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.
> > >
> > >
(text/plain)