Team Sieni

Wow. I think that may be my next toy. Anyway ... there's a lot of fuss in the press about the Palm Pre at the mo ... it will have integrated GPS. I'm sure the more bleeding edge tech hounds will be reporting on this soon.

To be fair, the helpful advice was laced with put-downs of an "RTFM" nature, questioning whether the thread should have been started in the first place. A fair enough response, imo.

We love Dartmoor but have never done any letterboxes. This interesting website has an address, and you don't need 100 stamps to write to it. http://www.plympton.info/dartmoor/dartwher.html

It's bad form to laugh at others' misfortune. So I'm not. Honest. Not in the least.

We made a special trip to Norway last year to find a cache that had been unfound since being placed in 2006. FTF here we come, we thought. It wasn't there (subsequently confirmed by another cacher) Actually the special cache specific bit wasn't quite as dramatic, it was about 100km drive from Finland to the cache site, plus about 10km on foot. Still, at least we didn't have to do a puzzle. Just yomp over Norwegian fells.

While recovering from an op a couple of years ago I invented and played a geocaching based game (I've forgotten the rules, they were pretty flexible as far as I can recall, I was the only player and was on some pretty strong painkillers at the time) that involved "travelling" around the world (from my bed) finding caches that fitted various criteria, then heading off in another direction. I particularly remember visiting GCZ8ZK I had a nice virtual stay on that island. I didn't log them mind.

Glad you liked it.

GCTK7X:Meridian Snake: The Project A.P.E. project is exactly this: it's nearby, it's APE themed, it's the biggest ammo box wot I ever did see ... and is an ordinary icon.

Tut tut. Using a pointy trowel to dig up the cache. Also it's strictly against the guidelines to bury murder weapons and other evidence near to caches, even if it is part of a clever puzzle (that Goren solved without much trouble, of course)

If anyone's interested there was another release yesterday ... but it got un-released and is scheduled for next week. See http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=207877

I know this is going waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic, but I thought I'd share this bit of information, because I find it fascinating. Have you ever heard of "trail trees"? Native Americans would modify trees, as saplings, so that they grew up as natural signposts, pointing in a particular direction, on growing up the tree has a strange unnatural kink in one of its boughs. (OK I admit it, I only heard about these through this Waymarking category. There's also this category for pre-European history in the Americas)

Harsh, but (at times) true, imo. Edited to add: meaning that Miss Jenn's statement is true, although HighlandNick's point that it may not win friends is valid. But at times the truth hurts.

A critic writes ... I just didn't find it very funny. Still, it takes all sorts, de gustibus non est disputandum and all that.

Tetigisti acu! Here (and in subsequent posts disputing it) I believe you have touched upon the biggest problems with virtuals. The criteria for acceptability. Bear in mind how many knots we tie ourselves up in regarding guidelines for ordinary tupperware boxes - now consider how you could write acceptable guidelines so that the poor overworked, abused GS volunteer reviewers could decide if such and such a submission has adequate historical interest. Remember the reviewers aren't necessarily expert geologists and historians. You cant suggest "bring back virtuals" without solving the question of how to do it without presenting the reviewers with an impossible task. Waymarking handles this by having approval carried out by the category managing group. Earthcaches handle this by having the approval devolved to the Geological Society of America (GSA). If you think hard about this you may come up with the idea of separate dedicated groups managing each type. eg. GS reviewers handling geocaches, with their special permission/guideline issues. GSA handling Earthcaches, and so on. You'll end up with something that looks pretty much like Waymarking. --------------------------------------- PS. For everyone except Alan (who's not interested :) ) , here's an explanation of the various levels of object handled by Groundspeak, and who does the approval. A set of locations The set of locations has its own criteria as to what is allowable, and a body responsible for approving locations. The set itself may also have been approved for use by another body. GC.com : Geocaches (approval managed by Groundspeak volunter reviewers) GC.com : USGS Benchmarks (no approval: uploaded froma USGS dataset) GC.com: Earthcaches (approval managed by GSA) WM.com : A Category, eg Greenwich Meridian Markers (approval of locations managed by Managing group ; approval of the category itself done by peer review vote) [Old locationless caches: A locationless cache, eg GCA8B7 Greenwich Meridian Markers approval of locations by the cache owner; approval of the locationless itself by volunteer reviewers] A location with co-ordinates The location must conform to the rules/guidelines of the owning set. Is approved by the body responsible for the set. GC.com: A cache, eg GC11CPE GC.com: An Earth cache, eg GC1CH2F Rainhill Stone GC.com A USGS Benchmark eg GZ3095 WM.com: A waymark, eg WM4MHX Chailey Meridian Marker [Old locationless caches: these were implemented as visit logs, the co-ords were typed in as a waypoint attached to the log, eg: This log of Chailey Common Meridian Marker ] A visit to a location The visit may be deleted by the account who owns the visited location. GC.com: A visit log to a cache eg visit to GC127BT GC.com: A visit log to a USGS benchmark, eg visit to GZ3095 GC.com: A visit to an earth cache eg visit to GC1CH2F Rainhill Stone WM.com A visit log to a waymark eg, a visit to WM4MHX Chailey Meridian Marker [Old locationless caches. This concept did not exist - eg there was no way to record a subsequent visit to the Chailey Common marker under GCA8B7 once it had been logged]

OK I won't There's a saying "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". You're trying to squeeze the WM concept entirely into GC.com terms and it doesn't fit. Either that or you're being mischevious. If you're really interested (and I suspect you're not particularly) I'm sure the nice folks over at the Waymarking forums will help.

Brentorboxer has a multi like this: GC10PZR If I were in charge ... well ... on reflection perhaps I'll lower my ambitions a bit, and say I'd foster better relations between Waymarking and Geocaching, so that GC'ers who want virtuals are more likely to pursue them through the WM site, and those who aren't interested in them ... don't. Which is pretty much where we are now. (Does that mean we live in a perfect world? ) This thread, which has been thoughtful and un-acrimonious has been a teeny tiny step in that direction I think. I might go so far as to introduce a combined stats logo that showed your GC stats and WM stats, optionally, for those who are interested, but I'd never consider merging the stats because they just aren't comparable. That would please hardly anyone, and would annoy a lot of people. Moving away from virtuals, one other thing I might consider would be to make a minor change to the cache approval procedure whereby - if explicit written approval has been obtained - the cacher is encouraged (not forced! just suggested!) to add a line acknowledging this on the cache page. One the one hand this may seem like acknowledgement by GC.com that some caches don't have explicit permission ( ) but I always feel more secure when I see this on a cache, because I know I won't be inadvertently going somewhere where I shouldn't. PS For Alan's reference; Category roughly approximates to "type of cache". It doesn't exist in GC, but you hypothetically could have a categories for mysteries, micros, multis, trads etc. [Category also equates to "locationless cache" which didn't fit GC.com very well] Waymark = cache (visitable object) [Waymark also = visit log for locationless] A thing that must fulfil the category criteria and which is reviewed by the category owners, for compliance with the cat. aims. Visit log = cache visit log. [there was no equivalent for locationless.] But the way the games are played is very different, and WM has developed so that logging is rarer, and after a day's Waymarking you are likely to write up a bunch of new waymarks and maybe a few visits. After a day's caching you would write up a bunch of cache visits. Why? Because ... well ... they're different and that's how things have turned out. It may change with time, who knows?

Nope No it doesn't - don't be so daft. And keep on topic or SP will get you! Edited to add - on re-reading that post comes across as incredibly rude, but it wasn't intended that way. For "no specific requirements" read "no additional logging requirements" in GC-speak - ie just visit it and log it. But as HH has noted, there's more emphasis in on setting than visiting in most categories. Not that you're really interested anyway and not that it's on topic

I'm being good! It's been an effort but I'm still on topic! (mostly) You're a hard, hard thread moderator

By & large yes, but not necessarily. Depends on the category definition. I think this particular horse was been flogged to death long ago. It's a bit like refusing to shop in Sainsburys because you don't like salt and vinegar crisps, which they sell. No one forces you to buy them, there are plenty of other products on offer. Anyway, it's got nothing to do with this topic. Trigpoints were just one example - consider the broader term of "benchmarks" there are repeated requests from cachers (including on this thread) to include these as GC.com loggables. As I am "king for a day" on this thread I've been listening to what my consumers want and proposing a solution for them. Such a caring sharing monarch that I am. Umm.. it is . Except, of course, for grandfathered caches, earthcaches (virtuals by another name) and events (not caches by any definition). And? Your point is? There are repeated requests to "bring back virtuals" and so forth, including on this thread. As I am in charge in this hypothetical situation, I'm considering a way forward, to find a compromise. It isn't, at least not from my perspective. The two are different: some will enjoy one, some the other, some both. I believe it's right that they have different approaches, and we know that at some time the interfaces will merge so perhaps then those who want to work with both in the same way will be able to do so. Hopefully those, like me, who don't will also be able to keep with caching. Ah, well there we have it. You're happy with the current situation that GC.com is "logbook only" caches, and that non-logbook things should be logged elsewhere. (ie that the calls for "bring back virtuals" and so forth are not to be heeded) That's fair enough, and to be honest I have a deal sympathy with that view. ie that trigs, Virtuals, Webcams & so forth can be logged on WM.com, or on other specialist sites, for those who are interested, and that geocaching.com should be just about finding ... well ... geocaches. It's just that as a benevolent dictator I thought I'd listen to my thralls, and add a few types of "non-logbooky" things available through GC.com. Actually I think we agree more than we disagree. (Apart from the rather daft argument about McDonalds, which is off the topic of this thread - and this forum even).

Don't give up the day job.

"Virtuals" in this context are Virtual caches. Something you log on geocaching.com. So no, not all waymarks would be suitable for falling into the concept of "virtual" (such as the restaurant chains that seem to obsess you so much). Waymarking is a much broader concept: a waymark is a categorised thing with coordinates. Which means that - for instance - a geocache could be considered a specialised kind of waymark - one where there is a log book in a container. Only the BKS category really fits the definition of "virtual" we are using here. So no, not all waymarks are virtuals, but all virtuals are waymarks. This neatly brings the discussion back on topic. What I would do would be to allow a certain subset of categories to allow some of their waymarks to be loggable on GC.com. For example, trigpoints. The quality control on these would go through the usual Waymarking procedure (group approval) but the final step for an individual cache would be QC'd by GC reviewers. New rules could be introduced - eg more stricter prevalence rules to stop too many getting created, and thus keep the rarity value. This would remove one of the problems that virtuals had previously - that the acceptance criteria were way too subjective for GC reviewers - because they would have been pre-vetted for adherence to the category rules. And would provide a variety of other things that GC-ers could log and increase their find count - which is what is being requested. If all geocachers agreed with you, there would be no problem at all because then Geocaching would purely be the "hidden container with logbook" type cache. But the problem is that quite a number would still like to be able to log other kinds (without logbooks). This isn't (or shouldn't be) a WM vs GC "which is better" discussion - SP did put an extra "please keep on topic" in the OP - I think we can agree they are entirely different. It's about how GC now could be improved. Virtuals and trig points were requested, and are frequently requested by cachers, so I put my thinking cap on for how they could be deployed from where they live now (WM.com) into GC.com. There is, of course, the alternative that cachers could just log them where they are now (WM.com) but cachers don't all want to be told that - some of them would prefer a single interface for all their logging. And if that's what they want, why not try to provide it? One last (unashamedly off topic ) point. This took me longer to bag than any cache I've done. Everytime I went there it was cloudy, or raining, or I'd missed the sunset, and had to return again.

Here are a couple of interesting threads from this forum Other things to do with your GPSr, Apart from 'Caching... GPS signals, What else do you use them for?

Wow. Maximum respeck. You did well, it took us all day and we still DNF'd one of the dwarves. Mind you in typical Team Sieni style we extended the walk to a ridiculous extent, and also spent a lot of time hunting fungi and not caches!

If GS got it right, how come so many people are calling for the return of virtuals, or the ability to log trigs? What GSP are doing are offering exactly the services that their consumers want (Trigs, virtuals, etc) but under a brand that for which thier consumers feel no affinity. This lack of affinity was engenered (imo) back in '05 or whenever it was when the non-physical caches were moved and WM was launched. "Here, play with this, you'll love it" said Groundspeak. "Don't want to. Not playing. Your new Website smells" Replied the caching comunity. That's why if I were king, (back on topic) I'd find a way to offer those some of services with the word "Waymarking" crossed out and "geocaching" written on it in crayon. They'd be pretty muych the same but cachers would hail me as a hero because they could get their ghosty icons and virtual finds, as I still think there's a space for a small subset of what Waymarking offers in Geocaching. The fact that old saws like your "McDonalds" point are still floating around illustrates my point about GSP's presentation. That argument doesn't hold water, but as this is a caching thread in a caching forum I won't drag it off topic to discuss. Email me separately if you want.

It's not just a case of selling, more a case of figuring out what people want before delivering it. It turned out that a key aspect that they missed was "it must be called a something-CACHE and it must turn up on my find count". I think what GSP thought was: If we set up a new site we will no longer be a one-site company. We'll provide great tools for cachers to go out hunting non-physical "caches". Cachers will automatically flock to it and will shower us with rose petals, there's no logical reason why they shouldn't. It didn't quite happen like that. I still think there's a need for a Geocaching-flavour version of some of the Waymarking services. WM now has its own "culture" and is distinct from caching. So to return to SP's original question, I would allow certain pre-defined categories to be delivered via GC.com and to show up on the find GC find count. You could actually have a category for "surprise virtual cache" that PUP suggested where you don't know what you're going to find until you get there (a bit like GC3660 ) something that wouldn't sit well with the WM category criteria, but for which, technically, there is no obstacle in WM.com, although organisating the reviewing would be a challenge. Unfortunately I imagine the barrier to convergence is technical resource and cost. I don't know but I imagine that the GC database and the web code base is a huge mouldy edifice that has been patched and re-patched a zillion times. Migrating the underlying GC data over to a new code base, or just the data to a new database structure, and releasing it so that the features all work in a familiar manner on GC.com would not be a walk in the park. And cachers aren't know for their liking of change. One unusual font style will cause despair and outrage.