Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 16
vds

Buxley New Caches Not Being Updated ?

Recommended Posts

I guess it's just me, but my opinion of Buxley's has changed in 3yrs.

No, it's not just you. I've noticed the same things even here.

 

The GC.com maps (at least in the US) are so much better for that,

Unfortunately, only in the US. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

Buxley's is a lot handier when planning a road trip. It's much easier to find caches along a route than what GC offers.

Whatever the reason I hope GC and Buxley's can work it out. I want Buxley's back.

Share this post


Link to post
Buxley's is a lot handier when planning a road trip. It's much easier to find caches along a route than what GC offers.

You might find this thread interesting then.

Share this post


Link to post

If GC could just allow a (for example) 1 time per day download of new caches and disabled/archived ones to Buxley's I would be happy and I am sure it wouldn't strain the web site. Just how big could an XML of that data be?? Just coords, names and types. I like the brillig maps for the rural areas I live in but I understand the frustration for high density cache areas. Maybe Brillig could up the number of zoom levels??

Share this post


Link to post

"Route caches" development is taking place right now, if you look at the pinned thread in the geocaching.com website forum. And from the talks it looks promising.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi,

 

Could somebody "in the know", like jeremy, come out and say whether or not buxley has been banned or throttled or whatever...and why...the back and forthing without any info is useless.

 

I have enjoyed using buxley's maps, and find his site to be a useful complementary service to the gc.com site...so I would like to know what is really happening.

 

Maybe some arrangement could be made to allow buxley to datamine once a week a 3am on Wednesdays or some other slow time...this is a topic for discussion that is obviously of interest to a number of people besides myself.

 

nfa

Share this post


Link to post
I guess it's just me, but my opinion of Buxley's has changed in 3yrs. Back then, there were few caches and I had few finds, I found the site somewhat useful. Now, if I look at his maps for my stomping grounds now, they are useless. There are thousands of caches within 100 miles of me, and Buxley doesn't allow me to zoom down close enough to separate many of them. I often cant even easily click down to a zoom level at all, since its a big blob of caches, if I click anywhere I get a cache, not a zoom level. My second gripe is it doesn't remove archived or disabled caches. So after 3yrs, sometimes many of the caches he's showing are no longer there. It's a PITA to click each one and see if they even still exist to get an idea of a route. Which brings me to my 3rd problem. It doesn't know what caches I've found. After 3yrs I've found a few caches, and to use buxleys for any sort of planning i need to click each cache, scroll to the bottom and show all logs, then search them all to see if I'm there. In most of my frequent caching areas, I've alreadhy found 1/2 the caches there or more, so it's a real pain (and a waste of gc.com resources) to figure out what caches to do via Buxleys. The GC.com maps (at least in the US) are so much better for that, and personally, using the PQs and my own local mapping is better yet. I just see active caches I haven't found, I click the ones I want to do, and let the software route them out.

Now, I could see when Buxley started and gc.com didn't have cache maps there was a need, and there still may be a need outside the the us where GC is lacking in maps, but for most users his site no longer serves a useful purpose. Despite what he says about being "banned", I suspect his maps collected data the same way the stats scrapers were, and he has the same problem with now being throttled they have. I for one am glad to see it. Since they started cracking down on the site scrapers the site is running faster and smoother then it has in ages. For the first time all summer the site is actually usable on weekends when most of us want to use it. If Buxley's maps were part of that problem that's now fixed, I'm glad to see them go.

Mopar,

You make a lot of good points. I live in a somewhat cache starved area, so I haven't noticed the problems you mentioned as much. I can definitely see why Buxley's is of no more use to you, tho. I have to disagree on GC.com's maps being any more useful however. With all those goofy icons clustered together, I can never figure out what I'm looking at. And on Buxley's you could just hover over the dot and see what cache you were looking at. On GC.com's you need to click 'Identify' and wait for the page to reload. Bleh! I sure wish there was an option on GC.com to switch to dots instead and enable the hover feature. It would make their maps 100x more useful to me. Also, why are GC.com's maps confined to such a small square of the page. I'd like them a lot bigger. I do agree that my own maps are the way to go. Total control of icons, zooming, info, colors, etc. Way, way better than both of the aforementioned pages.

 

Sorry, I guess this turned into more of a 'Why I dislike GC.com's maps'. Maybe that's why I don't want to see Buxley's go away. Competition is always a good thing.

 

--RuffRidr

Share this post


Link to post

This is kind of funny.

 

With little inside information, I won't say it confidently, but caches on Buxleys's don't go away when they're archived because while you can get the coords and cachename without actually scraping the individual cache pages, you can't learn that a cache has gone away WITHOUT scraping them periodically to see if they've gone away. So it's because it's not hammering the site that the old caches are there.

 

I find the point that boils down to "I've outgrown it or don't like it, so you shouldn't have it either" to be quite uncompelling.

 

As a technical problem, distributing data to partners is a well understood and easily solvable problem. (Hint: it almost certainly doesn't involve programmatically reading web pages meant for humans.) But this is a business/territorial problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Here is the post on Buxley's website in case someone hasnt seen it yet.

 

http://www.brillig.com/geocaching/status.html

Wish I could read it, but the pumpkin-colored part of the frame blocks the first few characters of each line. This is on Mozilla, mind you, so it may not be the websites fault, but rather the browser. ?

I think it is a table not a frame - I have same prob. with Mozilla but not in IE

Share this post


Link to post
Mopar,

You make a lot of good points. I live in a somewhat cache starved area, so I haven't noticed the problems you mentioned as much. I can definitely see why Buxley's is of no more use to you, tho. I have to disagree on GC.com's maps being any more useful however. With all those goofy icons clustered together, I can never figure out what I'm looking at. And on Buxley's you could just hover over the dot and see what cache you were looking at. On GC.com's you need to click 'Identify' and wait for the page to reload. Bleh! I sure wish there was an option on GC.com to switch to dots instead and enable the hover feature. It would make their maps 100x more useful to me. Also, why are GC.com's maps confined to such a small square of the page. I'd like them a lot bigger. I do agree that my own maps are the way to go. Total control of icons, zooming, info, colors, etc. Way, way better than both of the aforementioned pages.

 

Sorry, I guess this turned into more of a 'Why I dislike GC.com's maps'. Maybe that's why I don't want to see Buxley's go away. Competition is always a good thing.

 

--RuffRidr

 

Part of the problem with the smaller maps (yes they can be a bit of a pain) has to do with bandwidth issues I am sure.

 

They area easy to deal with by scrolling the map in most cases.

Share this post


Link to post

FWIW, in the last email I received from Joe he said the problem with the orange banner should be fixed now. Try refreshing your browser.

 

I do hope Jeremy, et al, can work out some sort of agreement. Perhaps they could incorporate the capabilities of Buxley's maps here at GC.COM and make it availabe to premium/charter members.

 

Zack

Share this post


Link to post

One idea if GC could dump a subset of out thier database tables and offer it to places like Buxley's once or twice a day - filtering out of course the subscription caches. The FCC amateur radio callsign database is made to the public in a similiar fashion.

 

Just a thought...

Share this post


Link to post
It would be nice if GrSpk would enter into an agreement with a couple of outside entities like Buxley and maybe a comprehensive stats site and let them grab what they need.

If only! GeocacheUK is happy to be "recognised by Groundspeak" and, unlike Buxleys, we only list GC.com caches, but we still have difficulty getting the data we need.

 

On the one hand, the guys at Groundspeak very generously allow any premium member to download large chunks of their cache database via PQs. Yet on the other hand, they get very twitchy about 3rd party sites like Buxleys obtaining data from GC.com. Why? Not for technical reasons, surely, as a simple "all caches in the world" GPX query available for download by specially licenced stats sites would be far friendlier on the servers than the current situation.

 

Jeremy - all your data is already "out there" in the big wide world, available to all. Your control over it comes from the Groundspeak terms of use document, not from all those hours you've spent implementing throttling and URL obfuscation. Why, when you're so keen to promote offline apps like GSAK, do you not similarly encourage online services who add value to the GC.com offering?

Share this post


Link to post
Buxley's is a lot handier when planning a road trip.  It's much easier to find caches along a route than what GC offers. 

You might find this thread interesting then.

All that discussion and I was getting the same result tracking the routes on Buxley's. And a whole lot simpler with Buxley's.

Share this post


Link to post
Buxley's is a lot handier when planning a road trip.  It's much easier to find caches along a route than what GC offers. 

You might find this thread interesting then.

All that discussion and I was getting the same result tracking the routes on Buxley's. And a whole lot simpler with Buxley's.

Ahhh, I guess I missed the new PQ along a route feature at Buxleys. What's being worked on in that thread here is something along the lines of "I'm taking a trip from point A to point B. Just give me all the caches within x miles of my route in a PQ." Automatically. No looking at 1000 little red dots and checking each one.

Just something like "give me all traditional caches 2/2 or less within 1 mile of all the roads I will be driving while traveling from NYC to DC." That seems a lot handier for planning a road trip then using anyone's maps.

Share this post


Link to post
Buxley's is a lot handier when planning a road trip.  It's much easier to find caches along a route than what GC offers. 

You might find this thread interesting then.

All that discussion and I was getting the same result tracking the routes on Buxley's. And a whole lot simpler with Buxley's.

Ahhh, I guess I missed the new PQ along a route feature at Buxleys. What's being worked on in that thread here is something along the lines of "I'm taking a trip from point A to point B. Just give me all the caches within x miles of my route in a PQ." Automatically. No looking at 1000 little red dots and checking each one.

Just something like "give me all traditional caches 2/2 or less within 1 mile of all the roads I will be driving while traveling from NYC to DC." That seems a lot handier for planning a road trip then using anyone's maps.

Ok Mopar...we get it...you don't like Buxley's... :)

 

I did use Buxley's for scouting out a recent trip out to Utah in by scanning along the buxley maps, and clicking on the cache dots to check out the ones along my route, and it worked pretty well at helping me plan my caching while out in Utah.

 

Was it perfect, no.

 

Was it the maddening red swirl awash with archived caches you seem to be faced with every time you look at buxley's, no.

 

It was a useful tool for geocaching out of my home environment...what's the matter with that? You seem to be vehement to the point of attacking anyone who doesn't agree with you about buxley's being a horrible thing.

 

I would like for Buxley's to continue being able to mine data from gc.com in some capacity, and obviously so would lots of other people. If it will not be allowed to happen, I would love to hear the reasons from TPTB...

 

I feel that buxley's serves a useful purpose in the geocaching community, and allocating some bandwidth to a weekly update would be worthwhile from my point of view...certainly as worthwhile as an OT forum and some other features that don't expressly serve the majority of the geocaching community.

 

just my thoughts...

 

nfa

Share this post


Link to post

Ahhh, I guess I missed the new PQ along a route feature at Buxleys. What's being worked on in that thread here is something along the lines of "I'm taking a trip from point A to point B. Just give me all the caches within x miles of my route in a PQ." Automatically. No looking at 1000 little red dots and checking each one.

Just something like "give me all traditional caches 2/2 or less within 1 mile of all the roads I will be driving while traveling from NYC to DC." That seems a lot handier for planning a road trip then using anyone's maps.

Cool, so in another 6 months or a year, maybe we'll (everyone or paid members?) have something to usable :)

Share this post


Link to post

Ok Mopar...we get it...you don't like Buxley's... :)

 

I did use Buxley's for scouting out a recent trip out to Utah in by scanning along the buxley maps, and clicking on the cache dots to check out the ones along my route, and it worked pretty well at helping me plan my caching while out in Utah.

 

Was it perfect, no.

 

Was it the maddening red swirl awash with archived caches you seem to be faced with every time you look at buxley's, no.

 

It was a useful tool for geocaching out of my home environment...what's the matter with that? You seem to be vehement to the point of attacking anyone who doesn't agree with you about buxley's being a horrible thing.

 

I would like for Buxley's to continue being able to mine data from gc.com in some capacity, and obviously so would lots of other people. If it will not be allowed to happen, I would love to hear the reasons from TPTB...

 

No, then you don't get it. I find Buxley's to be useless for me. I would suspect many others who cache in higher density areas or have more then 50-100 finds feel the same way. I keep hearing how great Buxley's is for planning a trip. Let me show you how POOR it is for me. I'm taking a trip from CT to DC. During my trip, I don't want to do any extreme caches, or travel too far from my route. Obviously, I don't care about caches I've already found, or are archived. Let's stat with Buxley. This is what I get:

74826983-cff6-43eb-bca7-df643160f636.jpg

According to Buxley, that's 1510 caches in NJ. Of those, over 300 are archived. Probably 400 of them or so I've already found.But which ones? I dunno. Buxley allows one more zoom level, if I can find a spot that isn't a cache. The maps don't actually zoom down centered in the area I'm interested in (I-95).

 

Now, lets try this the way Jeremy et al are proposing in the thread I linked to before. This is a map of the solution being worked out there will look like:

dd0bc985-1336-454d-ade0-f1702f2bd086.jpg

That's an arc file of my route filtered to exclude caches I've already found, caches harder then 2.5/2.5, and caches more then 1 mile away from my route. Of course it also excludes archived and disabled caches.

So, instead of 1510 caches to pick thru for the NJ leg of my trip, I now have 40. I don't think anyone can argue the 2nd way is better.

 

I feel that buxley's serves a useful purpose in the geocaching community, and allocating some bandwidth to a weekly update would be worthwhile from my point of view...certainly as worthwhile as an OT forum and some other features that don't expressly serve the majority of the geocaching community.

 

just my thoughts...

I can see charging a premium here to support this website. I can even see the premium members supporting the non-paying members. What I cant see is part of the money being spent to cover expenses incurred because another site is taking resources I help pay for to run their own website.

 

No, I don't hate Buxley's website. I could care less if it comes or goes. Obviously there are plenty of people that do care. What I care about is as soon as Jeremy installed software to limit datamining, the website became usable on weekends again. Sorry, but given the choice between Buxley's maps and some stats and no usable website 3 days a week, or no Buxley's and stats and the site up 24/7, I'll take the site. Thats what we pay for, not buxleys, and not stats. Perhaps Jeremy should charge Buxley for the resources used to aquire data. Then the users that feel his website is useful can pay him $3 a month. Seems fair to me.

Share this post


Link to post

Check out Buxley's site. Too bad Groundspeak won't let him update his maps. I used Buxley's exclusively to decide on the caches I would do in an area. Hopfully this will be resolved soon so we can again use this great service.

Share this post


Link to post

Whether or not Buxley's site is useful to you or not, it can't be denied. It is a tool cachers use. But that really ISN'T the real issue here.

 

The issues are IMO...

 

1) The issue is whether or not GC.com should allow it data to 3rd parties.

 

2) Does Buxley's site put too much of a load querying GC.com?

 

3) Is there another solution that would make the data available to Buxley that would not affect the performance of GC.COM?

 

All of this is in the hands of TPTB. I would like to see Buxley's site continue to serve the caching community, but not at the expense that would degrade the GC.COM site.

Share this post


Link to post

Gee Mopar - that looks cool!! - too bad it doesn't exist anywhere..... (arc file???? - geekspeak to me - I am a visual person - zoom in and red dots along a highway look great to me) - We all get it - you don't use Buxleys - I do and would like to see an amicable solution that gets the Buxley site updated while also not killing gc.com performance. All most of us are asking is that the community work on a solution that doesn't include killing useful (to some of us) websites.

Share this post


Link to post
:blink: It too bad Buxley has been shut out. His service worked great with the Geocaching.com site. I going to assume Groundspeak will probably rip off his software and add it to their premium member section. All of us novice and part time users will be a** out. Edited by broach

Share this post


Link to post
"Route caches" development is taking place right now, if you look at the pinned thread in the geocaching.com website forum. And from the talks it looks promising.

Routes need to be easy to use.

 

When I think of easy I think of a map with dots representing caches.

 

I can draw a rectangle around the caches I want. A GPX file for those caches is spit out. Done.

 

If I want more caches I draw more rectangles as I scroll my map. Selected caches can appear in a list like waypoints do in a Garmin map on the PC.

 

If I hit ctrl while dawing a rectangle the caches are unselected. That way I can trim my list. Selected caches change color.

 

Hopefully whatever is being discussed is as easy as that.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Now, lets try this the way Jeremy et al are proposing in the thread I linked to before. This is a map of the solution being worked out there will look like:

dd0bc985-1336-454d-ade0-f1702f2bd086.jpg

That's an arc file of my route filtered to exclude caches I've already found, caches harder then 2.5/2.5, and caches more then 1 mile away from my route. Of course it also excludes archived and disabled caches.

So, instead of 1510 caches to pick thru for the NJ leg of my trip, I now have 40. I don't think anyone can argue the 2nd way is better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, that is super useful to me...if only it existed.... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
74826983-cff6-43eb-bca7-df643160f636.jpg

Oops, if it was the country of Sweden could each red dot stand for every citizen in the country.. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

In the Bay Area Buxley's allows you to zoom a little which is very helpful. I too use Buxley's to plan my caching trips and want to see it back up. I share the opinion that it takes some burden from GC servers but what do I know.

 

This is San Francisco and surrounds.san_francisco.gif

Share this post


Link to post
74826983-cff6-43eb-bca7-df643160f636.jpg

Mopar,

 

The lines on the map of NJ you included allow you to zoom in on an area more closely...maybe you didn't know that... :blink:

 

Zooming in would allow you a better view of the caches to be found in NJ...here's a couple of the zoomed in areas from the map you attached earlier...

 

delaware_water_gap.gif

 

new_york_ny_and_newark_nj.gif

 

long_branch.gif

 

delaware_bay.gif

 

greater_philadelphia.gif

 

You can zoom in to an even greater extent on some of these zoomed maps to give you an even greater level of detail, maybe you didn't know that... ;)

 

here's an example from on eof the above maps...

 

doylestown.gif

 

buxley's isn't perfect, nor is it gc.com's job to support them, but if we're going to have a discussion about this, let's try to include the facts...

 

nfa

Share this post


Link to post
Gee Mopar - that looks cool!! - too bad it doesn't exist anywhere.....

Wow, that is super useful to me...if only it existed.... 

 

That map, and the GPX file I loaded into my GPS for that trip, does exist. That was a real example from a few weeks ago. All the software exists right now to do that yourself for your own trip. It just has to be done on your own PC, using the PQs we have now. The only problem with that is it's wasteful. That leg of the trip required 2 PQs of 500 caches each just to get the 40 I was interested in. This is going way off-topic though, so if anyone is interested in how to plan a trip without staring at maps and clicking hundreds of little red dots, start with this thread. I basically use several of the ideas discussed there.

Share this post


Link to post

buxley's isn't perfect, nor is it gc.com's job to support them, but if we're going to have a discussion about this, let's try to include the facts...

 

nfa

I did mention you could zoom more in places.

 

Buxley allows one more zoom level, if I can find a spot that isn't a cache. The maps don't actually zoom down centered in the area I'm interested in (I-95).

Notice that if you piece those maps together, you don't have a complete map of NJ. I want all the caches along RT95 (that I haven't already found, and aren't archived). Remember, 300 of those caches on that map are since archived. Who knows how many are disabled. I've also found about 400 caches along that route already, and no I don't remember the name of each one. I'm not interested in high terrain caches, or puzzles along the trip, so skip those too.

Buxley's way has me looking at 1000+ cache pages to see if each one meets my criteria and then manually saving each one that does. My way had me looking at 40 cache pages which were already downloaded from GC and available to me offline, in my laptop and my PDA.

Share this post


Link to post

I've not long discovered Buxley's site, and I've found it an excellent tool for locating caches in new areas I'm visiting (Recently used it to locate caches in Toulouse, France). So it's a shame that it seems that Geocaching.com seems to be blocking the updating of what is basically a search tool that links back to it's own site once you've clicked on the cache you're interested in. For the record, I'm a Premium member, but also wholeheartedly support sites that make International Geocaching more user friendly than it is( have you tried looking for a cache in a completely unknown area :blink: )

Share this post


Link to post
Gee Mopar - that looks cool!! - too bad it doesn't exist anywhere.....

Wow, that is super useful to me...if only it existed.... 

 

That map, and the GPX file I loaded into my GPS for that trip, does exist. That was a real example from a few weeks ago. All the software exists right now to do that yourself for your own trip. It just has to be done on your own PC, using the PQs we have now. The only problem with that is it's wasteful. That leg of the trip required 2 PQs of 500 caches each just to get the 40 I was interested in. This is going way off-topic though, so if anyone is interested in how to plan a trip without staring at maps and clicking hundreds of little red dots, start with this thread. I basically use several of the ideas discussed there.

Ok - I too could run endless PQ's for my 1100 mile trip, massage the data into a database, filter it a bit and then load it into my copy of mappoint 2004 create a route and reverse out the data that fit..........sigh. Or I could follow Buxleys maps. Again - I get that you don't use Buxleys Mopar - I get it - really. I get you want routeable maps - I want them too (if it is easy to use). But this topic is for trying to get an understanding between gc.com and buxleys to restore a useful service - i vote YES!.

Share this post


Link to post

I used to look at Buxley's maps every day to keep a eye on new caches around my brothers "Binrat" area of operations. It was by far the easiest way to do it. I hope this situation can be cleared up.

Share this post


Link to post
Ok - I too could run endless PQ's for my 1100 mile trip, massage the data into a database, filter it a bit and then load it into my copy of mappoint 2004 create a route and reverse out the data that fit..........sigh. Or I could follow Buxleys maps. Again - I get that you don't use Buxleys Mopar - I get it - really. I get you want routeable maps - I want them too (if it is easy to use). But this topic is for trying to get an understanding between gc.com and buxleys to restore a useful service - i vote YES!.

Which just shows how many cachers are so lazy they would rather spend dozens of hours using a mediocre solution that's handed to them on a silver platter, rather then spend an hour thinking for themselves.

My last time repeating myself... I couldn't give 2 doots if Buxley's maps come or go. If he can provide them without violating the Terms Of Use of this website, and if he can provide them within the confines of data acquisition every other user here has to accept, then fine, map away.

If he CAN"T, if his site requires more resources then legitimate geocachers are allocated, then perhaps he can arrange to PAY for the excessive usage. Those here that feel they are useful can then pay Buxley back.

The same plan could work for the stats sites. You want to pound the site as hard as 1000 normal users do, then maybe you should be allowed to do that, for the cost of 1000 premium memberships.

Share this post


Link to post

I vote for TPTB to work out a win win solution with Buxley's. To keep Buxley's alive and updated without any significant drain on the gc servers is the goal.

 

I find Buxley's to be a very cool site. The above screen shot of The Bay Area is actually something I have done myself. I live in PA, but vacation in San Francisco. So I zoomed in to The Bay Area to find caches I would want to try when I'm out there.

 

I don't have a PDA and I don't have nor want to buy software to produce arc tangets or whatever they are. Buxley's is cool, it's easy and it works for many.

 

I vote YES to restore Buxley's.

 

If Buxley's is restored and updated on a consistent basis, I will become a Groundspeak Premium Member and that is a promise.

 

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Which just shows how many cachers are so lazy they would rather spend dozens of hours using a mediocre solution that's handed to them on a silver platter, rather then spend an hour thinking for themselves.

My last time repeating myself... I couldn't give 2 doots if Buxley's maps come or go. If he can provide them without violating the Terms Of Use of this website, and if he can provide them within the confines of data acquisition every other user here has to accept, then fine, map away.

If he CAN"T, if his site requires more resources then legitimate geocachers are allocated, then perhaps he can arrange to PAY for the excessive usage. Those here that feel they are useful can then pay Buxley back.

The same plan could work for the stats sites. You want to pound the site as hard as 1000 normal users do, then maybe you should be allowed to do that, for the cost of 1000 premium memberships.

sigh...... my last post here (in that I am soooooooo lazy). I want Buxleys to be there AND I want performance for gc.com - let us work to find a solution that works both ways. Obviously there were problems - lets work to resolve them. I vote gc works on a solution.

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't found the Buxley's maps to be real useful. On a recent business trip to Charlotte I wanted to make time to grab a cache in South Carolina for my state list. I tried using Buxley's maps but had problems. First, you couldn't see the border. Second, 6 of the 10 caches I checked were either archived, unavailable, or old event caches.

 

I ran a PQ and used GSAK and found a suitable cache very quickly.

 

Since people seem to be voting, I'm voting in favor of letting Buxley go unsupported. It's no help to me.

Share this post


Link to post

Have all of the other scrapers of gc.com info been banned as well, or is buxely special?

 

CO quoted the TOS to me this am, but buxley has been doing this for years, why the crackdown now?

 

nfa, apparently a lazy cacher

Share this post


Link to post

I just want to says that Buxley's Maps has been a great tool for seeing new caches in my area or state. It has saved a lot of time of not having to click every new cache listing, (which only shows the last ten caches, and if your gone a few days too bad) to see if it is one close to our home base or not. It has also been a great tool in planning road trips to other parts of the state or when planning a multi-state road trip. Geo-Caching queries can do the job and list numerous caches, but it's time consuming! It has been great to just look at Buxley's Maps to plan our intended road trip (route) and then pick the caches I know we will be accessing, instead of clogging my GPS full of unwanted caches from a pocket query. Not all of us have laptops or palm pilots. Buxley's Maps does have problems of not updating archived caches and zooming in large areas containing lots of caches, but I look at the site as a tool to see new caches and to plan road trips to new areas.

 

Perhaps Geo-Caching Admin could come up with something equal and operational to Buxley's Map. Or until then let Buxley's Map have access.

Edited by Bean Stompers Hunt4Fun

Share this post


Link to post

Just thought I'd toss out a few points of interest:

 

1) Mopar, if you don't care if Buxley's comes or goes, you should probably be happy that your views are posted for posterity but stop saying the same thing in a thread about Buxley's caches not being updated. You've posted in a topic saying you're not interested in the topic. You've also said that you don't want Buxley to kill GC.com's ability to service you. Got it, thanks. I don't think anyone here has posted that they want Buxley's features up to date at the expense of GC.com's normal services.

 

2) If Buxley's website/updating was causing such an intensive use of the bandwidth (something that would actually tax the *money* of GC.com and not the database), then I think it would be easy to organize with Buxley to get the data at a small fee prorated to the cost of the equivalent PQs. If a Premium member can take 20 PQs at 500 caches (10000) in a week and Buxley takes 20000 new cache data in a week, then he should pay the equivalent of 2 Premium memberships that week.

 

3) Finally, giving *some* access to Buxley and continual good access to GC.com for the rest of us are NOT mutually exclusive. Of course, the "throttling" software sees a large number of consecutive hits from a computer and blocks that IP for about an hour. Nobody knows how big "a large number" is or how long "about an hour" is exactly, so for Buxley to now continue within the limits of the new software, he is going to have to experiment with how many hits gets him locked out and then try again in an hour. Instead, a better working relationship could be worked out with GC.com to allow unthrottled access at an hour when the users are not trying to access the database heavily (like 3-5 AM on Wednesday) OR by telling Buxley exactly what capacity the database can handle on a Sunday afternoon above and beyond what the current load is with normal users. If Buxley could get the data necessary in small bursts of 20 caches every hour instead of whatever it was previously and the rest of us could still log our finds on Sunday through GC.com, then this is an equally useful solution.

 

Unfortunately, either of these solutions are the perogative of GC.com, since it would be their determination to setup an unthrottled time during the week or announce to Buxley what capacity was regularly available instead of having him experiment until he can find a way in under the limits (and then just have the limits dropped on him magically again).

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to point out that one of the two main reasons to become Premium Member was the fact that sites like Buxley or Geocaching.de were/are allowed to collect data and to provide usefull services (at least usefull to a big part of Geocachers).

 

However, I think it should be obvious to everybody that bandwith can't be an issue as long as those sites are forced to use spiders instead of an easy but well defined interface to exchange the data.

 

In summary, I would like to kindly ask who ever is responsible to allow those sites to have the data for providing their free services.

 

Greetings,

Tobias

Share this post


Link to post
Ok - I too could run endless PQ's for my 1100 mile trip, massage the data into a database, filter it a bit and then load it into my copy of mappoint 2004 create a route and reverse out the data that fit..........sigh. Or I could follow Buxleys maps. Again - I get that you don't use Buxleys Mopar - I get it - really. I get you want routeable maps - I want them too (if it is easy to use). But this topic is for trying to get an understanding between gc.com and buxleys to restore a useful service - i vote YES!.

Which just shows how many cachers are so lazy they would rather spend dozens of hours using a mediocre solution that's handed to them on a silver platter, rather then spend an hour thinking for themselves.

...

Then someone should come up with simple way to do for those lazy people that either don't want to or can't. Maybe this could even be bottled and marketed for a price :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

I miss Buxleys. I liked clicking it first thing in the morning so I could see the new blue dots in the area. Many days the blue dots show up long before my pocket query does.

 

Not any longer, he's been blocked, again.

 

sad

Share this post


Link to post

MacDaddy is going to post all of his caches at Navicache, as Buxley requested and will continue to post new ones there ONLY. Until GrSpk gets Buxley back online.

Lame guys. very lame, and way too 'corporate'.

MacDaddy

Share this post


Link to post
I would like to point out that one of the two main reasons to become Premium Member was the fact that sites like Buxley or Geocaching.de were/are allowed to collect data and to provide usefull services (at least usefull to a big part of Geocachers).

Not for me. That reason would never have occured to me, and I'm not sure I even follow the logic behind it.

Share this post


Link to post

I wrote in the "Is Abject Silliness Dead?" thread which is now locked so I can't quote.

 

<<"Less likely to become premium now than before.">>

 

At the risk of repeating myself.....

 

#2 --> Less likely to become premium now than before.

Edited by Dino Hunters

Share this post


Link to post
I miss Buxleys. I liked clicking it first thing in the morning so I could see the new blue dots in the area. Many days the blue dots show up long before my pocket query does.

 

Not any longer, he's been blocked, again.

 

sad

This is probably what most cachers like about Buxley's. This function alone is better than what is available on GC.COM.

 

What remains to be seen is what the TPTB will do.

Share this post


Link to post

And the fact that none of the higer-ups are commenting in this thread (And I know that they are reading) is kind of making me reconsider my membership.

Share this post


Link to post
And the fact that none of the higer-ups are commenting in this thread (And I know that they are reading) is kind of making me reconsider my membership.

And have you noticed that now that they have throttled down sites like Buxley's, one can actually enter a cache log without getting a server busy error!

 

I can only say... It's about time

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 16

×
×
  • Create New...