cache_n_out

There's one simple way to decrease BS new virtuals - charge $$ for them. The volunteet reviewers would get a small tribute for their time. You submit a virtual it costs $2 if it is approved $3. All the other suggested listed here would also apply (can't be where you can put a traditional caches etc. And the $$ would compensate the reviewers for filtering through bogus requests.

I couldn't find a topic here discussing this. Has GC.COM ever considered creating an additional way of logging a find by letting the CP placed a QR code in the cache that could be scanned? I know they have that on trackables.

What were the issues? I see a lot of ideas below..... Glad you all have had success with the Parks in FLA. But I *KNOW* there are parks here in OH that do not allow containers. And I think it is a BS argument that by NOT allowing vitruals on GC.COM that will some how force the hand of park systems. They don't CARE if there's no tupperware in their parks.

What were the issues? I see a lot of ideas below.....

platinum member? New level I haven't heard of??

I'm not sure what the previous issues with virtual were: here's some suggestions. - More reviewers. Waypoints have a whole other group of reviewers to spread out the load. Why not do the same for virtuals? - Charge a nominal fee. A cache container isn't free. $1-5 per listing seems reasonable - it IS forever. How much would it cost to maintain a actual cache for a few years? Compensate the reviewers from the fund maybe - Virtual ONLY when a traditional cache is not allowed or impractical. Must have something of interest there - not like waypoints at McDonalds. Lister with have to plead case. - Allow alternate logging if the pictures of virtuals are chewing up band width. An answer box on the web listing would be easy enough. (why not for traditional caches too?) OR treat waypoints like caches. Have then show up in PQ, in third party software and on my gps without any extra effort.

Problem with that is it significantly reduces our chances of ever getting real caches in those places. We've slowly been making headway with the NPS and other reluctant park systems. The fact that virtuals are off the table helps keep the focus on real caches. And in NJ , there is currently State Park discussion about going solely over to another type of geolocation gizmoid, whose name may not be spoken of on these forums, and getting rid of containers entirely. Which talk is being promoted by that geolocation game and has caught the ear of some park officials, while we argue the merits of real caches over virtual caches. I do that other game and I think GC.COM ought to adopt that as an optional logging method.

And those problems were?

Hi Everyone, First off this concept used to be in the "forums" where you voted on ideas. I don't see the little tab on the side of my browser window to get there. Is it gone? The function of being able to check automatically if a spot was .1 mile away from existing caches was on the TO DO list. Did it happen? And if so, where is it? Thanks, cache_n_out

I do not think that they are banned anywhere in the world. It depends on the geological lesson and not on the type of location. The reason why I like good Earthcaches is that the provide me with knowledge that I cannot find myself on wikipedia or in easily accessible similar sources. I guess that what many people wish are not earth science lessons, but rather a catalogue of geological locations like it could be provided on the Waymarking site. On such a site it makes perfectly sense to collect for example as many spring locations as possible. For a Waymarking type of site it does not play a role whether information is provided for spring A that differs from the information provided for nearby springs B and C. For ECs, however, it does make a difference. There is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying visiting many springs and just having fun there. It is not the EC program that is the best medium for this sort of activity. I would not mind to visit 10 springs in the same area and I would prefer each of them to an urban micro cache. I would not enjoy however to visit all the 10 springs in connection with ECs that all teach the same lesson. In ECs for me, the lesson is the key part, not the object. Cezanne I would agree with you onthe Waymarking comment if GC.com made them as easy to use as caches (pocket queries, storing on GPS devices etc) since they aren't - ECs work nicer. I agree locating a physical cache near a neat spot would work. Most folks do that, but it is not always possible. Your point about visiting ECs - 10 springs. That's sort of my point - why not list them. You or any other EC'er can always chose not to visit the site. You could read up on it and decide not worth the visit. Just like I do when a see a traditional with a 1.5/1.5 rating on the side of the road with the word "guard" in the name! :-) BUT if you were hiking in a park and a non-unique spring was .1 away - would you detour and visit? I would! I would agree 50 glacial erratics in a county would be overdone. It does make it easier on us finders - we know most every EC we find is unique - and we don't need to filter them much. I guess the bottom line is EC is a supply-side system.

Well, maybe soon glacial erractics and springs will be banned in Europe too.

My point is if there are tons of glacial erractics listed around you - don't visit them. Like any other geocache type - there's nothing to compell you to visit any repeaters. However, 1 sinkhole per public park doesn't seem too bad. If you get someone new to do their first EC it might spark the interest. The rest of us may not drive 20 min out of wat to see another sinkhole, but if I'm in the park already - I might. Moot point. This ain't no democracy - the EC folks have spoken. Unique lessons at each site, duplicates have to be pretty far apart. We'll just have to work harder at coming up with unqiue angles. At least this thread has clarified in my mind what the goal is.

Yep, that's where I'm heading unless I get a lead on some software....

Hi, Doing some cache listing with HTML. Tried WORD and PAGEBREEZE, but what I create there doesn't translate well once I cut and paste into the cache page. Any suggestions on what html works and if there are any suggested free html creator software folks would suggest. Thanks in advance, cache_n_out

I agree with you, even though I've only started reviewing Earthcaches a few months ago, I've already come across way too many of these erratics/springs/etc which all are the same ol' copy-and-paste from wikipedia and all got the same ol' size/flow-rate/etc questions. I'm not sure what's wrong with that. I doubt there will be as many springs as there are LPC. Is there a harm in having several springs in one county that aren't unique? I might want to see them all. Sounds like no burden to review since they are simple. It is 'wrong' because the earthcache program is about teaching earth science lessons and highlighting unique features. Having the same or similar earthcaches (in one county/area) simply does not provide that. Cheers, GeoawareGBL / Global Earthcache Reviewer Yes I've come to understand that now. As a scientist though - it seemed like it would be interesting information to have many more earth features cataloged by location. That, and my experience with geocaching generally has me in the mind set of "more the merrier". I've enjoyed and learned so much from ECs it was difficult for me to accept the idea of the constraint. I've appreciated all the comments and think I have a better understanding of your goals. I think the spacing discussion has been useful. My sincere thanks to everyone on this thread. cache_n_out ( a platinum earthcacher BTW...)

If someone could point me to the previous conversation - I'd be happy to read up on the other views. Specifically, to your examples above. If there was a spring 10 miles away in another park from the one you were at - what's the harm in listing it? It would be you the cacher to decide if it was worth the drive and hike to see it - knowing it might not be much different learning experience. I've found my share of ammo cans in woods, but I still enjoy a hike in a new woods I've never been in before - even if the total experience isn't much different than I've had before. Oh, BTW don't anyone EVEN mention "challenges" as a substitute! :-)

Hi, I think the "GEOAWARES" need to develop a spacing guideline of identical or similiar ECs. Certainly, there can be more than 1 sinkhole EC in the USA - or even one per state. But how about 1 per county? How far away should we expect people to drive to see some different earth science lessons? Some rough guideline on distance or time of travel would be useful. If the nearest oxbow lake is an hour away can you point out a second one? Can 2 creek erosions be as close as 20 miles? How far should you drive to see a spring. There's a bunch of ECs near Logan, OH - no spring EC as far as I know - but I know of that least 1 spring there. I guess they have to drive to yellow springs to see one... Frankly, I don't see the harm in many, many more earthcaches. I'm not sure why springs/ glacial erratics are "retired". Why not publish more. Now I've seen my share of glacial erratics and I probably would not go out of my way (much) to see and log another. But if I did - what's the harm? It's just like traditional caches - some folks are into the numbers and will do PnGs. Some of us only spend our time on ones that sound interesting. Why not folks do the same with ECs?

So why not resurrect cav scout ECs on GC.COM?

So why not resurrect cav scout ECs on GC.COM?

Yep, that and they might be getting a cut of the I-phone apps. Oh well.....

Below is a typical notification, lots of good info except for one thing - no coordinates. Why not add those? That way with a non-web enabled phone text I can go after this cache too. If the note length is an issue it seem like some of the info is in there twice: like the cache name and that it's a traditional is in there twice. cache_n_out For GC24AA0: Loop [de] Loop (Traditional Cache) Location: Ohio, United States 8.6mi S (13.9km S) Keystone published Loop [de] Loop (Traditional Cache) at 2/26/2010 Log Date: 2/26/2010 Published Visit this log entry at the below address: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...f3-e24730ae1826 Visit Traditional Cache Loop [de] Loop http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...26-24d20ecffe38 Profile for Keystone: http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=17...46-2a3a069cc077 Notification: New cache Trad 20 http://www.geocaching.com/notify/edit.aspx?NID=201329

What OS and Browser are you using. If the answer is IE6, then yes. XP and IE6 - what version do we need to be using?

I tried submitting an earthcache with html and imbedded images. Had no luck - even though I had done it several times before. Went to checked on one of my old listings that used html and the whole page was WRECKED! Anyone notice this with other listings that are in html??