WapitiBob
Well-known member
Worthless without a track.
Just figured lawyers would twist it all around. Still, I don't know how it matters in a lawsuit over devaluation.
Wildabeest
Well-known member
Interesting thing about the devaluation claim is that his property is only devalued if he losses the case. Maybe that’s why he decided to remove the monetary claim.
Scott85
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2018
- Messages
- 2,692
Oh crap I guess I’m in trouble now. One is marked as my truck. 
The waypoint in question is on private property. if it was a legal corner cross and if for some reason the waypoint proved they stood there it would be trespass.
But, the waypoint doesn’t prove anything obviously. I can drop a waypoint on mt Everest but I can’t use that as evidence I stood on the summit.
Now, if for some reason the waypoint was marked as a “mark my location” waypoint, which we all know marks where you are standing at that time, and if that specific info is locked in the metadata which is subject to subpoena and discovery…. that could be huge problem.
But I doubt that’s the case. I bet it’s a “I saw elk here from the road” type of way point
Good question, but even if it did differentiate I would still argue the overall accuracy of on-x and GPS mapping systems in general.
Waypoint 6 seems very close to a boundary and I would question the "associated error" and inaccuracies of on-x itself. The on-x mapping system is obviously not 100% accurate despite what many of its users think. It's a great tool as a general guideline but people treat it as if it's an official land boundary delineator. I don't think anybody in a land boundary dispute would use on-x as their official proof in court. They would hire a professional land surveyor and use their findings. This seems like a desperation move or scare tactic by the landowner and his lawyers. Anybody that understands the innacuracies of GPS and GIS mapping would probably not take waypoint 6 too seriously.
I think this hits the nail on the head as well.
Scare tactic and it even almost paints Fred as a good guy “well if the court finds them guilty I obviously am not so evil that I would actually demand millions from them”
He sees the shit storm hes kicked up and he doesn’t like the way it’s starting to settle
Scott85
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2018
- Messages
- 2,692
I do have some question.
1. What’s the requirement for a company to provide the information requested by a lawyer for the making of their case? It would seem that if their is no requirement unless it’s court ordered @onX Hunt sided with the landowner in this case.
2. Nothing in their TOU talk about providing your data including waypoints to a 3rd party. It states that users content is the user sole responsibility. Whose data is it when it’s your data that’s stored on their servers?
1. What’s the requirement for a company to provide the information requested by a lawyer for the making of their case? It would seem that if their is no requirement unless it’s court ordered @onX Hunt sided with the landowner in this case.
2. Nothing in their TOU talk about providing your data including waypoints to a 3rd party. It states that users content is the user sole responsibility. Whose data is it when it’s your data that’s stored on their servers?
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Even if they actually trespassed at that waypoint, they didn’t do it crossing a corner. If it was a trespass, it would be a completely separate trespass issue IMO.
But still, given how waypoints work, saying this waypoint proves trespass is absurd.
But still, given how waypoints work, saying this waypoint proves trespass is absurd.
This, I mark whatever I see no matter where it is relative to me.
Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 795
One would need to reread the complaint, before you can decide whether a separate trespass is covered under the lawsuit. I don’t remember if the actual complaint was linked in this thread.
It is somewhat of the problem with relying on media and talking heads to regurgitate what they think something says.
Additionally, the defendants were likely required to turn the data over in discovery. Usually includes the metadata. Or they could have subpoenaed the data from onx.
If it is just a way point, it seems like a loser argument. If the data and metadata shows a route to and from the way point, then the evidence would be stronger. But there is a lot more data that exists when one turns on the onx.
Lots of new emerging technology with geofencing and tracking. Many people don’t realize how well people can be tracked.
That all said, the offer to forgo damages is an odd legal argument for landowner to make, does not appear to be from a position of power for the landowners to concede something that is not really before the Court at this juncture.
The addition of a separate trespass also appears desperate to claim an alternate theory if the corner crossing trespass is denied by the court. Appearance is that they anticipate a loss on the corner cross but are claiming an aleternate trespass as grounds to scare the defendants with the millions in damages.
But a single trespass across a fence wouldn’t trigger 7 million in lost value. So lots of maneuvering by plaintiff.
It is somewhat of the problem with relying on media and talking heads to regurgitate what they think something says.
Additionally, the defendants were likely required to turn the data over in discovery. Usually includes the metadata. Or they could have subpoenaed the data from onx.
If it is just a way point, it seems like a loser argument. If the data and metadata shows a route to and from the way point, then the evidence would be stronger. But there is a lot more data that exists when one turns on the onx.
Lots of new emerging technology with geofencing and tracking. Many people don’t realize how well people can be tracked.
That all said, the offer to forgo damages is an odd legal argument for landowner to make, does not appear to be from a position of power for the landowners to concede something that is not really before the Court at this juncture.
The addition of a separate trespass also appears desperate to claim an alternate theory if the corner crossing trespass is denied by the court. Appearance is that they anticipate a loss on the corner cross but are claiming an aleternate trespass as grounds to scare the defendants with the millions in damages.
But a single trespass across a fence wouldn’t trigger 7 million in lost value. So lots of maneuvering by plaintiff.
Is there a way to get onX to actually mark spot while in elk or what ever and trying to hit mark like you can with a garmin fishfinder or even old handheld 12. Just hit mark and it doesn't put your way point a half mile from where you are or have to move it to you actuall spot? Defense could use my points for exhibit a. I have elk shooting at 70 yards away marked across the road mile away in a unit never stepped in.
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
I have OnX tracker data across several Carbon County corners. I find the marker and step over it. I have a track that shows I’m 5 yards off, i.e. walking on private land, whereas I just brushed the airspace of the corner - it’s the inaccuracy of the app. Like another said, Fred had a nothing burger.
Requested vs. Subpoenaed would be the difference. I can request information and be denied. But an attorney, whether representing the state or the individual, can subpoena records. I would assume that OnX received a court ordered subpoena to provide any and all OnX data pertaining to the 4 hunters in and around Elk Mountain.
Cornell Cowboy
Well-known member
Response from hunters:
wyofile.com
Corner crossers reject GPS ‘Waypoint 6’ as trespass proof - WyoFile
Mapping app allows users to set digital markers without standing on private land, Missouri hunters assert in fight against ranch owner’s $7M civil suit.
wyofile.com
COEngineer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,463
I'm really curious if it's the lawyers grasping at straws or if Eschelman himself is pushing these absurd arguments and the lawyers are like, "Whatever you say, boss."Response from hunters:
Corner crossers reject GPS ‘Waypoint 6’ as trespass proof - WyoFile
Mapping app allows users to set digital markers without standing on private land, Missouri hunters assert in fight against ranch owner’s $7M civil suit.
Either way he's just wasting money on those lawyers at this point.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
seeth07
Well-known member
anyone else find it interesting that the document submitted in court shows the waypoints on a map that isn't produced by OnX? They used an alternate background source and then must have placed their star waypoints on there. Interesting move by their lawyer? If they used the Onx map, showing the legit registered waypoint, I wonder what the image would look like? Is the map just slightly off on OnX and they indeed did trespass? Was the waypoint literally on the line or so close that at that level of zoom you couldn't tell which property it was on?
