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 <jake.teamai@gmail.com> 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 <shadowace.az@gmail.com> 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 since the possible data in question, is listings for caches that have been archived and can't be verified by visiting the coordinates listed.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.