Groundspeak Ethical?

[+RuffRidr]

Fortunately, Groundspeak does not subscribe wholeheartedly to this philosophy either.

The man asked for my opinion. That is what he received.

If you're meaning me, I don't think I've ever asked for your opinion.

 

--RuffRidr

[+sbell111]

...You're saying gc.com should resolve the issues of the users or let 3rd parties resolve them. Isn't that what we've been clamoring for?

My opinion was either solicited, or I was being misrepresented. You choose.

[+RuffRidr]

...You're saying gc.com should resolve the issues of the users or let 3rd parties resolve them.  Isn't that what we've been clamoring for?

My opinion was either solicited, or I was being misrepresented. You choose.

I definitely wasn't soliciting your opinion. If you're being misrepresented, it was by your own post a couple posts previous to mine. I can't help that.

 

--RuffRidr

[+sbell111]

Hopefully, I have now made my post more clear then.

[+sbell111]

To get back on track, I would never do business with a company that I knew in my heart to be unethical. I would not provide that company with its materials, nor would I purchase its product. I challenge everyone who feel the same as I do about unethical companies to boycott them.

[+The Leprechauns]

There is nothing that you can get from Buxley's that you can't get from GC.com and very inexpensive third party applications.

How about every cache that had been published?

 

I never used Buxley's as a planning device. But it sure was interesting to see what caches had been out there. Yes, including the archived ones.

 

Here on gc.com you can't easily find the archived caches in your area. However, they are still interesting reading. Also, you can glean information from an archived cache such the viability of placing another nearby. As it is, you don't know unless you ask your friendly local reviewer.

It's not all that difficult to find out about archived caches in an area. Just check the box on the Geocaching.com map page to show archived and disabled caches. That's a useful tool when, for example, you're scouting out a new park for a hide and you are curious whether there were caches there in the past that had run into problems.

 

Unlike you, I am glad that it takes an extra step or two to see the archived caches. Whenever discussions about archived cache data come up, you can count on me like clockwork to raise the following standard objection: I have four caches placed with permission from the land manager that requires me to "remove" the caches from any online listing services once my three-year permit expires. It's a quick log on GC.com, but it steams me that I have to affirmatively write an e-mail to Ed Hall to ask him to remove the dot from his map for my archived cache. I never consented to his publishing it in the first place; he only got the data by scraping it from the site where I chose to list it.

[+sbell111]

You actually bring up two very interesting points.

 

1) The TOS states that the cache info is ours. We give GC.com permission to list this on the GC.com site. I've also never agreed to have this info listed on other caching sites. It seems like a site like Buxley's would need this express permission from the cache owners before he can list the info on his site.

 

2) Certainly, a person may get disenchanted with any of these sites to the point that he doesn't want his caches listed. We've certainly seen these feelings by prior users of GC.com and 'the other one'. Why would a disenchanted person be forced to have his caches on a site that he doesn't support.

[+The Leprechauns]

Perhaps we could trot over to Ed's forums and start a thread called "Buxleys Ethical? I have doubts."

 

Oh wait... no forums there.

[ju66l3r]

I never consented to his publishing it in the first place; he only got the data by scraping it from the site where I chose to list it.

Which data? The cache name or the coordinates?

 

Because the coordinates aren't anything you have some kind of intellectual property on. Getting upset over the IP of the cache name seems a tad tortured.

[ju66l3r]

Perhaps we could trot over to Ed's forums and start a thread called "Buxleys Ethical? I have doubts."

 

Oh wait... no forums there.

Why do that? If you have concerns, you can e-mail him directly (edhall@brillig.com). I have found him to be *very* responsive in the past. Or you could even use the Yahoo Group that is linked from his front page. I'd imagine if he suggests it as a discussion group he probably uses it as well.

[+The Leprechauns]

While I don't have any particular claim on the geographical coordinates of X degrees latitude, Y degrees longitude, the fact that there's a cache there called "Elves in the Vortex" is a piece of data that I "own" and have given permission to GC.com to list.

 

Yes, I hear it's easy to get the info. removed by e-mailing the Buxleys site. My point was, I shouldn't have to do that in the first place.

 

Anticipating your next response, yes, if GC.com were to enter into a data sharing agreement with Buxleys, my hope would be that either by mandate or by option, a cache would disappear from Buxleys at the same time it was archived on GC.com. Frankly I do not care whether GC.com enters into such an agreement. If they do, then my data appearing on Buxleys is now an authorized use and I would be OK with that. I still would not use the site, but if others liked it, that's fine.

[+sbell111]

Perhaps we could trot over to Ed's forums and start a thread called "Buxleys Ethical? I have doubts."

I haven't been over there for a long time, so I just popped over to take a look around. I think its funny that this is what it says at the bottom of the map page:

 

You are welcome to link to any of my pages from your web site but please do not place copies of this site's maps on your own web page.

 

Apparently, Its OK for him to take GC.com's data, but not for others to do it to him.

Edited February 8, 2005 by sbell111

[+Mopar]

I haven't been over there for a long time, so I just popped over to take a look around.  I think its funny that this is what it says at the bottom of the map page:

 

You are welcome to link to any of my pages from your web site but please do not place copies of this site's maps on your own web page.

 

Apparently, Its OK for him to take GC.com's data, but not for others to do it to him. 

Ah, I'm glad I'm not the only person wh saw the irony in that.

While we are along those lines, what about those maps?

Where do they come from?

Since Buxley's is essentially a hobbiest site, they can't be expensive. I doubt he would be spending 10s of thousands of dollars a year (or more) to license world-wide commercial maps. If he can afford to use them, why can't GC.com? The only really valid argument I've heard is Buxley's has (marginally) better maps then GC.com in some parts of the world. If those maps are free/cheap, put them to use here on the site in those countries.

Edited February 8, 2005 by Mopar

[CoyoteRed]

It's not all that difficult to find out about archived caches in an area.

Thanks for sending me back to the maps. The last time I checked it didn't show archived caches.

[+The Leprechauns]

You are most welcome, my friend. Nice to be debating with you again after a week's vacation!

[virgo91967]

Soo... after reading ALL the posts in this thread ... then I can assume that, like the rest of the net ... the entire GC.com vs. Buxley's issue is monetary. Hmmm... Well.. dot COM IS short for Commerce after all. I do hope that GC and Buxley's do come to a mutually beneficial agreement that will not deprive geocaching from another online tool.

[+Durango!]

I think I'll close this one now, as it seems played out. Email me if you really want it to continue.

 

I am very happy that talks have been re-opened. I would like to continue to hear updates about what is going on. I hope no one is left hanging on the issue.