". That means Groundspeak is probably trying to hold all the other apps back. Since they are not able to create a good application, they have to restrict everyone else from doing so. All those things don't sound reasonable to me. In short: I'm pissed off by Groundspeak's attitude. ...."

 

Wow, that just sounds like sour grapes to me. For a small Internet company I really don't see what Groundspeak did wrong. And, to put Groundspeak to Facebook, Twitter, and Google in the same services is pretty ludicrous. You might as well be comparing an independently owned, corner variety store with Wal-Mart, Dick's Sporting Goods and Best Buy.

 

Lets see here, if I can word this post without a warning or forum ban. :P What Groundspeak did wrong? I would say the iron-fisted grip they have on our cache data, caches placed by us, the community. Now I know their all a pimple on the Butt of the 1,000 Lb. Gorilla, but all the alternative Geocaching websites tout themselves as being open with the cache data. Garmin has an open API, although I could care less, and will never use the site.

 

Yeah, Baloo threw out some big names, and I myself threw out Twitter. Just because they're well known, I suppose. I'm sure there a many like-sized examples out there of websites with open API.

 

Waiting for Sandy's email. Hey maybe since it's Sunday, she won't see it. :ph34r:

Link to comment

Here's the scoop.

 

With early versions, there was an issue with how it retrieved data. This is no longer an issue and Groundspeak no longer speaks against this app. To the "haters" that keep saying prove it, you have the source code, go look, it is an open source application (meaning anyone can look at and use the source code).

 

I wish that you, and others would stop referring to those that have a dissenting opinion about c:geo or any other controversial geocaching related topic as "haters". The term is derogatory and offensive. I *have* looked at the source code and have been an active developer and advocate of open source for many, many years. I have also expressed an opinion that I have not been completed convinced that the application fully complies with the Groundspeak TOU and all of it's policies but have no emotional attachment to the app whatsoever, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop characterizing me and others as "haters".

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I wish that you, and others would stop referring to those that have a dissenting opinion about c:geo or any other controversial geocaching related topic as "haters". The term is derogatory and offensive. I *have* looked at the source code and have been an active developer and advocate of open source for many, many years. I have also expressed an opinion that I have not been completed convinced that the application fully complies with the Groundspeak TOU and all of it's policies but have no emotional attachment to the app whatsoever, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop characterizing me and others as "haters".

 

I stand with you regarding the "hater" comments and do not understand why they are used.

 

Some facts that are being left out is the original developer contacted GS several times. The only response he ever received was that the icons were at issue which he changed to comply. When he inquired about the API after it was announced, he got no response.

 

This is GS sandbox. They are entitled to do what they want and if that is to not offer a platform for discussion or endorsement of competing apps, that is their call and prerogative and should be respected. The issue I have is how they went about it.

 

Since it has been shown repeatedly that the app does not violate the ToU and that the original author was never approached (his words) to stop the software, the question needs to be asked why would GS have an issue.

 

Were I GS, the issue would be that I do not allow basic members the ability to DL several caches at a time. Limiting the access does not prohibit the access to the information, just makes it more cumbersome to obtain thus making the PM more appealing. Makes sense and is a compromise that allows Jeremy Irish's original statement that GC would always be free to stay intact and true. c:geo allowed the access via their Live Map feature, however I can't imagine it affected PM sales to any significant degree.

 

The thing to do would have been to have come out and state that software not endorsed (i.e. on a list somewhere) by GC would not be allowed to be discussed on GC forums or logs. Problem ends. What happened was GS took no official position early on, yet actively edited or deleted references to c:geo. As people are want to do, they started coming up with scenarios why this was happening and the infamous "against the ToU" argument was born. Whether or not this was allowed to grow was intentional on their part is arguable, but GS did let it continue. Add to those who lean toward conspiracies, it appears GS had started development of their app during this period so that side of the argument, that GS was trying to kill the program, was understandably born.

 

As someone who has been active in software development (as well as the writing and enforcement of ToUs), my opinion is that the official software was rushed to release to compete, which exasperated the problem further, because the free alternative was for all intents and purposes as far as a software users perspective, bug free. If the Official App that was released was the Official App that we have today, or even close, few would have questioned it's value even sans the live maps (still missing). Today it is truly worth the $9.99.

 

As to GS not being concerned with other programs out at the time, they did not enjoy the wild popularity that c:geo still does. No need to concentrate any effort where not warranted.

 

My two issues in this whole thing is the repeated false "it's against the ToU" argument and all the misinformation being proliferated about the relationship between the two parties. In my opinion, if c:geo is truly in violation of the ToU, GS should take direct and immediate action against them directly and not let it be fought out here in the forums. i.e. state why and then delete threads like this immediately. This may all be moot since c:geo's biggest draw is now disabled by recent changes and it is unknown if the current developer wants to deal with the hassle of re-coding that feature again.

Link to comment

Yeah, Baloo threw out some big names, and I myself threw out Twitter. Just because they're well known, I suppose. I'm sure there a many like-sized examples out there of websites with open API.

 

Clarification: Baloo didn't throw out any big words, those were carnero's words being quoted.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment

Yeah, Baloo threw out some big names, and I myself threw out Twitter. Just because they're well known, I suppose. I'm sure there a many like-sized examples out there of websites with open API.

 

Clarification: Baloo didn't throw out any big words, those were carnero's words being quoted.

 

Clarification: By big names, Mr. Yuck meant you mentioned Facebook, Twitter, and Google as far as API's, and Ekitt10 took issue with said big names being compared to Geocaching.com. :P

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 3
×
×
  • Create New...