The comical part is that GC lets the cachers do all the work, including populating the online database, and then holds that information proprietary, and sells the output of a search script back to the cachers who did all the work. Well, that and the untrimmed full text of the user agreement shot to everyone's inbox.
Personally, I would use a list of 2000+ names to create a devious puzzle cache and put some expensive electronic gear in it to make people beat their brains out trying to solve it. But that's me.
----- Original Message -----
From: ShadowAce
To:
listserv@azgeocaching.com
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Cache database
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
(text/plain)