Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
GrizzlyJohn

Has Anyone Else Received This?

Recommended Posts

Got the following email today from Jeremy:

 

"Below is a listing of pocket queries from February, 2003 until today.

Records show you are attempting to download the entire contents of the database. I would just like to reinforce that you are bound to the Geocaching.com waypoint license agreement that you digitally signed before receiving pocket queries, found here:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/waypoints/agreement.aspx

 

Please explain your plans on the material received from Geocaching.com."

 

It then went on to list the over 1100 PQs I have run in that time period by the name of the PQ. Has anbody else received an email like this? It came shortly after I set up the PQs to run for today. In an interesting side note I have not received my PQs today which usually always come minutes after I set them up.

Share this post


Link to post

1100 PQ in a year's time isn't what I would call heavy usage. If you have 3 PQ set to run every day, which isn't unreasonable, you'll get pretty close to that number. It's only about 60% of the maximum allowed.

 

As long as the data is for your personal use (i.e. you're not selling it or giving it to 3rd parties), you're within the guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post

Why do you need to set your PQ's to collect so many waypoints? I suppose if you're RV'ing around the country you might download several areas you plan to hit, but even that wouldn't be close to downloading the entire database (worldwide). Do you really travel that much in one year (Feb '03 to Jan '04)?

Share this post


Link to post

After looking at your profile, <50 finds (most in your home area) does not support downloading PQ's that would cover anywhere near the entire database no matter how much travelling you intend to do. Jeremy has every right to be suspicious of your downloads.

Share this post


Link to post
<<SNIP>>

Records show you are attempting to download the entire contents of the database.

<<SNIP>>

1) Does this mean you are running new (and different) PQ's everyday?

 

2) Are you asking for PQ's of the entire database? Or just the areas you cache in?

 

3) Are you trying to download the entire GC.com cache database?

 

4) If you are, What is the reason?

 

Since you brought this up in an open forum I'm sure you wouldn't mind helping us understand the backstory a bit more.

 

And to answer your question. No I've never had an email like that. Then again I only run 2-3 PQ's a week, just to refresh my local cache database.

Share this post


Link to post

My reply was that my plan was to use the received material within the guidelines of the mentioned agreement.

 

I try to run five PQs a day but sometimes I just don't get around to it. But even if I was at 100% so what they set the limits and I can only work in those limits.

 

I keep a list of all caches. Each of the PQs is set up based on location (US or non-US) and date the cache was placed. Those parameters then let me run a PQ that I am sure will not go over the 500 limit. If I have a cache in my list that does not show up in a PQ I assume it has been archived. I can then go back and adjust my dates so that I can take maximum advantage of the limits.

 

Right now it takes about 140 PQs to cycle through the entire list. I also run PQs once a week to grab caches placed within the last week. When I complete the cycle I adjust the dates based on what I have dropped out and start over again. So it is not always the most current list but it is close enough for my use.

 

Yes it is for my personal use. I can't be the only one running this type of thing. I was curious to see if anybody was emailed and what sort of thing triggers getting it. There is no way that there is any indication that I am doing anything wrong with the data that I get, because very simply I am not.

 

Oddly enough my PQs for today came as I was writing this. I am guessing that is just a coincidence.

Share this post


Link to post

My question would be probably be, "so what?"

 

So what if you're downloading the entire database. Other that it's against the TOS, what harm is there in it? It's not as if you're downloading all at one time. Heck, I've probably run that many or more PQs--okay so there are only maybe 20 or so different versions, but again, so what?

 

That is, unless we see a new site called "grizzlycaching.com!" Then I might take exception.

Share this post


Link to post

What you are doing may technically be within the Terms, it is not an appropriate use of the PQ feature. Why do you need this list of all caches in the world? You say it is for your own 'personal' use, but I would suspect there is something more to it.

Share this post


Link to post
After looking at your profile, <50 finds (most in your home area) does not support downloading PQ's that would cover anywhere near the entire database no matter how much travelling you intend to do. Jeremy has every right to be suspicious of your downloads.

It is there. I have actually used it to try to plan trips to do caching. It is also interesting to look at the data see how dense or spread out caches are. It is also possible that a person has more than one account they use to cache under. But yes it is mostly mental gymnastics. I am really not sure if this site should be suspicious of my downloads. I am working within the limits they have set up.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmm...

 

Total of 45 finds

Website developer

Entire GC.Com database of caches dowmloaded via PQ's

 

???

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
1) Does this mean you are running new (and different) PQ's everyday?

 

2) Are you asking for PQ's of the entire database? Or just the areas you cache in?

 

3) Are you trying to download the entire GC.com cache database?

 

4) If you are, What is the reason?

 

Since you brought this up in an open forum I'm sure you wouldn't mind helping us understand the backstory a bit more.

 

And to answer your question. No I've never had an email like that. Then again I only run 2-3 PQ's a week, just to refresh my local cache database.

1) Yes

 

2) The entire database

 

3) Yes

 

4) I hope my post I was writing when you replied answers that.

 

I don't have any problem explaining the backstory. I have never tried to hide this and have discussed it before in the forums. If you still have questions please feel free to ask away. I will answer as best as I can. I am not trying to hide anything was just wondering if others had this experience.

Share this post


Link to post
<<SNIP>>

But yes it is mostly mental gymnastics. I am really not sure if this site should be suspicious of my downloads. I am working within the limits they have set up.

The part about it being "Something" to do I can understand. Just playing witht eh data is an amusing way to pass the time.

 

BUT

 

When you repeatedly state that you are "Working within the limits" I have to say you are begining to sound like the people that post within the limits while pushing the envelope at every turn. Or like someone who is looking for loopholes.

 

I'm not saying you are. Just that your choice of words and actions is enough to make folks a bit suspicious.

 

*EDIT*

 

Ok, you have way to much time on your hands. Are there any openings at you workplace? B)

Edited by Harrald

Share this post


Link to post
What you are doing may technically be within the Terms, it is not an appropriate use of the PQ feature. Why do you need this list of all caches in the world? You say it is for your own 'personal' use, but I would suspect there is something more to it.

When I first got into this I had a program that walked through the pages and captured the data that way. My IP was blocked for doing that. I was told at that point that that was what PQs are for.

 

You don't know me so you don't have to believe what I say and that is fine. But the data has been purely for my personal use. No ifs, no buts, no grey area. If there is "something more to it" it is nothing more than being a geek and finding the ability to have the data, use and view in a way that is interesting to me. That may be weird but all of our minds work in a different way.

Share this post


Link to post
BUT

 

When you repeatedly state that you are "Working within the limits" I have to say you are begining to sound like the people that post within the limits while pushing the envelope at every turn. Or like someone who is looking for loopholes.

 

I'm not saying you are. Just that your choice of words and actions is enough to make folks a bit suspicious.

 

*EDIT*

 

Ok, you have way to much time on your hands. Are there any openings at you workplace? B)

I can see your point. But by limits I mean 500 per PQ and 5 PQs per day. I really have no way of pushing that. If I ask for a PQ that is more than 500 I will still only get 500. If the limits were 100 or 1000 per PQ and 1 or 100 per day that is what I would do.

 

Now testing the limits on forum posts is something I may have been guilty of. But my warn meter stays at zero. But I really do look at that as something completely different.

 

Actually you would be amazed at how little time it takes to do this. That for me may have been part of the excerise. I am not sure I spend more than 10 minutes a day doing this.

Share this post


Link to post
What you are doing may technically be within the Terms, it is not an appropriate use of the PQ feature. Why do you need this list of all caches in the world? You say it is for your own 'personal' use, but I would suspect there is something more to it.

When I first got into this I had a program that walked through the pages and captured the data that way. My IP was blocked for doing that. I was told at that point that that was what PQs are for.

 

You don't know me so you don't have to believe what I say and that is fine. But the data has been purely for my personal use. No ifs, no buts, no grey area. If there is "something more to it" it is nothing more than being a geek and finding the ability to have the data, use and view in a way that is interesting to me. That may be weird but all of our minds work in a different way.

The intent of Pocket Queries is not for you to examine and manipulate the data for the entire database. The intent is for you to have an easy way of gathering data for caches you intend to hunt. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Terms modified to prevent you from doing what you have been doing.

 

My own PQ is for my state. I have it updated once a week so I can go anywhere in my state and find nearby caches. Sometimes I will 'refresh' that PQ to download on the day I am going out caching in addition to my once a week download.

When I travel, I set a PQ up for each area I plan to visit (Inland Empire, San Diego, Phoenix, etc). I don't need to get PQ's all over the world just to go caching in my home area each week (or daily). I do plan on a trip to China next year, so I'll be setting a PQ up for that when I get closer.

Share this post


Link to post
That is, unless we see a new site called "grizzlycaching.com!" Then I might take exception.

LOL! Yea but you have to have long hair and a beard to log your find.

Share this post


Link to post
The intent of Pocket Queries is not for you to examine and manipulate the data for the entire database. The intent is for you to have an easy way of gathering data for caches you intend to hunt. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Terms modified to prevent you from doing what you have been doing.

Perhaps that is not the intent. I don't know. But I have a membership that has PQs as one of its benefits. What difference does it make if I run PQs everyday for an area around me or for other areas? We all approach this game a different way. You may not like how I do it, may not understand or agree how I do it and again that is OK. I am not saying I am right and you are wrong, it is just different.

 

I think it would be silly to change the terms to prevent this type of thing and to be honest I am not sure how one would write that. It is data that is there for us to use and I am using it well within the terms laid out. Maybe it is just one of those things that TPTB did not consider when they started but for the life of me I can't see what the problem might be.

Share this post


Link to post

You know, we went through something similar in Montana... When the national 55 mph speed limit ended, we reverted to the old standard - 'Reasonable and Prudent'. This meant that you should drive for the conditions of the roadway, weather, your vehicle, and so forth. It actually worked pretty good until the Highway Patrol pulled over someone doing over 120 mph on a two-lane road. They challenged the ticket in court, claiming that the law did not prevent them from driving that fast. The court agreed.

 

Now we have a statewide speed limit, regardless of whether or not a faster speed would be acceptable in certain areas.

 

So, does the current limits allow you to download the entire database? Yep. Is it an intended use if you do so? Nope. We'll no doubt all be able to soon thank GrizzlyJohn for making the pocket queries more restrictive and difficult to use...

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps that is not the intent. I don't know. But I have a membership that has PQs as one of its benefits. What difference does it make if I run PQs everyday for an area around me or for other areas? We all approach this game a different way. You may not like how I do it, may not understand or agree how I do it and again that is OK. I am not saying I am right and you are wrong, it is just different.

It is the intent of Groundspeak to not allow data mining. What you are doing can be seen this way from their end. You may have a legitimate purpose for wanting all of that data for your own private use, but that might not be how they see it.

 

Come to think of it, I made some PQ's so I could see all of my finds for the US on a single map. It takes 3 PQ's to do the length of Route 66, but I don't redo those PQ's every day or even every week. I run nowhere near the maximum amount of PQ's, unlike you. I have 200+ finds, so even running 3 PQ's for my map doesn't gather very much data.

Share this post


Link to post
So, does the current limits allow you to download the entire database? Yep. Is it an intended use if you do so? Nope. We'll no doubt all be able to soon thank GrizzlyJohn for making the pocket queries more restrictive and difficult to use...

That was my earlier point. Thanks for the analogy

Share this post


Link to post

There is the letter of the rules and the spirit of the rules. I would assume the guide lines are not to stop you from downloading the database, but rather from loading the system and makingit slower for the rest of us. If you want to see cache density there is another mapping site to see that. The fact you have been busted once for abusing the system, you should have know you would get cought again. And you have.

 

Even though you are paying for PQ's, he can always revoke your account and refund your $3.00 for the month. The data may be public domain but the server you are loading is his.

Share this post


Link to post
The data may be public domain

I don't ever recall making my data public domain. Groundspeak can do what they want with it, but I don't recall saying that anyone else can. Did I miss part of an agreement somewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
The data may be public domain

I don't ever recall making my data public domain. Groundspeak can do what they want with it, but I don't recall saying that anyone else can. Did I miss part of an agreement somewhere?

No, you didn't miss anything. Just for good measure, myself and some other cachers I know of include a startment in the HTML of our cache pages specifically forbidding any other use of my cache data. I'm not sure that gets included in the GPX, but if not, there are ways to make it so it does.

Share this post


Link to post
No, you didn't miss anything. Just for good measure, myself and some other cachers I know of include a startment in the HTML of our cache pages specifically forbidding any other use of my cache data. I'm not sure that gets included in the GPX, but if not, there are ways to make it so it does.

It does. I just checked a PQ that contains one of my own caches, which have the same sort of statement.

Share this post


Link to post
...

No, you didn't miss anything. Just for good measure, myself and some other cachers I know of include a startment in the HTML of our cache pages specifically forbidding any other use of my cache data. I'm not sure that gets included in the GPX, but if not, there are ways to make it so it does.

I've seen disclaimers before. But I have to think that the GC.com TOS would in turn take priority and that in turn lets other people have access to your cache data for uses allowed by GC.com

 

While GrizzlyJohn doesn't have a typical use of PQ's he is both protected and limted by that TOS.

 

The disclaimer would probably kick in where the TOS leaves any gaps.

 

If the TOS doesn't 'strip' the statement of it's powers, it soon will or this site could not be effective in protecting it's ability to list caches.

Share this post


Link to post
I've seen disclaimers before.  But I have to think that the GC.com TOS would in turn take priority and that in turn lets other people have access to your cache data for uses allowed by GC.com

 

While GrizzlyJohn doesn't have a typical use of PQ's he is both protected and limted by that TOS.

 

The disclaimer would probably kick in where the TOS leaves any gaps.

 

If the TOS doesn't 'strip' the statement of it's powers, it soon will or this site could not be effective in protecting it's ability to list caches.

My copyright notice - not a disclaimer - reads as follows:

 

  This cache description and accompanying materials are Copyright 2002 by Ronald Parker.  Permission is hereby granted to use this cache description in keeping with the published guidelines of Geocaching.com.  All other rights reserved.

 

As you see, it does not conflict with the geocaching.com terms of use. What it does do is:

  • establish the name of the original creator of the data
  • remind the person who plans to use the data unscrupulously that it's not just geocaching.com they're screwing over
  • give me slightly more leverage if I wanted to press copyright violation claims myself, should geocaching.com decline to do so for whatever reason (provided they did so without giving the third party an explicit license to use the data; if they did, the use would fall under the TOS.)
  • document the copyright for materials that don't fall under the TOS, including any images or other files that are linked from my personal webpage.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not even related to any lawyers, thank God. Maybe this stuff wouldn't stand up in court. But it's probably better than nothing.

Edited by parkrrrr

Share this post


Link to post
...This cache description and accompanying materials are Copyright 2002 by Ronald Parker.  Permission is hereby granted to use this cache description in keeping with the published guidelines of Geocaching.com.  All other rights reserved....

Looks like it dovetails well with the TOS while reserving your rights.

Share this post


Link to post
The fact you have been busted once for abusing the system, you should have know you would get cought again. And you have.

 

The data may be public domain but the server you are loading is his.

I am not sure I feel like I have been busted. I have gone through and said what I was doing before. I have said it before in the forums and I also explained what I was doing after my IP was banned for hitting their server too hard. I really don't see what I am doing as being against the TOS, and for the record nobody from GC.com has said that I was. They just asked what I was doing.

 

I have never felt that the caches or logs listed here are in the public domain. In fact I would say that I would likely argue that the poster of those entries have more rights to that data than GC.com would say they have.

Share this post


Link to post

Have we actually heard an official response to this?

 

I've reread the TOS and it doesn't appear that downloading the entire database FOR PERSONAL USE violates any provision.

 

However, it's understandable that Jeremy would question what was going on.

 

Now that Grizzly has explained what he's doing, are we done here?

Share this post


Link to post

I feel any time a person tries to unilaterally copy a cache list with full text they will not be successful. Far too many people will complain. Hopefully, anyone who has read the history of geoaching will understand that the people wouldn't like it. So, I don't think GJ would even think of trying to do that.

 

However, a more probable scenario would be a stats site. A stats site wouldn't include full text of copyrightable material, it's more like news. News can print copyrighted material, up to a certain amount, things like quotes from a book and titles.

 

Problem with someone using PQs to create a stats sites is it would be a violation of the TOS. You're not allowed to use PQs for anything other that internal use.

 

I have no fear that GJ is creating another geocaching site. It would be doomed for failure before it even started.

Share this post


Link to post

I would be happy to close this topic. I have not heard from anybody else so I would assume that either I am the only one that has been sent this type of email or nobody else wants to say that they have. I only put it out in the forums to see if I was the only one. I don't think I can come to a conclusion one way or the other.

 

I don't want to close this topic if others want to get their two cents in on the issue one way or the other. Again I fully understand that many might not agree or understand why I am doing things the way I am. And I really would be more than happy to go in to all of the detail about what got me started and why I continue doing things this way. Feel free to email me if you wish. I don't think that level of detail is useful in the forums. But I am not trying to hide anything or work between the lines or push things to the limit.

 

I am not a lawyer so I won't say that I fully understand all of the copyright issues. But I think I understand enough to know that I am not anywhere near the point of violating them. I respect copyright law and totally defend everyones right to it. That includes the posters of caches and logs and GC.com as well.

 

I have written some code that totals up stats based on the data I have. It is not posted anywhere and actually does not even exist at this point because it was I a SQL query that I think I have since deleted. The point of that was mostly to see if it was possible and how hard it would be to do. Yes it is and not at all. I really don't care about stats but I understand many do. And to be honest I wish there was a way for those to get them if they so desired. But unless GC comes into an agreement with a third party then that can't be done, unless GC does it and it seems at this point that they won't.

 

And se7en are you saying that if I started another geocaching site with this data it would be doomed for failure? Again not my intention and don't mean to impy otherwise. Or are you saying that if I (or maybe anyone) started another geocaching site fresh with no seed data from this site it would be doomed for failure? Not baiting you, just wanted to see what you meant by that. And how you felt about the possibility of another site being able to compete against this one. Again so there is no grey area that is not my intention nor even a thought that I have that may be way out there in the realm of being a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
The data may be public domain but the server you are loading is his.

You missed the second half of the statement. What I meant by "public domain" was that everyone is free to see the information, bad choice of words by me. The point was the loading of the server. People may the right to download the data, but if the downloading of that data is causing others to have a slower response from the server than that is bad.

Edited by Keith Watson

Share this post


Link to post
It is the intent of Groundspeak...>snip<

I never realized GPSSaxaphone was an official spokesperson for Groundspeak and could portend intentions. That's funny.

 

Anyway, sounds like there was some concern on Jeremy's part that you might be creating a competing listing site. Certainly understandable, he asked and you answered. You said you're not and were just interested in fooling around with the data - so I guess there's no problem. Even if you offered the data elsewhere - Groundspeak might not be your biggest problem as the cache owners themselves would probably intercede as well.

 

f20cb22b-8888-465a-b978-d88f37f4a6e5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
You missed the second half of the statement. What I meant by "public domain" was that everyone is free to see the information, bad choice of words by me. The point was the loading of the server. People may the right to download the data, but if the downloading of that data is causing others to have a slower response from the server than that is bad.

Ok I see what you meant by using the words "public domain". Sorry to read more into than you meant.

 

But it has been said before that PQs do not cause a slower response for people that are using the GC site. That is why the use of PQs are encouraged. Yes screen scraping bad, PQs good. Someone mentioned above that if I wanted to see cache denisty there are maps to do that. While true that does place some amount of strain on the server. Using the data on my PC zooming in or out, picking caches to view details about, etc. does not put any strain on the server at all. It is all happening on my PC. And again I like to look at the data of caches how I want. Yes a lot of that can be done on the website. But again, that places some kind of hit on resources.

 

There was also a person that asked on the forums how they could download all of the caches from their state when there was more than 500. I emailed that person and told them the date parameters they could use to run three PQs and get all of them. I did not send them the data, I only told them how it was possible to do that. I don't know if that violates any of the TOS, if so I am sorry about that. But I think until there is a better way to specify what you want from the database and/or an increase in the limits that was pretty helpful information for that person. And they would have no way of getting that information and would be having to run many tries of a PQ before they would be able to get it all worked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Even if you offered the data elsewhere - Groundspeak might not be your biggest problem as the cache owners themselves would probably intercede as well.

And I would not blame them one bit if they did.

Share this post


Link to post

My copyright notice - not a disclaimer - reads as follows:

 

  This cache description and accompanying materials are Copyright 2002 by Ronald Parker.  Permission is hereby granted to use this cache description in keeping with the published guidelines of Geocaching.com.  All other rights reserved.

That's pretty much what mine says. I don't know WHY my caches are copyright Ron Parker, but it sure looks official. B)

Share this post


Link to post
That's pretty much what mine says. I don't know WHY my caches are copyright Ron Parker, but it sure looks official. B)

Can you get in trouble for using someone else's copyright statement? Is a copyright statement copyrighted? B)

Share this post


Link to post
And se7en are you saying that if I started another geocaching site with this data it would be doomed for failure? Again not my intention and don't mean to impy otherwise. Or are you saying that if I (or maybe anyone) started another geocaching site fresh with no seed data from this site it would be doomed for failure? Not baiting you, just wanted to see what you meant by that. And how you felt about the possibility of another site being able to compete against this one. Again so there is no grey area that is not my intention nor even a thought that I have that may be way out there in the realm of being a possibility.

For your first question, yes absolutely. Jeremy knows first hand about that with the letterboxers. He wouldn't even have to go after you legally, the cachers would hang you! Second, who's to control the individual caches? Would you allow people to sign up and take over their caches? If so, what's to stop them from de-listing them there? Nothing. What if someone doesn't bother with keeping their cache info current on your site? Or worse, creates bogus information to tick people off that use your services?

 

No, using gc.com as seed data is doomed before it even begins.

 

As for your second question; no, not at all. In fact, Jeremy has created a opportunity for someone with talent, knowledge, and wherewithal to come in and trounce him in the market. By going to a form of (near) instant approval, limiting non-approval to illegal caches,* providing popular features, and doing it all for free would create an atmosphere that people would flock to.

 

Jeremy would be left in the dust.

 

Third question. I feel a site outlined above would be just the ticket that gc.com needs to have many fewer headaches. Someone doesn't like a gc.com rule? No problem, just go to another site instead of whining here. No more flame wars, or fewer at least. No more geocides. IMHO, just fewer problems all together.

 

As long as all other sites works from the same page as to what is an illegal cache* all should be well.

 

*Illegal caches would be defined as those that are not permitted on certain properties like NP, terrorist targets, etc. This does not include commercial caches, caches too close to other caches, or a host of other things that are prohibited here.

 

Let me close this with my feelings about gc.com and TPTB. I am grateful Jeremy et al. created this site. I might not have started caching if it wheren't here. It does foster an atmoshpere where newbies can learn with relative ease. I don't like a lot of things that do go on here and I would like to see a few things change. If an another site pops up that I like more, I will go, but geocaching.com will always be where I learned the ropes.

Share this post


Link to post

I find it very amusing that GrizzyJohn is being raked over the coals for pushing the envelope by many of the same people that push the envelope here....

 

I for one don't care if he downloads the whole database... big deal.

 

If GJ says he is using it for personal use and there is no evidence to the other, then I accept his word. If it turns out he is lying, then Groundspeak would take the appropriate action.

 

I don't feel the need to personally copyright my caches... each to his own but, give me a break!

Share this post


Link to post
Jeremy would be left in the dust.

Or he could change how this site works in those regards and will still be on top becuase he is already well ahead with the number of caches already here. We have seen that over and over again of this being a chicken and egg question. When the Navicache site is mentioned people say they don't use it because there are not that many caches there and then the other group says they don't put their hidden caches there because nobody uses that site. Jeremy has to be laughing his butt off when he sees that.

 

But I do thank you for the points you have made here. They are all very valid and make good sense. And I really find very little if anything to disagree with you about.

Share this post


Link to post
I find it very amusing that GrizzyJohn is being raked over the coals for pushing the envelope by many of the same people that push the envelope here....

Doc I thank you for your words of support. I don't really feel that I am being raked over the coals. I put it out there and felt that I would get some of the comments that I have. I look at as those people disagree and I welcome them to say so. I don't think any of the responses have be against me personally. People just have different point of view. I do by the way think pushing the envelope can be a good thing. I have seen some of these people do that, sometimes I agree sometimes not, but I support them in being able to do it.

 

The only thing I would say about it is that I really have not seen a reason other than they don't know why I need to do it. Some have said that it causes the site to be slow for others. I would be OK with that disagreement but I don't think that is the case. And I am not saying that because it does not fit my point of view. I have not heard that from TPTB and they would be the ones that would know. The last I have heard on this is that using PQs to the max is OK. But if your only problem is that you don't understand why I need to do this, or you don't do it that way, or I don't have a good reason to do this, well I am sorry that just does not sway me either way. We all get to have our own opinions and that is all they are.

Share this post


Link to post

What's to happen if a company like Garmin or REI creates or sponsors a site and, say, has sweepstakes? Maybe give away a free GPS or other gear once a month to the best log?

 

Eh, the possibility is there. But you're right, Jeremy could change the site to adjust.

 

That reminds me of Delta airways. Anywhere where they have a monopoly in the market, their fares are three and four times neighboring cities. Buying a ticket at the counter to go to Atlanta? $1200. Take a 90 minute car trip and pay only $225! Real world example! The local chamber was told that because they are courting a value airlines to come here Delta was dropping their chamber membership.

 

When a value airlines moves into a market that Delta has a monoploy, they will lower their fares until the value-based airpline goes out of business. Then they raise them once again.

 

Monopolies are always good for the company and shareholders, but always bad for the consumer.

Share this post


Link to post
I find it very amusing that GrizzyJohn is being raked over the coals for pushing the envelope by many of the same people that push the envelope here....

I'm not sure how you got this impression.

 

I'm working on the pocket query section of the web site. While running a test query, I see 5 queries right before mine with names like Job78, Job79 and each one queries all the caches in the United states between x and y dates, which combined is attempting to download all the caches between, say, 7 arbitrary dates. Based on the creation of each query and the timestamp (Pretty much within seconds of each other, started exactly at noon), it looked like an automated tool, so obviously it piqued my curiosity. So I queried the pocket query section to see what other queries were requested through the account id. At this point I only queried by ID (so I had no idea who is doing it at this point).

 

The results of the query are astonishing. for almost an entire year it seems that this account has been systematically downloading every cache from the creation of the web site. So I look up the email address and send an email reinforcing the license agreement and asking for the intent of what he is doing. His response is a one liner, straight and to the point.

 

Once I received this email, it seemed that I now have a record that yes, he indicated that he is working within the terms of the agreement. So I am satisfied and continue working on the pocket query page.

 

Lo and behold, a post in the Geocaching.com web site accusing me of being big brother and singling him out for some reason. The debate was healthy enough but now I'm accused of being a monopoly, singling this individual out - the general BS I normally hear when anything even remotely "controversial" appears in the forums.

 

GrizzlyJohn, get over it. If you believe you're doing nothing wrong then quit acting like a martyr.

Share this post


Link to post

Ya mean you've been called a monopoly before? Ummm...don't you have a trademark on the term "Geocaching Monopoly?" B):blink::blink:B)

Share this post


Link to post
Ya mean you've been called a monopoly before? Ummm...don't you have a trademark on the term "Geocaching Monopoly?"

Was this your best attempt at being on topic?

 

mmm.... Geocaching B)

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I didn't want to add any fuel to the martyr funeral pyre, so I just thought I'd do a little sucking up.....guess it didn't work. So, to get back on topic, I'm still curious as to when the "grizzlycaching.com" site is going to be up. Navitrash just doesn't cut it for me.

Share this post


Link to post
It is the intent of Groundspeak...>snip<

I never realized GPSSaxaphone was an official spokesperson for Groundspeak and could portend intentions. That's funny.

Why not quote the entire sentence? I said "It is the intent of Groundspeak to not allow data mining."

 

I don't see my statement as such a surprise, it's been said before, even in this post.

Edited by Team GPSaxophone

Share this post


Link to post
"It is the intent of Groundspeak to not allow data mining."

This statement is correct. The intent of Geocaching.com is to create the tools so people can go geocaching. It is a bit of a no-brainer.

Share this post


Link to post
It is the intent of Groundspeak...>snip<

I never realized GPSSaxaphone was an official spokesperson for Groundspeak and could portend intentions. That's funny.

Why not quote the entire sentence? I said "It is the intent of Groundspeak to not allow data mining."

 

I don't see my statement as such a surprise, it's been said before, even in this post.

And this statement (much as others pertaining to GC.com and Groundspeak by Saxy) is more on target than a lot of other statements pertaining to the site that others have made, even in this thread. I think if ya sit back and listen to Saxman, you'll find that he's got a pretty good command of the guidelines and intended uses of the site.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...