mtmanva2

Yes it's me MTMANVA2. and I want photos. Have a good day!

"Quite a number of the new Earth caches approved by geoaware.de seem to have quite weak site-specific questions and in the majority of the cases the photo requirement is the logging requirement that is listed first and also is the strongest one. It seems to me that the trend to use automatic e-mail responders encourages even further to choose very basic questions together with unique answers - questions where something needs to be estimated, explained in one's one words etc do not comply with this new trend." I think it takes more than a couple of days to establish a "new trend" what ever that means. Many times all you got to work with is having a cacher do an estimate. Folks jus can't lug a lab with them! Remember most of us are not geologists and we aren't about to make cachers geologists at our earthcaches. The geoaware de is probably doing a good job. Find and submit a earthcache and you will find out.

You are absolutely right. This whole thing is as clear as mud! Just what the heck is specific content? Can you require a picture but not say what ya want in the picture? This is a example of the right hand not talkin to the left hand. For those of us who have done a lota earthcaching, we need some clear water. Please, would the reviewers, Groundspeak and geoaware put out a clear statement about pic requirements and what can be required in the photo?

Agreed, everyone: EC writers, the reviewers, Geoaware and the eventual finders need to get on the same page. Perhaps a slight redraft of the guidelines are in order to clarify the situation...and making sure that everyone particularity the reviewers are understanding the ruling. Ain't that the truth!!!!!!!!!! Different words from different folks. Just when I thought the 1. yes, 2. yes answers would end the comotion, now you fellers have it all muddied up. I give up! I'll tell ya this, those people at Groundspeak, geoaware and the reviewers ain't singing the same song! I think I'll go back to nice safe micros.

Good golly people now I am really mixed up. The Groundspeak person said "Photographs will remain an option when logging EarthCaches" and some of the cahers said they needed to remove a requirement for a pictur before there new earthcache would get published. The new guideline sorta reads that photos can only be "optional' and not required Now, it is ok to require a picture if you also have good tuff questions that come first? This thing is hard to follow. Is this right or allowed? 1. required: good quesations that could only be answered at the earthcache 2. required: (if you want to) a photo taken by the person at the cache place. A simple yes to both 1 and 2 will help this simple mind geta handle on this.

"Just my opinion and I’m sure not everyone shares it." For what its worth, I share it. Yes, there has been heated arguments on this topic but if anyone counted( I did) the vast majority of earthcachers want a photo requirement. Pseudo requirement? Where did that come from? Is someone saying photos are phony? I have never heard anybody claim that the pic should be the only logging requirement. Answers get traded and shared. Yep, pics can be changed just like some said the 1st moon pics were doctored, but its dadgum hard and handing out them answers is easy! Bad policy and terrible for earthcaching. Personally, I'll trade back the fast system for the old with the pictures. Lord onl;y knows the trouble I have had getting approvals so faster nos isn't that great.

Personally, I have no problem with that type of photo requirement. It is, however, a bit difficult to define what's a unique item in some cases. Basically, we agree. The issue is just that as in the case of the heavily debated caches with ALRs, photo requirements have been misused by quite a number of Earth cache owners. There have been quite a number of caches around where I personally felt that the required ALR was a good idea while some ALRs were just nonsense. The same is true for Earth caches. It is somehow annoying being forces to discusssions with the cache owners in each individual case and being somehow dependent on the mercy of the cache owner whether he allows photographs that are not headshots. Cezanne We are not that fer off. My problem is making the change without telling us much less alowing us a chance to put our 2 cents worth in! Maybe we shouldn't so pickie about what kind of pic is needed but some kind of picture should be required. After all, if I ain't mistaken, didn't the first caches need a photo and that's where it all began?

No, it is not. First, there is no need to upload a photograph of one's signature to the internet, second, there are also no rules how the signature has to look like and third, logs are signed with an alias and not with a real name. Far too many earth cache owners requested photographs that show the finder and did not accept photographs just showing e.g. the dog of the finder and his GPS-r or the hand of the finder and his GPS-r. I hate armchair caching, but I equally hate requirements that force cachers to upload personal photographs. If owners of Earth caches ask politely for optional photographs with no requirement that the finder must be recognizable on the picture, a very high proportion of the visitors will comply with the wish for a photograph and will upload one. Cezanne Mr. Scout is right on. Sorriy, Cezanne but you are wrong. I would appreciate knowing why we didn't get to discuss this change like we did the others?

You are right on. Why didn't we get a chance to discuss this change?

Why don't you put your "money where your mouth is" and go through the hassle of creating your own valid earthcaches. You talk a great game about what an earthcache should or shouldn't be, but so far you don't own any. Way to go Mr. Fox. Ain't instant experts a big help?????????

It sounds like to me that Geoaware is coming mighty close to assuming ownership for the caches. I don't believe the folks at Groundspeak will allow that. I hear tell they want to cut lose earthcaching anyway so that would only give them ammunition to do so! Most earthcachers are not disappointed why should you be? Go ahead an change the guidelines and remove the photo but nothing will happen except earthcaching being really messed up! If somebody changes a requirement after you apprve the cache and the requirement is nuts, then make them change it or archive! Otherwise, let the owners keep reasonable requirements and keep out! Thank you.

I am glad somebody finally said that. You folks who want this or that don't know what you talkin about because you have got no earthcaches! It's very easy to say that questions ought to be here or there and the dang page shorter because you never done it! The people who approve earthcaches make the pages longer because they are always asking for more information. I've got a lot of friends who do earthcaches and they are always sayin the same thing happens to them. The approvers say, "you need more geological information." I seems like the shortening of the page should begin there. Another thing, you people want us to change how earthcaches are written up just 'cause you use different equipment to record the cache page? Why didn't you check that out before buying? There are a lot of ways to take the page with you and you went the wrong way. It aint the earthcaches fault, its yours.

The best i've seen is the Grand Canyon.

Golly I dun it two times.

Would a old court house qualify? It's made of local old sandstone.

I have had to delete only one cache log. That's pretty good.

We have a lot of wetlands up here but they are mostly swamps. Do they count?

I am not big into coins and just now found how much I love earthcaches but I would like to get one. Where do i go?

I haven't had to do it but who knows?

Was out blackpower hunting this last fall. Had gps and small pad. Came across an old home stead. Liked spot for cache. Didn't have cache container found old cannig jar. Found good hiding spot. Started to write log name. Could not find pencil i was sure i had. Im a smoker used lighter to burn stick to write with.