TMBFamily

Alright, now this is obviously a troll. No one could be seriously making this argument. You go from "don't exist" to "we all believe" to "no actual" in two sentences. I think it is self-evident that whether all the rules are enforced at all times by all people has no effect on whether something is a sport or not. Since there are no actual customs I'm sure you wouldn't mind if I plucked all your caches and rehid them as my own, eh? Hey, I'm just "playing my own game". Not!

Good thing we have the world authority on dictionary usage here then. I'm still waiting for a published definition of "sport" that geocaching doesn't fit into.

Interesting. You declare geocaching is a non-competitive hobby. Yet people cheat at it. How do you cheat at a hobby? And if it's non-competitive why would you? I think we have another case of confusing what something is with one persons relationship to it. That's why I put the word cheat in quotes. Just to symbolize that there are as many rules to logging caches as there are caches. If "everyone plays their own way" then it can hardly be a sport. There would need to be some clearly defined and adopted rules before that could occur. Geocaching is a recreational activity. It is a hobby. It is not a sport. Hide and Go Seek isn't a sport. And neither is hiking. Geocaching is simply a combination of the two activities. Putting quotes around "cheat" when you realized you'd just lost your own argument as soon as you wrote that word didn't change the outcome. The definition of sport does not require there be only one set of rules. Notice the definition even says "or customs" which would be even looser than rules. Do you claim geocaching doesn't even have customs? When you play softball do you use exactly the same rules as everyone else? If someone used different rules would they not be playing softball? Or would it suddenly become "not a sport"? I can't believe I would need to ask these questions, but it is a very strange world you live in where how many other "sports" you play would effect whether you think geocaching is one. Combining multiple recreational activities (throw/hit/run, pass/punt/tackle, hike/hide/seek) and adding some rules/customs is exactly how most sports came to be. You might want to argue geocaching is a poorly run or immature sport, but that's different than "not a sport".

I prefer the Oxford English Dictionary, myself. Hopefully Googling Hrpty Hrrs wouldn't mind if I asked if anyone who thinks geocaching shouldn't be considered a sport can give us a published definition that doesn't fit.

Sure, the dictionary will use the term "generally competitive" in defining sport, but they're really just being open-ended in the event some non-competitive sport is dreamed up by someone. ... That's a good one. You don't think a certain definition should apply so you claim the definition doesn't mean what it says? I'm pretty sure what they're getting at is that when you call something a sport that doesn't mean it has to done competitively at all times. Now, is someone still claiming geocaching has no competitive aspect?

There are competitive components to both those activities. Ever watch your cable sports channel and catch those bass fishing competitions? Hunting and fishing were recreational activities until someone figured out how to turn them into competitions, at which point they were coined sports. Actually I believe hunting and fishing were probably somewhat competitive before they were recreational activities. In fact, I doubt your assertion there was a time they weren't competitive. It seems to me the addition of rules is what made them sports. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, the definition of sport.

Interesting. You declare geocaching is a non-competitive hobby. Yet people cheat at it. How do you cheat at a hobby? And if it's non-competitive why would you? I think we have another case of confusing what something is with one persons relationship to it.

Reading this thread brought a black cloud through my mind. I started going over all my hides and finds. I think only one time the thought "this might not be such a good idea" came to me while caching. It was a micro I found hidden under some fire exit stairs at the back of a building. So maybe "near buildings" is a problem somewhat like "near road bridges" as some have suggested. The OP cache had at least 4 strikes against it: In/near a building, found/seen by muggle, opaque container, locked container. I think if any of those had not been true we wouldn't be discussing it. I then started looking for cases of caches called in to bomb squads. It seems it might be good for everyones edification to collect up these cases to give us all a better chance of avoiding it. Oscar the Grouch seems to be mainly a case of bad timing. Another lesson from that is to avoid letting a muggle see you re-hide a cache. Then I saw Troll. At first I thought this one wasn't near a building, but no... it is within 70 feet. So I think it is good advice to be extra careful with caches near buildings even if you have permission. But then, that was obvious. So, how often does this happen?

You seem to be arguing with the definition of sport. You're not alone there. Actually a lot of the things in your list are true. Some more so than others, and some only for certain people. You were never ever even tempted to do a fist pump after finding a difficult cache? You said the operative words, "with me it is..." That doesn't change what it is to anyone else.

Baseball is a sport where games are played. As is football, hockey and basketball. Now here's a pointless exercise. I better join in. I think 2GaG Nailed it. The OP def of Sport fits geocaching to a tee. There are games within the sport (FTF, TBs, etc.) but you don't have to be competing to be geocaching, just like you don't have to be in a game to throw a baseball around. The rules and competative aspect are there whether you take advantage of them or not. Technically, the original question is a logical fallacy known as a False dichotomy. Maybe a better question would be "is geocaching a sport?" The answer to that for our definition is, undeniably, yes. What you make of it is up to you. Hobby, recreation, etc. refer to someones relationship to geocaching. For a few people geocaching is more of a job, just like managing a baseball team. Even though the activities of managing geocaching or baseball don't fit the sport definition on their own they are still an integral part of their respective sports.

Microsoft has the answer for this. It's called the Trustworthy Travel Bug initiative. Each cache, TB and coin is fitted with a tamper resistant cypher chip. When the TB/coin visits the cache there is a challage/response RF transmitted dialog between their chips using an RSA public key algorithm. When logging the TB/coin you need to upload the generated code and the website checks it against the private keys it holds. Simple. Err... could be whatever Jeremy is cooking up is simpler though. (But, when this actually happens just try and keep me from taking credit )

I figured I'd get hassled for that, but I thought someone might find it interesting. (Basically, this applies to all my posts) Sorry to anyone who doesn't. Edit: by request.

Yes, and those who make the rules decide who can violate the guideline . Since you posted again I decided to check out your Fish and Goldfish caches and I don't think they violate the guideline at all. You seem to have placed a clue to a puzzle cache in another cache. You can call it the first stage of the puzzle cache but it isn't because the coords aren't listed there. I can see why you would be confused since if you did it as a virtual stage that would be evil and not allowed in the bizarro world of the saturation rule.

Speaking of brick walls, you should probably have realized by now that you hit one. Debating this further would be a fruitless gesture on your part. Yeah, I got that from Quiggle before I even posted here. My wish at first was to get a change in the wording of the guideline (or a mention somewhere else) to reflect that lack of fruit. I've very much enjoyed the debate in any case and wouldn't be here otherwise. Many have said to remember, "It's just a game," and it certainly is for me. The group I work for in real life has been using NAVSTAR since before most of you had ever heard of GPS. They had one of the earliest receivers, a rack-mount weighing a hundred pounds. My boss was on the committee that convinced the DoD to turn off S/A. (remember that beauteous event?) I personally know the man who maintains the geoid that's used by every one of your GPS receivers to convert ellipsoidal height to height above sea level. I've been writing GPS kinematic phase data processing software since 1991. So, yes, when you're trying to nail down the last 5cm of vertical accuracy on 500km baseline airborne surveys any discussion of "so just how much closer than 528' is your cache" is really pretty trivial. But I guy can dream, can't he?

Yes, what you say makes perfect sense based on what the guideline says. However, the only real exception allowed (other than basic leniency) is the barrier exception. Most other requests for exemption are met with a brick wall denial. Often followed derision if the issue is brought up in the forums. Go figure.

I've got another question for the reviewers if they haven't long since tired of this. How often do people balk when told their cache is too close to another? These are the only denied caches that potentially would be approved under my plan of quietly relaxing the guideline. The people who happily move their caches now could still do that since they obviously weren't that attached to the hiding spot in the first place. I have a hard time imagining that a lot of people demand their micro in the same parking lot as another one be given an exception. But I don't have the data to know so I ask for help. On the other hand, if a lot of people balk then maybe this issue is a bigger problem than is claimed in many posts of people who want no change.

Inevitably? I think I know of just one parking lot lamp post cache within 10 miles of my home and by the current guideline there could be hundreds. Maybe thousands. I must assume this is a local issue since the thought of this happening seems to strike fear into so many people's hearts. It seems a local issue should be handled by the local reviewer. I trust the reviewers to be able to prevent such an event whatever the guidelines say. Also, I think what is inevitable is that if we got more caches at least some of them would be in excellent locations, however you define that. Why do you think anyone is arguing to reduce the limit? Because we want more parking lot caches? I've resisted suggesting a calculated cache per area rule because, while it's simple in theory, it could get quite complicated in practice. Since we have these people kind enough to volunteer their time to police the listings let's use them. If we left the guidelines as written and just told the reviewers to feel free to approve caches under the limit as long as there is a worthy reason AND there's not a lot of other caches in the area, leaving it up to them to define "worthy" "a lot" and "area" I think it would solve many of the gripes we're hearing. Any reviewers willing to chime in on if you think this would be an undue burden for you?

...I believe the .1 guideline is the only tool in place that addresses density AT ALL, and it certainly is effective in the areas that I've cached in. And I definitely believe that cache density has to be addressed! A 100' urban distance could create an awful proliferation problem. Again with the straw men. The post you quoted included the statement "Density must be (and is) addressed in other ways". For example power trails are discouraged. I have no argument with the goal of the saturation guideline and have said so from the start. In fact, I don't think the wording of the guideline needs to be changed (unless it continues to be enforced the way it is). Maybe you were confusing the .1 "rule" with the entire saturation guideline. What I'm saying is that approval should be based on density and potential confusion, not on exactly how many feet closer the cache is than 528 feet. Second straw man: No one (not even the originator of the thread) has suggested unrestricted listings down to 100 feet. Hey, I've placed two caches during this discussion. I'm not just sitting here brooding. I had given up on this but people kept on posting and then Moose Mob asked... I can live with the limit if I have to, I just don't wish to. If you don't wish to be bothered by extra caches see my modest proposal above. I don't get why this is so hard to understand. Just think of any urban/suburban cache that you had fun finding. Cleverly hidden, cool container, whatever. Now realize that that cache could have been blocked if a lame micro had been stuck in a tree two blocks away first. (Or, until 2 weeks ago, if a church down the street had been made a virtual.) It doesn't have to be dramatic if the reviewers just consider all the factors when approving caches.

Well, I don't understand your question. I'm not telling anyone they have to put their caches closer, they are telling me I can't list my cache if it is. So it seems to me they should have to explain why my listing is an inconvenience to them. I was hoping my modest proposal above might clarify who is asking what of whom. Of course I understand that Groundspeak is free to do what it wants. But as has been mentioned before it's to everyones benfit to avoid the "I'll take my ball and go home" mentality. In any case this topic was started with a post describing in detail a reason a lower limit would be beneficial. I have detailed my reasons before several times. The last time was just 5 posts ago. Renegade Knight gave another reason just before that. There are as many potential reasons as there are potential cache sites. No one here has ever claimed the .1 mile rule creates too strict a limit on cache density. That's what's known as a straw man argument. In fact, you make our real arguement for us. The .1 mile rule does not meaningfully limit cache density. So why have a limit beyond what is required to avoid confusion? The only effect is to deny listings to caches that some people think would be beneficial to geocaching. Density must be (and is) addressed in other ways besides minimum distance. If other people don't think caches closer than some arbitrary minimum are beneficial is there some reason they can't just ignore them? Three reasons I can think of: 1) land owners getting POd. But they are free to adopt any rules they wish to which would be enforced on top of these guidelines. 2) Stat hounds inflating their stats. If that is an issue for you I have to ask who is obsessed with stats. 3) So many caches I don't know what to do. As RK says, how do you know the better cache isn't the one being eliminated? Maybe the best way of knowing the value of a cache is how hard the owner is willing to fight for it? Or ... tum ta ta! Rating System! To sum up: The minimum should be lowered because it arbitrarily limits caches while not addressing density and is beyond what is necessary to limit confusion.

Well, I think a 1/2 mile is fine in some cases (Large forests, anywhere in Kansas etc.) but .1 is too limiting in others (urban/suburban parks). I think a simple check like .1 or even .2 miles would be an indicator for the reviewer to take a look at saturation and then consider all the factors. As we all agree, there needs to be a bare minimum to avoid confusion. I like 100m. So I don't disagree with 1/2 mile at all, but I would leave it to the reviewers to decide what "saturation" means for their own areas. However, I have a modest proposal that I think would satisfy everyone Just put in the straight simple 100m limit (let the site handle that automatically) and then add an option to queries that specifies a minium distance between caches. If you like 1/2 mile, go for it. Then, if any caches in the results are within the specified distance one of them will be deleted from the hit list. Presto chango, you'll never be bothered by those icky closely spaced caches again. Oh, you could even optimize it to give you the most hits without going under the limit, but why bother? The important thing is to never have to see 2 caches close together, right? And those pesky land managers? The default limit would be .1 miles so they will be able to sleep at night "knowing" that there aren't any clumps of caches in their domain. It's not deception, right? Just another way of looking at things. They certainly aren't sophisticated enough to change the default distance (or look at a multi-cache description), right? I don't see how this can fail to please everybody. We all get to pick our own limit.

Both reasons are stated expressly in the text of the Cache Saturation Guideline. You're saying 528 feet is needed to avoid confusion? I thought we all agreed it's much too simplistic to use a linear distance to determine saturation of an area. Case in point: I just placed a cache in a park .1 miles from another smaller cache in the same park. Approved without question. Cache in a similar size park 400 feet from a smaller cache--no way, no how, not even close to OK. WHY? 30 second shorter walk is some sort of reason to deny cachers another cache. That park is a few miles from my house and it took me a year to visit because of the problems with the other cache. At the same time I could put 3 poorly hidden caches in that same park and the 528 foot rule does you no good. Yes, I know you can deny it on density basis, but you don't need the 528 foot rule for that! All that rule does is hurt. (see Renegade Knight's good point also) "'scuse me while I..."

Another question of yours that I've previously and directly answered in another thread. But you gotta admire persistency and consistency. Well, I keep being reminded by events how nice it would be to have such a thing so every time a new reason to have it comes up I mention it. (actually I was looking forward to your future comments in that thread, but it seems to be dying.) While you're listening let me ask the unanswered question again. What is the reason for the hard/soft 528 foot limit that is beyond what is necessary to avoid confusion? (Note: the number of sub 528 foot approvals do not make the number any less important. Also, I fully agree that even 528 is sometimes too close. I fully understand the reasoning behind discouraging "power trails". The reasons for this, unlike those for the 528 foot limit, are logical and go to the heart of the saturation guideline.)

I've talked about the answers to these questions in several forum threads in the past month, including a summary of the changes to the listing guidelines. The post that most efficiently answers your questions is found here in the Frequently Asked Questions thread that is pinned at the top of the Getting Started Forum. But the questions are also addressed by the listing guidelines themselves; the other posts are there simply to get the information out in a manner that's easier to digest. Good to hear the FAQ is being maintained. I guess the guidelines and FAQ are short enough we could just scan them for changes every time we're thinking of placing a cache but I was still hoping for a single place to go to look for changes to guidelines and/or interpretations thereof.

I meant it the other way around (new cache near old virtual stage) but I think what you say applies either way. Somehow putting a cache near (400 feet from) an existing virtual stage is "bad" but putting one 25 feet from a "grandfathered" virtual is just fine. Do I have that right? Why was that again? "Them's the rules"?

Uh oh, should I go and archive all the exceptions I've made for caches under 500 feet? Did you read the whole post? I allow for those exceptions. Why bring up issues addressed ad infinitem on this same thread? That's great news Now, where were we supposed to read about that? Gee, 50 feet! Even I think that's too close . (surely there's never been a cache 300 feet from a virtual that was denied listing, eh?) Where was that list of conditions and distances again? 528, 500, 475, Do I hear 450? Yes, that's been mentioned by Keystone. How 'bout virtual stages? How is an existing virtual stage different than a "grandfathered" virtual? In a real sense, not in the "they're dead to me" sense.