opencaching.com new mascot...

[+Lostby7]

I don't disagree, but this brings me back to a question I asked earlier- what's to stop another cacher from importing my caches and listing them on opencaching?

 

Should I be proactively cross-posting my caches to protect them from being claimed by somebody else?

If you don't want your caches to appear on OpenCaching.com, the way to do it is to... upload them to OpenCaching.com!........

Nice step by step description...that should do the trick. And I applaud you on your wit. I have to also wonder what type of random numbering system they are using over at OC...is it possible for them to randomly assign an OC number suffix which matches an existing GC number suffix by chance? With a million caches in play seems like this could happen.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Lostby7

[Skippermark]

So if somebody decides to cross-post my caches there without my knowing, is there any way that I can protest this??

I was wondering the same thing. The site does say that users should only upload caches they own.

 

I'm curious how it works if someone uploads their finds file. I read that the site will create an opencaching ID for the caches in the file.

 

Does that mean that if I find a Castle Mischief cache and upload my finds file to the site, his cache will be listed for others to see, though maybe not as an active cache?

 

So... how exactly are trackable items being handled on this site? I'm guessing not at all. Great. Another black hole for all our bugs and coins to disappear into.

This is a concern I've heard others address. It could be confusing, especially if someone isn't aware that TBs aren't "cross-site" compatible. Once it ends up in a cache that's listed on one of the other sites, the record of its location is gone.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Skippermark

[+Castle Mischief]

I don't disagree, but this brings me back to a question I asked earlier- what's to stop another cacher from importing my caches and listing them on opencaching?

 

Should I be proactively cross-posting my caches to protect them from being claimed by somebody else?

If you don't want your caches to appear on OpenCaching.com, the way to do it is to... upload them to OpenCaching.com!

 

Let me explain.

 

First, create a GPX file with all of your caches in it.

 

*SNIP*

 

 

Yes, now what if somebody has already created an account that looks like mine and already uploaded my caches. How do I prove that I am me? How will oc.com confrm if I'm Castle_Mischief, CastleMischief, Castle-Mischief, or TheRealCastleMischief?

 

Cross posting = Horrible Idea of the Year.

[+addisonbr]

Does that mean that if I find a Castle Mischief cache and upload my finds file to the site, his cache will be listed for others to see, though maybe not as an active cache?

According to the interview, it sounds like the only way that the cache gets listed and the find "counts" is if both the hider and the finder upload their respective GPX files.

 

I haven't tested it nor can I vouch for the veracity... that's just what I heard on the interview.

[+dfx]

I have to also wonder what type of random numbering system they are using over at OC...is it possible for them to randomly assign an OC number suffix which matches an existing GC number suffix by chance? With a million caches in play seems like this could happen.

they're going backwards. the first listed cache would've had code OXZZZZZ and each subsequently generated OX code would be decreased by one. that ensures that it's gonna be a long time till there's any clashes of waypoint code suffixes.

[+Castle Mischief]

I'm curious how it works if someone uploads their finds file. I read that the site will create an opencaching ID for the caches in the file.

 

Does that mean that if I find a Castle Mischief cache and upload my finds file to the site, his cache will be listed for others to see, though maybe not as an active cache?

 

A very good question.

[+addisonbr]

Yes, now what if somebody has already created an account that looks like mine and already uploaded my caches. How do I prove that I am me? How will oc.com confrm if I'm Castle_Mischief, CastleMischief, Castle-Mischief, or TheRealCastleMischief?

That's a great question. It might involve you contacting them directly to clear it up. I would guess they would want to get that sorted out, but then again so did Get Satisfaction and it didn't help mtn-man much.

 

There's no way to prevent people from taking a similar name as someone else (on *any* web site), but you'd hope there would be some way to keep people from claiming ownership of other people's caches.

[+Hynr]

if/when GSAK gets access to any potential GS API, then i still won't care about GSAK. good for GSAK and their users, but everyone else will be left in the dark.

As for when, the answer is "last night"; and that is how fast a geocaching.com API would be in use if it were ever going to be delivered to us.

 

Go look at the forum thread here regarding the API for geocaching.com; we have been waiting years. This new upstart has it available from day 1. dfx, you clearly have no need for GSAK and have made up your mind about it. Unlike you, 99.99% of geocachers are not professional computer programmers or database managers; GSAK and its macro language is a powerful tool for many of them. I know of no powercacher that does not use GSAK for something. I am hoping that Garmin respects GSAK more than Groundspeak has. Groundspeak’s attitude towards GSAK is just like your’s, dfx. That’s why GSAK is still waiting for direct access to the PQ page where the gpx files that we have run wait to be retrieved.

 

GSAK adapts to geocaching as fast as the users want it, while respecting the listing service. It is already adapting to opencaching. Someone reported an issue with gpx files from OC having trouble; by the time I tested it a few hours later, the problem was gone (probably repaired at OC). I mentioned something about opencaching at the GSAK forum and within minutes an API interface was built into the macro language. GSAK (and other software for filtering) will be even more important with opencaching because that site currently has no filtering process and GSAK makes that very easy.

[+sTeamTraen]

is that really how it works, did you try that?

Yes I did, yes it worked. If GC12345 has already been uploaded, even if not published, then OX12345 is assigned to it. OX12345 will not be assigned again (unless you delete your draft cache). And if GC12345 is uploaded again, OX does not say "Darn, OX12345 has gone, I'll assign OXZ5432". That's understandable because it's using GC12345=OX12345 to map from the GC codes in uploaded "My Finds" files to OX cache listings, as those appear.

 

However, by only using the last 4/5 digits of the uploaded cache number, they have opened themselves to several problems. One is that if you previously created OC12345 at Opencaching.xx, or NC1234 at Navithingy.com, and you upload that before the owner of GC12345 or GC1234 does, then you've taken that spot from them.

Edited December 10, 2010 by sTeamTraen

[+dfx]

However, by only using the last 4/5 digits of the uploaded cache number, they have opened themselves to several problems. One is that if you previously created OC12345 at Opencaching.xx, or NC1234 at Navithingy.com, and you upload that before the owner of GC12345 or GC1234 does, then you've taken that spot from them.

that's exactly the scenario i was refering too. the thing is that somebody already brought this up over at their forum, and the "official" (?) reply was that it's not a problem because if OC12345 got uploaded and received OX12345, and then GC12345 gets uploaded, then GC12345 would simply receive another OX code while the linkage between the OX and the GC code would still exist internally. at least that's how i understood it. of course i didn't actually test that, so i don't know how true that is.

[+dfx]

if/when GSAK gets access to any potential GS API, then i still won't care about GSAK. good for GSAK and their users, but everyone else will be left in the dark.

As for when, the answer is "last night"; and that is how fast a geocaching.com API would be in use if it were ever going to be delivered to us.

i'm not sure what you're saying here. GSAK got access to the Groundspeak API last night?

 

Go look at the forum thread here regarding the API for geocaching.com; we have been waiting years. This new upstart has it available from day 1. dfx, you clearly have no need for GSAK and have made up your mind about it. Unlike you, 99.99% of geocachers are not professional computer programmers or database managers; GSAK and its macro language is a powerful tool for many of them. I know of no powercacher that does not use GSAK for something. I am hoping that Garmin respects GSAK more than Groundspeak has. Groundspeak’s attitude towards GSAK is just like your’s, dfx. That’s why GSAK is still waiting for direct access to the PQ page where the gpx files that we have run wait to be retrieved.

i'm still not sure what you're saying. for one, i know plenty of cachers who don't use GSAK. personally i don't use it simply because i can't use it without having to jump through several hoops which would make using it more hassle than it would do good, which is why i got tired of people suggesting GSAK as a solution to every problem. now oc.com lets me use their API just like that, while GS doesn't. now GS has announced that they will open their api "to a limited group of trusted third parties", which probably will include GSAK. which would be good for all the GSAK users but will be totally useless to me and anyone else who doesn't use it, so that's hardly a "solution" that could compete with what oc.com is doing. garmin doesn't need to respect GSAK as everyone already has access to their API equally.

Edited December 10, 2010 by dfx

[+sTeamTraen]

However, by only using the last 4/5 digits of the uploaded cache number, they have opened themselves to several problems. One is that if you previously created OC12345 at Opencaching.xx, or NC1234 at Navithingy.com, and you upload that before the owner of GC12345 or GC1234 does, then you've taken that spot from them.

that's exactly the scenario i was refering too. the thing is that somebody already brought this up over at their forum, and the "official" (?) reply was that it's not a problem because if OC12345 got uploaded and received OX12345, and then GC12345 gets uploaded, then GC12345 would simply receive another OX code while the linkage between the OX and the GC code would still exist internally. at least that's how i understood it. of course i didn't actually test that, so i don't know how true that is.

OK, maybe they addressed that. In any case it's a minor problem because most of the caches at OC/NC (and even maybe a few at TC) are cross-listed from GC.com. TCs could be fun, if the site shuts down, because OX would be a logical place to take them.

 

This could be tested quite easily. Export a single GC.com cache to a GPX file, make a copy of the file, edit the copy, change GC12345 to DF12345, upload it, then upload the original and see what OX number it gets. Then watch the confusion arise for people who have already uploaded a "My Finds" GPX file which refers to GC12345, because I'm going to bet that OX doesn't correctly redirect those finds to the OX number which that cache ended up with.

 

Anyway, my main point was about how to stop people uploading your GC caches by doing it yourself, and that definitely works.

 

Edit to add: I just tested the operation two paragraphs above. I took one of my caches, exported it to GPX, changed GC12345 to FF12345, and uploaded it. It was assigned OX12345. I then uploaded the original GPX file (GC12345) and the upload did not create a new cache. So the reply which you got from Garmin might have been someone thinking quickly on their feet about a plausible (but wrong; see my comment about tying the cache to finds) solution, rather than reading the code.

Edited December 10, 2010 by sTeamTraen

[+Castle Mischief]

About that mascot... rumor it's a toad with a radar dish on it's backside.

 

Confirm/deny?

[knowschad]

So if somebody decides to cross-post my caches there without my knowing, is there any way that I can protest this??

I was wondering the same thing. The site does say that users should only upload caches they own.

 

I'm curious how it works if someone uploads their finds file. I read that the site will create an opencaching ID for the caches in the file.

 

Does that mean that if I find a Castle Mischief cache and upload my finds file to the site, his cache will be listed for others to see, though maybe not as an active cache?

 

So... how exactly are trackable items being handled on this site? I'm guessing not at all. Great. Another black hole for all our bugs and coins to disappear into.

This is a concern I've heard others address. It could be confusing, especially if someone isn't aware that TBs aren't "cross-site" compatible. Once it ends up in a cache that's listed on one of the other sites, the record of its location is gone.

 

There is a thread on the OC forums called "Dealing with caches cross-listed without permission" and Trailtech, who seems to be a developer or in some other way, a rep for the site, answered, "If this happens, report the caches to us, and we will remove them. You are only allowed to uploaded caches you own and will maintain. "

 

Well, that might be fine for onsey-twoseys and if you catch it right away, but it sure is gonna be a pain to report hundreds of caches that were wrongly cross-posted.

 

As for someone's uploaded Found Caches, from what I've seen, all it shows is cache name and date found. I don't believe it automatically turns those into findable caches on the site... just a part of that user's history. I could be mistaken, but that is what it looked like to me.

[+sTeamTraen]

As for someone's uploaded Found Caches, from what I've seen, all it shows is cache name and date found. I don't believe it automatically turns those into findable caches on the site... just a part of that user's history. I could be mistaken, but that is what it looked like to me.

That appears to be correct. My guess is that if you found GC12345 and that hasn't been uploaded yet, that they note that number - or perhaps they note OX12345, which will "inevitably" be the final OX number of GC12345 when it gets uploaded, apart from all the other things which can go wrong, some of which are mentioned in the previous few posts - and then, when the cache finally gets uploaded, you'll be able to click on the cache name and get to the listing.

[knowschad]

I'm curious how it works if someone uploads their finds file. I read that the site will create an opencaching ID for the caches in the file.

 

Does that mean that if I find a Castle Mischief cache and upload my finds file to the site, his cache will be listed for others to see, though maybe not as an active cache?

 

A very good question.

The user, a local geocacher has imported his finds to opencaching.com. One of their finds is a cache called "Mr. Belvedere Travel Bug Hotel" GC2FJC9. Searching opencaching.com for OX2FJC9 turns up nothing.

 

Their profile shows 1212 caches found, so those imported caches DO count toward their overall finds, though.

[+addisonbr]

Well, that might be fine for onsey-twoseys and if you catch it right away, but it sure is gonna be a pain to report hundreds of caches that were wrongly cross-posted.

If I had hundreds of hides and suspected that someone had cross posted all or a significant majority of them, I'd probably send a GPX file with all of them to OC and ask them to take a look.

 

As for someone's uploaded Found Caches, from what I've seen, all it shows is cache name and date found. I don't believe it automatically turns those into findable caches on the site... just a part of that user's history. I could be mistaken, but that is what it looked like to me.

I think that's right. The interview made it seem that a cache can't go live and findable unless the hider himself uploads it. (Which I say in contrast to a *finder* - the issue of people fraudulently uploading caches they don't own as if they were the hider is a separate but also valid concern.)

[+Castle Mischief]

There is a thread on the OC forums called "Dealing with caches cross-listed without permission" and Trailtech, who seems to be a developer or in some other way, a rep for the site, answered, "If this happens, report the caches to us, and we will remove them. You are only allowed to uploaded caches you own and will maintain. "

 

Well, that might be fine for onsey-twoseys and if you catch it right away, but it sure is gonna be a pain to report hundreds of caches that were wrongly cross-posted.

 

Uploading the ET Highway in 3... 2... 1...

[knowschad]

There is a thread on the OC forums called "Dealing with caches cross-listed without permission" and Trailtech, who seems to be a developer or in some other way, a rep for the site, answered, "If this happens, report the caches to us, and we will remove them. You are only allowed to uploaded caches you own and will maintain. "

 

Well, that might be fine for onsey-twoseys and if you catch it right away, but it sure is gonna be a pain to report hundreds of caches that were wrongly cross-posted.

 

Uploading the ET Highway in 3... 2... 1...

Now I see where you get your name from!

[+Castle Mischief]

There is a thread on the OC forums called "Dealing with caches cross-listed without permission" and Trailtech, who seems to be a developer or in some other way, a rep for the site, answered, "If this happens, report the caches to us, and we will remove them. You are only allowed to uploaded caches you own and will maintain. "

 

Well, that might be fine for onsey-twoseys and if you catch it right away, but it sure is gonna be a pain to report hundreds of caches that were wrongly cross-posted.

 

Uploading the ET Highway in 3... 2... 1...

Now I see where you get your name from!

 

Pardon me, could you direct me to a bookmark listing of the King Boreas hides, my good man?

[+Gorak]

I'm still waiting to hear the official stance on sharing My Finds and My Hides pocket queries. Has it occurred to anyone else that there is a possibility that this is a cooperative venture, and that they will be sharing information via their respective API's? I don't really *think* so (nor can I imagine why) but that might explain why they don't apparently have an issue with the cross-posting. Just a thought.

As far as I am concerned, if I generate my GPX files from GSAK then I'm within my rights to import them to OC. If GS were to take huge exception to that then, for my own caches, I'm happy to cut and paste my cache descriptions into GSAK and create my own GPX file. Likewise for my finds. However, I think it would be petty of GS to try and go after people for than and would certainly create a lot of customer dissatisfaction amoung their client base.

 

I think the launching of Opencaching.com is very exciting for geocaching and is absolutely necessary to ensure that one entity doesn't have an unreasonable amount of control over the hobby. Real competition is good and, like it or not, it had to happen sometime.

 

[Skippermark]

I'm curious how it works if someone uploads their finds file. I read that the site will create an opencaching ID for the caches in the file.

 

Does that mean that if I find a Castle Mischief cache and upload my finds file to the site, his cache will be listed for others to see, though maybe not as an active cache?

 

A very good question.

The user, a local geocacher has imported his finds to opencaching.com. One of their finds is a cache called "Mr. Belvedere Travel Bug Hotel" GC2FJC9. Searching opencaching.com for OX2FJC9 turns up nothing.

 

Their profile shows 1212 caches found, so those imported caches DO count toward their overall finds, though.

So they must be keeping track internally but not publicly. I imagine if someone else finds GC2FJC9 and uploads it to the site, it will just use the internal (private) ID assigned to that cache, simply for record keeping and to keep the database from filling up with duplicate caches.

[+Gorak]

In well over a thousand cache hunts and maintenance trips I've yet to see more than a handful of these geotrails that you claim are so rampant. What it is it in the water in your area?

Really??? Most of the time, geotrails are the first thing we notice when we get to GZ. After geotrails we look for geosticks and/or georocks. I guess it depends on what sort of terrain you cache in. In the temperate rain forest of the Wet Coast it is pretty hard not to create geotrails if a cache is more than a meter off the main trail.

 

[+Gorak]

A fair point was brought up around trackables...

 

If Garmin gets it's way, newbies that just got a new GPS and are new to Geocaching will not know about 'Trackables'. A person using GC.com can unknowingly move a trackable to a cross posted cache where a OC.com cacher will treat it like a normal swag item, causing it to disappear.

 

Maybe so. But trackables are not geocaching. OC is a geocaching site. Trackables are a side-game that GS use as a revenue generator. But who knows, maybe at some point OC will implement their own form of trackables to generate revenue. Regardless, if you're into trackables then that is an issue you'll have to deal with yourself.

 

[+BuckeyeClan]

However, by only using the last 4/5 digits of the uploaded cache number, they have opened themselves to several problems. One is that if you previously created OC12345 at Opencaching.xx, or NC1234 at Navithingy.com, and you upload that before the owner of GC12345 or GC1234 does, then you've taken that spot from them.

that's exactly the scenario i was refering too. the thing is that somebody already brought this up over at their forum, and the "official" (?) reply was that it's not a problem because if OC12345 got uploaded and received OX12345, and then GC12345 gets uploaded, then GC12345 would simply receive another OX code while the linkage between the OX and the GC code would still exist internally. at least that's how i understood it. of course i didn't actually test that, so i don't know how true that is.

OK, maybe they addressed that. In any case it's a minor problem because most of the caches at OC/NC (and even maybe a few at TC) are cross-listed from GC.com. TCs could be fun, if the site shuts down, because OX would be a logical place to take them.

 

This could be tested quite easily. Export a single GC.com cache to a GPX file, make a copy of the file, edit the copy, change GC12345 to DF12345, upload it, then upload the original and see what OX number it gets. Then watch the confusion arise for people who have already uploaded a "My Finds" GPX file which refers to GC12345, because I'm going to bet that OX doesn't correctly redirect those finds to the OX number which that cache ended up with.

 

Anyway, my main point was about how to stop people uploading your GC caches by doing it yourself, and that definitely works.

 

Edit to add: I just tested the operation two paragraphs above. I took one of my caches, exported it to GPX, changed GC12345 to FF12345, and uploaded it. It was assigned OX12345. I then uploaded the original GPX file (GC12345) and the upload did not create a new cache. So the reply which you got from Garmin might have been someone thinking quickly on their feet about a plausible (but wrong; see my comment about tying the cache to finds) solution, rather than reading the code.

 

I don't know anything about gpx files and such, but... does that mean someone could create a new cache page offline somehow, convert it to a gpx file, give it whatever letter/number combination that they want, and so essentially get to choose their own OX----- ID? Could lead to some interesting and unintended consequences.

 

Also, does uploading your GS caches and saving them as draft save them the .1 buffer? If somebody creates a new OC cache with coordinates within that .1 radius, who will get priority?

[knowschad]

As far as I am concerned, if I generate my GPX files from GSAK then I'm within my rights to import them to OC.

Well, how about you simply open the .gpx from your pocket query into a text editor, and then save it. Does that make it your own?

 

Besides, I'm not talking about knowschad's or Gorak's opinion on the issue... I am speculating on Groundspeak's opinion and legal stance on the matter.

[+Castle Mischief]

I think the launching of Opencaching.com is very exciting for geocaching and is absolutely necessary to ensure that one entity doesn't have an unreasonable amount of control over the hobby. Real competition is good and, like it or not, it had to happen sometime.

 

With some sort of third party oversight it would be great. As it is, it's like you're driving down the road and there are two different companies building new roads at an intersection. One company drives on the left, the other on the right. The newer company can also put up signs on the older road. Roads that the older company would never build (up the side of a building for example) because their planning commission would never approve it are CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION! Rest assured, if you find yourself driving up the side of a building all you have to do is report the errant roadway and it will be removed like super fast.

 

Oh and the newer company...? The CEO, he has driven a car. (Once or twice.)

Edited December 10, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[+Castle Mischief]

I don't know anything about gpx files and such, but... does that mean someone could create a new cache page offline somehow, convert it to a gpx file, give it whatever letter/number combination that they want, and so essentially get to choose their own OX----- ID? Could lead to some interesting and unintended consequences.

 

I guess so. (Mwa ha ha.) Where's that list of GC numbers that have been excluded...?

Edited December 10, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[Clan Riffster]

Hypothesis # 2877:

The Lackeys bought Garmin and gave it to Jeremy as an early Christmas present.

Hypothesis # 2878:

Castle Mischief is a Jeremy sock puppet and he's having a heck of a lot of fun.

[+addisonbr]

There is no better way to beta test a site than to sic geocachers on it. OC.com will probably be much better by week's end than it would have been with another three months of secret development.

 

It's too bad GetSatisfaction didn't think of themselves as being in beta

[+Castle Mischief]

Castle Mischief is a Jeremy sock puppet and he's having a heck of a lot of fun.

 

If I was Jeremy I wouldn't still be using this Explorist 210. Oh wait, I've said too much! My allegiances have been revealed!

 

 

(Kidding, I also use a Nuvi in my car.)

 

(Also: me != Jeremy)

[+ICHTHYS]

I can't even log into their forums right now. Even resetting the password and using the one they reset it too won't log me in.

[+Frank Broughton]

You will not see geotrails at my quality hiking caches for sure. I made sure of that.

 

So there is only one way to get from parking to your caches...no exceptions? And they are sitting right in the middle of the existing trail?

 

Nope, rocks do wonders! Solid rock even better!

[+Frank Broughton]

As far as I am concerned, if I generate my GPX files from GSAK then I'm within my rights to import them to OC.

Well, how about you simply open the .gpx from your pocket query into a text editor, and then save it. Does that make it your own?

 

Besides, I'm not talking about knowschad's or Gorak's opinion on the issue... I am speculating on Groundspeak's opinion and legal stance on the matter.

 

The question I ask, does Groundspeak own the gpx file format?

[knowschad]

As far as I am concerned, if I generate my GPX files from GSAK then I'm within my rights to import them to OC.

Well, how about you simply open the .gpx from your pocket query into a text editor, and then save it. Does that make it your own?

 

Besides, I'm not talking about knowschad's or Gorak's opinion on the issue... I am speculating on Groundspeak's opinion and legal stance on the matter.

 

The question I ask, does Groundspeak own the gpx file format?

Groundspeak owns the data.

[+addisonbr]

The question I ask, does Groundspeak own the gpx file format?

I don't think so. The GPX format was introduced in late 2001, but I don't think geocaching.com adopted it until September 2002.

 

ETA - But that is, of course, independent of the ownership of data *itself* that might be encoded in GPX format. If I load a PQ for all of the caches in my area, I'm fairly certain that Groundspeak owns that data. I'm not entirely sure what's in play if I download a GPX file for one of my own owned caches.

Edited December 10, 2010 by addisonbr

[+remdim]

I'm trying not to take a side; though I'm left wondering if anyone else thinks:

 

a company that creates a website based on an 'openness' philosophy that also directly profits from the hardware sales created by said website is being a bit ironic?

[+joranda]

As far as I am concerned, if I generate my GPX files from GSAK then I'm within my rights to import them to OC.

Well, how about you simply open the .gpx from your pocket query into a text editor, and then save it. Does that make it your own?

 

Besides, I'm not talking about knowschad's or Gorak's opinion on the issue... I am speculating on Groundspeak's opinion and legal stance on the matter.

 

The question I ask, does Groundspeak own the gpx file format?

Groundspeak owns the data.

 

But you pay Groundspeak for the use of the data with your membership fee.

[+addisonbr]

I'm trying not to take a side; though I'm left wondering if anyone else thinks:

 

a company that creates a website based on an 'openness' philosophy that also directly profits from the hardware sales created by said website is being a bit ironic?

It's definitely an eyebrow-raising choice by them. Garmin operates as a for-profit company like Groundspeak, as opposed to the non-profit nature of the other opencaching sites that have been around for a few months or longer (opencaching.us, opencaching.de). A curious choice of a brand name to appropriate.

[+cronicpain]

One potential problem is (maybe its already been addressed, if so, apologies) is that there could be two caches located only a few feet apart, each cache belonging to a different website? This maybe an extreme example, but with coords being jumpy at times, could there be confusion as to which cache you actually found? Someone, intentionally or unintentionally could place a cache close to another one?

[+Gorak]

One potential problem is (maybe its already been addressed, if so, apologies) is that there could be two caches located only a few feet apart, each cache belonging to a different website? This maybe an extreme example, but with coords being jumpy at times, could there be confusion as to which cache you actually found? Someone, intentionally or unintentionally could place a cache close to another one?

You bet it could be, and likely will be, a problem. But I don't see how that is any different than geocaches listed on this site that have been placed within a few meters of an existing Letterbox. When hunting a cache a few weeks ago we accidentally found a Letterbox only about 3 meters away from the geocache. In fact, we found the Letterbox first and only knew it wasn't the cache because of a log entry in the Letterbox.

 

The real question is, whose problem is it and whose cache should take precedence? First come first served? GS doesn't seem to see it that way in regards to Letterboxes so why should OC be concerned about proximity to existing GS caches?

 

[GOF and Bacall]

As far as I am concerned, if I generate my GPX files from GSAK then I'm within my rights to import them to OC.

Well, how about you simply open the .gpx from your pocket query into a text editor, and then save it. Does that make it your own?

 

Besides, I'm not talking about knowschad's or Gorak's opinion on the issue... I am speculating on Groundspeak's opinion and legal stance on the matter.

 

The question I ask, does Groundspeak own the gpx file format?

Groundspeak owns the data.

 

But you pay Groundspeak for the use of the data with your membership fee.

 

Interesting question. Groundspeak licenses you to use the data from their database. But those caches that are yours you authored the data. It is yours. The question is how exclusive is the license you granted Groundspeak? Time to reread the TOU, again.

[GOF and Bacall]

One potential problem is (maybe its already been addressed, if so, apologies) is that there could be two caches located only a few feet apart, each cache belonging to a different website? This maybe an extreme example, but with coords being jumpy at times, could there be confusion as to which cache you actually found? Someone, intentionally or unintentionally could place a cache close to another one?

You bet it could be, and likely will be, a problem. But I don't see how that is any different than geocaches listed on this site that have been placed within a few meters of an existing Letterbox. When hunting a cache a few weeks ago we accidentally found a Letterbox only about 3 meters away from the geocache. In fact, we found the Letterbox first and only knew it wasn't the cache because of a log entry in the Letterbox.

 

The real question is, whose problem is it and whose cache should take precedence? First come first served? GS doesn't seem to see it that way in regards to Letterboxes so why should OC be concerned about proximity to existing GS caches?

 

 

They have no reason to. It is no different than all the other caching sites or the letterboxers. It has never been a major issue and I doubt it will be now. It is still up to the individual cachers to make sure their caches conform to local laws and regulations.

[Skippermark]

In well over a thousand cache hunts and maintenance trips I've yet to see more than a handful of these geotrails that you claim are so rampant. What it is it in the water in your area?

Really??? Most of the time, geotrails are the first thing we notice when we get to GZ. After geotrails we look for geosticks and/or georocks. I guess it depends on what sort of terrain you cache in. In the temperate rain forest of the Wet Coast it is pretty hard not to create geotrails if a cache is more than a meter off the main trail.

 

It's interesting that many land trusts want caches to be hidden within a few feet of a trail to avoid vegation getting trampled. I understand and appreciate that thought process, but in a way that's counter intuitive.

 

From my experience in New England, the closer a cache is to the trail, the more likely it is that a geotrail will develop. Most people will walk the trail until their GPS points 90 degrees to the side and bushwhack to the cache. If the cache is 10 feet off the trail, a geotrail will develop quickly. If the cache is 300 feet off the trail, people will approach from different angles, lessening the chance of a geotrail developing.

[Andronicus]

If both GS and OC become popular, we will esentialy have 2 layers of caches. This kind of seems silly. Maybe in this situation, it would be good to combine the databases, and they could each be used as a client of the common data base, rather than compeating overlaping data basses.

[+Gorak]

If both GS and OC become popular, we will esentialy have 2 layers of caches. This kind of seems silly. Maybe in this situation, it would be good to combine the databases, and they could each be used as a client of the common data base, rather than compeating overlaping data basses.

That'll happen at about the same time Coke and Pepsi sign co-development deals.

 

Another good reason to use GSAK or something similar to maintain your own database of caches regardless of the source.

 

[+Tobias & Petronella]

I have a plan...

 

We up load all our caches to OC.com using the GPX files from GC.com

 

Groundspeak then sues Garmin for obtaining the information through illegally means.

 

Then Jeremy buys all of us a new GPSr with the settlement money.

 

[Clan Riffster]

It's interesting that many land trusts want caches to be hidden within a few feet of a trail to avoid vegation getting trampled. I understand and appreciate that thought process, but in a way that's counter intuitive.

Agreed. When I worked with Seminole County Natural Lands, developing their geocaching policy, one item they would not budge on was their requirement that caches be close to trails. I asked them why they were so set on this, and they cited an example of a cache they found by accident, simply by following a geotrail. They were quite upset about it. When they told me which cache it was, I pointed out that the cache in question would be in compliance with their rules, as it was close to the trail. I tried explaining that putting caches close to a trail tends to cause folks to follow the same path to get to it, (causing geotrails), while putting them far away from the trail tends to cause folks to take many different routes, minimizing geotrails. They didn't agree, so their policy stands. Another case of the bureaucrats not listening to the people who actually know what they are talking about.

[+geodarts]

It's interesting that many land trusts want caches to be hidden within a few feet of a trail to avoid vegation getting trampled. I understand and appreciate that thought process, but in a way that's counter intuitive.

 

California state parks require geocaches to be within three feet of an existing, designated trail. I doubt if the garmin site will have better luck sticking to that requirement than Groundspeak does. But for those of us who do follow the policy, it can make it challenging to hide an ammo box.

[+dfx]

Groundspeak owns the data.

uh, no they don't. cache listings and their content are owned by the respective authors. by submitting the listing to Groundspeak, the author grants Groundspeak full, but non-exclusive usage rights. the data is still owned by the author and they're free to do whatever they want with it.

Edited December 11, 2010 by dfx