Buxlies Work Around Update

[+Renegade Knight]

Since the original thread was closed I have to update here.

 

Ed wrote back and liked the idea. However for all the reasons pointed out in the orignal thread. Chiefly the TOS that prevents us from redistributing information we download from GC.com. It's not something he's comfortable implementing. Plus it didn't solve the issue of showing archived caches.

 

That doesn't rule out a page where we can plug in our own cache info, but he didn't comment on that aspect so there is no news there.

[+DeskJocky]

In before the lock.

 

Thanks for the update.

[GeoPooch Sobachka]

Chiefly the TOS that prevents us from redistributing information we download from GC.com. It's not something he's comfortable implementing.

I don't think it is a real issue for the caches you visited (rather than own), 'cause you may have an independent source of coordinates (you may waypoint the area).

 

I also don't think it is an issues for caches which are crossposted to other sites, or the ones where the owner or a visitor e-mailed you the info, or...

 

In other words, if Ed has a big warning to respect the Groundspeak TOS and not to upload the info directly from GC.com at his upload form, everything should be fine.

 

The question was discussed at some length at Navi forums, BTW.

 

Am I quick enough to sneak before lockdown ?

[jdoe]

If the information can't be downloaded, why can't we as cache creators give Buxley the links to newly created caches as we find/create caches as well as the posted coordinates. That should be in line with the TOS (I think). The links themselves should be harmless enough and will only be viewable IF the cache is approved. I know it is a pain... but it should work.

[+Mopar]

Because he would then have to scrape the data he needs from the website.

If you sent him the coords, name, AND a link I would think it would be legit, but I would think he would want/need some way of checking that data is valid, and that goes right back to obtaining the data within the terms of the TOS.

[GeoPooch Sobachka]

If you sent him the coords, name, AND a link I would think it would be legit, but I would think he would want/need some way of checking that data is valid, and that goes right back to obtaining the data within the terms of the TOS.

Shouldn't be a problem. Two layers of info validation are possible.

1) Register and validate volunteers who submit the data (to prevent sloppy beginners or monkeywrenchers from affecting the integrity of the maps)

2) To have a group of volunteers receive update lists for their areas from Buxley's and then either match those lists against PQs, or spot-check the lists manually. In this way, a volunteer would access information on GC.com for verification purpose only (without any sharing of the information obtained from the site) and in a non-automated mode, so the TOS are perfectly followed.

 

A similar cross-match against a PQ and/or manual spot check procedure may be employed to identify the archiveds, although I don't think the issue of the archived caches is any more significant than any other generic issue of a handful of hanging links.

[Jeremy]

Trying to figure out unique ways to violate the TOS is not an acceptable use of the forums. Sorry. Closing this thread. RK provided his update so this thread fulfilled this purpose.