UK dependance on GC.com

[westonwanderers]

Hi All,
I feel I must put into words, my concerns regarding to Groundspeak, and GC.com, and our complete and utter dependance on the organization for supplying us the cache info that drives the sport.

To take a quote from Spiderman, With great power, comes great responsibility. Geocaching.com are the largest database of caches, and have gained the power to enforce what they like on the sport. Like it or not, they have the ultimate power on what caches are listed (indeed, over and above the Moderators), and who they grant access to the database they guard so vigorously.

(Other internet companies who are in a similar position include Google and Ebay. It should be noted, that both Google and Ebay provide an API to access their services, for all to use, and guidelines in how to use them. GC, however , do not).

I do not have a problem with a single geocaching database for the World, so long as what they do is fair and responsible, and for the good of the hobby.

The responsibly element, unfortunately, has cause for concern.

A few days ago, they, without warning, blocked access from GeocacheUK.com, thus preventing the excellent service that Ian (Teasel) has provided to us all in the UK, from working properly. Among other services, the Mobile Midlet service, is now not useable.

Now, Hopefully, the dispute will be resolved soon, (in the mean time, I'll be reverting back to the old paper caching methods&#33. However, the way in which the supply of data was shut off, raises questions:


1) Why should we in the UK have to rely on an American Company for our hobby.... What happens if GC are bought out, and their new owners are not so accommodating to non US caches (ie, they no longer list them).

2) Premium caches ? Yes, I understand that it's only £6 or so a month, but this £6 isn't helping GAGB, GUK, or anyone this side of the pond. So far, only a few caches are premium, but that means that as a non paying member, I only get access to 99%.....
So, what's £6?.... The petrol cost is much higher, I'm not going to miss £6... . This is not the point. If the majority of people in the UK were premium members, It could follow, that the majority of caches could also be premium? Therefore, much more pressure would be placed on people to sign up, and so on... I just don't want to find in 10 Years or so time, that to go caching requires you to sign up with GC.com inc, the multi million pound cache gorilla.
(EDIT 9/8/04.... Premium Membership is £1.30, not £6. The point remains the same though.)

(in just the same way, as to watch Sate-light TV in the UK requires you to sign up with Sky...... Remember 10 years ago, the free Channels that slowly went premium..... We are on the same path here).

3) Is there anything that can be done to prevent this? Setting up our own server will be difficult, as GC have the market share.

Thanks for listening to my rant.

Comments please.

[westonwanderers]

Ok, Spent last night thinking of what can be done.

Please take time to think about this possible solution.

What is needed, is a Database of all UK caches, independent of Geocaching.com, or any other cache server (Navicache, etc). This database should be owned and run by GAGB, as they are , well the 'Association of Great Britian'.

Firstly, this Database will NOT be searchable, or On-Line, or accessible to the general public. (It is not GAGB's function to facilitate Searching, logging or other functions already provided by GC.com or others similar.). GC do a wonderful job of this already!

However, uk individuals, or groups with a 'Good Valid Reason ™' will be able to request access to this database. What constitutes a good reason, is open for debate, but I guess if a particular county council requested for the caches in their particular area, then GAGB, should be able to provide this information without going through GC.com. Also, (and the most important thing IMO), The data shall be available should things turn sour with GC.com, enabling UK sites like Geocacheuk.com to continue to function.... ie, the dependence on GC.com for survival is now removed.. Please note, the GAGB database should be used only when all other means of accessing the data from GC.com , or others, has been made impossible. . Bandwidth costs money..... This should be for backup only.

Should the worse come to the worse (Something that I do not want to happen, and hopefully it never will), it might one-day become necessary to set up a UK only Geocaching search site, to search for Geocache sites within the UK. This is not possible as currently stands, as gaining full access to GC.com's database is nigh impossible.

Caches will be registered on this database, with co-ords, a brief, concise description giving the exact whereabouts, Owner Name, Email, Contact Phone, Address, cache type. Multicache's will have co-ords of all sections. (remember, this is not a public searchable database, so will not spoil the fun). Fields like 'Clue' are not required.

Each caches on this database will have a list of approving geocache sites (eg GC.com) , together with a reference to the page on that site. This will give 'Approval' information...... nb, Caches do not need to be 'Approved' to be listed on this database.... As mentioned before, GAGB are not in the business of Cache Approval, however, if a cache is approved by GC.com, then the reference to the GC.com page/waypoint should be entered.

It will be up to the owner of the cache to voluntary register their cache with this database, by clicking on a link via GAGB. By doing so, allows them access to a 'GAGB Registered' Icon, that can be displayed in the public description on the approving cache site (gc,com) . This will increase the public visibility of GAGB, so more UK Geocachers will become aware of this organisation.

To comply with the Data Protection Act, there may be certain things the submitter needs to tick on the cache submitting form... Eg, permission for this data to be shared with County Councils, etc.

Cache registrations will expire every six months, and will need to be renewed (simple click on a link in an email).

The entire database registration should be fully automatic, just a web form connected to a database somewhere. There will be crap data entered.....But, by making the Name/Address fields of the cache owner mandatory, it should be easy to root out the invalid records.

What I am proposing is not unusual for any uk organization to have. We have Vehicle licenses, Ham radio licenses, PLC Company registrations, Football Association Registrations, and many others, I see no reason why UK geocaching should be any different.

Also, in no way does this remove GC.com from the Loop. GC.com will continue to be the main cache database/searching tool, and can continue to work in whatever way they so please. By having a UK based database owned by GAGB, however, will increase the 'Officialness' (is that a word?) of GAGB, and give them additional 'Umpf!' when negotiating with other UK organizations re blanket cache approval. It also keeps GC.com on their toes..... If they choose to abuse the privilege of been the Worlds Geocaching cache information provider, then we, in the UK, have a way of going it alone.... Something GC.com would rather us not do, and therefore would think twice before doing so. Would Access to the GC.com's database, via GeocacheUK.com have been suspended, if they knew a backup of all UK data was available?? Probably not.

Having a database is good for contingency, and temporary Network problems. About a month ago, Geocaching.com was down (Technical issue). In this instance, Geocacheuk.com should have been able to request tempory access to GAGB's database, so that the sport of geocaching can continue within the UK, until GC.com has come back online.



In summing up, I really do feel this is the time, now, that we should be putting something like this together, before it is too late.

Comments Please?


Cheers,
Tony.

[birders]

<<1) Why should we in the UK have to rely on an American Company for our hobby.... >>

Why not? Two other hobbies of ours (amateur radio and birding) have far better organisations in the USA than we have in the UK and geocaching.com does EVERYTHING we need from the hobby, and more. Why on earth do we need a UK-based organisation? After all, geocaching is a world-wide hobby. If we start fragmenting into groups what happens in smaller countries where there is no chance of a national society? NO - keep it all under one roof and more strength to geocaching.com....

We have used the GCUK site sometimes, but now do not find the need to - everything we need is on geocaching.com. We are a "Premium" member, although the benefits to us for the payment are, perhaps, minimal. Nevertheless, I think the web site is amazing - I run several web sites and know how much effort goes into running them so the small donation is well justified in our opinion. We are not criticising the UK site in any way and admire the dedication of those running it but question whether the work involved is justified. Same with one or two other caching sites that really seems a waste of space but, presumably, there are those who value them. Is there any tangible suggestion that geocaching.com is about to fold? Compare the forums on geocaching.com with those on the UK site... it&#39;s abundantly obvious where the activity is. We placed a posting on the UK site sometime ago and there has been no response. On gc.com you get a dozen responses the same day.

You say: "What is needed, is a Database of all UK caches, independent of Geocaching.com, or any other cache server (Navicache, etc). This database should be owned and run by GAGB, as they are , well the &#39;Association of Great Britian&#39;"

Pray, why? The information is available already on the US site; why duplicate it over here? To keep any information confidential one just has to mark one&#39;s cache for members only (a procedure we propose to adopt for our future caches). By all means have a UK Association but leave the database "over there".

We see few benefits in your proposals, just more "politics" and wrangling. We&#39;ve had our fill of all that in other hobbies so please don&#39;t mess up geocaching. If it ain&#39;t broke don&#39;t fix it - and it our opinion it ain&#39;t broke.

Lastly you wrote: "..uk organization". That&#39;s an American spelling you know&#33;

[Stuey]

They invented the sport, it&#39;s their game, they can do what they like I&#39;m afraid. Our &#036;30 per year (£1.30 per month, not £6) gives us "extra" features, but you don&#39;t need to pay to play.

I&#39;m happy with the way it is currently, although the removal of any GC:UK links is a complete pain in the ****, especially considering the amount of work that has gone into it all. It was good while it lasted (having said that, I&#39;ve just checked, and all the features I use still work okay apparently).

I don&#39;t think GAGB would want the responsibility of running their own server? It wasn&#39;t set up for that purpose as far as I am aware.

Stuey

[westonwanderers]

Hi Stuey,

Sorry, £1.30 a Month it is..... Not sure where I got £6/month from.

Like I said earlier, the database would not be a replacement for GC.com, and would not be there to compete.... It would be there just to keep GC.com from refusing access to the data to anyone (eg GUK), for what ever reason they may have....

I agree, It would be foolish to try and compete with GC.com&#39;s site....and regardless, the layout, search facilities, and general ease of use of GC.com, are probably as good as it can be. I&#39;, not saying "Lets all migrate to a new UK only Database, and not use GC.com&#39;, I&#39;m saying, lets just maintain one this side of the pond also, to store UK caches. Just in case...... Thereby, Access to Geocacheuk&#39;s services can never be put in jepody.


Cheers,
Tony

[birders]

<< the removal of any GC:UK links is a complete pain in the ****,>>

Nobody has told us why the link is down; surely there must be a good reason? It was referred to as "a dispute", well disputes don&#39;t just happen, they must be down to something or someone.

[Lactodorum]

Hi Tony, not being a voting member of GAGB I will try and keep my comments brief and from the perspective of my role as volunteer reviewer for Geocaching.com

The sport of geocaching was invented by someone in America (Dave Ullmer) and was developed by someone else in America (Jeremy Irish) who founded GC.COM/Groundspeak. Unusually (in my view) account was taken of the rest of the world in the development of his website. Because of the facilities offered by GC.COM, most geocachers around the world use it as their preferred database. Again unusually, ANYBODY can use the information for their personal enjoyment completely free of charge and with a commendable lack of intrusive advertising.

Bear in mind that something like 90% of all geocachers live in America so I&#39;m gratified that the UK has the representation we do. Both Eckington and I have a lot of latitude to interpret the guidelines in a way that is appropriate for conditions in the UK. A good example is us being able to use the GAGB guidelines when reviewing caches.

Now your suggestion that we are UTTERLY dependent on GC.COM is not quite true as there are an increasing number of alternative listing sites (e.g. Navicache, GPSgames etc.) Our only dependence is on the satellites owned by the US military .

I have read your suggestion for an "independent" UK database and I have no problem with that at all. I do have a problem, however, with it being owned and run by GAGB. I refer you back to the time that GAGB was formed and the arguments that raged at the time about what its role should be. Remember what happened the the world of UK geocaching then&#33;

As far as I can see, the big downside of a complementary UK database is that every cache submitter would have to enter their data twice, once into the UK version and again into GC.COM. Then there&#39;s the problem that each cache will be reviewed on GC.COM by Eckington or I (or our successors) to ensure compatibility with Groundspeak guidelines. We may well turn down a particular cache for listing on GC.COM but that cache could be listed on "UKDB". I suppose the same could happen in reverse. Where would I as a UK geocacher go for my list of caches to visit?

As for GCUK, this is a truly excellent website, developed by Mark and Ian to provide extra help and information for UK based cachers using data culled from GC.COM In order to use this information they had to negotiate certain conditions with GC.COM. The basic data however remains the "property" of GC.COM

So to summarise, I think GC.COM caters well for non-US cachers, I have no problem if anybody wants to list their caches on other sites but I disagree that GAGB should be the repository for a list of UK caches.

As I said at the start, these are my views, not those of GC.COM although I have tried to pitch them from the standpoint of being a GC.COM reviewer.

Cheers, Peter

[Teasel]

I&#39;ve had indication that this is anything other than a technical hiccup. Certainly the guys at Groundspeak have not revoked our licence to provide stats and extra features using their collection of cache data.

The G:UK database continues to be automatically updated by pocket queries each day and I have now transferred part of the web scraper to a different server, where it will ensure that new caches are added to the database (pocket queries don&#39;t distinguish members-only caches, so any new caches are held in a "pending" state, until the webscraper can check them out). The mobile midlet was down for a couple of days but this too has now been transferred to the second server. The versions of cache pages with OS grid references are currently unavailable. Someone was using them to scrape the GC.com site via G:UK and I&#39;m concerned that this could have been the trigger for blocking us.


As for the wider debate, here&#39;s my £0.02 worth...

The cache data on GC.com is safe. If Groundspeak were to fold, stop listing UK caches, go back on their promise to keep the core game free or anything equally unlikely, there are enough backups of the key data (caches and logs) scattered around the place that a phoenix would very quickly rise from the ashes. But I really can&#39;t see that happening.

Sure, it&#39;s irritating for people like me that Groundspeak are so protective of their data. The UK servers (and the various regional US organisations&#39; servers) have enough spare capacity not only to significantly relieve the strain on the main Groundspeak web server, but also to provide extra stuff to premium members, like real-time GPX downloads with full log history etc. IMHO, Groundspeak would be more profitable if they actively encouraged partner sites, rather than grudgingly tolerating us. But, as my granny used to say, you have to "get what you&#39;re given and be grateful".

But what are the alternatives? None as far as I can see. Navicache is just as corporate as Groundspeak. Some people like them because they let any old cache-trash be listed (commercial, non-approved, densly populated etc), and others because they let you use their forums to say how great geolutins are. But their website is inferior to GC.com and not really getting any better. GPSgames are keen to incorporate improvements into their site (cache ratings, better filtering etc), but Scout is not aiming at his site dominating geocaching. Without that drive and fire to be the #1, I don&#39;t see his site growing particularly fast. Opencaching is my idea of how things should have been done from day 1, but maybe it&#39;s too late now? Certainly there&#39;s little sign of any enthusiasm from the OC developers.

The current offerings fall into two categories: "GC.com" and "people with a grudge against GC.com". I&#39;ll be sticking with the majority&#33;

[Teasel]

Having a database is good for contingency, and temporary Network problems. About a month ago, Geocaching.com was down (Technical issue). In this instance, Geocacheuk.com should have been able to request tempory access to GAGB&#39;s database, so that the sport of geocaching can continue within the UK, until GC.com has come back online.

G:UK already contains enough data to be able to reproduce a read-only version of GC.com cache pages, either for disaster tolerance as above, or as a mirror to relieve the strain on GC.com. What we don&#39;t have is a licence to use the data in this way.

What is needed, is a Database of all UK caches, independent of Geocaching.com, or any other cache server (Navicache, etc). This database should be owned and run by GAGB, as they are , well the &#39;Association of Great Britian&#39;.

That could be useful when talking to landowners, but it would have to be complete, so an opt-in solution is not appropriate. We would therefore need licences from both Groundspeak and NaviCache, not to mention developer time this end, and I really can&#39;t see it happening.

The data shall be available should things turn sour with GC.com, enabling UK sites like Geocacheuk.com to continue to function.... ie, the dependence on GC.com for survival is now removed.

If Groundspeak were to revoke permission for G:UK to use GC.com cache data, then it would be wrong in the extreme for GAGB to pass it to them&#33; What you suggest would only invite legal action.

The only way that another site could legally use GC.com cache data without a licence from Groundspeak is with the permission of the cacher who wrote it. (NB your data is not copyright Groundspeak, you simply grant them a non-exclusive, transferrable licence when you enter it). If GC.com were to disappear, I&#39;d imagine most cachers would be happy to licence NC/OC/GPSGames/GAGB/G:UK/whoever to store their cache data. Otherwise, I can&#39;t see it happening.

[westonwanderers]

Hi There, Peter,

I understand why it is not a good idea to have a fully hosted database of UK caches, for the UK, run and maintained by GAGB. There is just too much work involved, and , GC.com will always be the preferred choice anyhow.

However, This will not be a hosted database. It will not be there for doing regular searches, by joe public, or even premium geocaching members.. This will not be something to use instead of GC.com (or any other). Descriptions will be kept to the very minimum, and there will be no Logs. Just the bare essential data.

Choosing if a cache is entered into the database will be not an issue. All caches will be entered, without anyone deciding if they are approved or not - IMO It is possibly more important to keep track of caches that do not meet guidelines anyhow. So, therefore there will not be a need for any type of Approval, and the effort needed to perform such a task.

Because the database will not be available for searches online, then there will be no possibility of others viewing, and attempting to find non-approved caches. However, a particular entry on the database can prove it&#39;s approval, by also having a link to the approving site (Usually GC.com, but could be any geocaching site). If the cache does not have this link, then It can be assumed to be unapproved....

So, this means that a County council can query GAGB for a list of non-approved [by gc.com] caches in a particular area....

Now, in the instance of GUK loosening access to GC.com due to [Start of Personal opinion] possible unfair Monopolistic practices by GC.Com [end of Personal opinion&#33;], then GAGB can choose to allow GUK access to this data, or a subset of this data (ie just entries with an entry in the &#39;approval site&#39; field)... The policy of what data to allow access will be open to debate.

GUK will have to provide a &#39;Data provided by GAGB&#39; disclaimer, which will increase kudos to GAGB. Also, GUK would have to ensure the security of the database following policies, that are also, up for debate.

To Answer a few thing in your post:

ANYBODY can use the information for their personal enjoyment completely free of charge and with a commendable lack of intrusive advertising.

Then, why is their a dispute in regards to accessing the database via GUK?.... My guess is that GC.com do not want people to access this information via any other means to what they GC.com have invented; eg, Pocket queries (a premium service) or web printouts.

Now your suggestion that we are UTTERLY dependent on GC.COM is not quite true as there are an increasing number of alternative listing sites

Just because there are alternative cache sites, doesn&#39;t mean they are useful, if I want to go geocaching, I Must go through Geocaching.com, as there are no locally listed caches on the other sites. Therefore, I am indeed utterly dependent on GC.com.

As far as I can see, the big downside of a complementary UK database is that every cache submitter would have to enter their data twice, once into the UK version and again into GC.COM. ?

The data entered on the UK database would not be quite the same..... ie, it will be more for positive, easy location of the cache, if needed by the &#39;authorities&#39; (police/councils/etc), and less for the &#39;fun&#39; factor.

The cache owner doesn&#39;t have to enter the cache, but if he/she does then They are entitled to a &#39;GAGB Registered Cache&#39; logo on the cache page at GC.com, and also get to know that their cache can be more easily accessed via other UK based search sites (eg GUK), and is more &#39;UK Official&#39;. This is why it needs to be owned by GAGB - They should be the authority to UK geocaching, and should own the information to the locations of all geocaches.

We may well turn down a particular cache for listing on GC.COM but that cache could be listed on "UKDB". I suppose the same could happen in reverse. Where would I as a UK geocacher go for my list of caches to visit?

A UK geocacher will have to go to GC.com. The GAGB database WILL NOT be available for direct query via GAGB, however, A list of sites on the GAGB database which have an entry in the &#39;Approving sites&#39; field, can, by GAGB&#39;s discression, be provided to UK parties (GUK), who then can then offer the UK geocaching public alternative means of locating these caches, regardless of if GC.com have issues with this. It seams as though GC.com are using access to their database as a &#39;big stick&#39;, against websties such as G-UK, which is unfair, but as it stands, the location of 99% of caches within the UK, is owned by GC.com, and is theirs to do as they please. If GC.com did not behave in this manor, then there would not be a need.

On the front page of GAGB, there is the quote "This Association was established to provide an elected voice for its members in the United Kingdom.". The voices are saying &#39;Where are the G-UK Maps Gone?..... look at the forums&#33;

The GAGB should be defending G-UK, as many UK Geocachers use it&#39;s services. By granting access to a UK only Database, in the event of disputes, Guarantees that UK geocachers can maintain a level of access to caches within the uk that they are used to, regardless of what GC.com choose to do. I guess the question is, does GC.com OWN geocaching itself, or just provide a service to locate and log the caches. In my opinion, its should be the latter.


Cheers,
Tony

[westonwanderers]

Hi Teasil,

Very happy to know that the problems of access to data was a Technical issue, rather than a political one....

That could be useful when talking to landowners, but it would have to be complete, so an opt-in solution is not appropriate. We would therefore need licences from both Groundspeak and NaviCache, not to mention developer time this end, and I really can&#39;t see it happening.

The fact is, anyone can create a cache site. I could create &#39;RogueCacheUK.com&#39; where every cache is against every guideline there is, and I expect, some people would, been how people are, actually use it&#33; Now, I might never allow a licence to be given to GAGB or GUK to show these caches, but would GAGB realy want one? Would GAGB want to be assiciated with these caches? No. As far as Land owners could be concerned, these type of caches could be considered fly tipping, and to be disposed of. Caches, that are registered on RogueCachesUK, could be entered into the GAGB database, but as the approving site [RogueCachesUK] is not itself approved by GAGB, then these caches will never actually be exported to GUK, or whoever.

If Groundspeak were to revoke permission for G:UK to use GC.com cache data, then it would be wrong in the extreme for GAGB to pass it to them&#33; What you suggest would only invite legal action.

It would be wrong only if the UK database GAGB had been directly, or indirectly derived/scraped from GC.com. If it was entered, by the cache owner, into GAGB (So the cache owner has piece of mind that the data is now available should things stop working, and get&#39;s the cool &#39;GAGB Registered&#39; Icon ), then GC.com has no rights to this database, and GUK will be able to use this other database when access to GC.com is not available (because of technical, or political reasons).

[Lactodorum]

Tony, thanks for your comprehensive and thoughtful response to my original posting. If I misunderstood your original idea I apologise.

Having re-read your posts I&#39;m guessing what you are proposing is an automatic feed from GC.COM of minimal cache info (number, co-ords, description, reviewer notes, pictures etc. i.e. everything except logs) as soon as a cache is submitted and before it gets reviewed. As you admit that the cache could also be hosted on another site so I&#39;m guessing you would need an automatic feed from the other listing sites as well.

I have considerable concerns that this would be feasible but that&#39;s my problem

You go on to suggest that County Coucils could have access to unapproved caches. Why would that be? Why would they want access to something that&#39;s not there? If a cache is turned down we would normally ask that it be removed. Again I&#39;m assuming that this access would include other landowners such as the National Trust, Forestry Commission, English Nature etc. Would it include large farming estates who might also be interested in people accessing their land? How far down the line would this go?

You state that you have to go through GC.COM and there is nothing local to you. This is a chicken and egg situation; a couple of years ago there were very few UK caches on GC.COM either. It&#39;s only because GC.COM provides what people want that they use it.

You state that GAGB should own the information on all UK caches. I disagree. I understand the usefulness of GAGB acting as a clearing house in negotiations but for them to assume the right to tell every UK geocacher how they should be behaving is, to my mind, beyond their remit. This is a well argued point and I would be reluctant for it to be debated again. I certainly will say nothing more on the topic.

I believe that GC.COM provides a much better level of "quality control" over caches listed on their website than other sites and there are more than sufficient ways that an interested party can access the data without even using GCUK&#39;s truly excellent facilities.

AFAIK there&#39;s no plan to disenfranchise UK cachers (or Germans, or Australians, or...or...or) so the whole think is academic anyway.

[westonwanderers]

Hi Peter,

The feed could not be automatic, but would need to be a manual process instigated by the owner of the cache. Basically, the cache owner registers the cache via the GAGB site, and by doing so,

1) Gets the right to place an Icon on their GC.com cache listing page,
2) The warm fuzzy feeling that their cache is now available* at all times to Geocachers within the UK, in the event that GC.com servers are unavailable.
3) Understands it will now be easier/quicker to contact them regarding the cache, if the relevant UK authorities need to.

(*This is, assuming G-UK or another UK cache lister has an agreement with GAGB, to use this database, when GC.com are down. It is important that this database is not viewed in any way as a replacement to GC.com, but is just there for backup)

This is as far as this goes.

It does not:

1) Constitute a new UK only Cache search site.
2) Attempt to replace GC.com, Navicache, on anyone else.

If it was automatic, it could be successfully argued that GAGB&#39;s uk database was a direct derivative of that owned by GC.com, or who ever. This will mean the usage of the database would be subject to approval by GC.com. It is this approval by GC.com that I want to avoid.

If a cache is turned down we would normally ask that it be removed. Again I&#39;m assuming that this access would include other landowners such as the National Trust, Forestry Commission, English Nature etc. Would it include large farming estates who might also be interested in people accessing their land? How far down the line would this go?

I think you are implying that UK caches not listed on Geocaching.com, are unauthorised, and to be removed. by doing so, you say that Geocaching.com has somehow been granted the monopoly on geocaching within the UK. I hope this is not the case. Though I do agree with you that the quality control of GC.com is by far the best.

I think I quoted "non-approved [by gc.com]", meaning caches authorised by others, not GC.com - Navicache etc, could be highlighted, if a particular county council or other land owners were concerned to the approval process of these other sites, and wanted to contact the owners.

You state that GAGB should own the information on all UK caches. I disagree. I understand the usefulness of GAGB acting as a clearing house in negotiations but for them to assume the right to tell every UK geocacher how they should be behaving is, to my mind, beyond their remit. This is a well argued point and I would be reluctant for it to be debated again. I certainly will say nothing more on the topic.

GAGB would in no way be telling every UK geocacher how they should be behaving. This, I do agree, is beyond their remit. So, listing in the GAGB database should NOT be subject to any approval - Also, Listing in the GAGB database should not automatically be assumed that GAGB has given it&#39;s blessing to such a cache. GAGB is there for the geocaching community in the UK, and as a member of that community, I would like my cache information also stored with an independent-to-gc.com UK authority who have been formed with the interests of the UK Geocacher in mind. When I said &#39;own&#39;, I meant for GAGB to have the right to distribute this information to whatever persons, or authority they want to, without fear of lawsuits etc from GC.com. GAGB have been formed for the UK Geocacher, so I would expect that any distribution of the database would only be in the best interests of said UK geocachers. &#39;Be granted a non-exclusive right by cache owner&#39; may have been better than &#39;own&#39;,


As you say, the whole thing appears to be a non-issue, now that we know whats going on.

Cheers,

Tony.

[Lactodorum]

Originally posted by westonwanderers@Aug 9 2004, 02:30 PM
I think you are implying that UK caches not listed on Geocaching.com, are unauthorised, and to be removed. by doing so, you say that Geocaching.com has somehow been granted the monopoly on geocaching within the UK. I hope this is not the case. Though I do agree with you that the quality control of GC.com is by far the best.

Absolutely NOT what I&#39;m implying.

What I&#39;m saying is that when caches submitted to GC.COM for review my myself or Eckington are turned down, at that point the owners are asked to remove the "box" and the caches never see the light of day on GC.COM.

If the owner wants to list the cache elsewhere it is no business of mine or GC.COM. I know of many such caches and have found them myself.

The only time I might get involved is in the case where I&#39;m in negotiations with a landowner and they raise the problem of a cache that breaks the rules that THEY (the landowner) places for caches on their land. In that case I might well discuss it with the cache owner if it jeapordises permission to place a cache to be listed on GC.COM.

Even little old UK has plenty of open space and room for more than one listing site

Peter

[Teasel]

Originally posted by westonwanderers@Aug 9 2004, 02:30 PM
This will mean the usage of the database would be subject to approval by GC.com. It is this approval by GC.com that I want to avoid.

Let me make this clear, the GeocacheUK stats pages exist solely to make the experience of caching in the UK a little more fun and friendly. If GC.com remove permission for us to use their data, then the stats pages disappear. I have no interest in making G:UK into a listings site, nor in merging the GC.com data we hold with data from other listings sites (even GAGB, should it follow the path you&#39;re suggesting).

I understand your legitimate worries about what would happen to geocaching in the UK should GC.com unexpectedly go bust, ban UK caches or something equally disastrous. But I think you&#39;re attacking the problem from the wrong end. Surely the best way to mitigate against this is for individual cachers to store GPX queries of UK caches for their own personal purposes (premium members already have a licence to do this). Only if the worst actually happens should we then work out how to enable individual cachers to easily upload their data from these backups into alternative listings sites. (The GPSgames site already has this facility).