Groundspeak Ethical?

February 2, 2005

I have been out of the loop for a little while, but just went back to Buxley's Waypoint. I can't believe that you have cut them off... that has always been a great site and compliment to the sport. I am having trouble believing that the Groundspeak folks could be so cold hearted and narrow minded. This certainly wasn't how geocaching started out, before the money became an issue. I just renewed my Premium Membership, more to help out than anything. But now I have my doubts...

2.7k · February 2, 2005

There are threads on this. Read them, might provide (a little) more insight.

9.4k · February 2, 2005

Yeah we're all a bit upset with those awful Groundspeak guys.

*shakes fist*

February 2, 2005

You have been out of the loop for a while.

Bronze.

3.8k · February 2, 2005

Yeah we're all a bit upset with those awful Groundspeak guys.

*shakes fist*

you forgot "sonsabitches".

4.8k · February 2, 2005

I run a pocket query and use my own map.

20.7k · February 2, 2005

... This certainly wasn't how geocaching started out, before the money became an issue....

Do you mean, 'Before Jeremy decided that lights had to be turned on, servers purchased, and family fed?'

I, frankly, don't see the need for Buxley's site any longer. The maps on the GC.com site are good enough for limited trip planning, although I use PQs and either MapPoint or S&T much more often. WHy would I want to go to another site for this? Also, why should the cache info be provided for other sites to use for free?

February 2, 2005

I, frankly, don't see the need for Buxley's site any longer. The maps on the GC.com site are good enough for limited trip planning, although I use PQs and either MapPoint or S&T much more often. WHy would I want to go to another site for this? Also, why should the cache info be provided for other sites to use for free?

Make a step outside of the US and have a look at the "maps". You would be a small minority to be happy with this big grey area called map.

Greetings,

Tobias

20.7k · February 2, 2005

Make a step outside of the US and have a look at the "maps". You would be a small minority to be happy with this big grey area called map.

I suggest that you give the European version of MapPoint a try. I agree that street coverage in some areas of Europe is not terrific, but they claim to have close to 100% of Germany's streets covered.

20.7k · February 2, 2005

I went over to my friend Google and found MS Autoroute. It looks like the European version of S&T to me. I bet it would help you out for a minimum economic investment.

February 2, 2005

Make a step outside of the US and have a look at the "maps". You would be a small minority to be happy with this big grey area called map.

I suggest that you give the European version of MapPoint a try. I agree that street coverage in some areas of Europe is not terrific, but they claim to have close to 100% of Germany's streets covered.

Do you agree as well with the fact that there aren't ANY caches on these maps?!

You're comparing apples to peaches (or grapes even).

BS/2

1.4k · February 2, 2005

I run a pocket query and use my own map.

Yeah!! What Carleen said!

Mapsource City and Topo as well as National Geographic Topo.

Edited February 2, 2005 by zoltig

20.7k · February 2, 2005

Do you agree as well with the fact that there aren't ANY caches on these maps?!
...

There are no caches on my MapPoint maps either, until I import PQs full of them. Then, all of the caches in the area are on them.

As far as apples to oranges goes, I disagree with you. Buxley's gave maps with caches. My way gives much better maps with caches (they even allow me to click on the cache icon to pull up the individual cache page, just like Buxley's). My maps give me a much more efficient way to plan caching trips.

edit: punctuation is your friend.

Edited February 2, 2005 by sbell111

9.4k · February 2, 2005

I've never found Buxley's useful.

2.1k · February 2, 2005

Do you agree as well with the fact that there aren't ANY caches on these maps?!
...

There are no caches on my MapPoint maps either, until I import PQs full of them. Then, all of the caches in the area are on them.

As far as apples to oranges goes, I disagree with you. Buxley's gave maps with caches. My way gives much better maps with caches (they even allow me to click on the cache icon to pull up the individual cache page, just like Buxley's). My maps give me a much more efficient way to plan caching trips.

edit: punctuation is your friend.

Your way also requires more money (both for the map software and the PQs), time, and effort than using Buxley's. It also requires the time and effort to be reinvested on a regular basis for updating reasons.

When it was running, a single point of effort and time was made by Buxley's WP for anyone.

I actually wish anyone previously using Buxley's website would have switched to generating their own PQs for what they used it for. If it ended up bringing the PQ server to its knees (again) then maybe more people would be interested in Groundspeak finally working a deal to license access to Buxley again.

Instead, they are able to ignore him and their promised discussion with him because there has been little effect in closing him off other than a few disgruntled, but still committed, users.

9.4k · February 2, 2005

Instead, they are able to ignore him and their promised discussion with him because there has been little effect in closing him off other than a few disgruntled, but still committed, users.

Do you wish to have ketchup on your words before you eat them?

2.1k · February 2, 2005

I'd gladly eat those words (ketchup, mustard, and pickles) if you would finally get around to open talks with Ed and have his site back up and running soon.

20.7k · February 2, 2005

Your way also requires more money (both for the map software and the PQs), time, and effort than using Buxley's. It also requires the time and effort to be reinvested on a regular basis for updating reasons.

When it was running, a single point of effort and time was made by Buxley's WP for anyone.

I actually wish anyone previously using Buxley's website would have switched to generating their own PQs for what they used it for....

My way takes a little money. $15 for software and $30 for annual membership.

It takes very little effort, just a few minutes of my time whenever I get around to it. The really cool thing about my way, is that when I plan for a trip, the software does all the work. I don't have to spend hours manually pulling up caches on the route. I certainly disagree that Bexley's was easier to use than PQs and software.

I have no idea how many people actually used Buxley's on a regular basis. I tried it once or twice prior to PQs and it was something of a PITA. I also wish everyone who used it would become members and get PQs. Think of the site improvements that could be made with a big influx of capital. :unsure:

February 2, 2005

We are ACTIVELY working with Ed on a resolution. The content of our ongoing discussions is private and will not be addressed in the forums.

2.6k · February 2, 2005

I've never found Buxley's useful.

I found Buxley's useful very often.

18.9k · February 2, 2005

My 2 cents worth, I found Buxleys VERY useful. I was (am) willing to the best of my ability help financially to find a way to share the data for Buxleys. PQ's and MS S&T works fine and is relitvely easy to do but some of us are willing to pay so that someone else does it. Buxleys was useful for finding a good cache area to go to find a route rather than set a route and use PQ's. Thanks Ed. Hope it gets resolved soon...... Having said that, I want to protect the speed and availability of Groundspeak as well.

February 2, 2005

I have no idea how many people actually used Buxley's on a regular basis. I tried it once or twice prior to PQs and it was something of a PITA. I also wish everyone who used it would become members and get PQs. Think of the site improvements that could be made with a big influx of capital.

I used Buxley's on a regular basis. I liked it because it easily showed the new caches in the area (marked in blue). It was easy to see if there was new caches in the area. I suppose I can still do that with my own maps, and some pocket queries, but it certainly isn't easier.

The ideal situation would be if Geocaching.com came up with a replacement for Skydiver's cache notification.

--RuffRidr

February 2, 2005

I tried Buxley's before and never found it useful, I just took a look again. Only difference between the up to date option on GC and Buxley's is I see the borders of the province. With my 3 provinces we tend to cache in, most of the caches are in the southern half with the northern half (except NB) showing fewer caches, with the only option to show the whole province, the caches are just bunched up at the bottom. I would like to have more detail on the GC maps instead of grey, but buxley's is no better with no zoom in option, actually is is less useful. I have been using MapSource and PQ's, this also allow me to only see the ones I have not found, less clutter.

PEI and the 3 territories are not even shown on Buxley's.

edit to add that not all of Canada is shown on Buxley's

Edited February 2, 2005 by Car37&Holly

2.1k · February 2, 2005

We are ACTIVELY working with Ed on a resolution. The content of our ongoing discussions is private and will not be addressed in the forums.

Good to know...since neither Ed or Groundspeak had made any progress since Dec 9th, the rest of us can all only go on what we have available to us.

February 2, 2005

We are ACTIVELY working with Ed on a resolution. The content of our ongoing discussions is private and will not be addressed in the forums.

Good to know...since neither Ed or Groundspeak had made any progress since Dec 9th, the rest of us can all only go on what we have available to us.

Give us a break....

How do you know there has not been any progress made? Are you privy to the dialog exchanges between Buxleys and Groundspeak?

And just who are "the rest of us"?

Please speak for yourself. I don't find it necessary to know every little miniscule day to day goings on of TPTB...from questioning their finances, knowing who all the mods/reviewers are, or to demanding resolution of this particular problem. No one here, no matter what level of membership has that right. Its a business, and as such they have the right to make their own decisions without consulting everyone on these forums.

Just my opinion.

Edited February 2, 2005 by woof n lulu

38.2k · February 2, 2005

What does Groundspeak controlling who is hammering on their servers have to do with ethics?

1k · February 3, 2005

Do you mean, 'Before Jeremy decided that lights had to be turned on, servers purchased, and family fed?'

Hi

Maybe these two links might give more reasonable historical perspective:

http://geocaching.gpsgames.org/history/ and/or http://www.guysnamedkim.com/geocache/geocache_history.html.

Regards

Andrew

20.7k · February 3, 2005

Maybe these two links might give more reasonable historical perspective:...

What, am I new? :blink: :unsure:

2.3k · February 3, 2005

Do you mean, 'Before Jeremy decided that lights had to be turned on, servers purchased, and family fed?'

Hi

Maybe these two links might give more reasonable historical perspective:

http://geocaching.gpsgames.org/history/ and/or http://www.guysnamedkim.com/geocache/geocache_history.html.

Regards

Andrew

Becasue we all know that if its on the internet it must be true. :unsure:

1k · February 3, 2005

Becasue we all know that if its on the internet it must be true.

Not at all, however, the archives are there ... and a lot of this can be verified.

Do you have a verifable take on things which is different? Maybe you could provide a link to that or post it somewhere? Then we could reach our own informed conclusions.

That said, I don't see the history linked to as being a problem, it is just a take on what has happened.

Regards

Andrew

21.9k · February 3, 2005

Becasue we all know that if its on the internet it must be true.

Not at all, however, the archives are there ... and a lot of this can be verified.

Do you have a verifable take on things which is different? Maybe you could provide a link to that or post it somewhere? Then we could reach our own informed conclusions.

That said, I don't see the history linked to as being a problem, it is just a take on what has happened.

Regards

Andrew

Yawn.

20.7k · February 3, 2005

Let me tell you a story. I don't really know if its all true, but what the heck.

There once was a man.

He noticed a new hobby.

He built a website that was good at getting the info to people who liked the hobby.

The website grew. At the same time, and possibly because of the growth, the website needed more capital to allow it to handle the growth. His family also needed food, shelter, and new lexi every two years (I'm not absolutely sure of that last one). :unsure:

A membership plan was offered. This scared the hobbyists.

He ensured the hobbyists that the site would still be available to use for free, and it still is.

People bought the memberships. The members get a few more features, but they don't own the company, so they don't get to make all the rules.

2.1k · February 3, 2005

We are ACTIVELY working with Ed on a resolution. The content of our ongoing discussions is private and will not be addressed in the forums.

Good to know...since neither Ed or Groundspeak had made any progress since Dec 9th, the rest of us can all only go on what we have available to us.

Give us a break....

How do you know there has not been any progress made? Are you privy to the dialog exchanges between Buxleys and Groundspeak?

Obviously I need to clarify:

Since neither Ed nor Groundspeak used the methods they had been using to keep those of us interested in the proceedings of their discussions since Dec 9th, then the rest of us interested in the proceedings of their discussions can only go on the last news we had available to us:

Namely, that Ed hadn't heard from Groundspeak in over three months as of Dec 9th and that Groundspeak did not reopen the "Buxley's...updated?" thread to post news of renewed discussions as they had claimed when it was closed.

Ed had been keeping his users well informed prior to Dec 9th and so the renewal of talks between them is obviously news to those of us keeping informed on the issue. That's how privied I was to the dialog (obviously only as privied as either party was making known) and a thousand pardons if you truly thought I'd care enough to speak for you specifically, woof n lulu.

9.4k · February 3, 2005

<snip>
The website grew. At the same time, and possibly because of the growth, the website needed more capital to allow it to handle the growth. His family also needed food, shelter, and new lexi every two years (I'm not absolutely sure of that last one).

<snip>

I think he still prefers the Vespa

2k · February 3, 2005

I usually try to stay our of these conversations but I'll use this comparison.

Where I work every now and then we have to replace a users keyboard. Well, they really, really, like that model keyboard they have been using for the last five years.

The problem is that model of keyboard is no longer available.

So we replace their keyboard with a different model and the gripe and moan about it for awhile and eventually realize that, "Hey, it's a keyboard and it works, so it's a little different from the old one."

The fact for now is the Buxley site isn't updated so just learn to work with the tools that you have available to you. :rolleyes:

Also, you probably would have a better chance of getting changes from Groundspeak by asking for things in a professional manner instead of trying to make Jeremy out as a bad guy for creating a succesful business.

There is a tendency in the forums to 'speculate' on why they do this or that but without direct information it's all speculation.

If they prefer not to post every thing that happens internally that is their decision. I think they give WAY more information than most privately held companies do.

Edited February 3, 2005 by Eric K

February 3, 2005

The fact for now is the Buxley site isn't updated so just learn to work with the tools that you have available to you.

That's fine, most of us have done so. The problem is in some cases, the tools or methods provided by Groundspeak do not work as well. For instance, as I said before I would check Buxley's every morning. I have the Arkansas page bookmarked. It was very easy to tell from that page if there were any new caches in my immediate area. Is there a comparable way to do it on Geocaching.com? I have found several methods that come close. I can get a list of all the new caches in my area, but that doesn't narrow it down to my immediate area. I can have the cache notification turned on, but that only comes once a week. I can look at Geocaching.com's maps and do a bunch of zooming out and then still not really be able to tell because their icons are cluttered. I can go the pocket query route and use my own maps, but that is about a dozen steps, and the pocket queries don't always come in a timely fashion.

Also, you probably would have a better chance of getting changes from Groundspeak by asking for things in a professional manner instead of trying to make Jeremy out as a bad guy for creating a succesful business.

I agree with this statement. Everyone knows that you can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. Its just that when things like this are brought up in this forum, they seem to fall on deaf ears. How many times has "New Cache Notification" came up on here? A lot. I seem to remember it being said that it would be "implemented soon" months and months ago. It seems like the only way to get attention sometimes is to post to controversial threads like this.

There is a tendency in the forums to 'speculate' on why they do this or that but without direct information it's all speculation.

The only reason that so much speculation goes on, is because we are completely out of the loop. Take the whole Buxley's mess, for instance. With many months gone by since this started, and several since we heard anything, you can see why we thought it was just swept under the rug. An small update here and there would kill speculation before it even started.

--RuffRidr

3.5k · February 3, 2005

For instance, as I said before I would check Buxley's every morning. I have the Arkansas page bookmarked. It was very easy to tell from that page if there were any new caches in my immediate area. Is there a comparable way to do it on Geocaching.com? I have found several methods that come close. I can get a list of all the new caches in my area, but that doesn't narrow it down to my immediate area.

I think there is. I outlined one method here. Sure, you don't get pretty maps, but you can immediately see any new caches in your area and how close they are to your home coords.

Bret

February 3, 2005

For instance, as I said before I would check Buxley's every morning. I have the Arkansas page bookmarked. It was very easy to tell from that page if there were any new caches in my immediate area. Is there a comparable way to do it on Geocaching.com? I have found several methods that come close. I can get a list of all the new caches in my area, but that doesn't narrow it down to my immediate area.

I think there is. I outlined one method here. Sure, you don't get pretty maps, but you can immediately see any new caches in your area and how close they are to your home coords.

Bret

I had never seen that method before. Hmm, it does look promising. I guess now I'll have to turn my rantings to some other subject.

Now about those "Friends Lists" we were promised.... Just kidding.

--RuffRidr

February 3, 2005

I, frankly, don't see the need for Buxley's site any longer. The maps on the GC.com site are good enough for limited trip planning, although I use PQs and either MapPoint or S&T much more often. WHy would I want to go to another site for this? Also, why should the cache info be provided for other sites to use for free?

Because the information is provided to geocaching.com for free?

I agree with you that for those people who use geocaching.com exclusively, the service provided by Buxley is available here.

But I think it is unreasonable to argue that it wouldn't be quite useful having the information from all of the caching sites conveniently displayed on one set of maps. Change the name of the site to "The Geocaching ClearingHouse," if you like. Such a service could effectively eliminate the necessity of posting duplicate cache listings on the various listing services ... one click on the map would take one to the correct source. In my opinion, such a service would serve to increase the paid membership at geocaching.com.

2.4k · February 4, 2005

The problem is in some cases, the tools or methods provided by Groundspeak do not work as well. For instance, as I said before I would check Buxley's every morning. I have the Arkansas page bookmarked. It was very easy to tell from that page if there were any new caches in my immediate area. Is there a comparable way to do it on Geocaching.com?

Well, for caches listed here, you could enter your home coords to your profile (if you haven't already) go to your "my cache page" hit the "filter finds" link, bookmark and check it when-ever you wish.

February 5, 2005

wow... I don't use the forums here quite enough, and most the time I only quickly drop in to see what is going on or new in the fast world of Geocaching.

I guess the biggest reason I don't drop in that much is because unlike 99% of you all I have been around since this whole activity started, not after it began but right from the beginning.

I must say I am very shocked that many of these postings are still even here or that the thread has not been locked yet as that is most the time the case when things are being said in a slightly neg fashion against Geocaching.com

Buxleys has great maps, we all know that and if you don't agree then I think many of us would agree you are a fool to see what is quite clear. Buxley has never asked for a dime to use his maps and was only doing what many of us wanted in making the sport a bit better. He invested hundreds of hours into making those maps and maintaining them and not once asked for anything from anyone.

If you stand by Buxley then Bravo to you!

For those that used his maps until he was bumped and now find it easy to just move on and shrug the shoulder...Shame- Shame!

I send Congrats to those of you not afraid to stick your head up and speak your minds. Just don't stick them up too far or you may just get them chopped off by his royalness and lacky's.

9.4k · February 5, 2005

I guess the biggest reason I don't drop in that much is because unlike 99% of you all I have been around since this whole activity started, not after it began but right from the beginning.

I have to take your post with a grain of salt. Though I was born in Colorado does not make me an expert of it, especially since I left it as a baby. Your opinions should be taken based on your contributions to the activity, not as an inactive bystander. And you do not know the history to provide an informed opinion.

9.1k · February 5, 2005

Jeremy, maybe if the previous poster had used a more familiar account name, that has been around since the beginning, things would be much clearer. Obviously, an account created in 2003 has not been around "since the beginning."

But to those of us who are anal retentive and like to match up all our socks very neatly in our sock drawer, it all makes perfect sense.

9.4k · February 5, 2005

I am aware who the poster is.

(must resist...)

Edited February 5, 2005 by Jeremy

February 6, 2005

I am aware who the poster is.

(must resist...)

I didn't know it was such a secret. But you are welcome to tell the world as to who I am, I see no harm in it so please...Don't "resist"

And because my user name (which is as it is) does not go far into years, I did follow this and was involved in this activity way back into sci-Geo.

Your opinions should be taken based on your contributions to the activity

I will leave this one alone as that is the pot calling the kettle black. Anyone can take and take. When you find the time to teach scouting groups and schools from several states about Geocaching, then maybe we will sit at the same table.

If you wanted to "contribute" to Geocaching and were really here to do what was best for the activity as well as wanted to provide the members with the best possible, then bringing back Buxleys maps would be a great start. Even you should be able to see they far out rank yours in quality.

Umm...am I keeping this on topic or have I strayed?

February 6, 2005

I will leave this one alone as that is the pot calling the kettle black. Anyone can take and take.

Heh, yeah, he's never given anything at all to the Geocaching community. pfffffft

9.1k · February 6, 2005

Question: Who is this?

User is not very active, but knows much.

It's a sock puppet!

Navicache may provide a clue.

Now everything's *much* clearer.

And while I'm at it, let me remain on topic by saying how I find the GC.com maps far preferable to the Buxley maps. GC maps: See only active caches on the map unless I choose otherwise. Center them wherever I'm interested and zoom however I please. Buxley maps: See a map cluttered with archived and disabled caches. Try to deal with arbitrary dividing lines that cut right through the dense part of my home area.

I resent being called a "fool" for having an opinion about my choice of mapping solutions. Aren't there forum guidelines about sock puppets and personal attacks?

2.7k · February 6, 2005

See, I look at this differently. I am a n00b. I know it. And as such I feel I am a bit more objective, in that I haven't emotionally invested myself in who did what way back when. I go here because it -works-. Way more caches than I can ever do in my lifetime, great interface, etc. To say Jeremy & company haven't contributed to geocaching, well... That's silly beyond words. I'm not saying they are perfect - noone is. But come on...

Edited February 6, 2005 by New England n00b

9.4k · February 6, 2005

If you wanted to "contribute" to Geocaching and were really here to do what was best for the activity as well as wanted to provide the members with the best possible, then bringing back Buxleys maps would be a great start. Even you should be able to see they far out rank yours in quality.
Umm...am I keeping this on topic or have I strayed?

Well the irony is thick, considering you're using a sockpuppet account to post your opinion on ethics in this thread. You could just use your active account instead of creating a new one just to invalidate it after your post. It just comes off as sleazy.

I don't feel like getting into a wasted discussion with you, so suffice it to say that you are working on limited intelligence in re: the Buxley maps.

(edit: I'd rather take the high road and avoid the cattiness)

Edited February 6, 2005 by Jeremy

6.4k · February 6, 2005

Even you should be able to see they far out rank yours in quality.

I guess I'm blind, because I sure as hell don't see that. All I see is an atomic glob of dots. The maps don't zoom down far enough to separate them into anything less then a blob. If I was only patronizing navitracache, how can I filter out all those evil gc.com caches I don't care to log so I can just find those awesome navicaches??

For anyone who's found more then a few dozen caches, Buxley's was even less useful. There is no way to tell what dot is archived until I click on it. There is no way to tell what site the dot is on until I click it. there is no way to tell if I've already found that dot or not. That might not be a big deal with 10-50 finds, but when you get into the hundreds it is. Last I looked there were something like 5000 people on geocaching.com with over 200 finds. How do you use it to see clusters of unfound caches if you don't know if you've found them yet? How do you plan a route to them if you don't know if you found them already and can barely tell what city they are near?

Despite the dozen or so vocal Buxley supports here, the stats seem to back me up. In the 4+ years Buxley's has been online, it's received a little over 4 million hits. Form a post Jeremy made over a year ago, I would wager GC.com gets more hits then that on a slow week. Heck, the users here (arguably the ones who would be using the great Buxley's if it was up to date?) posted over 76,000 logs in the last week, and it's the middle of winter for many of us. I think most of us look at lots more cache pages and maps then just the number of caches we log. That shows the actual percentage of active GC.com users who actually used Buxley's is probably statistically somewhere around ZERO, and totally disproportionate to the amount of bandwidth and resources he mooched.

Groundspeak Ethical?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment