Jump to content

Buxley New Caches Not Being Updated ?

vds

By vds
in General geocaching topics

Followers 16

Recommended Posts

jdoe

jdoe

Posted
Posted

Unfortunately, nothing has changed since my last posting... I still haven't heard anything from the folks at Groundspeak since their initial message to me back on September 24th.

Ed,

 

Thanks for responding, those of us who used your web page are really bummed to hear that there hasn't been any progress.

 

Could I perhaps suggest that you run your tool using a dial-up line via Juno?

 

<_<

 

I'll stay tuned.

 

John Doe

Link to comment
GrizzlyJohn

+GrizzlyJohn

Posted
Posted
I was going to offer to send Buxley a couple of my PQs figuring he'd be a paid member and thus licensed to have them, but alas, he isn't so I can't.

I am not a paid member so I can not find the terms about PQs at this time. But I think I recall reading that even if someone was a paid member you could not share your PQ with them anyway.

 

Like I said I am doing this from memory so if someone has the time and can read through the terms please let me know if that is true or not.

Link to comment
welch

+welch

Posted
Posted
I was going to offer to send Buxley a couple of my PQs figuring he'd be a paid member and thus licensed to have them, but alas, he isn't so I can't.

I am not a paid member so I can not find the terms about PQs at this time. But I think I recall reading that even if someone was a paid member you could not share your PQ with them anyway.

 

Like I said I am doing this from memory so if someone has the time and can read through the terms please let me know if that is true or not.

Are the terms the think listed at:

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

 

or is that something else?

Link to comment
GrizzlyJohn

+GrizzlyJohn

Posted
Posted
Are the terms the think listed at:

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

 

or is that something else?

Yes that is what I was thinking of.

 

Thanks.

 

So in one place it says you can only make one copy to archive it.

 

Then is says, "Licensee shall not sell, rent, lease, sublicense, lend, assign, time-share, or transfer, in whole or in part, or provide unlicensed third parties access to the Data, Related Materials, any updates, or Licensee's rights under this Agreement."

 

I am guessing that an unlicensed third party includes anybody that has not licensed it from gc.com and being a paid member does not make them a licensed third party. Because you could give a paid member a PQ even if they had not agreed to these terms.

 

But I am guessing here. Someone may know the answer to this for sure. But my thinking is that most people will be guessing at an answer. And as we have seen before TPTB don't know themselves what the terms really mean. So maybe it just means whatever you want it to mean, depending on what is the best answer at the time the question is asked.

Link to comment
Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted
And as we have seen before TPTB don't know themselves what the terms really mean.

Actually I believe I said that I don't speak to legal issues, and you have the right to find a lawyer who can offer you a legal opinion on the matter.

 

I'm not a lawyer but the license does say you can't share your pocket query with others, regardless of whether they are subscribers.

 

I am not the key person on this issue so I can't speak directly to it. However, we do have other important matters (like difficult hardware/software upgrades) that have been a higher priority.

Link to comment
welch

+welch

Posted
Posted
....

 

I am not the key person on this issue so I can't speak directly to it. However, we do have other important matters (like difficult hardware/software upgrades) that have been a higher priority.

Thank you for the answer :) (or sorta answer <_< ).

Link to comment
GrizzlyJohn

+GrizzlyJohn

Posted
Posted
Actually I believe I said that I don't speak to legal issues, and you have the right to find a lawyer who can offer you a legal opinion on the matter.

 

I'm not a lawyer but the license does say you can't share your pocket query with others, regardless of whether they are subscribers.

 

I am not the key person on this issue so I can't speak directly to it. However, we do have other important matters (like difficult hardware/software upgrades) that have been a higher priority.

But you still have not answered the question as to what your intentions of the terms are. Not just on this question of the PQs but on the other issues as well. And again I don't see you accepting what my lawyers have to say, or should I take your silence on that issue as a yes.

 

Your lawyers act on your behalf to enforce what you intend.

 

Your lawyers write the legal language based on what you want.

 

You are not the key person? Is there someone else in charge that we can talk to? Who is running things over there?

 

Are your lawyers also doing the hardware/software upgrades?

Link to comment
as77

+as77

Posted
Posted
And as we have seen before TPTB don't know themselves what the terms really mean.

Actually I believe I said that I don't speak to legal issues, and you have the right to find a lawyer who can offer you a legal opinion on the matter.

Since (I guess) the Terms were written up based on your instructions, I believe they must reflect your intentions (if they don't, you can have them modified). I believe that most people who ask a question about the Terms want to know the actual intents behind the document rather than a strictly legal interpretation of the text. Now probably you are the best person to tell us about your intentions (but of course you can choose not to).

Link to comment
CoyoteRed

CoyoteRed

Posted
Posted

So, has there been any progress on the "Buxley Situation?" Are there any active discussions going on internally or with outside counsel? Any indication when this will get resolved--soon, long time, never?

 

Can individuals or regional groups use the Groundspeak names space in the GPX files to deliver cache information that orignates with said individual or group?

 

Can a person who is allowed to download Pocket Queries give their Pocket Query to another person who is also allowed to download Pocket Queries?

Link to comment
GrizzlyJohn

+GrizzlyJohn

Posted
Posted
You are not the key person?

For what?

Oh brother!

 

Is there someone else in charge that we can talk to?

 

No.

Then the questions will never get answered.

 

Who is running things over there?

 

We are.

It would not seem so.

 

Are your lawyers also doing the hardware/software upgrades?

 

Of course not. That is silly.

Not nearly as silly as the answers we get here.

Link to comment
Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted
So, has there been any progress on the "Buxley Situation?"  Are there any active discussions going on internally or with outside counsel?

Nothing to announce publicly, no.

 

Any indication when this will get resolved--soon, long time, never?

 

No. We've learned long ago not to give deadlines.

 

Can individuals or regional groups use the Groundspeak names space in the GPX files to deliver cache information that orignates with said individual or group?

 

If you want intent, I would say no, we don't want other web sites using the Groundspeak namespace. Much of the data is specific to Geocaching.com and should remain that way. We'll need to word it so applications that individuals use (like GPSBabel and GSAK) can use the namespace for Groundspeak-originating data.

 

Can a person who is allowed to download Pocket Queries give their Pocket Query to another person who is also allowed to download Pocket Queries?

 

No. The intent of the current license is not allow that. We are, however, adding a feature to allow people to provide links to their own pocket query search options that the other user can run against the system and generate their own pocket query.

Link to comment
Planet

+Planet

Posted
Posted

I noticed Buxley's site no longer says anything about this on the site, if he can let it go, why can't you? What is all this commotion anyway? If you need a map, click on "view the map". Look at your GPS. What did you do before Buxley's? How ever did you get along? I'm sorry, I have not read this whole entire thread, only some of it, and I'm not about to start in now, but really, let it go for crying out loud. Put some of this energy into something worthwhile, like tomorrow's vote!

Link to comment
GrizzlyJohn

+GrizzlyJohn

Posted
Posted
That is entirely too vague. You still haven't asked a specific question (and yes, I did go back to your previous link).

You still have not answered the question and it is obvious you have no intention to do so. Typical.

 

But you have spoken volumes. And probably answered a lot of questions that were not even asked.

Link to comment
Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted
That is entirely too vague. You still haven't asked a specific question (and yes, I did go back to your previous link).

You still have not answered the question and it is obvious you have no intention to do so. Typical.

 

But you have spoken volumes. And probably answered a lot of questions that were not even asked.

All I can do at this point and shake my head at these kinds of petulant remarks. If you want to have an actual conversation, avoid the sophomoric rhetoric and ask some real questions. I think CR did an excellent job in asking direct questions.

 

If you can't do so I doubt I can help you.

Link to comment
Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted
Jeremy, all this secracy makes it seem that you were mad that Buxley's site was getting too popular....that's why everyone is so upset here. Can't you tell us anything?

I'm not sure what the secrecy would be. We don't have anything to report so there isn't anything to report. The issue has been well documented in this forum.

Link to comment
GrizzlyJohn

+GrizzlyJohn

Posted
Posted
All I can do at this point and shake my head at these kinds of petulant remarks. If you want to have an actual conversation, avoid the sophomoric rhetoric and ask some real questions. I think CR did an excellent job in asking direct questions.

 

If you can't do so I doubt I can help you.

You are the one that said asking what your intention was was too vague. Who is dealing in sophomoric rhetoric. There have been real questions asked. No real answers given.

 

Shake your head all you want. Some just see all of this as the games you play.

Link to comment
CoyoteRed

CoyoteRed

Posted
Posted

Jeremy, thanks for the answers! It's very much appreciated.

 

While I have your ear...

 

I have spoken to a developer of a particular 3rd party program. I asked if it would be possible for them to be able to import an open data type so otherwise unpublished caches could be imported into their software. This would be so this otherwise unpublished cache data could be sorted along side gc.com cache data for private use.

 

The answer I got back pretty much was a "no." They went on to explain they did not want to get on your bad side for importing other, possibly competing, cache data.

 

My question is this: while understanding a 3rd party developer could do anything they want with their program, would you get upset if they did implement a mechanism to import cache data that did not originate from gc.com? Would it affect their standing at gc.com in any way?

 

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Link to comment
Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted
My question is this: while understanding a 3rd party developer could do anything they want with their program, would you get upset if they did implement a mechanism to import cache data that did not originate from gc.com? Would it affect their standing at gc.com in any way?

It wouldn't bother me.

Link to comment
CoyoteRed

CoyoteRed

Posted
Posted

In case you are wondering just what the heck I'm trying to get at.

 

I want to be able to pass around some private caches and allow folks to import them into their PDAs along side the regular caches. I'd like to have my caches along side other caches on the pages that have the next nearest caches and cache lists. Basically making it seamless on a PDA.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
as77

+as77

Posted
Posted
You are the one that said asking what your intention was was too vague. Who is dealing in sophomoric rhetoric. There have been real questions asked. No real answers given.

GrizzlyJohn, maybe it's my mistake but it's not clear to me either what the question was that you expect Jeremy to answer. Your post at the link you gave doesn't contain a question either. This doesn't make things easier. Instead of vaguely referring to "the question", why don't you just clearly spell it out again?

Link to comment
GrizzlyJohn

+GrizzlyJohn

Posted
Posted
GrizzlyJohn, maybe it's my mistake but it's not clear to me either what the question was that you expect Jeremy to answer. Your post at the link you gave doesn't contain a question either. This doesn't make things easier. Instead of vaguely referring to "the question", why don't you just clearly spell it out again?

One question was, "What is your intention of what they mean?" But that seems too vague. Not sure how asking what ones intention was/is as it relates to a legal document on their website is vague but it looks like that is here.

 

Another question was, "So should I understand your statement to mean that if my legal counsel tells me I am not violating your terms of use then I am good to go and you don't have any problem with that?" I keep getting refered to check with my lawyers and I am not sure what purpose that what would serve unless my lawyer would be providing the final answer.

 

Or the question that was originally asked a few posts up from my response that I linked to.

 

Or maybe what being busy with hardware/software upgrades has to do with lawyers working on an agreement.

Link to comment
as77

+as77

Posted
Posted
One question was, "What is your intention of what they mean?" But that seems too vague. Not sure how asking what ones intention was/is as it relates to a legal document on their website is vague but it looks like that is here.

Well, vague is perhaps not the best word for it but that question is indeed almost impossible to answer, I cannot blame Jeremy for that. The question is too general, too broad. I mean, there's a long legal document with many points and details. You cannot just ask "what was your intention with all this". I would suggest you pick out a specific detail and ask about that. E.g. "what was your intention regarding whether premium members should be allowed to share their PQs with other premium members". That's one well-defined question Jeremy can answer (like he indeed did).

 

I believe if you ask clear-cut, specific questions like this (without forcing him to go back and try to retrace some old question somewhere in the thread) you can get some meaningful answers from him. Especially if you ask questions that can be answered with yes or no :lol: because he doesn't seem to like writing long essays.

Link to comment
Moose Mob

+Moose Mob

Posted
Posted (edited)

Well, I just want to add my $.02 here.

 

I miss the ability to view worldwide maps om Buxley's site. It doesn't have to be Buxley's, although one must give him credit for starting this method of viewing caches online in a such a broad scale.

 

Then I step back, look at what Jeremy has done with Groundspeak and geocaching.com. I see Jeremy and his team active within the forums, addressing ideas, new concepts, and even helping individuals address issues.

 

I have to say that I have agreed with all the other philosophies that have immenated from the folks at Groundspeak. For that reason, I feel I can trust whatever reason it is that they feel they need to do whatever it is they are doing.

 

Thank You.

 

** steps off soap box **

Edited by Moose Mob
Link to comment
GrizzlyJohn

+GrizzlyJohn

Posted
Posted
Well, vague is perhaps not the best word for it but that question is indeed almost impossible to answer, I cannot blame Jeremy for that. ...

I snipped your post to save space not to take things out of context.

 

My post way back when was based on a very specific question that was raised. The response was,"You can understand that, since we're not lawyers, we can't offer opinions and interpretations of the terms of use. You are welcome to communicate with your own legal council to answer that question."

 

If one wants to hide behind lawyers that is fine. But to say that you can not offer an opinion or interpretation on your own terms of use just seems like a cop out to me. Really my point is not much different than the one you raised earlier.

 

Through out this entire thread many questions have been raised but there have been very few answers. But a lot of, we will have to check into that. Or, that will need to be changed. And as far as we can tell no communication to any of the involved parties. I still have yet to seen anything to change my mind that this is the typical MO here. This has gone on for over a month and yet the players who's court the ball is in has seem to have done nothing to move this forward and will give no idea on when anybody can expect to see it completed.

 

If all of that is vague I am sorry. But there is a lot of things that are outstanding that we have no answers for, that I find very vague as well. If some of these questions had been answered earlier and with real answers it may not have gotten to this point of snowballing.

Link to comment
as77

+as77

Posted
Posted (edited)

I agree that they seem reluctant to answer. The question is whether 1. they are reluctant to answer because they are uncertain what they want, 2. they are reluctant to answer because the real answer would make them look bad.

 

Elias said a few encouraging things in this thread earlier. It made me think for a moment that I had misinterpreted Groundspeak's underlying philosophy. But maybe I had not, after all.

Edited by as77
Link to comment
nfa

+nfa

Posted
Posted

ESCHEW OBFUSCATION!!!

 

The recent posts from TPTB come off sounding a lot like "Charlie Brown Grown-up Talk" to me...anyone else?

 

Have TPTB been in communications with Buxley since September?

 

Have TPTB made a decision about allowing Buxley access to gc.com data?

 

Are TPTB going to work with Buxley to try to come up with a fix that will allow Buxley to access gc.com data?

 

nfa-jamie

Link to comment
Marky

+Marky

Posted
Posted
The recent posts from TPTB come off sounding a lot like "Charlie Brown Grown-up Talk" to me...anyone else?

No, I've found the recent posts relatively understandable.

Have TPTB been in communications with Buxley since September?

As of OCt 20th, they hadn't. I haven't seen anything from TPTB or Buxley to make me think otherwise.

Have TPTB made a decision about allowing Buxley access to gc.com data?

No. This one seemed clear to me. No decision has been made on how this is going to be addressed.

Are TPTB going to work with Buxley to try to come up with a fix that will allow Buxley to access gc.com data?

It isn't possible to determine this from the information available. It appears, from the information available, that the ball is currently in the court of TPTB.

 

These are, of course, just my opinions based on the information available. :lol:

 

--Marky

Link to comment
nfa

+nfa

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hi Marky,

 

Let me clarify my thoughts on the matter, and why I feel that recent comments by TPTB have been deliberately unclear or limited.

 

TPTB had said back in September that they were working on something with Buxley, but they haven't been in touch with him since a letter saying they would be in touch to try and work something out. It seems to me that given that about 2 months have passed without their getting back in touch a decision has, in fact, been made by TPTB.

 

It would seem that gc.com has decided to let their relationship with Buxley's wither into oblivion. I believe that TPTB have not said anything to support or refute this belief because they would like the subject of this thread to wither in a manner similar to Buxley's maps.

 

It would be a simple matter for TPTB to make a clear statement (with a legal disclaimer on front if they truly feel that simple posts to a forum require them) saying that they either will or won't be working to reach an arrangement with Buxley to allow some form of access to gc.com data.

 

I've looked at some threads having to do with the site from the past, and have not seen the same level of "must consult our attorneys" "we're not lawyers, and as such cannot comment in this venue" type of language, so I (and it seems as though I'm not alone) can only assume that the vague responses are an intentional ploy to lull/bore/distract the people who have the gall to question the way a service they pay for is being run.

 

It would be too bad if TPTB decide (or have decided) to continue the lockout of Buxley, but it is their choice...all I'm asking for is a response to this thread in a meaningful manner by TPTB.

 

I am sorry if this message comes on too strong, offends readers, or wastes the time of anyone involved, that is truly not my intention...I am simply interested in the outcome of this discussion which seems to have become stalled.

 

My sincerest thanks and gratitude are extended to all involved in this discussion for their time, patience, and understanding.

 

nfa - jamie

 

ps - in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics, no electrons were created or destroyed in the course of writing or posting this message.

 

logo1.gif

Edited by NFA
Link to comment
Eric K

+Eric K

Posted
Posted

Just my 2 cents on this thread:

 

1. It appears that if an answer from TPTB isn't the answer some people want to hear then they get upset.

 

2. I can see thier point when they say "refer to the lawyers". If they post something in this public thread that could be misconstrued then another lawyer could use it as saying something like, "As you can see by this post Groundspeak gave permission publicly for blah, blah, blah..."

 

I am NOT a lawyer and that is purely speculation.

Link to comment
Pto

Pto

Posted
Posted
If they post something in this public thread that could be misconstrued then another lawyer could use it as saying something like, "As you can see by this post Groundspeak gave permission publicly for blah, blah, blah..."

 

While I agree, I also think its pretty hard to misconstrue "Yes" or "No" - which is all the answer needed on some cases.

Link to comment
nfa

+nfa

Posted
Posted
While I agree, I also think its pretty hard to misconstrue "Yes" or "No" - which is all the answer needed on some cases.

Which we have, in some cases. If I missed a yes or no answer in there somewhere, bring it up.

Hi Jeremy,

 

Thanks for your help and participation in this, I feel, important discussion.

 

1) Discussions will be actively pursued to try to come to an arrangement between Buxley and gc.com to allow Buxley access to gc.com data.

 

Could you please render a "YES" or "NO" answer to this question from an earlier post of mine?

 

Thanks,

 

nfa-jamie

Link to comment
Elias

Elias

Posted
Posted
Have TPTB been in communications with Buxley since September?

No we haven't. It honestly just fell off my radar when we had more pressing issues with the site to deal with. I sent him an email yesterday with a similar note to let him know we haven't forgotten.

 

Have TPTB made a decision about allowing Buxley access to gc.com data?

 

Are TPTB going to work with Buxley to try to come up with a fix that will allow Buxley to access gc.com data?

No decisions have been made. But we are willing to open a dialog with him and we'll see where it goes.

 

;) Elias

Link to comment
nfa

+nfa

Posted
Posted (edited)

Thanks Elias!!!

 

I really appreciate your straightforward answers, and am grateful for your efforts on behalf of gc.com and geocaching.

 

I will await further developments without further harassment (until after Thanksgiving anyway).

 

Thanks again,

 

nfa-jamie

Edited by NFA
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 16
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...