I cannot answer that question, nor would I attempt to make a guess. I am interested on how a list of 2000+ names would be of any use, as the Names are not searchable for archived caches. Which means your then asking for the 2000+ GC numbers (without the names? or with? Cause now your getting to the information in a .LOC file which you also are not supposed to share.) I would be real interested to see who, mostly new cachers, goes through the entire list of 2000+ archived caches in Arizona to read the 'history' when they have no information about the location of the cache to begin with. You do what you have to do, I was simply stating I thought someone should let the new cachers know that sharing that dataset is a violation of the usage agreement and anything done beyond that is up to whomever. Discussing it (ways to get around the terms of service agreement) on a multi state forum is the comical part of all this. :-) -Dirk On 7/12/07, Jake Olson wrote: > > You are absolutely right about my earlier comments. > > But would publishing the waypoint names ONLY of archived caches be a > violation? That would allow for validation data that is no longer directly > available, without sharing the complete pocket query database. > > It would actually be helpful for new cachers to have access to easier > access to older cache listings. Perhaps they were looking to place a cache > in an area that had several caches located before. There may be a unique > reason why the cache placed at that location didn't survive... that the > current approver is not aware of. > > Jake - Team A.I. > > On 7/11/07, ShadowAce wrote: > > > > Jake, > > > > While it is fun to watch you create your side of the idea, you know GS > > does not allow the sharing of Pocket Queries. Instead of trying to yank > > something like that when a new cacher is asking for the information, maybe > > it would be best to explain to Jacque Lauderbaugh that what you are talking > > about is against the terms of service agreement with groundspeak and > > considered a violation of agreement. > > > > Jacque should have a fair and even side of it before people corrupt > > her. :) > > > > On 7/11/07, Jake Olson < jake.teamai@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > You guys are trying to verify that the data you have is accurate... > > > right? > > > > > > "Licensee should always verify actual data." > > > > > > Just a thought... since the possible data in question, is listings for > > > caches that have been archived and can't be verified by visiting the > > > coordinates listed. > > > > > > Jake - Team A.I. > > > > > >