Neos2

I am so sorry not to be able to be there. I think I'll go make myself a cup of tea and and try not to feel sulky for a bit. Someone please have some fun there for me!

Is the some way you can rewrite it so it would be approved? It would be sad to see your first one go away. I'm sure the reviewer would work with you to OK appropriate changes.

I really dislike auto-responders, especially when they don't work. I don't fret about them, though. Since we don't have to wait for permission to post our finds on EarthCaches, I just post my found it log, send the required answer (or attempt to) and go on about my business. Usually I add a line to my log saying the auto-responder didn't operate as it should. It's never happened, but if the cache owner wrote to ask me why I didn't send an email to the auto-responder, I'd explain the problem again. As far as I'm concerned, it is up the person who listed the cache to make sure the auto-responder works. Personally, I'd like to see the auto-responders eliminated. I can't think of a single reason they would be needed and I've seen many that create problems where there should be no issue.

A simple search of the forums will show that question has been asked and answered many times already. There are many reasons an EarthCache may be published in English, including the reviewer allowing it to be published and a translation added later, being located in an area where the de facto business language is English and most visitors to the cache will speak English even though English is not an "official" language, etc. If you have a question about a specific EarthCache, it is best addressed to the reviewer who published the cache. The guideline addressing language requirements can be found here. Since this will answer your question, I am locking this thread.

OK folks, I think we've crossed a couple of lines here. Calling out particular cachers or specific EarthCaches as negative examples is really not cool. It goes against the forum guidelines as well. At Geowoodstock X I gave a little talk about how to get your EarthCache published. Interestingly enough, one of the concerns people spoke to me about was the way this forum used to be so brutal. I sang the praises of the forum recently, and assured folks this was a safe place to come get good information, lots of helpful hints, and great support. I'd appreciate it if each of you you took it upon yourself to alter your posts in this thread so they don't point to specific EC's. Do feel free to discuss the merits of creating great EarthCaches, just don't insult EarthCaches that already exist. Each reviewer might interpret the guidelines a bit differently; existing EarthCaches do not set precedence for new ones.

It's mentioned in the EarthCache knowledgebooks. 3.11 Vacation EarthCaches Currently you may submit an EarthCache for a location that is far from your home coordinates. You must have visited the site within the past two months however. It may be rejected if the Reviewer determines there are issues that could require maintenance visits in the near future. I've found it's a good idea to find a local caching contact who is willing to to run over to check on things if needed. Sometimes the roads to the area are under construction or a trail leading to the EC is closed for maintenance, etc.

I haven't had any trouble with cachers not answering the questions, except very rare exception of brand new cachers. Do you email the cachers to ask about their answers? A few years ago, I had issues getting emails from people who used one particular service provider. Seems my provider and theirs didn't play well together. Some of my email from them went to my spam folder, and some email I apparently never saw. Eventually enough people contacted the two providers and they worked out the conflict.

How long has it been since you sent the form?

I know I'm looking forward to this thread getting back on topic. Hint, hint.

Thanks for the update, Sandy. I like the new wording. It encourages quality without being overly restrictive--the best of both worlds!

I seem to recall (but could be mistaken) the reason the restriction in museums was to discourage EarthCaches that ONLY ask people to go into a museum and see some small scrap of geology totally out of context. There are so many very cool "things" in museums and nature centers to see, but EarthCaching is more focused on exploring the geologic features of the Earth outdoors, up close and personal. I read the EarthCache in question to also have outdoor components, and the trip inside was more of a very cool logging task, not the main purpose of the visit. I could be mistaken about that as well.

I just noticed this thread had a request from the OP some time back to close it, so I am doing that now since it appears to be devolving. For the record: This topic comes up every year or so, and it seems we all say the same things each time. That must mean something. I would add my two cents, but it wouldn't add anything new to the discussion and it might seem like a parting shot.

Closing this thread at the request of the original poster. (Truth be told, it was in danger of having that happen even without the request).

I find it sad that many in those local communities reacted negatively. What's wrong with sharing these awesome (in both senses of the word) resources with others, especially when they help children learn? The average teacher has more leisure time and sufficiently longer holidays than the majority of those cachers who invested many hours of their leisure time to make other fellow cachers happy. That's a big difference. That's true, but most caches I know of are not intended for being visited by larger groups and if the teacher is not an experienced cacher he/she will not take care at all about the many issues that need to be taken care of. In my country the big majority of caches and ECs does not have any permission meaning that visits in larger groups will cause issues quite often. Again, I think we must be talking about different things. Why is it bad to save work and money? It might cost money for a class of students to visit a museum to learn more about glaciers and their effects. Alternatively, they might be able to go into the field, visit an EarthCache, see things for themselves, and learn for free. I think that is beneficial. My point was not about the financial side. Teachers are paid by taxpayers' money to do their work and in my opinion, this is in conflict with profiting in a large scale manner from activities like geocaching. (I am not talking about visiting a single EC, but about using this in a systematic way). I am sure that the number of cachers who would be willing to offer their caches to an educational portal is much smaller than those who offer their work on geocaching sites. At least this certainly holds in my country. Cezanne Perhaps some thoughts and insight from a teacher would be helpful? Teachers have to adhere to curricula and educational standards for student learning. We have certain topics to teach and often limited time and resources to teach them. Obviously, we should take advantage of terrific learning opportunities that are already compiled whenever possible. That is good time and resource management. As for field trips and the integrity of EarthCache sites: One doesn't just take 180 students out into the field without prior arrangement (or even 20). During the planning stage, a land manager would have the opportunity to offer alternate suggestions if there was an issue with the group visiting. I've never had any cacher or EarthCacher react negatively to my taking students to their spots. I've taken many classes on field trips, and if there is a nearby cache, we stop and do it. I've never heard of anyone having a problem with students at a cache or EarthCache, and a quick glance through the forums doesn't turn up any complaints there either). I won't even go into how much time teachers spend working without pay during all that spare time we have (don't I wish!). I will say it would be difficult for any teacher to use EarthCaches in a "systematic way" over too long a period. Unless your subject IS geology, you only get to spend a small amount of time on the processes that shape the Earth. I'd also add that just because the geological aspects are mapped out in the EarthCaches, that doesn't mean the teachers can just plunk it down in front of a kid and say "learn this". They still have to adapt it to fit their curricula, and modify the lesson for their students. They also need to develop an assessment for student understanding. That's no different than any other resource a teacher uses--textbook, video, magazine, etc. If someone at a seminar told them a list of EarthCaches amounted to a lesson-in-a-can, they lied to the teachers. There is, however,a terrific resource for teachers about EarthCaching that was made available by the GSA. My classes took part in the pilot testing and created two EarthCaches with a land manager as part of that pilot testing. We were just one group of many in the pilot program. The resource includes lesson plans about EarthCaches to use in the classroom. I've used the information on EarthCache pages to teach about remote locations as well. I can use EarthCaches for "virtual field trips" with my students. Truth be told, with budget cuts what they are, that is most likely how the majority of teachers use the resource these days. I am pretty sure my experience is not peculiar to North American, too. I have many friends who teach in other countries, and they all report similar experiences. Some are cachers, some are not.

Is this the EarthCache? If so, I like that question! ...unless of course the answer is spelled out on the sign. Even then it's still "OK" (because they at least I'd have to read the sign and learn something) it's just not as exciting as learning something more than I could from just reading a sign. I like to take something extra away from a visit to cool places. That's why I like to tag along with the managers of places like that, so I can learn extra little tidbits of info.

A little more information might help us come up with more ideas. Is it a certain kind of formation (stalactite, stalagmite, soda straw, etc) or is it just named after something it resembles (rooster rock, frog rock, etc)? If it's the first sort, perhaps you could have them describe it to you and explain why it is that kind of formation, instead of another sort (possibly from a list of three or four types you give details about)? Or have them explain how that type of formation "proves how the cave formed" (if, for example, it's flowstone caused by the chemicals in the waters that seeps through rocks, which supports karst processes formed the cave). I'd say just telling you the words on the sign is slightly useful as a 'proof-of-visit' logging task, but not a good learning activity.

I must be spending too much time with the teens I teach---I missed this exchange becoming heated entirely. (The kids talk to each other like that all the time, it seems! I've learned to let the small stuff go in one ear and out the other). I hope everyone has had their say now, and we are returned to the regularly scheduled program?

if a set number of permits are issued it further negates the permission requirement, they obviously have a measure in place to control traffic so no matter how badly i want to go if the number of permits has been exhausted there is nothing i can do about it, is there? It doesn't necessarily negate the permission requirement. The park manager has a duty to manage the land, and they need all the facts to do it efficiently. Even the most wary managers only want to be able to evaluate the impact from the 'advertisement' of the site --more traffic than usual, a different traffic pattern, a different type of visitor, etc. Hopefully, posting a new EarthCache will change the number of visits an area gets. Sometimes that impact is keen at first. We know that's only temporary, and slows down after the locals all visit. If you've let the land manager know the EarthCache is there, you can discuss that with them, even show them logs from other nearby EarthCaches so they can see the typical pattern. Who knows, the park manager might consider allowing additional (special?) permits for people who only want to visit the EarthCache site. Having that communication strand going with the land managers can be an extremely positive thing. I know some of the local state parks people were very lukewarm about geocaching in their parks until they were contacted about EarthCaches. Now they are more likely to allow both physical geocaches and EarthCaches on their properties. Some of the state parks have created their own caches & EarthCaches and hosted caching events. (Full disclosure: In a couple of parks it's because there is a cacher on staff, but that isn't true of the state parks nearest me). Edited to add: I think my reply does a fine job of answering the second statement you made as well. EarthCaches can impact land use in several ways.

I'll add that geoaware recently posted what I consider the ultimate answer to this question. I'm copying it below, because it does address your concern and ties it to the original thread topic as well: Really it is pretty simple. It is about ensuring that bringing people to the site does not cause a conflict with the management of that site - many sites have multiple management issues, such as the protection of rare and endangered fauna, the protection of archeological artifacts and the protection of a geological phenomenon. That protection has been in many cases, obscurity (i.e. because people don't know about it, they don't visit). By placing an EarthCache we may cause a management issue and so the land manager needs to make sure that the EarthCache fits into their management plan. On a second level, seeking permission has raised the positive profile of caching in the eyes of land managers, opening the way of all types of geocaching on those lands. We realize that it seems a step in the process that to many seems superfluous, but it is as important as developing great logging tasks! i was always curious to know the answer to that requirement, which for the record i think its ridiculous but that reasoning has to be some kind of joke lol...earthcaches are placed in parks and places that are accessible to the general public, most often for a fee...you mean to tell me that any of those places will forego the profits and limit the number of visitors per day? Oh yeah, I assure you, some parks do limit the number of people who go to certain areas. Some parks limit the number of people by requiring permits and/or setting daily limits. For example, there are times you need a permit to hike Half Dome When the cables are up, the limit is 50 people per day. In Zion Narrows, there is a limit of 80 permits per day for hikes from Chamberlain's Ranch to Zion Canyon. Many of the wilderness areas in Inyo National Forest limit the number of visitors per day. And those aren't the only places, by far. And some places that don't set limits have areas that are too sensitive for extra traffic. Those places probably shouldn't have an EarthCache without the land managers being aware of it. Another angle is that land managers don't like surprises, and there have been issues in the past with letterboxes and traditional geocaches that have soured some land managers. If you don't contact them, how would they react if they discovered your EarthCache some other way? On the bright side, most city, county, and state land managers don't have to work with the limitations and the restrictions of that kind of magnitude, and they usually are glad to have the "free publicity". Still, the best spot for an EarthCache isn't always "right on the trail" so naturally you need permission from the land manager to encourage people to go to those spots. They want the experience to be safe and enjoyable for all and not to cause damage to their park. It's not all negative--Some of the land managers get excited when they learn about EarthCaches and work with you, suggesting better spots, supplying information, and being helpful in general.

I really want to see this one.

Is it possible some of the confusion comes from separating the logging activities from learning activities? EarthCaches are all supposed to have a "learning" activity; they may also include logging activities. Example of logging activity: give information from some signage at the location (a date, a number, a word, a name, etc) or measure some part of the feature, etc. The logging activity might help prove they were actually there by providing information specific to that site and that site only. More often, the logging activity is a step that helps the visitor get information they need to finish the learning lesson. A learning activity, on the other hand, tries to teach a geology related lesson. The lesson might focus on how that particular feature managed to form in that spot, or how to differentiate that type of feature from similar types of the same thing, or how to appreciate how that kind of feature behaves, etc. You might think of the learning activity as the steps the visitor takes to reach a conclusion. Examples: tell the direction the glacier traveled by looking at the direction of the striations explain why two side by side waterfalls are different heights and widths after examining the rock they formed in explain how you know the rocks in the stream bed did not break off the nearby rock (after seeing they are erratic) explain how you know those fossils formed when a giant landslide occurred in a shallow ocean area by looking at the fossils formed in shale from plants that only grow in shallow oceans In general, you have to take some knowledge or measurement or information (either given by the write up or gathered for yourself on site) and apply it somehow to solve a question. For me, teaching someone new information begins with stunningly simple question: What do I want my visitor to learn? Once I know what I want them to learn, I'm ready to figure out how to get them to learn it--and hopefully enjoy the process at least a little bit!

I bolded the part I want to focus on. You see, I think that's the key to making a good EarthCache--that you will learn what you need to know to create the EarthCache so you can share it with your visitors. You already know enough about the topic to be curious about that spot, you know what makes a good spot for an EarthCache, and you thought that would be a good spot. So, that's when it gets personally interesting and you do a bit of poking about and eventually you come up with the other information you needed to create your logging tasks and write up. I love that 'Eureka moment' when it clicks and you realize that Yes! That's it! And nine times out of ten, it's a better EarthCache than if you already knew all about before you started. I'm not convinced someone needs a background in geology to make the average EarthCache, as long as they have a little curiosity and a willingness to learn something new. And if they aren't interested (or at least willing) to learn more then I suppose it's not a problem--because they wouldn't be interested in creating an EarthCache, anyway. It's not like having the background automatically means you know everything about every kind of feature on the face of the planet. Hey, I teach Earth Science, so I do know some things already, but even so, I learn more about geology every time I make a new EarthCache. I'd be willing to bet the reviewers learn new things about geology from reading some of the write-ups. I know we all learn more by going to great EarthCaches.

I certainly understand this, but I think the point many of us are making is that it's your choice. If you see an Earthcache that you consider to be lame, or one that repeats a lesson you've already learned, you have every right to pass it by and choose another one. But the other side of that coin is that people who haven't yet learned that lesson should have the option of doing so. And why restrict them to learning it at just one place? The point I was trying to make was there doesn't need to be repetition. It's (almost always) possible to create a new learning experience for each spot--even if they are all the same type of thing. Then everybody wins. So what would you recommend instead? Doing nothing? Complaining that it's 'too hard' to make an EarthCache and just not making one? How about, just doing the ones you are willing to tackle --and perhaps talking someone else into tackling the more challenging ones? I'm going to say something that is difficult for me, because it seems harsh, but it's true that "all caches are not for everybody". There are puzzle caches I can't solve, high-terrain caches I can't navigate, and caches that require specialty equipment I don't own and don't care to spend the cash to rent. I'll never do those caches, and I'll certainly never create one of them either. I won't create the EarthCache equivalent of those either; you won't see a 5 terrain EarthCache from me. I don't feel bad about myself about not doing or creating those caches though, and I just do and make the kind I can. I don't think anyone else cares if I do them or not either. Why would we be more demanding on ourselves about EarthCaches than we are about any other kind of cache? Do the ones you can, leave the rest to others.

I'll add that geoaware recently posted what I consider the ultimate answer to this question. I'm copying it below, because it does address your concern and ties it to the original thread topic as well: Really it is pretty simple. It is about ensuring that bringing people to the site does not cause a conflict with the management of that site - many sites have multiple management issues, such as the protection of rare and endangered fauna, the protection of archeological artifacts and the protection of a geological phenomenon. That protection has been in many cases, obscurity (i.e. because people don't know about it, they don't visit). By placing an EarthCache we may cause a management issue and so the land manager needs to make sure that the EarthCache fits into their management plan. On a second level, seeking permission has raised the positive profile of caching in the eyes of land managers, opening the way of all types of geocaching on those lands. We realize that it seems a step in the process that to many seems superfluous, but it is as important as developing great logging tasks!

I suppose I'll add my random thoughts as well. Ladybug Kids and TerryDad2 seem to have the right understanding of the intent of the guideline changes. Some types of caches have been overdone in ways that make them no more than mere cookie cutter "cut and paste" carbon copied clones of each other. (How's that for alliteration?). We were doing some EarthCaches on a trip once, and we found several of the same sort of phenomena that each had the same set of tasks all within three miles of each other. The first one was cool---we don't have anything like that around home--the second one was disappointing. We left the third one undone and didn't even look at the other ones nearby after checking the logging requirement. EarthCaches were still pretty new then and I suppose everyone in the area wanted to be the host of their very own EarthCache, but gee, that wasn't very interesting. On the other hand, I'm a teacher. I like the idea of a teacher being able to take their classes on a short field trip to a local EarthCache, perhaps even a walking trip. So I appreciate the notion that we can list the same sort of EarthCache as one that exists in the next town over. I'm not keen on the idea of designating some hard and fast number of miles/kilometers apart as a distance requirement and I appreciate the reviewers taking each one on it's own merit. But by the same token, if I am going to talk my school board into paying for two trips or talk my kids into going to the one ten miles away on their own--it better have a different lesson. There really isn't any point in going to four springs four miles apart and measuring the flow rate four times. Yeah maybe I learned something, but I didn't learn something new--and it's usually easy enough to teach me something new. Teach me instead why one of those springs is a natural hot spring and another was a wildly popular mineral spring back in the 1920s and it isn't hot, even though it's less than a half-mile from a hot spring. Why is one just "a spring" and another an "artesian spring". Make me figure out how you can have a freshwater spring near brackish water--or a non-polluted spring near a polluted stream. Why are some streams called disappearing streams and others are classified as intermittent. And all of these things have something to do with the natural water table in the area--Can't you get me to try to figure out the depth of the water table using the nearby bodies of water? And again, for those who say they don't know enough about geology to come up with these clever ideas--I think that is one good use of this forum. Bounce your ideas off other people in here, get in contact with people who have posted in here, ask the rest of us for ideas.