have i do something illegal?

[95equinox]

hey , i was browsing through the app store anfd oi downloaded c:geo , then i tried to logged in without an account on goeocaching . this dont work , so i make an accounz here a, but then i read that this app is not allowed... so i dont logged in there and download other apps like a:drake . now i try to get this to work .

 

so , have i do anything illegal ? i think not or ?

 

hope for answeres because i dont buy a app like neongeo when i get banned ...

 

hope for answeres

 

equinox

[+PJ²:]

Uhhhh...... TRANSLATION PLEASE!

[+laker91]

95equinox,

 

Welcome to geocaching. No, it is not illegal to use c:geo for geocaching although Groundspeak prefers you to utilize their own app. I use c:geo and really like it. Others like NeonGeo and like it. For c:geo, simply enter your login id and password in the settings of the app and you should be good to go.

 

c:geo uses a different way to get the information from the Groundspeak web site than the API that they have developed.

 

Have fun.

[+niraD]

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."

 

Using c:geo to download cache data violates the TOU because c:geo scrapes the geocaching.com site to get cache data. If you haven't downloaded cache data with c:geo, then you haven't scraped the site, and you haven't violated the TOU.

 

IANAL, but I don't think a TOU violation is a crime. Groundspeak might block your account, but that's a civil issue, not a criminal one.

[95equinox]

ok , i dont logged in, in this app so its ok , no w i try thre neongeo demo , this is the right app , isnt it ?

 

thanks for the answeres !

 

equinox PS: is my english so bad ?

[+B+L]

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."

People are fond of quoting that clause each time this topic comes up, but is it even applicable?

 

I once received express written permission to use an app that I wrote myself, but I have never received permission to use any of the other apps that I commonly use, such as GSAK. Each of these apps uses automated means to access the site. Am I violating the TOU by using them? If the answer is no, then how can *I* violate the TOU by using c:geo?

 

It is not up to the users of an app to determine if it is in compliance with the TOU, it is up to Groundspeak.

[+DanOCan]

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."

People are fond of quoting that clause each time this topic comes up, but is it even applicable?

 

I once received express written permission to use an app that I wrote myself, but I have never received permission to use any of the other apps that I commonly use, such as GSAK. Each of these apps uses automated means to access the site. Am I violating the TOU by using them? If the answer is no, then how can *I* violate the TOU by using c:geo?

 

It is not up to the users of an app to determine if it is in compliance with the TOU, it is up to Groundspeak.

GSAK 8 uses the Groundspeak API to access/refresh cache data. No issue there. Prior to that there were certain GSAK macros which had to throttle their hits against the site because of not wanting to be banned for violating the TOU.

[+The A-Team]

I once received express written permission to use an app that I wrote myself, but I have never received permission to use any of the other apps that I commonly use, such as GSAK. Each of these apps uses automated means to access the site. Am I violating the TOU by using them?

For software to use the Geocaching API, it requires a unique API key, which can only be issued by Groundspeak. Therefore, if an app or program is using the API, it's implied that it is officially endorsed by Groundspeak. c:geo does not use the API, and therefore does not fall under the same category as the other apps.

[+B+L]

I once received express written permission to use an app that I wrote myself, but I have never received permission to use any of the other apps that I commonly use, such as GSAK. Each of these apps uses automated means to access the site. Am I violating the TOU by using them?

For software to use the Geocaching API, it requires a unique API key, which can only be issued by Groundspeak. Therefore, if an app or program is using the API, it's implied that it is officially endorsed by Groundspeak. c:geo does not use the API, and therefore does not fall under the same category as the other apps.

Sorry, perhaps I have an overlooked an exception for apps that have "implied official endorsement". Otherwise this exception is wishful thinking.

 

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 term "express written permission" has a very precise meaning. The TOU neither mentions categories of apps, nor does allow for any exceptions. As an example, Clyde may have received express written permission allowing GSAK to use automated methods such as the API, but the TOU is an agreement between account holders and Groundspeak, not between Clyde and Groundspeak.

 

These Terms of Use form a legal agreement between the account holder ("You") and Groundspeak, Inc. ("Groundspeak").

It looks to me like the TOU needs an adjustment. Otherwise, anyone using GSAK, or Neongeo, or c:geo, or even one of the official Groudspeak apps, is violating the TOU as it is currently written.

[+bladesedge]

These Terms of Use form a legal agreement between the account holder ("You") and Groundspeak, Inc. ("Groundspeak").

It looks to me like the TOU needs an adjustment. Otherwise, anyone using GSAK, or Neongeo, or c:geo, or even one of the official Groudspeak apps, is violating the TOU as it is currently written.

 

I think this page (http://www.geocachin...ve/default.aspx) IS the express written permission given to end users (us) to use apps like NeonGeo and GSAK (I use both of these and love them!).

Edited May 1, 2012 by bladesedge

[+niraD]

It looks to me like the TOU needs an adjustment. Otherwise, anyone using GSAK, or Neongeo, or c:geo, or even one of the official Groudspeak apps, is violating the TOU as it is currently written.

The TOU does not prohibit using apps that access cache data. The TOU prohibits using apps that scrape the geocaching.com site to obtain cache data.

 

Neongeo does not scrape the geocaching.com site. Neither does GeoBeagle. Neither does Groundspeak's Geocaching app.

 

AIUI, the latest version of GSAK uses the API and does not scrape the geocaching.com site.

 

AIUI, c:geo does scrape the geocaching.com site to obtain cache data. That's where the TOU violation comes from.

[+B+L]

It looks to me like the TOU needs an adjustment. Otherwise, anyone using GSAK, or Neongeo, or c:geo, or even one of the official Groudspeak apps, is violating the TOU as it is currently written.

The TOU does not prohibit using apps that access cache data. The TOU prohibits using apps that scrape the geocaching.com site to obtain cache data.

 

Neongeo does not scrape the geocaching.com site. Neither does GeoBeagle. Neither does Groundspeak's Geocaching app.

 

AIUI, the latest version of GSAK uses the API and does not scrape the geocaching.com site.

 

AIUI, c:geo does scrape the geocaching.com site to obtain cache data. That's where the TOU violation comes from.

The TOU prohibits accessting the site using any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access the Site for any purpose without our express written permission.

 

The TOU is an agreement is between you (or me) and Groundspeak and it clearly states that I (or you) need express written permission to use any automated means to access the site. The attempts to shoehorn c:geo into it's own category are missing the point.

[+B+L]

These Terms of Use form a legal agreement between the account holder ("You") and Groundspeak, Inc. ("Groundspeak").

It looks to me like the TOU needs an adjustment. Otherwise, anyone using GSAK, or Neongeo, or c:geo, or even one of the official Groudspeak apps, is violating the TOU as it is currently written.

 

I think this page (http://www.geocachin...ve/default.aspx) IS the express written permission given to end users (us) to use apps like NeonGeo and GSAK (I use both of these and love them!).

Implied permission is not the same thing as express written permission.

[+The A-Team]

Implied permission is not the same thing as express written permission.

If you feel you need to get "express written permission" before you'll use any API-enabled app, feel free to send an email to contact@geocaching.com. If you intend to take the "written" part literally, the Groundspeak mailing address can be found here. The rest of us will continue as we are, since we already know that any API-enabled apps are approved for use.

[+B+L]

Implied permission is not the same thing as express written permission.

If you feel you need to get "express written permission" before you'll use any API-enabled app, feel free to send an email to contact@geocaching.com. If you intend to take the "written" part literally, the Groundspeak mailing address can be found here. The rest of us will continue as we are, since we already know that any API-enabled apps are approved for use.

OK, I have not said any of that, but I do wonder what makes you think you can pick and choose which parts of a contract to take literally.

 

The TOU is written in relatively plain English. No where does it approve or otherwise give you permission to use API-enabled or other apps, but that's not my point and you know it. My point is simple: If Groundspeak has a problem with an app, then they need to handle it themselves and not just leave it up to the forum scolds to quote the TOU every time someone mentions the app.

 

Yes, I happen to think the TOU outdated, but so what? It's not my problem and it's not going to stop me from using whatever app I want to use. And instead of using an irrelevant clause from the TOU as the justification to harangue other people about the apps they might want to use, how about leaving them alone?

[+The A-Team]

My point is simple: If Groundspeak has a problem with an app, then they need to handle it themselves and not just leave it up to the forum scolds to quote the TOU every time someone mentions the app.

That isn't at all what you said earlier, but we'll go with this now.

How exactly do you propose that Groundspeak "handle it"? They have made it clear for the past couple of years that c:geo is an unauthorized app (see this topic for official statements on c:geo). Since it would be difficult for them to respond personally to each poster in these forums, the community has taken it upon themselves to make new users aware of the issues with c:geo. I don't see any problem here.

 

If you feel the wording of the TOU doesn't adequately describe the use of the official API, I'd suggest you contact Groundspeak directly. Posting in the "Getting Started" forum won't get their attention.

[+Semper Questio]

The use of unauthorized (here read "apps that do not use the API") is that it effects all cachers, not just the one(s) using the unauthorized app(s).

 

The API is designed to access the data in a far more efficient manner than standard browser access which is what c:geo and others of its ilk use. The more people that use these types of apps, the more of a negative impact there is one the site for everyone else that is trying to access the site in the proper manner.

 

Yes, I've heard the arguments that it's not that big of a deal. I beg to differ. An app acting as a browser and pulling down a bunch of cache data far faster than a user at a PC can IS a big deal, especially when multiplied over 100's (thousands?, more?) of users. It is simply a matter of scale. If we were talking about a few users only pulling data on 1 or 2 caches at a time, that's one thing. But that is not what's happening.

 

This is Groundspeak's site. It is their TOU which we all agreed to. They have every right to decide who or what can access their site and how. In this case, they have made their position clear. It is not their place to change their site to accommodate an app that is out of compliance. The onus is on the app developer and, by extension, the user of those apps, to ensure they are in compliance with the requirements of the site owner.

 

/soapbox

[+B+L]

My point is simple: If Groundspeak has a problem with an app, then they need to handle it themselves and not just leave it up to the forum scolds to quote the TOU every time someone mentions the app.

That isn't at all what you said earlier, but we'll go with this now.

How exactly do you propose that Groundspeak "handle it"? They have made it clear for the past couple of years that c:geo is an unauthorized app (see this topic for official statements on c:geo). Since it would be difficult for them to respond personally to each poster in these forums, the community has taken it upon themselves to make new users aware of the issues with c:geo. I don't see any problem here.

 

If you feel the wording of the TOU doesn't adequately describe the use of the official API, I'd suggest you contact Groundspeak directly. Posting in the "Getting Started" forum won't get their attention.

Yes it is. See post #6.

 

As I said, it's not my problem, so i do not need to contact anyone about it. I'm just objecting to the self-proclaimed "community" playing app police.

 

 

[+B+L]

The use of unauthorized (here read "apps that do not use the API") is that it effects all cachers, not just the one(s) using the unauthorized app(s).

 

The API is designed to access the data in a far more efficient manner than standard browser access which is what c:geo and others of its ilk use. The more people that use these types of apps, the more of a negative impact there is one the site for everyone else that is trying to access the site in the proper manner.

 

Yes, I've heard the arguments that it's not that big of a deal. I beg to differ. An app acting as a browser and pulling down a bunch of cache data far faster than a user at a PC can IS a big deal, especially when multiplied over 100's (thousands?, more?) of users. It is simply a matter of scale. If we were talking about a few users only pulling data on 1 or 2 caches at a time, that's one thing. But that is not what's happening.

 

This is Groundspeak's site. It is their TOU which we all agreed to. They have every right to decide who or what can access their site and how. In this case, they have made their position clear. It is not their place to change their site to accommodate an app that is out of compliance. The onus is on the app developer and, by extension, the user of those apps, to ensure they are in compliance with the requirements of the site owner.

 

/soapbox

If an app is actually disrupting the site, then I would expect Groundspeak to have a more effective response than making a single comment about it on the old getsatisfaction site in August of 2010: "Groundspeak does not authorize such activity".

[+Semper Questio]

If an app is actually disrupting the site, then I would expect Groundspeak to have a more effective response than making a single comment about it on the old getsatisfaction site in August of 2010: "Groundspeak does not authorize such activity".

 

Fair enough, but they have addressed this also. The problem is that these apps hit the site in a way that looks just like the site is being accessed via a browser. I assume that means they are using the standard browser IP port and standard http protocol calls, but I really don't know. In any case, GS stated way back when that they wanted to block these apps, but they could only do it by blocking browser access which would also block everyone from the regular online access so they decided to just make their position known and hope most folks go along with it.

 

Now, I suppose they could add a traffic monitoring mechanism that would watch for an excessive amount of traffic from a specific IP address hitting their browser port, then block or throttle that IP address. But how much server processing cycles would doing THAT eat up? They could also, I suppose, but in a front-end server to handle the traffic use monitoring before it got to the actual data servers, but how much cost would that incur and how much of a slow-down would that cause for everyone? In any case, there are easy enough ways around being ID'd by IP address so that would most likely only be effective for a short time before another app was developed to get around that as well.

[+B+L]

If an app is actually disrupting the site, then I would expect Groundspeak to have a more effective response than making a single comment about it on the old getsatisfaction site in August of 2010: "Groundspeak does not authorize such activity".

 

Fair enough, but they have addressed this also. The problem is that these apps hit the site in a way that looks just like the site is being accessed via a browser. I assume that means they are using the standard browser IP port and standard http protocol calls, but I really don't know. In any case, GS stated way back when that they wanted to block these apps, but they could only do it by blocking browser access which would also block everyone from the regular online access so they decided to just make their position known and hope most folks go along with it.

 

Now, I suppose they could add a traffic monitoring mechanism that would watch for an excessive amount of traffic from a specific IP address hitting their browser port, then block or throttle that IP address. But how much server processing cycles would doing THAT eat up? They could also, I suppose, but in a front-end server to handle the traffic use monitoring before it got to the actual data servers, but how much cost would that incur and how much of a slow-down would that cause for everyone? In any case, there are easy enough ways around being ID'd by IP address so that would most likely only be effective for a short time before another app was developed to get around that as well.

They already throttle addresses that are misbehaving and that's about all they can do. I have been trying to point out that the TOU that people like to wave at c:geo users fails to allow for automated access at all, including the API. Furthermore, it was Mtn-Man who originally said that c:geo violates the TOU and as moderators and reviewers will often tell you, they are volunteers and their views are their own. They don't speak for Groundspeak. And neither do the people who have "taken it upon themselves to make new users aware of the issues with c:geo."

 

A a side note, it is interesting that the TOU can be changed at any time without prior notice:

 

14. Changes to this agreement

 

Groundspeak reserves the right to revise the terms of this Agreement at any time and from time to time. Each time You use the Site, You are bound by the version of this Agreement that is in effect and posted on the Site at the time of Your use. Please review them.

 

 

 

[+The A-Team]

Furthermore, it was Mtn-Man who originally said that c:geo violates the TOU and as moderators and reviewers will often tell you, they are volunteers and their views are their own. They don't speak for Groundspeak.

You must not have read that entire topic. Mtn-man was only re-posting what Elias had said. As stated later in that topic, Elias is one of the three "founding fathers" of Groundspeak. You can't get any higher in Groundspeak. By giving this statement, he has made it official that Groundspeak considers c:geo as violating the TOU.

[+B+L]

Furthermore, it was Mtn-Man who originally said that c:geo violates the TOU and as moderators and reviewers will often tell you, they are volunteers and their views are their own. They don't speak for Groundspeak.

You must not have read that entire topic. Mtn-man was only re-posting what Elias had said. As stated later in that topic, Elias is one of the three "founding fathers" of Groundspeak. You can't get any higher in Groundspeak. By giving this statement, he has made it official that Groundspeak considers c:geo as violating the TOU.

I already quoted part of what Elias said, which as I've already pointed out, is hardly a forceful response. But again, it's not your responsibility to enforce the TOU, or more precisely, your loose interpretation of it. Leave that to Groundspeak.

 

And with that, I withdraw from this thread.

[+The A-Team]

But again, it's not your responsibility to enforce the TOU, or more precisely, your loose interpretation of it. Leave that to Groundspeak.

We aren't enforcing the TOU, we're just repeating the official position of Groundspeak for those that may not already be aware of it.

[+Ambient_Skater]

... If Groundspeak has a problem with an app, then they need to handle it themselves and not just leave it up to the forum scolds to quote the TOU every time someone mentions the app.

Why not? It works, doesn't it? The forum scolds currently enforce the logo usage guidelines, puzzle cache assistance rules, and automated access rules solely by copy and pasting. Groundspeak doesn't even have to do anything.

[+B+L]

... If Groundspeak has a problem with an app, then they need to handle it themselves and not just leave it up to the forum scolds to quote the TOU every time someone mentions the app.

Why not? It works, doesn't it? The forum scolds currently enforce the logo usage guidelines, puzzle cache assistance rules, and automated access rules solely by copy and pasting. Groundspeak doesn't even have to do anything.

Touché. And most of these thankless tasks, even forum moderation, could be easily be automated to free up some some precious volunteer resources.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

If an app is actually disrupting the site, then I would expect Groundspeak to have a more effective response than making a single comment about it on the old getsatisfaction site in August of 2010: "Groundspeak does not authorize such activity".

 

Fair enough, but they have addressed this also. The problem is that these apps hit the site in a way that looks just like the site is being accessed via a browser. I assume that means they are using the standard browser IP port and standard http protocol calls, but I really don't know.

 

I don't know what the most recent version of the app is doing but I looked over the source code awhile back. Not only was it automating a standard http request, on the standard IP port, it provided a means for the user to modify the request header so that it *looked* like the request was coming from a standard browser, and not an application capable of issuing http requests hundreds if not thousands times as fast than if one were just clicking a link on a web page.

[Mr.Yuck]

Furthermore, it was Mtn-Man who originally said that c:geo violates the TOU and as moderators and reviewers will often tell you, they are volunteers and their views are their own. They don't speak for Groundspeak.

You must not have read that entire topic. Mtn-man was only re-posting what Elias had said. As stated later in that topic, Elias is one of the three "founding fathers" of Groundspeak. You can't get any higher in Groundspeak. By giving this statement, he has made it official that Groundspeak considers c:geo as violating the TOU.

I already quoted part of what Elias said, which as I've already pointed out, is hardly a forceful response. But again, it's not your responsibility to enforce the TOU, or more precisely, your loose interpretation of it. Leave that to Groundspeak.

 

And with that, I withdraw from this thread.

 

Don't leave mad. Hey, I have a question for the TOU forum police. C'mon just kidding. But seriously, I found an App for the Windows Phone by a European Author called Geo Basic. It works for the mostly European Opencaching network of websites. Note I mean the original, or real Opencaching network if you will, not Garmin. I use it on occasion for Opencaching.us (again, not .com). This thing does work for Geocaching.com, and it pulls all the cache information from the little known mobile version of the website wap.geocaching.com. So what do you think? TOS compliant since it uses wap.geocaching.com?

[+niraD]

This thing does work for Geocaching.com, and it pulls all the cache information from the little known mobile version of the website wap.geocaching.com. So what do you think? TOS compliant since it uses wap.geocaching.com?

What do you mean when you say that it "pulls all the cache info"? Is it just displaying the wap.geocaching.com pages? Or is it extracting the cache data and then doing other things with it?

[Mr.Yuck]

This thing does work for Geocaching.com, and it pulls all the cache information from the little known mobile version of the website wap.geocaching.com. So what do you think? TOS compliant since it uses wap.geocaching.com?

What do you mean when you say that it "pulls all the cache info"? Is it just displaying the wap.geocaching.com pages? Or is it extracting the cache data and then doing other things with it?

 

Like I know what I'm talking about or anything. He says he "accesses" wap.geocaching.com only. The phone shows only text cache descriptions, and no more information than you would see on the wap site, although he has it formatted more nicely than that old mobile website does. When you look at the caches in a list, he does have little icons next to them (traditional, multi, etc..), which you definitely wouldn't see on the wap site.

 

It's actually all one word, Geobasic. Here it is in the Windows Phone Marketplace complete with screen shots, and here is his wordpress blog

 

It's the only app on any platform I've ever heard of that uses wap.geoaching.com, so I guess I just wondered if that would fly with the TOU? And if it does, why aren't other people doing it?

[+The A-Team]

It looks to me like the TOU needs an adjustment. Otherwise, anyone using GSAK, or Neongeo, or c:geo, or even one of the official Groudspeak apps, is violating the TOU as it is currently written.

Groundspeak took care of this with today's update. The clause in question now reads (bolded part was added today):

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. Notwithstanding the foregoing, You may access the Site via authorized Geocaching Live API applications.

Since c:geo isn't on the linked list of authorized apps, it's implied to be unauthorized. Now we "TOU police" can continue with our work!

[+B+L]

Since c:geo isn't on the linked list of authorized apps, it's implied to be unauthorized. Now we "TOU police" can continue with our work!

Falsity implies anything. But I'm sure that won't be an obstacle.

[+niraD]

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. Notwithstanding the foregoing, You may access the Site via authorized Geocaching Live API applications.

Since c:geo isn't on the linked list of authorized apps, it's implied to be unauthorized. Now we "TOU police" can continue with our work!

Since c:geo doesn't use the Geocaching Live API, it is impossible for it to be included among the authorized Geocaching Live API applications.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

This thing does work for Geocaching.com, and it pulls all the cache information from the little known mobile version of the website wap.geocaching.com. So what do you think? TOS compliant since it uses wap.geocaching.com?

What do you mean when you say that it "pulls all the cache info"? Is it just displaying the wap.geocaching.com pages? Or is it extracting the cache data and then doing other things with it?

 

Like I know what I'm talking about or anything. He says he "accesses" wap.geocaching.com only. The phone shows only text cache descriptions, and no more information than you would see on the wap site, although he has it formatted more nicely than that old mobile website does. When you look at the caches in a list, he does have little icons next to them (traditional, multi, etc..), which you definitely wouldn't see on the wap site.

 

It's actually all one word, Geobasic. Here it is in the Windows Phone Marketplace complete with screen shots, and here is his wordpress blog

 

It's the only app on any platform I've ever heard of that uses wap.geoaching.com, so I guess I just wondered if that would fly with the TOU? And if it does, why aren't other people doing it?

 

I would think that it would still violate the TOU, if it uses "any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access the Site". I don't the specific details about how the site is constructed, but even if the site is not designed such that the various pieces are separate a typical web application can often described as a 3 tier architecture with a persistence layer (i.e. a back end database), some business logic the middle, and a presentation layer. The presentation layer is basically the html produced by the application to be rendered in a browser. Essentially, primary difference between the wap.geocaching.com and www.geocaching.com come is that it uses a different presentation layer (optimized for a browser on a mobile device). It may, in fact, use the same business logic (or portions of it) and persistence layer as the "main" site, and one might define "the Site" as a persistence layer, business logic layer, and two different presentation layers.