Jump to content

Buxley's Maps Workaround Idea


Renegade Knight
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Here's a thought:

Since apparently Buxley's users don't feel there is anything wrong with him scrapping the data from GC.com for his site (and no, discussing if scraping is legal or ethical is not on topic here, not gonna argue it), maybe Jeremy should just scrape the maps from Buxley and use them here? Then everyone is happy.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

As far as I understand the first posting of this thread, RK proposes to submit your own cache in a direct way to Buxley as long as Groundspeak is working things out. I can't see any ethical or legal problem if I submit my hidden caches to different sites. And if Buxley only want's the coordinates and the name, I would give them to him. However, I would never send the cache data of someone else anywhere without asking him/her first.

The question about if it's usefull or not: Caches which aren't displayed on the map will be not noticed by me. So if someone wants me to look for his cache, he/she should make sure that it appears on the map.

 

Greetings,

Tobias

Link to comment
Here's a thought:

Since apparently Buxley's users don't feel there is anything wrong with him scrapping the data from GC.com for his site (and no, discussing if scraping is legal or ethical is not on topic here, not gonna argue it), maybe Jeremy should just scrape the maps from Buxley and use them here? Then everyone is happy.

You must know that this is not true and I'm really interested how the moderators of this forum will tread your posting as it's clearly off-topic and IMO offending as you implie that any users of Buxley don't respect copyright terms.

(Just for the record: As I pointed out in the closed thread, I'm willing to give PQ's to Buxley if TPTB makes it possible. I'm also willing to donate money to Buxley if he has to pay for his services. But this can't happen as long as Groundspeak doesn't say to Buxley what they want to permit access and supress any discussion aboput it in this forum.)

 

Greetings,

Tobias

Link to comment

This might be a reasonable workaround to the problem. While it's true that not every cache would be submitted, in certain areas I believe most would be. In my local area for instance, the majority of caches are placed by a relative minority of cachers. Many of these cachers are also active in our state organization. It would'nt take much more than a note in our forums and a link to submit their caches to Buxleys.

Link to comment
As far as I understand the first posting of this thread, RK proposes to submit your own cache in a direct way to Buxley as long as Groundspeak is working things out. I can't see any ethical or legal problem if I submit my hidden caches to different sites. And if Buxley only want's the coordinates and the name, I would give them to him. However, I would never send the cache data of someone else anywhere without asking him/her first.

The question about if it's usefull or not: Caches which aren't displayed on the map will be not noticed by me. So if someone wants me to look for his cache, he/she should make sure that it appears on the map.

 

Greetings,

Tobias

I cant see how it could possibly be a problem to submit your cache data to any other site. The problems might arise if you use loc or GPX uploads to do it. I'm not sure how open the loc format is, but I know GC.com uses a proprietary version of GPX that is not legal to share.

 

It's nice (for Buxley) that you will only search for caches he shows on his maps, but I gotta wonder what percentage of cachers follow your lead? Is Buxley serving up a million maps a day to match the server load GC had a year ago?

How many people know and use Buxleys and will take the time to keep their cache listings up to date? I know about it, and I know of several hundred archived caches still listed there, including some of mine, and I don't take the time to get them removed. You say you won't search for a cache unless the hider gets it listed thru Buxley; I say if someone wastes their time planning to do an archived cache of mine because they used Buxley for planning, that's their own fault too.

 

Now, if this topic really about how we can work around the current lack of Buxley's maps? Or is it about way's Buxley can work around GC.com? Other ways to get Buxley's functionality would seem to be on topic here. A thread about how Buxley can improve his site should be hosted by Buxley. You don;t see Walmart hosting a discussion on how Target can inprove it's website. Topics that don't pertain to this website should not have to be paid for by this website. (in my never humble opinion.)

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment
Here's a thought:

Since apparently Buxley's users don't feel there is anything wrong with him scrapping the data from GC.com for his site (and no, discussing if scraping is legal or ethical is not on topic here, not gonna argue it), maybe Jeremy should just scrape the maps from Buxley and use them here? Then everyone is happy.

You must know that this is not true and I'm really interested how the moderators of this forum will tread your posting as it's clearly off-topic and IMO offending as you implie that any users of Buxley don't respect copyright terms.

(Just for the record: As I pointed out in the closed thread, I'm willing to give PQ's to Buxley if TPTB makes it possible. I'm also willing to donate money to Buxley if he has to pay for his services. But this can't happen as long as Groundspeak doesn't say to Buxley what they want to permit access and supress any discussion aboput it in this forum.)

 

Greetings,

Tobias

Well if you don't care, then why should I? You must know it IS true that he obtained the data by scraping, I never said a thing about if that's a good thing, or if it violated any copyrights or not. Where did the copyright thing come in there??

However, giving buxley or anyone else a PQ DOES violate copyright laws, and your user agreement. Read it.

Link to comment
Now, if this topic really about how we can work around the current lack of Buxley's maps? Or is it about way's Buxley can work around GC.com? Other ways to get Buxley's functionality would seem to be on topic here. A thread about how Buxley can improve his site should be hosted by Buxley. You don;t see Walmart hosting a discussion on how Target can inprove it's website. Topics that don't pertain to this website should not have to be paid for by this website. (in my never humble opinion.)

Yes I'm not sure of the intent of this topic as it is asking for a solution for a site that Groundspeak doesn't manage or own. It doesn't take a lot of time for other sites to create their own forums to discuss their own issues.

Link to comment

Mopar, you should really read more carefully and overthink your postings before submitting them.

 

First of all, I said that I would give PQs to Buxley if TPTB makes it possible. So no need for me to re-read the TOS of the PQs, I'm perfectly aware of them. But you have implied that I and all other users of Buxley don't care about the legal stuff which is just not true but gives a totaly negative image of all those users.

I don't think that the kind of gathering the data is on topic here, so I won't say anything to it beside that it needs always two sides for that; and one side is to not give any other option.

 

Second, it was multiple times pointed out to you that Buxley links from the maps to the original listing. You can't look into the maps, get the GPSr and out of the house. You have to visit the original listing at GC.com or NC.com to read the description and everything. If a cache is retired, you will see it and don't go for it, but again, this is not on topic here IMO.

 

Third, I was a little bit unprezise with the maps: Buxley is not the only map-service I use as the map for Germany isn't anymore detailed enough. But I do use only maps to look for caches and I know several cacher/cacher-teams who go the same way. However, Jeremy pointed out the way in the meantime to get the caches on the Buxley-map.

 

Forth, you seem to try to generate again a discussion about the stuff why the other thread was closed. I try to cut my answers short to the needed part to show, why I think that your posting is offensive respecting the guidelines of this forum which ask me to illustrate my opinion by examples. I didn't start with the scrapping or whatever, but I had to make the link to that.

 

Fivth and my last post for a while here, I answered your questions from my personal perspective and pointed out why I think that the suggested way by RK is an option (I wouldn't use LOC for it but just a simple form with name, coordinates and a link to the original listing of the cache), as long as each owner want to submit it there. And may I add that I wouldn't blame you or anyone to not make it? You just have to live with the fact that I won't see it as I have to live with the fact that I don't get to see all caches. Live and let live.

 

Greetings,

Tobias

Link to comment
Now, if this topic really about how we can work around the current lack of Buxley's maps? Or is it about way's Buxley can work around GC.com? Other ways to get Buxley's functionality would seem to be on topic here. A thread about how Buxley can improve his site should be hosted by Buxley. You don;t see Walmart hosting a discussion on how Target can inprove it's website. Topics that don't pertain to this website should not have to be paid for by this website. (in my never humble opinion.)

Yes I'm not sure of the intent of this topic as it is asking for a solution for a site that Groundspeak doesn't manage or own. It doesn't take a lot of time for other sites to create their own forums to discuss their own issues.

Yeah, then maybe Keystone Approver won't have people kicking him in the jimmies for doing what he should be doing. Isn't there a litterbox somewhere this subject (as a whole) could be dumped in? Please? :blink:

 

All this tweaking over a service provided by someone else. *sigh*

Link to comment
The problems I see are:

Is it still useful if it doesn't have ALL the caches?

Is it legal or ethical for me to upload a loc file of briansnat's caches, especially without his permission?

Is it legal to share the data in this fashion at all?

The idea solves your main problem from before. Chiefly that they didn't ask you to show the location of your caches.

 

The ethical dilimea you present is probably a good topic of discussion, but I have to compair it to the same concept of cross listing all of BrianSnats caches on Naviache. It can be done now, but it's not the fault of Navicache, or Geocaching.com should someone do that.

 

As for cache data, I can list my cache on any or all sites, or on a maping site (Moun10bikes maps for example) and it's no big deal.

 

Where the legal hairs could be split is if a Geocaching.com generated LOC file is propriatary, or if you have to download it first from your GPS to EasyGPS then use that file. Beats me, but I'm not going to worry about it.

Link to comment
There is already a "solution" - Since Navicache already funnels information to his maps, cache owners can post their caches on Navicaching.com and they'll magically appear on his web site. Huzzah.

It may be hard to believe but there are people out there who like geocaching.com and they want their dot on a Buxley map to point at their Geocaching.com cache listing.

Link to comment
I cant see how it could possibly be a problem to submit your cache data to any other site. The problems might arise if you use loc or GPX uploads to do it. I'm not sure how open the loc format is, but I know GC.com uses a proprietary version of GPX that is not legal to share.

 

Well .LOC and .GPX are both open standard file formats and while GC uses a proprietary namespace in the GPX files they generate, the GPX format itself does not belong to them. So using either of these two formats or several others available would be quite possible given the proper interface.

 

It's nice (for Buxley) that you will only search for caches he shows on his maps, but I gotta wonder what percentage of cachers follow your lead? Is Buxley serving up a million maps a day to match the server load  GC had a year ago?

 

The percentage of cachers showing interest and using his site and the number of maps Buxley's serves up would seem to indicate (as does this and several other threads) that a large number of geocachers find his maps to be a very useful resource.

 

How many people know and use Buxleys and will take the time to keep their cache listings up to date? I know about it, and I know of several hundred archived caches still listed there, including some of mine, and I don't take the time to get them removed. You say you won't search for a cache unless the hider gets it listed thru Buxley; I say if someone wastes their time planning to do an archived cache of mine because they used Buxley for planning, that's their own fault too.

 

Well, with cooperation this is not an issue as a flag set in the database to show the cache has been archived and when the data is polled this would cause the marker to also be removed from Buxley's maps.

 

As for someone wasting their time planning a cache hunt for an archived cache that still erroneously showed on his maps this would not be the case. Remember, he does not pull down the listing and description, only the name and needed information to link back to the original cache page on the hosting site. So, if the cache were already archived on the hosting site, when someone clicks the point on Buxley's map they would be taken to that page and it would be quite clear to them.

 

Now, if this topic really about how we can work around the current lack of Buxley's maps? Or is it about way's Buxley can work around GC.com? Other ways to get Buxley's functionality would seem to be on topic here. A thread about how Buxley can improve his site should be hosted by Buxley. You don;t see Walmart hosting a discussion on how Target can inprove it's website. Topics that don't pertain to this website should not have to be paid for by this website. (in my never humble opinion.)

 

I thought this thread was about the hopes that a solution would be found to benefit all involved. Perhaps I did not read into it something that was not here. Not sure I see the similarity with the Wally-World and K-Mart analogy, but I thought these forums (just like those on other geocaching sites) were to discuss geocaching related topics?????

 

Any way, Jeremy seems to have pointed out the best solution to be sure your caches get posted on Buxley's maps.

Link to comment
I cant see how it could possibly be a problem to submit your cache data to any other site. The problems might arise if you use loc or GPX uploads to do it. I'm not sure how open the loc format is, but I know GC.com uses a proprietary version of GPX that is not legal to share.

 

Well .LOC and .GPX are both open standard file formats and while GC uses a proprietary namespace in the GPX files they generate, the GPX format itself does not belong to them. So using either of these two formats or several others available would be quite possible given the proper interface.

I did mention that it's the GC version that would be a problem. Since that's what most users are going to have, that's the issue. It would have to be an open version of GPX to be acceptable. You would need a 3rd party app to convert the file before it could be uploaded to Buxley. That sounds too confusing to be a viable option.

 

The percentage of cachers showing interest and using his site and the number of maps Buxley's serves up would seem to indicate (as does this and several other threads) that a large number of geocachers find his maps to be a very useful resource.

Only a handful of people have entered in any of these discussions despite lots of encouragement to do so, and half of those seem to be sockpuppets or people who find 10 caches a year. I didn't see any public stats on how many maps are served to gc.com users (eliminating referrers from other sites). That doesn't exactly seem like a large percent of active gc.com users, but I could be wrong.

 

Well, with cooperation this is not an issue as a flag set in the database to show the cache has been archived and when the data is polled this would cause the marker to also be removed from Buxley's maps.

Since we are discussing work arounds, that's a moot point.

 

I thought this thread was about the hopes that a solution would be found to benefit all involved. Perhaps I did not read into it something that was not here. Not sure I see the similarity with the Wally-World and K-Mart analogy, but I thought these forums (just like those on other geocaching sites) were to discuss geocaching related topics?????

 

You don't? I'm surprised. It's just like the admins of another site chastising a user for posting a link to a GC.com listed cache in their forums. Considering that, I think you should understand the concept perfectly well. Are not events and TBs geocaching related discussion?

 

Any way, Jeremy seems to have pointed out the best solution to be sure your caches get posted on Buxley's maps.

You might find this surprising, but I disagree. It's obvious Buxley does have some sort of userbase here, he should find a way to accommodate them, on his own

That "solution" is still leaching off the resources of another website, and that is no more right then leaching off the resources of this one. Nor is it probably good practice to base the entire success of your website on how well another website supports you.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment
Only a handful of people have entered in any of these discussions despite lots of encouragement to do so, and half of those seem to be sockpuppets or people who find 10 caches a year. I didn't see any public stats on how many maps are served to gc.com users (eliminating referrers from other sites). That doesn't exactly seem like a large percent of active gc.com users, but I could be wrong.

But don't you always say that a very small percentage of geocachers actually read the forums?

 

I am going to guess that a smaller subset of that group posts.

 

But in any case I don't think who posts or the number of posters can really tell us anything how the community as a whole feels. There may be many who do not post but have a feeling one way or the other. And you, I or anybodyn do not know what those numbers are or how they feel.

 

And would you please stop using the number of finds a person has as any indication of how valuable their opinion is. Each person is a person and weather they have 1 or 1,000 finds their point of view counts just the same. I have reported this behavior before but it seems that some rules apply differently to others. I would have never suspected.

Link to comment

I haven't used Buxley's, so forgive me if I'm displaying incredible ignorance here. (My children will tell you I can't help it, anyway.)

 

Have you considered using GPS Visualizer? Run a PQ or export a GPX from GSAK, go to the GPS Visualizer web site, upload the GPX file (and it won't work with LOC files), and pick one of about 10 map formats you want to use -- street maps, aerial photos, topo maps, and others.

 

Bingo. A map. It's pretty cool because you can set a lot of parameters to control how much you want to display, how big you want it, what size you want the waypoints to be, whether to discard "outliers" (points that are far-removed from a cluster of other points) and how sensitively it should discriminate outliers, and so on.

 

If you look at any of my Fall Frolic caches, like Fall Frolic #3 - Here There Be Giants, the aerial photo there was created with GPS Visualizer. Here's a copy, too:

 

d26fe31c-43e3-4147-84f3-6023c08da253.jpg

 

I use it a lot when I want to hit the road and plot all the caches in a particular area. The developer, Adam Schneider, has also been very responsive to questions and comments, and for a non-geocaching project I was working on, even made an entirely new set of maps available. All at no cost (although I did make a voluntary shareware donation).

Link to comment
And would you please stop using the number of finds a person has as any indication of how valuable their opinion is. Each person is a person and weather they have 1 or 1,000 finds their point of view counts just the same. I have reported this behavior before but it seems that some rules apply differently to others. I would have never suspected.

In the context of the validity of someone's opinion, I don't think the find count matters. In the context of trying to decide how a company should be doing business, it matters a lot.

If a person who buys a new BMW every year has a suggestion on how to improve service, they should probably at least listen.

If a bum who hasnt had $20 to his name for the last 5 years tries to tell BMW how to run their company better, I doubt they will give it a second thought.

Link to comment

I've never looked at Buxley's maps. I am curious to know why one would need them. GC has an excellent mapping program.

 

I also don't understand why people think that GC should allow another site to gleam information from the GC site in order to promote their own site? I can see why Navicache would do it, because it helps promote their site. GC dosen't need the promotion.

 

I also don't understand why in the last few days that certain people have tried to force their issues. This is, and has always been a privately owned site. There is no right to free speech here. However I do believe that TPTB have been very tolerant...more so than I would be.

 

I can't count the number of times over the last few years that a few people have raised their ugly heads trying to challenge GC. The only thing they ever accomplish is causing turmoil in the forums. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, if you don't like the way the site is run....go away. The rest of us would appreciate it.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

I'd have no problem uploading a LOC or a GPX file to Buxley.

 

The problem would be for Ed to ensure these are legitimate caches and not some bogus junk being fed into his system.

 

I'd welcome Ed allowing this, though, because this would mean he'd be showing privately listed caches, as well.

 

There are other solutions, however, Ed could employ without the blessings of gc.com or the interaction of the cache owner, but that's part of this topic.

 

Considering, I've never seen Buxley's as a planning tool, but more of a "cache archive" of all caches that had been listed--kind of like "this cache was here"--it's not really needed for caches to be purged from the map. Buxley's, I figure, is more like a news gathering service--what as happened as happened and that can't be changed. All is needed is a one time input of the data and he has it.

 

Contrary to what some here may like for you to believe, there isn't any issue about giving up proprietary information. Buxley's only requires coords, name, placer, and host link and that's it. That's more like news information and giving that information, I suspect, is not a violation of copyright law. AFAIK, you can't be sued for infringement for giving out a person's name, their address, directions to get to there address, or a host of other things. Some things just can't be copyrighted and I suspect the four things Ed needs for his service to work is among them.

Link to comment
This is, and has always been a privately owned site. There is no right to free speech here.

The problem is this site also tries to be the only site.

 

"You can only do what I want to you to do."

 

"No, I won't make it all inclusive or work with other sites for a more pleasant experience."

 

How can the "official" site be the official one if they don't allow all forms of the game?

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment
In the context of the validity of someone's opinion, I don't think the find count matters. In the context of trying to decide how a company should be doing business, it matters a lot.

If a person who buys a new BMW every year has a suggestion on how to improve service, they should probably at least listen.

If a bum who hasnt had $20 to his name for the last 5 years tries to tell BMW how to run their company better, I doubt they will give it a second thought.

There may be many reasons why a persons find count is what it is. Besides that person may really get the bug and pick up their level of finds to one that you may find to be of value and their input worthy. But if they get the feeling their input is not worth anything early then they may never bother kicking it up. Good to know you think of those people as bums.

 

But the person that hasn't bought the BMW in your example has not used the service of BMW at all so no they probably would not bother listening to that person. But the person that buys one car every year or every ten years or only once for that matter has used the service. And sometimes what the person who has only used the service once thinks is important, maybe there is a reason they only used it once.

 

I would only add that I know of at least cacher that has been a member since July of 2002 and has 24 finds. Close to your 10 a year line in the sand. I also believe that gc.com gives a great deal of weight to what this person thinks on how the company should be doing business. I could be wrong on that point but I feel pretty sure they have the ear of TPTB.

Link to comment
I've said this before, and I'll say it again, if you don't like the way the site is run....go away. The rest of us would appreciate it.

First of all, please don't speak for me. You don't know if I would appreciate it or not.

 

Second, hopefully you will never see a suggestion of a feature that you think would be of value to you and does not get put into play. Would you go away at that point?

 

I would guess that there are features we all use here that at some point was not on this site. But after those people raised their ugly heads enough it came to be. The ability to use a credit card to pay for membership was just one recent example. But perhaps that was not important to you, but if we dig deep enough we may be able to come up with an example.

Link to comment
The problem is this site also tries to be the only site.

Yes. Well no. We try to make Geocaching.com the best "brand" of geocaching. It ensures the integrity of the data by providing tools to make sure that data is as accurate as possible. We also create listing guidelines to create at least some level of quality in the listings. is your position that Geocaching.com is or isn't geocaching? I'm getting conflicting messages.

 

"You can only do what I want to you to do."

 

Yes. Glad you understand.

 

"No, I won't make it all inclusive or work with other sites for a more pleasant experience."

 

You're making an assumption that it will be pleasant. The reason why I have removed myself from the equation between Brillig/Groundspeak discussions is I was burned by the situation in the past. A geocacher asked my help to remove his listing from the brillig site and Ed told him to stuff it. If there are no checks and balances you'll run into similar situations. So if pleasant you mean getting the finger you have a strange definition of pleasant.

 

How can the "official" site be the official one if they don't allow all forms of the game?≈

 

If by this you mean "rotten bird" and porn caches, I'd say your points are naive at best.

Link to comment
I've said this before, and I'll say it again, if you don't like the way the site is run....go away. The rest of us would appreciate it.

First of all, please don't speak for me. You don't know if I would appreciate it or not.

 

Second, hopefully you will never see a suggestion of a feature that you think would be of value to you and does not get put into play. Would you go away at that point?

 

I would guess that there are features we all use here that at some point was not on this site. But after those people raised their ugly heads enough it came to be. The ability to use a credit card to pay for membership was just one recent example. But perhaps that was not important to you, but if we dig deep enough we may be able to come up with an example.

I'm not speaking for you...I'm speaking for the rest of us that are quite happy with the way this site is run. GC has has made adjustments as needed over time to offer the best service of any other similar site.

 

I'm quite confident that GC is very open to suggestions on how to improve the site, I'm also quite confident that they aren't going to be bullied into making changes that are detrimental in the long term to the site.

 

El Diablo

Edited by El Diablo
Link to comment
The problem is this site also tries to be the only site.

is your position that Geocaching.com is or isn't geocaching?

Unless you can be inclusive of the whole geocaching community, no, I don't think you can claim to be "geocaching." "The first, the main, the primary, the largest" certainly. If that's all you want to be, then fine. But, being the "official" site would mean you should be open to all reasonable discussion of geocaching.

 

You're making an assumption that it will be pleasant. ... So if pleasant you mean getting the finger you have a strange definition of pleasant.
If you let one, or even a few, instances like this run the show, which apparently you have, then you discount Dan's site or M Class's site which as far I could tell were pleasant experiences. Kind of sad that one would shut themselves off from contact from everyone because of one or two bad expereinces.

 

How can the "official" site be the official one if they don't allow all forms of the game?≈
If by this you mean "rotten bird" and porn caches, I'd say your points are naive at best.

Sure, attempt to marginalize my stance because of extreme examples.

 

What about locationless caches? Why are they on the backburner?

 

What about removing some restrictions from virts and placing them in their own section?

 

What about moving caches? Why ban them when you could have set reasonable guidelines?

 

What about the blanket buried cache guideline? When you could have tightened the guidelines? I mean, come on, a property owner can't give permission for a hole to accomodate a cache?

 

(I already know the party line on the public reasons for the above restrictions. No need to repeat them.)

 

No, not rotten birds, but actual fun caches. Here, though, they are either not allowed, no new ones allowed, or so restricted to it might as well be not allowed.

 

Probably the reason I get so frustrated is because I see this site having so much more potential and it appears to be squandered. On what, I can't tell.

Link to comment

While interesting this current conversation has nothing to do with the topic. Please lets stay on topic

I just emailed Buxleys about potentially using a LOC file, or manually uploading info so people can get their cache's shown on his map site.

 

Maybe something comes of it, maybe not, but it's a workaround that was worth mentioning. If Ed does do something with an idea I'll follow up in this thread if it's still open.

 

This is the topic. Lets stay on it

Link to comment
The problem is this site also tries to be the only site.

is your position that Geocaching.com is or isn't geocaching?

Unless you can be inclusive of the whole geocaching community, no, I don't think you can claim to be "geocaching." "The first, the main, the primary, the largest" certainly. If that's all you want to be, then fine. But, being the "official" site would mean you should be open to all reasonable discussion of geocaching.

 

You're making an assumption that it will be pleasant. ... So if pleasant you mean getting the finger you have a strange definition of pleasant.
If you let one, or even a few, instances like this run the show, which apparently you have, then you discount Dan's site or M Class's site which as far I could tell were pleasant experiences. Kind of sad that one would shut themselves off from contact from everyone because of one or two bad expereinces.

 

How can the "official" site be the official one if they don't allow all forms of the game?≈
If by this you mean "rotten bird" and porn caches, I'd say your points are naive at best.

Sure, attempt to marginalize my stance because of extreme examples.

 

What about locationless caches? Why are they on the backburner?

 

What about removing some restrictions from virts and placing them in their own section?

 

What about moving caches? Why ban them when you could have set reasonable guidelines?

 

What about the blanket buried cache guideline? When you could have tightened the guidelines? I mean, come on, a property owner can't give permission for a hole to accomodate a cache?

 

(I already know the party line on the public reasons for the above restrictions. No need to repeat them.)

 

No, not rotten birds, but actual fun caches. Here, though, they are either not allowed, no new ones allowed, or so restricted to it might as well be not allowed.

 

Probably the reason I get so frustrated is because I see this site having so much more potential and it appears to be squandered. On what, I can't tell.

You just brought up several topica that have nothing to do with the current topic. Also all the topics you brought up have been explained and justified many times.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

I'd like to stray just somewhat off-topic for the thread, but quite on-topic of geocaching and geocaching.com in general, by asking a question about Mopar. Does Mopar have a financial or operating interest in the website or is he just a wanabee? I realize that he usually has the right answers and Jeremy doesn't seem to contradict him, so do we take what he says as the official position of Groundspeak? I'm not asking this is order to offend, it just something I have been wondering about. :blink:

Edited by cachew nut
Link to comment
I'd like to stray just somewhat off-topic for the thread, but quite on-topic of geocaching and geocaching.com in general, by asking a question about Mopar. Does Mopar have a financial or operating interest in the website or is he just a wanabee? I realize that he usually has the right answers and Jeremy doesn't seem to contradict him, so do we take what he says as the official position of Groundspeak? I'm not asking this is order to offend, it just something I have been wondering about. :blink:

Whether he does or dosen't have an interest...you have to admit he usually makes good sense.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

Ok, Mopar isnt the topic. Jeremy isnt the topic. Geocaching.com isnt the topic.

 

The topic was about a work around for Buxley. Since we cant seem to stay on topic even after a few requests to do so I am going to

1: close this topic

2: Suggest you talk to Ed is you have ideas or suggestions for his site.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...