[OSM-talk] OSM not acceptable for geocaching.com

Thomas Wood grand.edgemaster at gmail.com
Thu Nov 27 23:13:16 GMT 2008


Yeah, groundspeak have been very obtuse regarding 'commercialness' of
caches in the uk recently.
It's left the uk caching community with a very sour taste in their mouths.
OSM is exactly the opposite of commercial - is it not registered as a
non-profit charity? (Ah, but GS also have a dislike for charities, so
we're just a non-profit group...)



On 27/11/2008, Till Harbaum / Lists <lists at harbaum.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it's restored. They say that they thought OSM was an unreliable commercial
> (due to
> the request for donations) service which they don't want to have their users
> to do.
>
> Kind of strange explanation as the purpose of OSM is pretty obvious and my
> cache
> even said "osm is for streetmaps what wikipedia is for encyclopedia". So the
> idea
> that it's non-commercial basically can't be missed.
>
> Till
>
>
> Am Mittwoch 26 November 2008 schrieb Nick Black:
>> Did you get anywhere with this?  Have you tried emailing the admins at
>> geocaching.com to see why they removed the cache?  I'd love to hear more.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Wood
>> <grand.edgemaster at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>> > 2008/11/15 Till Harbaum / Lists <lists at harbaum.org>:
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > i have recently released a geocache which basically required you to
>> > > look
>> > up a certain node
>> > > in the OSM database. The position of that node was then the place
>> > > where
>> > the geocache was
>> > > hidden. Geocaching.com users can perhaps still read the original
>> > > listing
>> > at:
>> > >
>> > http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=80a9308b-6719-485d-a0dc-846798a8cac2
>> >
>> > Through a bug in their site code, the original listing is visible
>> > here:
>> > http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cdpf.aspx?guid=80a9308b-6719-485d-a0dc-846798a8cac2
>> >
>> > > Geocaching.com recently completely deleted that cache antry as they
>> > > claim
>> > that it forces you to use a certain
>> > > software (a web browser!!!) and a certain web service.
>> >
>> > They have un-published the listing, an event that occurs not very
>> > often - usually only if the reviewer who published it realises they
>> > made a mistake soon after.
>> > The specific guideline reads something like caches that require
>> > (unusual) third party software to be installed are not permitted,
>> > there's also a similar rule about cache perminance in terms of
>> > external resources on the net - eg hosting an mp3 on a personal
>> > website will not be acceptable as a part of the 'puzzle' as they have
>> > a habit of falling offline.
>> >
>> > > This is a strange explanation as geocaches requesting you to find a
>> > certain image on google earth
>> > > are pretty common. On the other hand Geocaching.com seems to have a
>> > business with google. This
>> > > may be the explanation why they don't like to deal with openstreetmap.
>> > > I
>> > really wonder if
>> > > it's google behind this.
>> >
>> > They have business with Google as far as using their Maps API,
>> > publishing KML files, and using AdWords, I don't think they have any
>> > further links with them.
>> >
>> > > This includes quite extreme behaviour on the GC.com side as they are
>> > > not
>> > using their usual methods
>> > > of disabling or archiving caches. Instead they reset their entire
>> > database with respect to this
>> > > cache to the state before it was published. It's like they really want
>> > > to
>> > clean all traces related to
>> > > this geocache.
>> >
>> > "The GC.com" side is usually just a volunteer reviewer rather than one
>> > of the company's employees. As noted, caches can be removed completely
>> > from the site - 'unpublished' on the event of the reviewer making a
>> > mistake.
>> >
>> > > IMHO a very interesting issue and may mean that google sees a serious
>> > competitor arriving ...
>> >
>> > Not in my view.
>> >
>> > > Till
>> >
>> > I'm asking some contacts I have to see if I can get the full logs for
>> > publishing and subsequent removal of it to see if a reason is further
>> > given.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Regards,
>> > Thomas Wood
>> > (Edgemaster)
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > talk mailing list
>> > talk at openstreetmap.org
>> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>


-- 
Regards,
Thomas Wood
(Edgemaster)




More information about the talk mailing list