Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 16
vds

Buxley New Caches Not Being Updated ?

Recommended Posts

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

Me too!

 

:o

 

I really hope there can be made an arrangement here. The maps at brillig are both useful and fun ... ouch ... we are geocaching just for the fun of it? :lol:

Edited by elimmen

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

Me too!

 

:o

 

I really hope there can be made an arrangement here. The maps at brillig are both useful and fun ... ouch ... we are geocaching just for the fun of it? :lol:

Same here!

 

Btw. why this starts to feel like - rip of all the money you can get from GC.com users and force users to use the one and only solution GC.com has to offer with price tag. Does this sound like M$ (Microsoft) strategy or is it just me??

 

Do you in GC.com think you could dominate the geocaching and force users to follow what ever you deside is best for you and just block the "external" services you see as a threat(?) for you?

 

Buxleys is not a threat for you but IMO blocking its access could be!

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.

I will never say that my reasons are for everybody like others try to do it with theirs about Buxley. ;-)

 

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

I would like to have our caches found. There will be never one way of presentation and searching that is convenient for everybody. So I would like to have that our cache descriptions are accessible from diffrent (all?) ways of searching. Buxley (to stay on-topic) is a very well-known provider of maps with geocaching data which is used by thousands. Geocaching.de provides the very best service with maps for Germany beside the community things where people can search for nearby caches without knowing the english language (-> kid-friendly!).

So if GC.com stops Buxley to show caches, our descriptions at GC.com are no longer be found by those people, potential finders. Where is the logic for that? Where is the logic to force those sites to use spiders who generate much more traffic than offering a data interface? I don't think that you can go far with logic...

Back to my logic: I'm aware of the prices for traffic, storage space etc. So I give 30 Dollars a year which are way to much for the traffic generated by us and the three weekly PQs used by us and storage space for our descriptions (the pdf with the riddle for the Mystery cache is at my space anyway). I consider that a part of those 30 Dollars are helping to pay the costs for the exchange of that data. If that's not the case and the money is spent on creating fancy pictures like animated smilies in the forums, than I was wrong - but I hope I'm not.

 

Again: This is my reason. You don't have to share it, but you have to understand that this was my motivation to become Premium Member and I will not change it. It's also my motivation to purchase Travel Bugs, BTW. The descriptions are not owned by GC.com, they are only listed here. And if anybody sets a link to our description here or at Navicache or at GPSgames.org, I thank him to make my description easier to be found.

 

Greetings,

Tobias

Share this post


Link to post

If they are listing archived caches DESPITE them being archived, they are in fact being a threat to not only gc.com, but geocaching as a whole.

 

Caches are archived for a reason. Sometimes they are simply stale and the owner wants to let them go. Sometimes they can't be maintained anymore.

 

And sometimes angry land managers say "Get that thing out of here, NOW." It is not in geocachers best interest to keep that information in prominent, easy to access places.

Share this post


Link to post
If they are listing archived caches DESPITE them being archived, they are in fact being a threat to not only gc.com, but geocaching as a whole.

Buxley links to the GC.com-description where it's clearly visible if a cache is archieved or not. So you want GC.com to delete archieved caches?

 

Greetings,

Tobias

Share this post


Link to post

I think whoever suggested some type of batch file dump to Buxley's site once or twice a day was onto something. I also agree that if a process like this does put a real strain on the gc.com system, then Buxley should pay a fee for usage. With that said, I'd be willing to donate $xx amount per year to help Buxley's site and other useful sites get the data they need from GC.com. I'm sure other cachers would be willing to do the same.

 

Finally, I'd like to know why none of TPTB have taken the time to address any of the concerns/questions raised in this thread. I pay for a membership here and think at the very least, our questions should be answered rather than ignored. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
... I consider that a part of those 30 Dollars are helping to pay the costs for the exchange of that data. If that's not the case and the money is spent on creating fancy pictures like animated smilies in the forums, than I was wrong - but I hope I'm not...

First I have no problem with gc.com sharing the data with Buxley or other as long as it doesn't interfer with my usage. In fact the TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT says

You grant Groundspeak a worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, fully-paid royalty-free license and right to use, reproduce, distribute, import, broadcast, transmit, modify and create derivative works of, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease or lend copies of, publicly display and publicly perform that Submission for any purpose and without restriction or obligation to You.

 

However I see nothing in the Groundspeak Premium Membership webpage that indicates geocaching.com will use any of the Premium Membership money to pay for sharing the data.

Share this post


Link to post
However I see nothing in the Groundspeak Premium Membership webpage that indicates geocaching.com will use any of the Premium Membership money to pay for sharing the data.

You're right. But somebody has to pay that traffic too. Is it so way out of comon sense that a part of pm fees go there? I don't think so, but maybe I am wrong.

At least it's my motivation and I stick with that. If the exchange is no longer there, I won't renew our pm.

 

Greetings,

Tobias

Share this post


Link to post

What if you could submit your cache coordinates to Buxleys via a submital page which would include all of the same info from GC.com? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
What if you could submit your cache coordinates to Buxleys via a submital page which would include all of the same info from GC.com? :lol:

What if I wanted to submit the coordinates for a smiley face right on the Boston Harbor?

 

What if 3 people were the only ones to take advantage of this submission method?

 

The answer isn't to hand-enter a few thousand caches a month.

Share this post


Link to post
If they are listing archived caches DESPITE them being archived, they are in fact being a threat to not only gc.com, but geocaching as a whole.

 

Caches are archived for a reason.  Sometimes they are simply stale and the owner wants to let them go.  Sometimes they can't be maintained anymore.

 

And sometimes angry land managers say "Get that thing out of here, NOW."  It is not in geocachers best interest to keep that information in prominent, easy to access places.

Buxley's doesn't list caches, it plots a dot on a map at the listed coord for the cache. You click the dot and are taken to the cache's descrption. If it is a threat to give out info about archived caches to anyone that can find the page, maybe gc.com shouldn't allow archiving with viewing.

If you find some out of place dots, email Ed. Everytime I've done this he was happy to remove them, it helps keep the maps accurate.

 

(fixed some of the typos)

Edited by welch

Share this post


Link to post
If you find some out of place dots, email Ed. Everytime I've done this he was happy to remove them, it helps keep the maps accurate.

this could be even semi-automated, removing the need for an e-mail: you could enter a waypoint name and it would be queued up for refreshing the cache status (remember how the inaccuracies have been handled at Dan's stats page?)

Share this post


Link to post

hmmm...I am not sure how much load on the gc.com system Buxley's represents. I am sure something reasonable could be worked out.

 

I for one did not see it as competition, it was purely a reference, where I could see a different style map and my whole area at once. I find the gc.com maps great for some uses, but not that particular use.

 

I agree with atlantagirl above!

 

Have TPTB chimed in at all?

Share this post


Link to post

OK, I didn't get the memo and just learned that Buxley's is banned from GC.com (I haven't been able to get out caching for awhile.) Anyway, I used that site often to plan my cache trips. I am not a "high tech" person I am "low tech." I don't know about PQ's, arc files, PDAs, data mining and such. I know I can click on a dot on one of Buxley's maps, then log in at GC.com and search for "nearby caches." The one's I've found are marked and the one's I haven't found are not. This is the way I plan cache trips. Not having Buxley's to reference, will make caching more difficult for me. Yes, some of you will call me simple minded, but that's the way I cache.

Since it appears TPTB at GC.com haven't responded to Ed Hall of Buxley's we don't know what their reasons are. I hope some communication can take place and Buxley's is again allowed access.

Edited by Joesbar

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak is not required to respond to a post just because someone asks about it in a thread. Its a business matter and it has been said that they do not discuss business in the forums.

 

Since Ed has decided to wash his dirty under ware in public all we have is his side and we have no way to verify if his side is even the truth. (it might be, we don't know) I do know that the Terms of Use do prohibit what he was doing. Other than that I dont know. I only know that what he was doing is against the Terms of Use becasue the terms of use are very clear on the subject.

 

"5. Access and Interference

Much of the information on the Site is updated on a real time basis and is proprietary or is licensed to Groundspeak by our users or third parties. You agree that you will not use any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access the Site for any purpose without our express written permission. Additionally, you agree that you will not: (a) take any action that imposes, or may impose in our sole discretion an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on our infrastructure; or (:lol: interfere or attempt to interfere with the proper working of the Site or any activities conducted on the Site or other measures we may use to prevent or restrict access to the Site. "

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx

 

So it seems its a matter between Ed and Groundspeak. Its not any of our business. Unless you signed the Terms Of Use for Ed. Then it is your business.

 

Therefor, it looks like everyone should wait and see. That's WAIT, not post endlessly on things none of us as accurate information about.

Thats my 20 cents worth.

 

[red and underlines added for my emphasis.]

Edited by Tiny dancer

Share this post


Link to post

Hi tiny,

 

my question regarding your post (and TPTB's glaring silence) is...why now?

 

Buxley has been mining this data in the open for years, as have lots of other sites...why wait until now to shut him down, what has changed?

 

at any rate...thanks for telling me what my business is, and to keep quiet about stuff I don't have all of the info on (and then posting in RED and Underline about stuff you may not have all of the info about) ;):lol::o

 

nfa

Edited by NFA

Share this post


Link to post
Hi tiny,

 

my question regarding your post (and TPTB's glaring silence) is...why now?

 

Buxley has been mining this data in the open for years, as have lots of other sites...why wait until now to shut him down, what has changed?

 

at any rate...thanks for telling me what my business is, and to keep quiet about stuff I don't have all of the info on (and then posting in RED and Underline about stuff you may not have all of the info about) ;):lol::o

 

nfa

My posting is My opinion not an order to you.

 

It takes nothing to read the guidelines. They are VERY clear on this subject. There was no interpretation made.

 

The red was because its my favorite color and the underline was because you cant HEAR my verbal emphasis in print.

 

I could have easily used the quote box but I don't like those.

 

As for "why now" we don't know. Sometimes "we don't know" is the only answer we might get. I know my father is fond of saying "Because". Sometimes that the best answer I get from him.

Share this post


Link to post

I find it incredibly silly what geocaching.com is doing by not commenting on the situation. Let Buxley update! His site is great.

Share this post


Link to post
I find it incredibly silly what geocaching.com is doing by not commenting on the situation. Let Buxley update! His site is great.

How can you find it silly since we do not have all the information.

There are many good reasons for not commenting. So how can it be silly.

TD

Share this post


Link to post

Dumping the database once or twice a day could be a solution to this matter. GC.COM could allow Buxley to download a subset of the database. How big is would the file be?

 

This would mean Buxley would not need to query GC.COM. Inactive caches could be weeded out... Buxley could even put a different icon for inactive caches.

 

The only way this can happen if TPTB is willing to make this available and if Buxley is willing work with GC.COM.

Share this post


Link to post
Buxley's doesn't list caches, it plots a dot on a map at the listed coord for the cache. You click the dot and are taken to the cache's descrption. If it is a threat to give out info about archived caches to anyone that can find the page, maybe gc.com shouldn't allow archiving with viewing.

If you find some out of place dots, email Ed. Everytime I've done this he was happy to remove them, it helps keep the maps accurate.

 

Buxley links to the GC.com-description where it's clearly visible if a cache is archieved or not. So you want GC.com to delete archieved caches?

 

Greetings,

Tobias

 

And my original post:

 

If they are listing archived caches DESPITE them being archived, they are in fact being a threat to not only gc.com, but geocaching as a whole.

 

Caches are archived for a reason. Sometimes they are simply stale and the owner wants to let them go. Sometimes they can't be maintained anymore.

 

And sometimes angry land managers say "Get that thing out of here, NOW." It is not in geocachers best interest to keep that information in prominent, easy to access places.

Edited by New England n00b

Share this post


Link to post
Dumping the database once or twice a day could be a solution to this matter. GC.COM could allow Buxley to download a subset of the database. How big is would the file be?

 

This would mean Buxley would not need to query GC.COM. Inactive caches could be weeded out... Buxley could even put a different icon for inactive caches.

 

The only way this can happen if TPTB is willing to make this available and if Buxley is willing work with GC.COM.

So again, we don't know anything because we are not in the loop. Nor should we be. This seems to be between Groundspeak and Buxley. All the good intentions in the world are not going to change that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
If they are listing archived caches DESPITE them being archived, they are in fact being a threat to not only gc.com, but geocaching as a whole.

 

Caches are archived for a reason. Sometimes they are simply stale and the owner wants to let them go. Sometimes they can't be maintained anymore.

 

And sometimes angry land managers say "Get that thing out of here, NOW." It is not in geocachers best interest to keep that information in prominent, easy to access places.

Buxleys doesn't list anything. They show cache locations. You click on the dot and see the cache page on Navicache or GC.com. If it's archvied it shows as such. Navicache and GC both list the caches.

Share this post


Link to post
Dumping the database once or twice a day could be a solution to this matter. GC.COM could allow Buxley to download a subset of the database. How big is would the file be?

 

This would mean Buxley would not need to query GC.COM. Inactive caches could be weeded out... Buxley could even put a different icon for inactive caches.

 

The only way this can happen if TPTB is willing to make this available and if Buxley is willing work with GC.COM.

You don't even need the entire database. Just the changes.

Share this post


Link to post

As I said earlier, it's a shame Buxleys is gone.

 

Now it would be different, and people less angry if there was a solution in place, today, not in the future, today.

 

Buxleys is the best way to look at a new area right now. I saved his maps of Maui and the Big Island, San Francisco and of course the area I live in.

 

Jeremy doesn't have to respond, it's his site. I just hope he listens to the complaints.

Share this post


Link to post

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, when you enter information on the Geocaching.com web site, you effectively transfer the rights to that information to Geocaching.com, at which point you no longer have the rights to that data. You can only use the data 'internally' at that point, and cannot share it with anyone publically.

 

Geocaching.com however, can sell, rent, or lease that data - the data you gave them - as they wish.

 

So as I understand it, by submitting your data to Geocaching.com you give it up, though if you submitted somewhere else first, I think you would retain the rights to *that version* of the data. So pretend you first enter info about a cache on Geocaching.com, then mention it on a mailing list, or on your own web site, you would be in violation of the agreement.

 

For the people that submit their data directly to Geocaching.com first, does it bother you that they take away your ability to use your own data?

Share this post


Link to post
...you effectively transfer the rights to that information to Geocaching.com...

This is not true. You retain rights to the data you've published.

 

GC.com is granted rights to do database backups, publish the collection as it sees fit, and more.

 

While there are gray areas--like can you use a PQ of just your caches and post them on your own site and who "owns" the cache logs--it's pretty much cut and dry. The cache data is yours. GC.com has the right to display it--or not--as it chooses.

 

Remember, you can delete all of the cache data on your cache page and then archive it effectively deleting it aside from the backups and Google.

Share this post


Link to post

I too would like to voice my opinion just in case TPTB are listening...

 

Please don't block Buxley's! I used to go to that site daily to see if there were any new caches in my area, it was MUCH more convenient than pocket queries (which I'm using now for daily updates) and probably takes a load off* the servers if other people like me have resorted to using pocket queries too.

 

I enjoy the game and don't really care to get into the politics or mudane duties of the site, I just wanted to voice my opinion and let you know that I use geocaching.com as my main site for the game, but also found value in visitng Buxley's as well and miss having that resource available.

 

Thanks,

Alallola in Logan, UT

 

*[buxley's occasional query with thousands of people hitting his site -vs.- those thousands of people now running pocket queries daily on GS servers]

Share this post


Link to post
OK, I didn't get the memo and just learned that Buxley's is banned from GC.com (I haven't been able to get out caching for awhile.) Anyway, I used that site often to plan my cache trips. I am not a "high tech" person I am "low tech." I don't know about PQ's, arc files, PDAs, data mining and such. I know I can click on a dot on one of Buxley's maps, then log in at GC.com and search for "nearby caches." The one's I've found are marked and the one's I haven't found are not. This is the way I plan cache trips. Not having Buxley's to reference, will make caching more difficult for me. Yes, some of you will call me simple minded, but that's the way I cache.

Since it appears TPTB at GC.com haven't responded to Ed Hall of Buxley's we don't know what their reasons are. I hope some communication can take place and Buxley's is again allowed access.

This post and alallola's post are pretty much where I'm at as well. I don't use PQ's. I find Buxley's very helpful. I also think Jeremy has done a great job with this site. I hope this can be resolved. Buxley's is simply a great tool that adds to Geocaching for many of us.

Share this post


Link to post
...you effectively transfer the rights to that information to Geocaching.com...

This is not true. You retain rights to the data you've published.

 

GC.com is granted rights to do database backups, publish the collection as it sees fit, and more.

 

I'm hoping you are correct. I tried to understand the 'Waypoint License Agreement' as well as I could, not being a lawyer. ;)

 

If what you say is right, I suppose it would be more appropriate to say that you give the data to Geocaching.com and allow them to sell it, and crontrol access to it, while you are still allowed to do what you want with your own data.

 

If this is the case, I suppose the solution is for each person to submit their data to some publically available database that *any* site can then use. How realistic this is, I don't know...

Share this post


Link to post
If this is the case, I suppose the solution is for each person to submit their data to some publically available database that *any* site can then use. How realistic this is, I don't know...

There have been efforts to do just that and some have pursued different angles.

 

The problem is no one entity can do that on a hobbist scale without incurring sizable bills in one form or another. The storage, processing, and bandwidth has to be paid for somehow. That's not to mention a whole host of other issues.

 

Even with its flaws, gc.com works quite well for most people.

Share this post


Link to post
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, when you enter information on the Geocaching.com web site, you effectively transfer the rights to that information to Geocaching.com, at which point you no longer have the rights to that data. You can only use the data 'internally' at that point, and cannot share it with anyone publically.

 

Not true. You can take the data that you posted for a cache and post it to any other geocache site (Navicache is one example).

Share this post


Link to post

Well the GC Terms of Use says

All comments, articles, tutorials, screenshots, pictures, graphics, tools, downloads, and all other materials submitted to Groundspeak in connection with the Site or available through the Site (collectively, “Submissions”) remain the property and copyright of the original author.

 

However it also says

By submitting any Submission to Groundspeak, You grant Groundspeak a worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, fully-paid royalty-free license and right to use, reproduce, distribute, import, broadcast, transmit, modify and create derivative works of, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease or lend copies of, publicly display and publicly perform that Submission for any purpose and without restriction or obligation to You.

 

As a non-lawyer I take this two statements to mean, if wrote it, I still have the copyright to it, and can do anything I want with it, however GC.com can pretty much do anything they want as well and don't owe me anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, when you enter information on the Geocaching.com web site, you effectively transfer the rights to that information to Geocaching.com, at which point you no longer have the rights to that data. You can only use the data 'internally' at that point, and cannot share it with anyone publically.

 

Not true. You can take the data that you posted for a cache and post it to any other geocache site (Navicache is one example).

Leathermans got it.

 

The trick is that you as a cache owner cad do what you want with your cache data, but anyone else can't use the data from GC.com without permission.

 

Any web site has to do something like that (except the Opencaching project which is organizated specificly with automatic permission in mind) if they are successful at any level. The entire issue is who should get permission and who shouldn't.

 

If members in general think Buxleys should have it, that tells you something.

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post

It seems to me that one way to work out the issue is to handle it yourself (I'm not targeting any one person, I mean in general). Why should Groundspeak allow another site to access their database? If enough people wish to use Buxley's then can't they make sure the information is given. If I post a cache on gc.com it is so that people can find it. I would post it there since that is where I get my cache info from. However It doesn't take me much effort to post the same cache on another site. And if Buxley's is getting information from another site, my cache would appear on the maps. If someone wishes to use Buxley's to see when a new cache is listed, they would find mine their. And if they wish to stick with gc.com they could check the coords and would find it there also.

 

As to all the dots, well as a cache owner it is my job to remove a cache when and if I archive it. It doesn't really take me that much time to send a email to Buxley's site and ask that he remove it from the maps.

 

If Buxley's shut down do to time requirements or lack of funds then would people still complain about Groundspeak? If the people that use Buxley's took the time to try and help by pointing out archived caches. Then the maps would work better for finding the existing caches, though it might be a little much to do manually. If it did work out though then it would seem everyone could win. If the archived caches were to be removed automatically then it would seem to require more resources and bandwidth (not really sure about that as I know little about computers). In which case perhaps Buxley's might be expected to pay a fee for accessing the site, and might have to charge a fee for the use of their site.

 

Today I sent a email to Buxley's asking for several caches to be removed from their maps. All the caches were archived for one reason or another, and about half of them were mine. I also submitted a couple of caches to gc.com and another, in hopes that they would appear on Buxley's site. I don't use Buxley's site, and I rarely look at the maps on gc.com. I did what I did for the same reason I hide caches. That being for the enjoyment of others.

 

I think if the above were followed then one of three things might happen.

 

One-things would go back to how there were, or a close approximation with the advantage of cleaner maps do to people requesting more archived caches being removed.

 

Two-More caches appearing on the other site to the point that Groundspeak would have to take notice.

 

Three-Buxley's feeling overwhelmed and needing to charge a small fee and in order to pay for more access in order to automate things.

 

Yes I realize that there are other ways in which all the above could end up working out. My point though is that it is not Groundspeak that has to do anything, except what they feel is best for the company. If people wish things to be different there are things they can do to make a difference. (last point, this is way to long and probably wont make sense anyways.)

Share this post


Link to post
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, when you enter information on the Geocaching.com web site, you effectively transfer the rights to that information to Geocaching.com, at which point you no longer have the rights to that data. You can only use the data 'internally' at that point, and cannot share it with anyone publically.

 

Not true. You can take the data that you posted for a cache and post it to any other geocache site (Navicache is one example).

Leathermans got it.

 

The trick is that you as a cache owner cad do what you want with your cache data, but anyone else can't use the data from GC.com without permission.

 

Any web site has to do something like that (except the Opencaching project which is organizated specificly with automatic permission in mind) if they are successful at any level. The entire issue is who should get permission and who shouldn't.

 

I guess I find it disturbing that people are so willing to give up control of their data to third parties who wish to lock it up and control it.

 

There are sites that are quite successful without restricting how data is used by the people who created it.

 

(See the datalibre.com project for some interesting ideas in this area.)

Share this post


Link to post

I don't want any site but the one I list on, listing my caches. I have no issue with stats, maps, games or other things that are useful.

 

Every last one I've seen links back to GC.com or NV.com for the cache or logs. But the new way of looking at the information is where the value is at.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi,

 

I find it a little dismaying that after days of this thread, with a clear majority in favor of gc.com sharing info with Buxley's (unless we count all of Mopar's posts as individuals :P ), TPTB have not bothered to comment here (even to the extent of clarifying the "was Buxley throttled or banned" issue).

 

cheerfully awaiting bashing from the "pay and then shut up" crowd :)

 

nfa

Share this post


Link to post
Hi,

 

I find it a little dismaying that after days of this thread, with a clear majority in favor of gc.com sharing info with Buxley's (unless we count all of Mopar's posts as individuals :P ), TPTB have not bothered to comment here (even to the extent of clarifying the "was Buxley throttled or banned" issue).

 

cheerfully awaiting bashing from the "pay and then shut up" crowd :)

 

nfa

I was going to stay out of this, but since there is a "clear majority" I'll add my differing view.

 

I think I used Buxley's once - way back when I started. It isn't useful for me where I cache, and personally I prefer the PQ/GSAK/Cachemate solution augmented by the GC.com maps. That said, it makes no difference to me if Buxley's access is kept off.

 

But just because I don't find it useful, doesn't mean other people can't find it useful. I don't care if Buxley's has access as long as said access does not cause stress on the GC.com servers/databases/bandwidth/etc (read: the stuff premium membership dues help support) and that Buxley doesn't use said access to compete with GC.com or in any other way harm GC.com's business.

 

It seems like "business" is a dirty word around here. I don't get this at all. TPTB have invested their time and money into building GC.com. For this they should be compensated. As I and others have said before, servers, software, bandwidth, et. al. ad nauseum cost money. If Buxley's is a threat, or a potential threat to GC.com's business model, GC.com should not be expected to provide resources to the competition. Only the TPTB can determine what is a threat or pontential a threat to their business model. I can fully understand TPTB wanting to control access to their resources.

Share this post


Link to post

It looks like the majority of the people here would like to see Buxley and GC.COM work out a solution that doesn't impact GC.COM's performance to the userbase. That makes sense. As usual we sit at the sidelines and see how things unfold...

 

Is it just me or do you guys get the feeling that TPTB are like that Twilight Zone episode "The Old Man in the Cave"? For that matter does Jeremy really exist? How do we know that the TPTB isn't just a machine in some server rack somewhere...

 

 

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Hi,

 

I find it a little dismaying that after days of this thread, with a clear majority in favor of gc.com sharing info with Buxley's (unless we count all of Mopar's posts as individuals :P ), TPTB have not bothered to comment here (even to the extent of clarifying the "was Buxley throttled or banned" issue).

 

cheerfully awaiting bashing from the "pay and then shut up" crowd :)

 

nfa

No bashing. Just pointing out that out of the "clear majority" in favor of allowing access to all the data scrapers that are violating the terms of service, only a dozen or so have logged a cache in the last 3 weeks since the throttling software seems to have been put in place. 13,859 have posted 66369 logs on this site since Buxley posted banners on every one of his pages directing people to this thread to complain. 12 people out of 13,859. The most vocal of the Buxley supporters seem to come from accounts with a handful of finds, or none at all. Even if you count them, you've got maybe 20 people so far, out of almost 14,000 cachers actively logging cache (and prsumably using maps to find them). 20 isnt even a majority of the users reading the forums right now. 20 people certainly isnt a majority of gc.com users.

Edited by Mopar

Share this post


Link to post
Dumping the database once or twice a day could be a solution to this matter.  GC.COM could allow Buxley to download a subset of the database.  How big is would the file be?

 

This would mean Buxley would not need to query GC.COM.  Inactive caches could be weeded out... Buxley could even put a different icon for inactive caches.

 

The only way this can happen if TPTB is willing to make this available and if Buxley is willing work with GC.COM.

I believe this is the way he (Buxley) was already doing it. At least it is for our site.

It is not like he pulls down the entire database only select info (coordinates, waypoint name, cache name, status, type). He does not pull descriptions, logs, images or any other data. This is done at scheduled times and off peak.

 

We allow it as it is seen as a great service to the geocaching community. Hopefully TPTB here will reconsider, what ever their reasons were.

Edited by PC Medic

Share this post


Link to post

Of those that have voiced their opinions, the majority of them would like to see Buxley continue - provided a solution can be found that doesn't affect the performance of GC.COM.

 

As for the the others who haven't voiced their opinions one really can't make the assumption what side of the fence they side with. However, it hasn't cramped the amount of caching that continues to go on. To me it is an inconvience not being able to see the new caches on the map.

 

The number of finds a person has, should have no bearing on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
No bashing. Just pointing out that out of the "clear majority" in favor of allowing access to all the data scrapers that are violating the terms of service, only a dozen or so have logged a cache in the last 3 weeks since the throttling software seems to have been put in place. 13,859 have posted 66369 logs on this site since Buxley posted banners on every one of his pages directing people to this thread to complain. 12 people out of 13,859. The most vocal of the Buxley supporters seem to come from accounts with a handful of finds, or none at all. Even if you count them, you've got maybe 20 people so far, out of almost 14,000 cachers actively logging cache (and prsumably using maps to find them). 20 isnt even a majority of the users reading the forums right now. 20 people certainly isnt a majority of gc.com users.

 

Well, it's amazing that anything gets accomplished around here then.

 

Someone let Jeremy know he should scratch that route mapping software in the other forum...it's clear by the total lack of comments on that topic in the history of the forums from the 14,000 logging geocachers, that he's oblivious to the fact that 14,000 people don't care that they didn't get their info from route mapping here at the site.

 

Your poor interpretation of the numbers is not convincing.

 

Only those that speak up will be heard. Of those that have used this thread to speak up, a clear majority are not happy that Buxley's does not have the ability to update anymore in any reasonable fashion. Unless you have asked the other 13,839 people their opinions you can not consider their lack of voice on the subject to mean agreement or disagreement with the loss of Buxley's. Those that have never heard of Buxley's would not have a useful opinion on opening a non-invasive access channel to the data again. I would safely guess that's the largest majority of your 13,859 people.

 

EDIT: Spelling check for clarity.

Edited by ju66l3r

Share this post


Link to post

We would rather have the route mapping software than Buxley's and as a plus the site runs faster than before this happened.

 

I am on aol dial up and can tell the deference big time………….. JOE

Share this post


Link to post

edited...not much point in reply

Edited by NFA

Share this post


Link to post

I used Buxley's almost exclusively to find caches. Much easier to use than the GC.com maps, mainly because you could roll the curser over the dot to see the name. No "identify" and no annoying expired pages to deal with. I even liked being able to see the archived caches just to know the cache history of an area I was looking at.

 

Now, in the space of a few weeks, Buxley's isn't updating and GC.com won't let us cheap non-premium types pan or zoom anymore. What to do? Well, even out of date, Buxley's is still useful. Find a cache in the area you are interested in, and hit the "nearest caches" link to check for any new ones. Should be workable, just more of a hassle. :P

 

Barring that, there's still the old GC maps where you CAN zoom.

 

Hope they can work something out.

 

Javaa

Share this post


Link to post

Well, my membership expires in a month or so, and I have to decide whether to give Jeremy more money. I'm starting to lean toward no. It's possible to allow these sort of services without disrupting bandwidth, but I see no movement on that. It's his site, and it's my money.........

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...