Freeing Up Cache Information

[s4xton]

For clarification on this subject - I think that if geocaching.com were to impliment this, it wouldn't be "open" in the sense that ju66l3r is implying. It would just mean that the data would be... well, syndicated. Point being, geocaching.com would still be the place to place caches and get them approved to geocaching.com standards. By syndicating, (I guess you could say the use of the word "open" is actually incorrect here), other cache sites would be able to use the data - but they wouldn't be able to create new caches on other sites that would eventually end up on geocaching.com. Server load would be distributed by interested parties that wanted to host the same information in their own manner. It would be a one-way street, though.

 

This is just the model that I was talking about above in my previous posts. What this "other site" that's spoken above on the parent of this thread might be doing in terms of "open," might very well be more along the lines of ju66l3r's thoughts... and afaik, this is the direction opencaching.com is going - although I could be wrong. It's a totally different model and there are some potential serious issues (That they are publically pounding out now) in terms of developing caching standards and approval methods when things are decentralized. They have the potential and the ideas to be a much better system than geocaching.com, and an open system that's done correctly very easily in time could be a permanent standard. It would be more of the majority of cachers that democratically work to develop standards, not a single corporation, as was implied above.

 

Although I disagree with some of the policies and standards with geocaching.com, Harrald is correct. Centralized standards has it's benefits, especially in terms of the longevity and public acceptance of this sport... and there are pros and cons with developing standards in a more public and democratic manner vs having Groundspeak dictate the rules for everyone. It'll be interesting to see what happens. I honestly hope opencaching.com gets legs...

 

...but going back on topic, if geocaching.com opened up cache information, they'd take a lot of the wind out of opencaching.com's sails...

 

-Aaron

[+yumitori]

There would be a benefit to GC.com and that would be the garnering of caches that are *not* listed here currently to increase the number of caches which is the point of why people come here (to find more caches). This is a small benefit in the current system, because GC.com is such an overwhelming majority of all of the caches currently available....but it is still the benefit to the different sites of a system where sites share their cache information.

 

 

Let's see... Personally I would gain 1 cache within 100 miles. No wait... that one was listed here as well before it disappeared and was archived. But it's still 'available' on another listing service.

 

I can certainly see the benefit to other sites, but any advantage gained by geocaching.com seems minimal at best. If a cache is out there that meets the standards here, most folks will already list it here. Those that don't usually have a reason why they don't, and it's unlikely those reasons will go away with open sharing.

 

So tell me again why geocaching.com should participate in this brave new experiment?

 

Ron/yumitori

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I can certainly see the benefit to other sites, but any advantage gained by geocaching.com seems minimal at best. If a cache is out there that meets the standards here, most folks will already list it here. Those that don't usually have a reason why they don't, and it's unlikely those reasons will go away with open sharing.

Bingo! Thanks for summing it up Yumitori.

[ju66l3r]

Are you saying that these other sites are going to abide by the same high standards?

If not, how is that going to affect geocaching in a good way?

Are land managers going to be as accommodating after these high standards are gone?

 

I personally don’t believe this can help the majority of Geocachers.

These other sites could already exist regardless of whether the data is open or not.

 

The question of whether other sites help geocaching's public image or not is not answered by whether the data is open amongst the different sites or not. You can code a webpage such that it enters a browser and attempts to download software to the user that installs viruses and spyware. The same is true for open data and as such whoever chooses to participate in the shared system would need to be acceptable to the other websites it is sharing with. In other words, if a website only houses caches that are buried 2 feet in the dirt, then they are not going to be receiving GC.com data because GC.com has no reason to help proliferate their caches by agreeing to set up a shared relationship between the two sites.

 

The standards of GC.com you worry about eroding are already localized to GC.com. There could be a www.buried-under-railroad-tracks-porn-cache.com website with a ground swell of support out there and these things you worry about would come to be problems even without anyone sharing a thing, though.

[s4xton]

I can certainly see the benefit to other sites, but any advantage gained by geocaching.com seems minimal at best. If a cache is out there that meets the standards here, most folks will already list it here. Those that don't usually have a reason why they don't, and it's unlikely those reasons will go away with open sharing.

Bingo! Thanks for summing it up Yumitori.

????

 

If geocaching.com were to open up cache information, I cannot see them accepting information from other sources. I can only imagine them sharing cache information, not allowing changes from the outside.

 

The benefit I laid out above. This talk about sharing being two-way is a bad idea for Groundspeak (although a good idea for opencaching.com).

 

I am curious as to yumitori's thoughts on what I've written in my last two posts... yomitori only summed up what ju66l3r was saying, which I think is much outside the scope of reality for geocaching.com (but not alternative cache sites).

 

-Aaron

[+yumitori]

I am curious as to yumitori's thoughts on what I've written in my last two posts... yomitori only summed up what ju66l3r was saying, which I think is much outside the scope of reality for geocaching.com (but not alternative cache sites).

 

-Aaron

 

I just wonder why Groundspeak would bother supporting such a one-way street, as you put it.

 

There would be a certain public relations value to the move, but I am unconvinced that such a benefit would be significant. There's folks out there that will only be satisfied the day geocaching.com dries up and blows away, and Jeremy has to get a job working the window at McDonalds. No matter what GC.com does, it will always be viewed as the evil monopoly by these people.

 

For the rest of the community I don't know that such a system would be overly prized. Of the interfaces I'm familiar with, my opinion is that geocaching.com blows everyone else away. What would another site offer to attract loyal users?

 

Would multiple listing sites would spread the server load enough to matter? There would still need to be daily updates between sites, and with a number of locations to exchange information with the bandwidth might even increase for GC.com.

 

In the end any move towards sharing cache listings would require the management here to take time away from all of the other great ideas folks in the forums have come up with. I don't think that sharing cache information is a bad idea, but it's way down on the list of things I'd like to see implemented.

[+Harrald]

GC.com has no reason to help proliferate their caches by agreeing to set up a shared relationship between the two sites.

 

You are more correct than you understand.

------------------------------------------------------------

 

The standards of GC.com you worry about eroding are already localized to GC.com.  There could be a www.buried-under-railroad-tracks-porn-cache.com website with a ground swell of support out there and these things you worry about would come to be problems even without anyone sharing a thing, though.

 

Groundswell? I find it highly unlikely. If a site starts allowing caches in any fashion GC.com will be able to insulate itself by not having any ties to it. Thus the offending cache lister <sp?> will have to answer for what they allow. Leaving GC.com to continue keeping the standards of their cache lists in line with what has been brokered over the years.

[+TEAM 360]

Seems like I stirred up quite a hornets nest on this subject. Some are for it, some are against it. We've heard from a range of posters, from the self-appointed GC.com "enforcers" to some of the newer cachers, both with strong opinions on the subject.

 

Changes WILL come to geocaching, that much is certain. Get ready.