Automated picture downloading

[+fizzymagic]

In another thread, somebody made the suggestion that people use the Sunrise encoder to automatically retrieve the pictures on cache pages for paperless caching with Plucker.

 

I think that such automated retrieval of pictures that are stored on the Geocaching.com site constitutes a violation of the TOS. He doesn't.

 

Who is right?

Edited September 6, 2006 by fizzymagic

[robertlipe]

Without editorial, my read of the agreement is that tools like that run afoul of the "You agree that you will not use any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access the Site for any purpose without our express written permission." sentence of the TOS.

[+pppingme]

Although it is a general statement, and without official word from TPTB, I would lean toward it being OK to grab pictures.

 

robot, spider, scraper, other automated means. The argument could be made that your running the "picture grabber" (whatever you run, there are a couple out there) in an interactive mode, therefore it is not a scraper, spider, etc.

 

A spider by definition is following links through the web pages, you already know the picture link and are going straight for the picture.

 

A scraper reads the page and collects information, usually for republishing.

 

A robot, well this one gets grey. Your telling a program what do do and its doing it.

 

Automated, well your usually running it interactively, but again this could be grey.

 

I really do think that this policy is geared against collecting data from the pages, and not toward grabbing the pictures, which (assuming your using a PQ) you were already provided the links to by geocaching.com. By geocaching.com supplying a list of links via the PQ, that could infer permission to grab the picture.

 

Also, part 2 of this policy I think is geared toward keeping the load down on the site. All images are hosted on a seperate set of servers (maybe just one server?) and therefore pulling the pictures does not put a load on the main web servers.

[+pppingme]

I guess to take the viewpoint of its supplied in the PQ further, when you use a program like GSAK, and you (assuming you have the "view" window open) have a particular cache highlighted, the cache displays in the view window, with the data/text from the .gpx that gsak loaded, but, if you have an active internet connection, it will grab the pic's from gc.com... Does this constitute a violation of the TOS?? If so, then probably the greatest majority of PQ users are violating the TOS. I'd be curious to hear your viewpoint on this?

[+mtn-man]

Good question.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/waypoints/

 

Since Plucker is featured on the GC.com page telling you how to use/convert a PQ, I would assume that it is OK as long as you are a Premium Member and are using the your PQ and PQ management tools strictly for geocaching. That is just a guess though.

 

I do hope TPTB will chime in. I do pull pictures as long as they are on the site when I use Plucker. I don't pull them from other sites though, since I don't know the source. Plucker has functionality to let you stay on the host site for things of this sort, or venture off if you dare.

[robertlipe]

I found the last time I remember this coming up. Granted, the discussion is a bit dated and things may have changed, but we've been here before:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...mp;#entry890226

 

The 'gpxcomplete' tool - like spoilersync and plucker (when pointed at gc.com, not at the local output of tools like gpx2html) - are automated tools for grabbing files from the site in succession. (GPXcomplete will even not fetch the pages faster than once every 90 seconds; plucker just grabs as fast at can, so it's arguably MORE dangerous.) I dare not speak for the house, but I'm not seeing big differences.

[+pppingme]

I think the difference is that a program like GPXcomplete (I'm not familiar with it) is a screen scraper, that causes database hits and cpu for rendering html and so on.. On the other hand, pulling a .jpg (or whatever) from an already defined url (the one that geocaching.com put in the PQ that they sent us) isn't causing the same database/cpu/rendering hit, much much easier on the servers.

 

I also consider the view that if geocaching.com didn't want us pulling the .jpg images (or again, whatever is linked in) that they would strip that from the PQ before they send it. So again, we have infered permissio to pull the picture, but we DON'T have permission to scrape additional info off the site.

[+fizzymagic]

robot, spider, scraper, other automated means. The argument could be made that your running the "picture grabber" (whatever you run, there are a couple out there) in an interactive mode, therefore it is not a scraper, spider, etc.

The tool in question is not run in interactive mode; it is a spider.

[+fizzymagic]

It's clear that the practice of automated picture downloading is pretty widespread and that there is significant uncertainty about whether or not it violates the TOS. Could we get some kind of Official Pronouncement about it? Because if it's OK, I'd like to be able to do it.

[+StarBrand]

It's clear that the practice of automated picture downloading is pretty widespread and that there is significant uncertainty about whether or not it violates the TOS. Could we get some kind of Official Pronouncement about it? Because if it's OK, I'd like to be able to do it.

Me too but I have been quite hesitant about trying it . Using the add on to GPX Sonar....... Jeremy??

[Bryan]

 

Since Plucker is featured on the GC.com page telling you how to use/convert a PQ, I would assume that it is OK as long as you are a Premium Member and are using the your PQ and PQ management tools strictly for geocaching. That is just a guess though.

 

 

Mtn-Man is correct. If you are a premium member and are using your Pocket Queries and Pocket Query management tools for geocaching, it is acceptable to download the image from our image server. This assumes that the image is inside the description of the cache and in the GPX file. Scraping the web site to find unlinked images is, however, off limits.

[+gnbrotz]

How about the similar use of SpoilerSynch in conjunction with Pocket Queries?

[Jeremy]

How about the similar use of SpoilerSynch in conjunction with Pocket Queries?

 

We don't know what that is, but Rothstafari's response is pretty clear-cut. If the link isn't in the description in the GPX file and you need to download anything from the cache page itself using an automated tool - it violates the TOS of the web site.

[+Stunod]

How about the similar use of SpoilerSynch in conjunction with Pocket Queries?

 

We don't know what that is, but Rothstafari's response is pretty clear-cut. If the link isn't in the description in the GPX file and you need to download anything from the cache page itself using an automated tool - it violates the TOS of the web site.

 

From SpoilerSync's website:

How does it work ?

 

Paperless cachers usually use lists of waypoints to allow their various gadgets to be easily programmed. Spoiler Sync supports both of the popular formats of these waypoint files (.LOC and .GPX)

When a waypoint file is selected, Spoiler Sync works through the waypoint file and checks the cache page with details of each cache, if there are any spoiler pictures linked to the page Spoiler Sync will download them to your local PC (optionally shrinking them to save space). The local folder of spoilers can then be copied across to your PDA or laptop so that you carry the spoiler pictures with you in case they are required.

 

Sounds like it hits the webpage looking for links...which would violate the TOS as described by Jeremy and Rothstafari.

[CoyoteRed]

All the more reason to place the link to the spoiler pix in your description.

 

I think it was suggested a while back to append links to those pix in the GPX description. Some folks where referencing those pix in their description, but GPX users weren't getting them.

[+fizzymagic]

Many thanks to Rothstafari for the clarification! I have some programming to do this weekend to update my script.

[Jeremy]

We plan to provide links to images as part of the next version of GPX. Unfortunately I don't have any real solid timelines for you.

[+mtrax]

We plan to provide links to images as part of the next version of GPX. Unfortunately I don't have any real solid timelines for you.

Is this waiting on V2 or is this still on the TODO list?

[+mtrax]

How do are we expect to create off line images for the field if downloading of puzzle images isn't allowed to automated. I have one cache with 30 images.

Edited July 23, 2007 by mtrax

[+eagsc7]

I think this is really simple. Look at the webpage before going out. I know I've done the Nothing important thing before, just to find out that I did need that one picture. Yeah, it would be nice, but IF you plan a weekend trip, visit the site and at least glance at the cache listings. Usually there's nothing I don't already get with GSAK, but Sometimes... there is a picture that I do need.

 

The Steaks

[+mtrax]

so how do we get some official action to provide this function or at the very least allow this automation.

[+Lil Devil]

so how do we get some official action to provide this function or at the very least allow this automation.

 

We plan to provide links to images as part of the next version of GPX. Unfortunately I don't have any real solid timelines for you.

[+mtrax]

zzzzz..... and in the mean time...?

[+The Leprechauns]

zzzzz..... and in the mean time...?

 

There are 436067 active caches worldwide.

In the last 7 days, there have been 327813 new logs written by 46691 account holders.