Search Members Help

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

 

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Discussing Buxley's, all facets of Buxley's debacle< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
MOCKBA Offline
Navicacher




Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: Sep. 2004
    Posted: Dec. 12 2004,1:44 pm QUOTE

I am not sure if this forum is 100% appropriate, please correct me if I am wrong.
In the face of well-organized and ersistent efforts to shut down Buxley's discussions in the rival forums, I think we may start a less restricted discussion in Navicache forums.
We may want to discuss:
- the ways to keep Buxley's maps up-to-date despite a mildly discouraging attitudes of Groundspeak, both technical and organizational
- general appropriatness of mapping services ( compare with web search portals, phone directories, etc.) and possible caveats such as dealing with multiple listing redundancies, obsolete info, or objectors.
- they ways to include other cache listing services on the maps (e.g. geocaching.ru) and to enhance map functionality, perhaps through sharing with 3rd parties
- comparing functionality and costs of different mapping solutions
- to an extent, personalities and their philosophies and attitudes as relevant to this discussion

Thanks!
Back to top
Profile PM 
PC Medic Offline
Cache Master




Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 1452
Joined: Dec. 2001
    Posted: Dec. 12 2004,2:36 pm QUOTE

The main purpose of Navicache.com (and our Forums) is to serve the Geocaching community as a whole. This could not be done were we to restrict the discussion of 'Geocaching' related topics. Whether it is of interest to the minority or the majority, if it is Geocaching related, then it is appropriate to discuss within our forums or Chat.

Now being one that recognizes the valuable service Buxley's offers to Geocachers and that many (including myself) use his maps regularly, I think this topic will be of interest and encourage its discussion :thumbs-up
I am sure we will hear many different ideas and differing opinions and that is fine, because again we are here to serve the the Geocaching community and you can not do that without allowing the opinions of all to be heard.  

With that said I can assure you it will be less restricted here than those threads I have seen elsewhere and will remain open so long as the discussions remain civil.

I would ask that because it is not directly related with 'Using the website' though it be conducted in a more general forum and for that reason have moved this discussion here.

--------------
'PC Medic'
Back to top
Profile PM AOL YIM 
Scout Offline
Cache Master




Group: Members
Posts: 721
Joined: June 2001
    Posted: Dec. 12 2004,6:58 pm QUOTE

Quote (MOCKBA @ Dec. 12 2004,2:44 pm)
- the ways to keep Buxley's maps up-to-date despite a mildly discouraging attitudes of Groundspeak, both technical and organizational

Any published maps (or stats) will violate gc.com's terms of service. gc.com hasn't taken legal action against anyone, that I know of, but they have threatened it publicly against Buxley in the past. Unless gc.com removes its blocks against Buxley's server, I think Buxley's maps will have to evolve into a service that doesn't include showing locations of new gc.com caches.

--------------
Scout  ( http://GPSgames.org )
Back to top
Profile PM 
PC Medic Offline
Cache Master




Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 1452
Joined: Dec. 2001
    Posted: Dec. 12 2004,7:31 pm QUOTE

Quote (Scout @ Dec. 12 2004,8:58 pm)
Quote (MOCKBA @ Dec. 12 2004,2:44 pm)
- the ways to keep Buxley's maps up-to-date despite a mildly discouraging attitudes of Groundspeak, both technical and organizational

Any published maps (or stats) will violate gc.com's terms of service. gc.com hasn't taken legal action against anyone, that I know of, but they have threatened it publicly against Buxley in the past. Unless gc.com removes its blocks against Buxley's server, I think Buxley's maps will have to evolve into a service that doesn't include showing locations of new gc.com caches.

I have just reread and am missing this part of their TOS, can you point it out?

Now I do see in Item 5 that they, as most do prohibit the use of any 'automated' means to access the site without their express written permission, but then according to this section Google, MSN, and all the other search engine bots and spiders are in violation.

In any case, I do not see how they could possibly copyright to prevent the creation of a map or stats of caches listed on their site as long as the publisher of same does not directly access their sites database without authorization to gather the needed data. There are ways (though perhaps some are not the most efficient) in which this could be done and I think that may be what MOCKBA was suggesting. For example 'IF' I had active caches listed and wanted them to appear on Buxley's maps I could always (should Ed provide a means) submit cache name, coordinates and name of hosting site directly to him. He could then place a pin on his map showing this location. That brings us to the question...Can he then use this pin to provide a direct link to the cache page on the hosting site?


--------------
'PC Medic'
Back to top
Profile PM AOL YIM 
Scout Offline
Cache Master




Group: Members
Posts: 721
Joined: June 2001
    Posted: Dec. 13 2004,6:53 am QUOTE

Quote (PC Medic @ Dec. 12 2004,8:31 pm)
I have just reread and am missing this part of their TOS, can you point it out?

Look for a part that denies any use of the data obtained from the site (by any means) for anything other than personal use.

Groundspeak can't protect the data by copyright. Data cannot be copyrighted. It's Groundspeak's TOS that protect the data.

Individuals are free to submit their cache details directly to Buxley, who could then pin those caches on the maps, even linking back to Groundspeak, if he wants. But if Buxley scrapes that data off gc.com directly, he's in violation of Groundspeak's TOS, especially if he then publishes maps based on the data he obtained from Groundspeak.

Yes, search engines violate Groundspeak's TOS. But well-behaved search engines will avoid your site if you request it. Groundspeak must feel it benefits from appearing in, say, Google's search results. Too bad Groundspeak doesn't see the benefit from appearing on Buxley's maps. Groundspeak's actions do not serve the geocaching community. Groundspeak's actions serve only itself.


--------------
Scout  ( http://GPSgames.org )
Back to top
Profile PM 
PC Medic Offline
Cache Master




Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 1452
Joined: Dec. 2001
    Posted: Dec. 13 2004,9:36 am QUOTE

Quote (Scout @ Dec. 13 2004,8:53 am)
Quote (PC Medic @ Dec. 12 2004,8:31 pm)
I have just reread and am missing this part of their TOS, can you point it out?

Look for a part that denies any use of the data obtained from the site (by any means) for anything other than personal use.

Groundspeak can't protect the data by copyright. Data cannot be copyrighted. It's Groundspeak's TOS that protect the data.

Individuals are free to submit their cache details directly to Buxley, who could then pin those caches on the maps, even linking back to Groundspeak, if he wants. But if Buxley scrapes that data off gc.com directly, he's in violation of Groundspeak's TOS, especially if he then publishes maps based on the data he obtained from Groundspeak.



Agreed (and pretty much what I stated). I don't think Ed or anyone else for that matter is disagrees that he needs their permission to continue based on their TOS. That is why the suggestion for alternatives.

Personally I like Jeremy (The Top Frogs) own comment that an alternative already exists if you wish to get your caches listed on Buxley's maps...post them on Navicache.com  :grinnin

Quote

Yes, search engines violate Groundspeak's TOS. But well-behaved search engines will avoid your site if you request it. Groundspeak must feel it benefits from appearing in, say, Google's search results. Too bad Groundspeak doesn't see the benefit from appearing on Buxley's maps. Groundspeak's actions do not serve the geocaching community. Groundspeak's actions serve only itself.


Agreed, and bad business IMHO, but their choice I guess and to me an indicator of their priorities.


--------------
'PC Medic'
Back to top
Profile PM AOL YIM 
MOCKBA Offline
Navicacher




Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: Sep. 2004
    Posted: Dec. 13 2004,10:01 am QUOTE

Quote (Scout @ Dec. 13 2004,8:53 am)
Yes, search engines violate Groundspeak's TOS. But well-behaved search engines will avoid your site if you request it.

www.geocaching.com is not indexed by google. It used to be, through Buxley's, but not any longer. The only part of groundspeak dealing with today's cache listings which you can find on Google is jeep.geocaching.com, which contains lists of geocaches by state (the same lists as at the main gc.com website, albeit formatted a bit differently). These lists are cached by Google, I assume by the agreement between the three sides (Google, DaimlerChrysler, and Groundspeak), so it is easy to get the lists of recent caches without ever venturing on groundspeak turf.
I think that the lists of recent caches, by an area, can be directly imported into Buxley's lists (although not maps yet, 'cause you'd need some location info for the latter). I further propose that each listed, but not yet mapped, cache will be accompanied by an "Upload location" link. Once a user clicks it, one will be given a free-form textbox for pasting data. The data could come from user's own GPS observations, or combined observations of a group of volunteers, or some guesstimates, or maybe even from something originating at geocaching.com website. But the form will of course have a stern warning that one shouldn't paste in the information directly from the geocaching.com website, since it may violate certain aspects of their TOS. This way, if someone chooses to disregard the warning and just to paste in a whole cache page, then obviously Buxley's is not at fault.
I think it is a workable solution.
Just as a side note, I think Groundspeak has largely undermined their own legal standing in any possible dispute over this scheme, since they admitted, not once, that they appreciate the service provided by Buxley's to the geocaching community, and since their objections in the forums, apart from the scraping claim, were all technicalities (archiveds, opt-outs, this kind of small stuff). Moreover, if Groundspeak really wanted to block the users of Buxley's, they would have disallowed requests with HTTP_REFERER being at Ed'd site long ago. I think it is very clear that Groundspeak's problems are with the methods and minor details, rather than with the mere fact of existence of an independent listing service.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Scout Offline
Cache Master




Group: Members
Posts: 721
Joined: June 2001
    Posted: Dec. 13 2004,11:11 am QUOTE

Quote (MOCKBA @ Dec. 13 2004,11:01 am)

I further propose that each listed, but not yet mapped, cache will be accompanied by an "Upload location" link.

There is nothing technically or legally wrong with this solution, but it fails the human engineering test. Only a tiny number of people will actually click that link.
Quote

Just as a side note, I think Groundspeak has largely undermined their own legal standing in any possible dispute over this scheme,

Groundspeak's legal footing has always been weak, but that doesn't matter when it's dealing with individuals who can't afford the legal expenses of testing Groundspeak's claims in court.
Quote

I think it is very clear that Groundspeak's problems are with the methods and minor details, rather than with the mere fact of existence of an independent listing service

If methods were the issue, Groundspeak could have long ago provided a fast, direct database access for stats sites, mapping sites, for anyone else with a creative idea of a value-added service for the geocaching community. The issue is control of the data.


Edited by Scout on Dec. 13 2004,11:21 am

--------------
Scout  ( http://GPSgames.org )
Back to top
Profile PM 
cachekidds Offline
Navicache Dude




Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: Dec. 2003
    Posted: Dec. 13 2004,11:46 am QUOTE

Quote (PC Medic @ Dec. 13 2004,11:36 am)
Personally I like Jeremy (The Top Frogs) own comment that an alternative already exists if you wish to get your caches listed on Buxley's maps...post them on Navicache.com  :grinnin

Yeah, I liked that too. I really like Buxley's stuff and wish the gc thing would be resolved in a positive way. At least Buxley threads are not in danger of being locked at Navicache.
Back to top
Profile PM 
MOCKBA Offline
Navicacher




Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: Sep. 2004
    Posted: Dec. 13 2004,12:02 pm QUOTE

Quote (Scout @ Dec. 13 2004,1:11 pm)
Quote (MOCKBA @ Dec. 13 2004,11:01 am)

I further propose that each listed, but not yet mapped, cache will be accompanied by an "Upload location" link.

There is nothing technically or legally wrong with this solution, but it fails the human engineering test. Only a tiny number of people will actually click that link.

You probably missed my point, which was that Buxley's needs a way to solicit and receive volunteer input in listing cache locations, and it should be organized in such a way which will not necessarily require lifting data off gc.com.
A number of local cachers in my area are very organized and keep hundrds of cache locations on file. Once there is a way to submit the info to Buxley's, they can do it in a more effective way than a hundred of clicks; while others may stick to a 100% manual, a cache-at-a-time submittal process. It doesn't matter. What does matter is that data gathering in shifted away from Buxley's site and into the hands of a decentralized community of volunteers.
Quote
The issue is control of the data

but they pursue this issue very reluctantly, mostly just by passively avoiding any major chances which would diminish their own data monopoly; and most certainly not by cracking down on user's sharing of bits and pieces of data between themselves.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Scout Offline
Cache Master




Group: Members
Posts: 721
Joined: June 2001
    Posted: Dec. 13 2004,12:47 pm QUOTE

Quote (MOCKBA @ Dec. 13 2004,1:02 pm)
What does matter is that data gathering in shifted away from Buxley's site and into the hands of a decentralized community of volunteers.

I'm just less optimistic than you about the success of a decentralized community of volunteers keeping a database of thousands of caches up to date.

Quote

but they pursue this issue very reluctantly, mostly just by passively avoiding any major chances which would diminish their own data monopoly; and most certainly not by cracking down on user's sharing of bits and pieces of data between themselves.

We just have different opinions of how reluctant they are. Jeremy Irish threatened Buxley with a lawsuit. Jeremy Irish blocked his server from accessing gc.com. This doesn't seem reluctant or passive to me, even if he hasn't used every technical means at his disposal. The end result has been that gc.com has maintained its monopolistic control over the hobby quite nicely.


Edited by Scout on Dec. 13 2004,12:51 pm

--------------
Scout  ( http://GPSgames.org )
Back to top
Profile PM 
PC Medic Offline
Cache Master




Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 1452
Joined: Dec. 2001
    Posted: Dec. 13 2004,5:15 pm QUOTE

Quote (MOCKBA @ Dec. 13 2004,12:01 pm)

The data could come from user's own GPS observations, or combined observations of a group of volunteers, or some guesstimates, or maybe even from something originating at geocaching.com website. But the form will of course have a stern warning that one shouldn't paste in the information directly from the geocaching.com website, since it may violate certain aspects of their TOS. This way, if someone chooses to disregard the warning and just to paste in a whole cache page, then obviously Buxley's is not at fault.
I think it is a workable solution.


Again, Jeremy himself has already pointed out the perfect (and easy) solution...He has openly said in his own forums "Since Navicache already funnels information to his maps, cache owners can post their caches on Navicaching.com and they'll magically appear on his web site".
So there is no real need for any complicated form or scheme to circumvent. While this does not resolve the Groundspeak vs. Buxley's issue, it does provide an alternate to get your cache listed on a great mapping site.

Quote

Moreover, if Groundspeak really wanted to block the users of Buxley's, they would have disallowed requests with HTTP_REFERER being at Ed'd site long ago. I think it is very clear that Groundspeak's problems are with the methods and minor details, rather than with the mere fact of existence of an independent listing service.


Well, I am sure that they also realize HTTP_REFERER it is not impossible to circumvent, but that is besides the point and straying a bit from the topic. I am sure what ever the method, were Ed to again begin scraping data he would want to do so legitimatelyjust as he does from here. Working out something with Groundspeak would be great, but I am beginning to have my doubts it will happen and discussion of alternate options is I believe why this thread was started.


--------------
'PC Medic'
Back to top
Profile PM AOL YIM 
PC Medic Offline
Cache Master




Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 1452
Joined: Dec. 2001
    Posted: Dec. 13 2004,5:34 pm QUOTE

Quote (Scout @ Dec. 13 2004,2:47 pm)
Quote (MOCKBA @ Dec. 13 2004,1:02 pm)
What does matter is that data gathering in shifted away from Buxley's site and into the hands of a decentralized community of volunteers.

I'm just less optimistic than you about the success of a decentralized community of volunteers keeping a database of thousands of caches up to date.

I would have to agree with Scout here. This (however good the intentions of the volunteers would IMHO be a recipe for disaster.

Quote

but they pursue this issue very reluctantly, mostly just by passively avoiding any major chances which would diminish their own data monopoly; and most certainly not by cracking down on user's sharing of bits and pieces of data between themselves.

We just have different opinions of how reluctant they are. Jeremy Irish threatened Buxley with a lawsuit. Jeremy Irish blocked his server from accessing gc.com. This doesn't seem reluctant or passive to me, even if he hasn't used every technical means at his disposal. The end result has been that gc.com has maintained its monopolistic control over the hobby quite nicely.
[/quote]

Different opinions are good, that is where Navicache, GPSGames.org, Buxley's, OpenCaching, and many others came from. If it had not been for those of us that chose to act on our different opinions, there would be a monopoly and only one choice if you wanted to participate in geocaching.
As it stands now any level of monopoly is being created more by the players than gc.com .

So many say they don't like this or they don't like that...or like now, "I want my cache location listed on Buxley's Maps". Well, there are several alternatives that could get them there (Have I mentioned that Jeremy even pointed one out!  :grinnin ). While some sort of agreement would be great Ed has already indicated that with or without GC's feed Buxley's will go on and the fact is that IF they really want one, one alternative to getting your caches on his maps already exists.


--------------
'PC Medic'
Back to top
Profile PM AOL YIM 
MOCKBA Offline
Navicacher




Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: Sep. 2004
    Posted: Dec. 13 2004,8:08 pm QUOTE

Quote (PC Medic @ Dec. 13 2004,7:34 pm)
or like now, "I want my cache location listed on Buxley's Maps". Well, there are several alternatives that could get them there (Have I mentioned that Jeremy even pointed one out!  :grinnin ).

It's not that I *want* *my* caches on the map, they are all on it anyway and I actually know where they are even without a map :)
It's more like, I like "others'" caches on the map, in the areas which I actually may not know so well.
So the solution Jeremy advocates (posting one's own caches on this site) is not getting me anywhere close to where I want to be, and just see the Frog spreading the lips in one evil grin.
All we really need is a map. If a cache "owner" put it there for everyone to seek, then everyone could get an idea of approximately where it is located, and putting a fat dot on a map does not infringe on anyone's intellectual property. You can *not* however in good faith copy someone else's cache description and post in on Navicache as a full-fledged cache. Therefore there is an unmet need which could be covered by Buxley's but which remains elusive if Navicache is its only source of info.
As to lawsuits and how far GC can go to strangulate Buxley's ... again I think you are missing my point, which is to make Buxley's a broadly based community affair, rather than a passion of an individual renegade. In a certain good sense, to borrow a page from Grockster's. Jeremy could hate Ed's guts but going after local organizations and volunteers would be a different thing.
As imperfect as this solution may be, it could get us somewhere positive.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Scout Offline
Cache Master




Group: Members
Posts: 721
Joined: June 2001
    Posted: Dec. 13 2004,9:09 pm QUOTE

Quote (MOCKBA @ Dec. 13 2004,9:08 pm)
again I think you are missing my point, which is to make Buxley's a broadly based community affair, rather than a passion of an individual renegade.

I understand your point. And I think the chances of success in trying to make Buxley's a broadly based community affair are slim. Is it a noble goal? Yes, if done right. Is it likely to succeed? No.

--------------
Scout  ( http://GPSgames.org )
Back to top
Profile PM 
PC Medic Offline
Cache Master




Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 1452
Joined: Dec. 2001
    Posted: Dec. 13 2004,9:19 pm QUOTE

Quote (MOCKBA @ Dec. 13 2004,10:08 pm)
Quote (PC Medic @ Dec. 13 2004,7:34 pm)
or like now, "I want my cache location listed on Buxley's Maps". Well, there are several alternatives that could get them there (Have I mentioned that Jeremy even pointed one out!  :grinnin ).

It's not that I *want* *my* caches on the map, they are all on it anyway and I actually know where they are even without a map :)
It's more like, I like "others'" caches on the map, in the areas which I actually may not know so well.
So the solution Jeremy advocates (posting one's own caches on this site) is not getting me anywhere close to where I want to be, and just see the Frog spreading the lips in one evil grin.

True, but encouraging others to cross-post (which is basically what Jeremy is doing) will get caches owned by others onto the maps, which is what you are looking to do. It (cross-posting) also reduces the power one would hold over the sport as a whole which is another plus (though off topic for this thread.

Quote

All we really need is a map. If a cache "owner" put it there for everyone to seek, then everyone could get an idea of approximately where it is located, and putting a fat dot on a map does not infringe on anyone's intellectual property. You can *not* however in good faith copy someone else's cache description and post in on Navicache as a full-fledged cache.


Well the idea is for the cache owner to cross-post the caches, not a third party as this would not be condoned or permitted without the cache owners permission.

Quote

Therefore there is an unmet need which could be covered by Buxley's but which remains elusive if Navicache is its only source of info.


Not elusive at all if one really wants there new cache to appear on the map, then post it here (or any other site that may come along and offer the same access to Ed for his maps.

Quote

As to lawsuits and how far GC can go to strangulate Buxley's ... again I think you are missing my point, which is to make Buxley's a broadly based community affair, rather than a passion of an individual renegade.

In a certain good sense, to borrow a page from Grockster's. Jeremy could hate Ed's guts but going after local organizations and volunteers would be a different thing. As imperfect as this solution may be, it could get us somewhere positive.


But this will never happen so long as those that continuously complain, also continue to shall we say ... put all their eggs in one basket. Until there is a "broad based community", then this (and other things beneficial to all involved) will be harder to accomplish. I am beginning to see some shift in attitudes that is a good sign though.  :thumbs-up


--------------
'PC Medic'
Back to top
Profile PM AOL YIM 
welch Offline
Caching Maniac




Group: Members
Posts: 154
Joined: April 2002
    Posted: Dec. 14 2004,7:23 am QUOTE

Question for those that understand all the groundspeak TOS/etc.
would be a violation if Ed where to get subscriptions to the loc or gpx files sent to him, and then use the coords in the file to plot out the dots?
I mean your not supposed to give the file to anyone at all (right?), but you can use it for personal use (like to plot a map for example), but is the map now ok to give out?

I think, unfortuntly, that getting access back for Buxley's is going to take a LONG time to happen, if ever. Its super that Jeremy is promoting the simple solution, but even so I think many people will find it too hard   :withstupid  to do it that way.


--------------
Back to top
Profile PM 
MOCKBA Offline
Navicacher




Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: Sep. 2004
    Posted: Dec. 14 2004,11:37 am QUOTE

Quote (PC Medic @ Dec. 13 2004,11:19 pm)
Quote

Therefore there is an unmet need which could be covered by Buxley's but which remains elusive if Navicache is its only source of info.


Not elusive at all if one really wants there new cache to appear on the map, then post it here (or any other site that may come along and offer the same access to Ed for his maps.

You are making a huge leap of imagination here. People who would like to continue seeing new caches on Buxley's maps are probably *not* exactly the same as the group of people who hide those new caches. There may be some overlap, but only to an extent.

Indeed it would be pathetic to jump from "Lots of cachers use and love Buxley's" straight to "Most of the cachers do".

Of course you can be forgiven for getting a bit carried away by the sight of Jeremy promoting Navicaching. But he's got a point IMVHO. Cross-posting by cache owners is never going to fill the bulk of the void, not to mention that it is cumbersome and inelegant.

As a designer of your site, you can probably help the 'Cumbersome' part by incorporating auto-parsers for crossposting.

But inelegance of the current x-posting solution is appalling and probably incurable. Lacking the portability of visitors' logs, it would be much more beautiful to have unique cache listings on each site. Perhaps continuing to exploit niches which are left unoccupied by our favorite evil monopoly. Foreign language support; virtuals; advanced mapping; competitions and extreme hunts, ideally with commercial partnering; and probably many other specific caching niches are open. But by discussing all this, we are really straying off topic and into pondering the future strategies of your site, rather than of Ed's site ;)


Edited by MOCKBA on Dec. 14 2004,11:48 am
Back to top
Profile PM 
MOCKBA Offline
Navicacher




Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: Sep. 2004
    Posted: Dec. 14 2004,11:46 am QUOTE

Quote (welch @ Dec. 14 2004,9:23 am)
Question for those that understand all the groundspeak TOS/etc.
would be a violation if Ed where to get subscriptions to the loc or gpx files sent to him, and then use the coords in the file to plot out the dots?

Then there is also a limit on the volume of data one can get with Groundspeak's PQs. And the question of grey zones (i.e. if the TOS can be interpreted this way and that way, Jeremy may still go after its alleged violation by Buxley's).

I think my solution (allowing a wide group of people to upload data, which will be immediately stripped away from any specific information other than approximate coordinates) is covering the bases. Even if Ed will throw a .loc file into this grinder, in disregard of a prevailing interpretation of the TOS, nobody will every know if the feed was in .loc format, and if the originator was Ed.
Back to top
Profile PM 
PC Medic Offline
Cache Master




Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 1452
Joined: Dec. 2001
    Posted: Dec. 14 2004,12:36 pm QUOTE

Quote (MOCKBA @ Dec. 14 2004,1:37 pm)
[Not elusive at all if one really wants there new cache to appear on the map, then post it here (or any other site that may come along and offer the same access to Ed for his maps.

You are making a huge leap of imagination here. People who would like to continue seeing new caches on Buxley's maps are probably *not* exactly the same as the group of people who hide those new caches. There may be some overlap, but only to an extent.[/quote]
I do not think it is such a 'huge leap'. I agree that everyone that uses Buxle's may not hide caches of their own, but at the same time there is no indication one way or the other that one group or the other is more likely to use Buxley's. In fact everyone I know that is involved in geocaching has hidden a cache and all of them with varying degree use Buxley's Maps. What ever group they fall in, if those that do use Buxley's would like to continue to see new caches appear there, then they will need to encourage cache owners to list with a site that allows Ed access OR should it become available, use an interface supplied by Ed to submit them directly to him.

Quote

Of course you can be forgiven for getting a bit carried away by the sight of Jeremy promoting Navicaching. But he's got a point IMVHO. Cross-posting by cache owners is never going to fill the bulk of the void, not to mention that it is cumbersome and inelegant.


There is an old saying, 'Never say never'. I do not think I'm am getting carried away, just pointing out the obvious. Until a better solution comes along, this IS an alternative. As for cumbersome and unelgant, this may presently be true to an extent, but can be improved and again, if you really want to see your cache listed submit it to a site ( where ever that may be) that you know this can happen from. If you want others caches listed also, encourage them to do the same.


Edited by PC Medic on Dec. 14 2004,3:24 pm

--------------
'PC Medic'
Back to top
Profile PM AOL YIM 
caver Offline
Navicacher




Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: Mar. 2004
    Posted: Dec. 20 2004,9:48 am QUOTE

I'm on several non geocaching forums where at least once a month someone brings the topic up of geocaching.
The common response is ,,,oh you need to go to gc.com.
They are unaware of alternative sites and most do not realize it is a business vs non-profit.
correct me if I'm wrong on that
I recently suggested navicache to a gc.com user who was having trouble getting a virtual cache placed.
A few cheeky responses followed suggesting no one will see it here.
Is that so bad? I would much rather frequent the little known café in a small town than the Mega hog-trough buffet/ super restaurant out at the Interstate.  

I really don't consider myself a geocacher but have found numerous ones in my travels. I never log the find,,,,just want to see if I can find it or not. I love GPS units though and exploring those little known out of the way places.
My only attempt at placing a cache at gc.com left a bad taste in my mouth.
My username is slightly different here than on gc.com since what I wanted was taken.


Edited by caver on Dec. 20 2004,9:49 am
Back to top
Profile PM 
MOCKBA Offline
Navicacher




Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: Sep. 2004
    Posted: Dec. 20 2004,1:48 pm QUOTE

Quote (caver @ Dec. 20 2004,11:48 am)
A few cheeky responses followed suggesting no one will see it here.

My impression is slightly different, and it agrees very well with Jeremy's cross-posting bravado.
Both Navicache and Buxley's are prominently featured in the "Useful links" section of our local association, but of the 5 Navi-only caches in the state which I am aware of, none had any finds except by myself.
My explanation is that people are sufficiently aware of Navicache.com to "see" caches posted on this site, but they fully expect each and every Navicache to be a cross-post, and therefore, they never really go beyond a few curious looks. It's like they are thinking, what a funny interesting cache listing a handful of caches ... oh well, I could as well go for a complete list and what I see on gc.com must be the complete list, right?
Back to top
Profile PM 
PC Medic Offline
Cache Master




Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 1452
Joined: Dec. 2001
    Posted: Dec. 20 2004,5:28 pm QUOTE

Quote (caver @ Dec. 20 2004,11:48 am)
I'm on several non geocaching forums where at least once a month someone brings the topic up of geocaching.
The common response is ,,,oh you need to go to gc.com.
They are unaware of alternative sites and most do not realize it is a business vs non-profit.
correct me if I'm wrong on that


A little off topic for this thread and not 100% sure I understand the analogy of Business vs Non-Profit, so can't say for sure if you are correct or not. As for the common response being 'you need to go to gc,com', that is probably partially our fault in not get our name out there a little more and partially perception in what 'official' really means.

A little more on topic .... While Navicache.com may be, I am I would consider Buxley's an 'alternative' site in that he does not maintain his own database. Instead Ed had chosen to be more of a geocaching information site and 'compliment' other sites by linking back to a caches original listing site. Unfortunately some do not see this as much as community as they do business (which I think was the point you were making above).

Quote

I recently suggested navicache to a gc.com user who was having trouble getting a virtual cache placed.
A few cheeky responses followed suggesting no one will see it here.
Is that so bad? I would much rather frequent the little known café in a small town than the Mega hog-trough buffet/ super restaurant out at the Interstate.


The response unfortunately does not suprise me. My guess is it was made by same folks that did not play well with others when they were children.
I agree with the corner store vs Wally-World analogy, when you stop and look which is really a better asset to the community.

Quote

I really don't consider myself a geocacher but have found numerous ones in my travels. I never log the find,,,,just want to see if I can find it or not. I love GPS units though and exploring those little known out of the way places.
My only attempt at placing a cache at gc.com left a bad taste in my mouth.


I am sorry to hear your first attempt was not an enjoyable one, perhaps you will give it a try again sometime. If you enjoy the outdoors (even though caves may be considered indoors :grinnin  ) then I think you would really enjoy it.


--------------
'PC Medic'
Back to top
Profile PM AOL YIM 
Bill & Tammy Offline
Navicacher




Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: Jan. 2006
    Posted: Jan. 13 2006,6:57 am QUOTE

Quote (PC Medic @ Dec. 12 2004,4:36 pm)
"The main purpose of Navicache.com (and our Forums) is to serve the Geocaching community as a whole. This could not be done were we to restrict the discussion of 'Geocaching' related topics. Whether it is of interest to the minority or the majority, if it is Geocaching related, then it is appropriate to discuss within our forums or Chat."

Cheers for that. Because there are not any large forums (outside of regional clubs) that aren't integrated into a geocache site publishing service it is difficult to have an open dialogue with a voice to a widespread audience that isn't in some manner dictated by a particular host.

I am glad Navi is open minded enough to realize that and allow an avenue that truly serves geocachers.


--------------
Back to top
Profile PM 
23 replies since Dec. 12 2004,1:44 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

 
reply to topic new topic new poll

Quick Reply: Discussing Buxley's
iB Code Buttons
You are Posting as:
Guest
Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code