s4xton

http://www.mngca.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1145

That is an unfair assumption. I guess it's in hardware's court to let us know what his beef is, if the official Groundspeak answer is that they aren't involved. -Aaron

I have personally delt with Hardware before. Two friends of mine have met him in person, but I have not. My recommendation is to listen to what he says and take him seriously. I am not familiar with issue #156707, but I highly doubt his intention is to hold bugs. He probably just cannot visit a geocache listed on geocaching.com. If I were to make a suggestion, try having him drop them in a geocache listed on Navicache or another listing service. Not sure if he'll be receptive to that or not. Good luck. -Aaron

Well, finally we get an official reply. Thanks for responding. Thanks for the clarification. This makes sense. Jeremy and Co. should easily be able to make a form that allows individuals to submit earth caches and have them approved by you, and have them properly link to the appropriate person's account. Being they are a specific type of virtual, it would be easy for them to be queued for you in the system. It could also be easily created where an individual would have to pass through the guideline information specific to these virtuals before submitting. I'm surprised (and also not surprised) this wasn't established before it started. I assume that as Groundspeak is a "sponsor" of this, they will want to have a monopoly on the listing of these caches. It would only make sense to have the registration bit be integrated into the geocaching.com system. Unless, of course, are you planning on keeping your earthcache listings in the public domain. Have you considered also listing approved earthcaches on other geocache listing services? Wonder what happens if Groundspeak goes in a direction that doesn't jive with the GSA? I recommend not having all your eggs in one basket if you consider that a possibility. You don't have to publicly reply here about that. This is the right thing to do. I'm glad there's been an official response to this. This was one of my primary concerns, and I am glad to hear you're in the right frame of mind about it. Onward, I recommend that the language here: "An Earthcache is an educational form of a virtual cache. The reward for these caches is learning more about the planet on which we live - its landscapes, its geology or the minerals and fossils that are found there..." is changed to "An Earthcache is a special form of a virtual cache. The reward for these caches is learning more about the planet on which we live - its landscapes, its geology or the minerals and fossils that are found there." There are other ways to explain that it's educational without implying the others are just a pretty view. I've explained my justification above. I also ask that approvers do not approve any further caches of any type in Minnesota State Parks as they do not accept geocaches. It has not been clarified publicly if virtuals listed on geocaching.com are an exception. I do have the understanding, and I could be wrong here, that they probably would prefer to not have anything posted on geocaching.com that points inside MN State Park land. There has been special permission granted to Paklid for some of this, but I don't think the DNR was expecting it would end up on geocaching.com. Lastly, just to keep things rolling: If *all* earthcaches are virtual "caches," why are they called caches in the first place? If you guys are creating waypoints of interesting and educational geological points around the earth and not trading anything, the word "cache" is misleading. Why not call it "earthpoints," "geopoints," "geospots" or get a wordsmith to create some nice word that's more accurate. These waypoints can be listed on geocaching.com the same way, and then you distance yourself enough away from the concept of people leaving a box of trash in the woods, yet it's still just as much fun for the people in the geocaching community. (For example: they don't call them "Benchmark caches," for instance. They're just "Benchmarks." They aren't caches.) (...and to the forum trolls: don't chime in and explain to me what an event cache or a locationless cache is to justify a reciprocal point - I'm talking specifically to the GSA and their project, which I would (and I assume they would) like to separate from regular geocaching.) -Aaron

That would make sense. It's your content, research and work, you should have ownership of that information. It makes it difficult for a group such as the Minnesota Geocaching Association to work with a group such as the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources about caching when geocaching.com is listing caches in their parks when the DNR does not allow geocaches. Even if they aren't physical geocaches. From what I gather, and I could be wrong here, the MN DNR would prefer not have anything listed on geocaching.com, virtual or not. Paklid did an excellent job by creating this virtual using existing and open trails. What happens if someone else makes another one that uses public land, or in this case, a Minnesota State Park, but requires going off-trail or bushwacking? Just because it's virtual doesn't make it okay. I'm glad that Paklid created his on well defined trails and does not require any off-trail to find his. I gathered this. -Aaron

You're incorrect. Read above. They're intentionally doing it. I e-mailed contact@Groundspeak as well and they have not responded. -Aaron

It's not a national problem. It's a regional or local problem. A regional or local group that wants to influcence policy there should organize and do something. A national organization won't have much influence. It's the people that use the parks and public areas that will have an influence. Secondly, Groundspeak as a for-profit, commercial, private organization wouldn't have any clout. A non-profit organization run by and representing geocachers would have more influence. I don't see how a national organization would have much influence though, unless it was NPS that they were trying to work with. This is probably partially why earthcache.org exists. -Aaron

Okay. I understand juggler's opinion. Let's put that aside and go back on topic. I'll even drop 2 of my concerns just so we can stay focused. Then I found I can combine two of my points into one. Now, I have one statement that should be responded to, not 3 questions and 1 concern. We can come to the bits about language and approval process later: * The person who does the work to create the cache should be the owner of the cache, not a third party. Earthcache.org is getting it's database filled up with quality work by volunteers for free. These earth virtuals should be the intellectual property of the people that developed them, not earthcache.org. It is not clear to people hiding these earth virtuals that their intellectual property will be taken by earthcache.org and not remain their own, unlike other geocaches. Earthcache.org is not a cache listing service like geocaching.com is. What is happening is that individuals are thinking they are listing a new cache. They get directed to a third party, which takes ownership of the new cache, and then that third party lists it on geocaching.com. Although it is interesting all the connections that you can make between this site, geocaching.com.au and a consulting company in Sydney, the real meat of this discussion should be about ownership, responsibility, respect and ethics. -Aaron

Go to http://hoore.com/ "Other people's ideas at a discount." Makes perfect sense to me! -Aaron

They can't publicly respond to this? I'm not the only one that needs the answers. The Earth virtual I did last night had nothing to do with the NPS. It was a Minnesota State Park, which officially bans geocaches. Paklid, a local cacher and hider, got permission to put this virtual there, not geoaware. This should be made clear. It's not clear that this third party is developing it's own database of locations at the expense of other people's work. On Geocaching.com, the cache information is the property of the cache hider. On earthcache it's not. This has not been clear and should be made clear. It's not about "credit," it's about ownership, responsibility, respect and being ethical. Paklid, in the cache I did, did all the work. It's his intellectual property. It's not the property of earthcache.org. Secondly, if someone wants to post a virtual, Groundspeak has forced it's members to go through Earthcache. This is all understood. Why doesn't geocaching.com simply adopt this approval process instead of giving it to a third party? This is simply not true. Read this: This implies that other virtual caches are not in educational form. Yes, I understand that other virtuals are just as or more educational than these, but the language directly implies, to someone who's not familiar, that a normal virtual are not educational. I'm not "assuming," I'm just explaining to you why one needs to be careful about language. -Aaron

I'm glad there is discussion, but I laid out some serious points to talk about, and none of them have been responded to. * The person who does the work to create the cache should be the owner of the cache, not a third party. * How does park approval work? * Why is earthcache.org, which does not appear to be a non-profit, getting it's database filled up with quality work by volunteers for free? These earth virtuals are the property of the people that developed them, not earthcache.org. Why is this "approval" process different? * Fix the language that implies that earth virtuals are "educational," while it implies that others are not. -Aaron

So I went out and did this cache this evening, and I talked with Paklid on the phone for a short bit as well. I figure that if I'm going to be talking about these, I have to do one myself. For reference, the cache is: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...af-082b9614c1b5 I will reply to myself on the 4 bullet points above: * Paklid did the research for this cache, Paklid went out and found the waypoints, Paklid intends to maintain this cache, Paklid got permission from the people responsible for the park to put this here, Paklid put the cache together, and geoaware and Jeremy approved it. So this should be Paklid's cache, not geoaware's. Geocaching.com is a geocache listing service. This is Paklid's work and effort, and it should not be credited to geoaware. It is not geoaware's cache. The content of this cache is the responsibility of Paklid. His efforts should not be now out of his control and controlled by geoaware. It is inappropriate to have it in any other person's name. Switch it to Paklid. Lastly, as icing on this cake, Paklid can't even fix some minor issues with the cache because of this. * As I said above, Paklid did get permission, so the part about Minnesota State Parks is a mute issue right now. * I still do not understand why Groundspeak is having a third party approve these earth virtuals. Why doesn't Groundspeak just adopt www.earthcache.com's guidelines? In addition, this third party isn't doing "approval," right now. It's "taking," not "approving." They've taken everyone else's hard work on making these earth virtuals and making it the property and responsibility of geoaware. This is unjustified. * Please clean up the language that implies that these earth virtuals are "educational," while it implies that others are not. Yes, it doesn't implicitly say that regular virtuals are not educational, but it is strongly implied. It's rude. Fix it. Lastly, I have a very high amount of respect for Paklid. He made a great virtual multi, and I hope this cache stays around for a long time. It's a great hike and a great tour of two very different parts of this park, and it's a great geological history lesson. I hope readers understand my concerns with the currently flawed process on these virtuals and accept my efforts in these posts in trying to speak for what I feel is just. -Aaron

One of these "earthcaches" just showed up in Minnesota. I have a few questions. I'll try not to troll. I'm honestly curious: * Paklid apparently set this up. He's a good cacher, and I have a lot of respect for him. Why doesn't he get credit for this hide, instead of a guy from ACT, AU and CO, USA? * Why did this get approved in a Minnesota State Park, which does not allow caches in their park? Our current approver for Minnesota, mtn-man, from my understanding, would not have approved it (mtn-man, correct me if I'm wrong). I am active with the Minnesota Geocaching Association, and we are clear to individuals that caches should not be placed in Minnesota State Parks. Policies may be soon changing with the Minnesota State Parks and it would not be a good situation if there were already caches in the parks when the policy changed - especially if the Minnesota DNR wanted to keep track of which caches were in their parks, and notably if there was a specific quota as to how many caches could be in a certian park. It is not advantageous to have existing virtuals there when there could be actual caches. * Is Groundspeak going to allow other third parties to approve specialty virtuals, while the rest of us are unable to post virtuals? Just curious where Groundspeak's path on this is. I know it's hard to make money on virtuals, but it's good marketing to have "caches" approved by represenatives from federal park systems... but what's next? * Lastly, the part that probably irks me the wrong way the most, is on the log pages for these virtuals it says, "An Earthcache is an educational form of a virtual cache." I find the comment quite disrespectful to all of the cachers that have spent a lot of time and effort creating very educational, informative and rewarding virtuals. I'd like a response to this. I personally do not do many virtuals myself, but when I do, I would say that 90% of them are just as educational or more educational than the few Earthcaches I looked at. I'm not looking to rile anyone up, I'm just interested on Groundspeak's take on my above bulleted 3 questions and 1 comment. Thanks, -Aaron

I think we understand what the situation is, I think we've all said our points. I think 99% of us agree on most of the stuff, 1% of us do not understand the situation, and we've made that clear. At this point I'd suggest we close it up and move on. I agree with mtn-man's idea to not close the thread, but I don't think it went in the direction of his intentions. My suggestion is to lock it up and move on. Cheers, -Aaron

None at all. I think I can speak on behalf of the entire board when I say that. (JT, Buzzygirl, Kitch, Marsha and Silent Bob and myself.) -Aaron

As a board member of the Minnesota Geocaching Association, I invite this individual to talk with us if he has any concerns about the quality, upkeep or legality of caches in the state of Minnesota. Even though we have no authority, we are interested in the general thoughts concerning the caches in the state. The MnGCA does not enforce rules or standards for caches in the state, but we help educate cachers about local, city, county and state regulations about caching. As it was said above, the cache placer is also the caretaker and caregiver of the cache. If an individual has a problem with the care given to a particular cache, I suggest that person contact the cache owner, who is the de facto caretaker and caregiver. We do not promote nor encourage individuals or other groups to trump this, and it is my belief that Groundspeak also takes this stance. -Aaron

bwmcadams is right on all counts. In addition - in my opinion - caches should be hidden so non-geocachers can't find them. If you can't figure out a way for an ammo can to exist in a location without it being found by a non-geocacher, maybe it shouldn't be placed there. (and I know that the majority of caches right now aren't this way) Lastly, I think that the parent of this thread handled his situation well in PA. -Aaron

I threw it on eBay: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...item=5731570465 Admins: You can lock this thread. Cheers, -Aaron

I'm selling my Garmin GPSMAP 76S. $280 with FREE SHIPPING in the USA. For international, please e-mail me for pricing. http://www.garmin.com/products/gpsmap76s/ They go for $400 new. * 12 Channel GPS with WAAS * Built-in basemap * Barometric Altimeter * Electronic Compass * 24MB Internal Memory * Accepts maps from MapSource * Waterproof and FLOATS * Internal Quadrifilar Antenna (with external antenna connection) * Rockerpad design for easy, one-hand operation * Backlit keys * Large 4-level grayscale screen with backlighting ...and more... The unit is awesome, has a huge display and it's only been used about 6 months. I'm including the original box, lanyard, serial cable and manuals. There are a couple small cosmetic scratches on the front, but that's all. First person that responds here or e-mails me gets it. Cash if you are in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, otherwise PayPal please outside the Twin Cities metro. If I don't hear back in 24 hours it's hitting eBay. Thanks, -Aaron

I love the SHT... I've found two caches on the trail and have placed one (Little Corridor at 420). I'm starting to try to get up there once a year to do a different section of the trail. Let us know how it goes. I don't know any more on the trail than what you've found out about already. -Aaron

Surprised there hasn't been a formal response - it seems like it'd be a rather easy thing for Jeremy to fix.

TheNomad - Your suggested solution in the parent post looks good. As someone who logs finds from the hiptop 95% of the time, this would help out a lot with searching, and quite honesetly, it should take less load on Jeremy's side. Thansk for posting the suggestion - should be a simple fix for Jeremy - I'm interested in seeing where this goes. -Aaron

These guys are cool, at least the ones I've met: http://www.wi-geocaching.com/ -Aaron

I'm still not clear on one thing that's been touched upon but I don't see any clear answer: Does finding a Jeep and logging it increase your chances of winning anything? ...finding one is required to post an essay? -Aaron

Bingo! Thanks for summing it up Yumitori. ???? If geocaching.com were to open up cache information, I cannot see them accepting information from other sources. I can only imagine them sharing cache information, not allowing changes from the outside. The benefit I laid out above. This talk about sharing being two-way is a bad idea for Groundspeak (although a good idea for opencaching.com). I am curious as to yumitori's thoughts on what I've written in my last two posts... yomitori only summed up what ju66l3r was saying, which I think is much outside the scope of reality for geocaching.com (but not alternative cache sites). -Aaron