 |
opencaching.com
Geocaching by the community, for the community
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hmarq
Site Admin
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 351
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Renegade Knight wrote: | | Do you guys have anyone who writes the apps who read the Groundspeak extensions on board for a universal GPX system? |
I think you're thinking backwards RK ...
Reading them isn't a problem ... I've code laying around here to do that, as do many others (gpsbable, gpx2html, gpxspinner, ... ) ... the problem is to *do* anything with the data that is not personal use is a violation of the TOS. So in the end what needs to happen for anything to be universal would be for gc.com to export in the newly adopted format (whenever that happens) ... I honestly don't expect that to happen though (gc.com adopting an open standard that is)  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CoyoteRed
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not really worried about gc.com exporting to an open standard. I'm worried more about the developers of offline applications like GPXspinner, Watcher, CacheMate and others to adopt our standard as well.
The ideal is a user being able to take a gc.com file and an opencaching file and use them in a program seemlesly.
CR
_________________
"...been know to miss the finer points." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Renegade Knight
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 151
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CoyoteRed wrote: | | ...I'm worried more about the developers of offline applications like GPXspinner, Watcher, CacheMate and others to adopt our standard as well....CR |
That's what I was getting at. Having the people who write the apps suporting the GPX standard that emerges from this project. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hmarq
Site Admin
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 351
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Renegade Knight wrote: | | CoyoteRed wrote: | | ...I'm worried more about the developers of offline applications like GPXspinner, Watcher, CacheMate and others to adopt our standard as well....CR |
That's what I was getting at. Having the people who write the apps suporting the GPX standard that emerges from this project. |
I've gotten support from a couple of them privately, but as that support was private, i don't feel right 'outing' them as they are quite active at gc.com as well. Similarly there are a couple that I doubt would because they are entreched and 'condoned' by gc.com ... but I'm quite willing (and would be delighted) to be proven wrong there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CoyoteRed
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
That gives me a sick feeling of actually getting support.
Getting any kind of momentum will require user-friendliness at least on par with gc.com. But if we are not going to export with the GC namespace, we need our own. Then the user's tools don't read it.
Thus we are back to the chicken-and-egg problem. If we can get at least one heavy-weight developer over here, then things will probably take off. But if they are waiting for some action before jumping in...
I'm sure some would be concerned if they lost their good standing with gc.com. But even if they posted over here under a psuedonym and directed us a little, gave us a nod or pointed out some flaws. What would be good for them is to do that while secrety developing their package to read the OC standard, when we went public, they would be ahead of the game.
In the meantime, the crickets are deafening.
CR
_________________
"...been know to miss the finer points." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hmarq
Site Admin
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 351
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CoyoteRed wrote: | That gives me a sick feeling of actually getting support.
Getting any kind of momentum will require user-friendliness at least on par with gc.com. But if we are not going to export with the GC namespace, we need our own. Then the user's tools don't read it.
Thus we are back to the chicken-and-egg problem. If we can get at least one heavy-weight developer over here, then things will probably take off. But if they are waiting for some action before jumping in...
I'm sure some would be concerned if they lost their good standing with gc.com. But even if they posted over here under a psuedonym and directed us a little, gave us a nod or pointed out some flaws. What would be good for them is to do that while secrety developing their package to read the OC standard, when we went public, they would be ahead of the game.
In the meantime, the crickets are deafening.
CR |
Actually one of them posts here under his regular name, but not in association with the program he authored.
While XML is XML and if you can read one you can read the other, the way we'll make this work with the least friction is if we look as much like gc's pocket query as possible ... starting with that format and subbing opencaching for groundspeak ... granted we'll have some stuff on top of that, but as as a starting place it's not really a bad format ... it's got all the basic stuff in it from the GPX base and just adds the geocaching specific stuff on top ... Intellectually I really have a hard time seeing how they could defend it being a proprietary format, but honestly I don't have the time, energy or extra cash laying around to find out in court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.6 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search 
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
