TerryDad2

It is the GSA that has the list. They don't have enough staff to update the list, so it only gets updated slowly as volunteers get to them. As I am one, I know that there are thousands that haven't been classified, and I only deal with the english language versions.

As mentioned above, the writeup would be helpful to determine the questions. How was the island formed?

I hope it is ok as well to provide links to ECs owned by others - in any case this might answer your question raised above. Here are three frequently visited one from Europe that came up my mind when reading your question http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=d3c8369a-cb38-44f3-9970-08d71220e791 (Cologne, almost 4500 visits) http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=239dca05-4848-4db9-8dc1-849c4a0bde8b (Vienna, almost 2500 visits) http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=bbda0034-efda-4513-afc4-c70f69b6a96f (Prague, almost 2250 visits) The most frequently visited Italian EC appears to be that one in Venice http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0707fede-00e8-4dbd-9487-95e2bc956c28 with roughly 1300 visits. Cezanne Wow! And I thought the one's I put out in the National Parks were visited frequently.

Have a look at the set in Yellowstone NP or Zion NP in the USA. I think this one is one of the more popular (1/4 the World's Geysers). It has had 733 since August 2007. That's about 12.9 visits per month on the average. Though visitation to these are seasonal with almost none during the winter. I also have a couple that get two or three visits a year if I'm lucky (Violin Breccia).

I'll add my 2 cents. As a general rule, I wouldn't recommend an EarthCache inside of a museum, defined as an enclosed climate controlled edifice. You can’t get a signal inside anyway, so how would you get accurate coordinates I agree with Neos2 up there at post #19. EarthCaches where access is restricted and/or have an entrance fee are inevitable. Many exceptional geological locations are protected, need maintenance, or are dangerous (and yes, profited off of, ah captialism). Caves are an example of a location this is all three. Many US National Parks and California State Parks have entrance fees and these parks are often established to protect natural phenomena. As for an EarthCache being accessible 24/7/365, I wouldn’t ever expect that. I expect to see something at the site, so night visits are out of the question (I put not recommended at night attribute on all my EarthCaches). And if you say I have a flashlight you just want to be argumentative. And any latitude or elevation where there is snow cover in the winter, I wouldn’t expect to see a thing (unless the subject is glaciology). There are EarthCaches I don’t ever expect to get due to access or cost restrictions (the Antarctic ones), but I have no realistic expectation that all caches should be accessible to all people. I think this topic is expanding a little beyond the original topic, but worth the discussion. These are my expectations and opinions, someday I hope to get at least 4 cents for them.

I've got a couple of hydrology EarthCaches. I think one of mine also qualifies as an atmospheric science. Those are tough as it is difficult to find a location where the phenomenon can be seen predictably. I think that goes the same for oceanography. Climate is directly related to glaciation and carbonate formation so that should get through as well. Do you have an example of a climate related EarthCache that didn’t get accepted? I think the current guidelines will allow for the publishing of all the subjects you list except for biogeography. But remember, I’m not a reviewer.

I failed to thank you for the complement on my questions. I do agree that the educational standards for various countries and regions are different. I would not expect 14-year old Inuit living on tribal lands or a girl in rural Afganistan to have the same educational opportunities as a 14-year old in the Silicon Valley of California or Prince Wiliam of Britain. (Yes I picked hyperbole. And these dichotomies are outside the boundries of this forum). We can only write to what we think is the majority based on our own opinion. I would also not expect most people to understand the logging requirements without both reading the description and standing in front of the feature to see what is being referenced. If one already understood the concept before reading the description and seeing the feature, nothing would be “learnt.”

I would agree that my expectations are probably on the high side as I have gotten responses to some EarthCaches saying they don't understand the question(s). I'm willing to accept a few responses such as that. But if the responses are consistantly saying it is confusing, I change the question or alter the text. I would also expect that the harder the question/concept, the harder the difficulty. I realize that I won't have a 100% success rate at reaching every visitor, especially on the higher difficulty ones. My writing is biased to my own experience and there is no way around that.

As a note, I write technical reports for government regulators all the time. The audience for these reports sometimes have PhD and usually have years of experience in the field. Even so, we write to a 6th grade (USA) level. I take the same approach to writing EarthCaches. As geoaware said, that style of writing is just intended to make sure that each scientific concept is explained (or a reference provided to look up the concept if it is not the main focus of your EarthCache) and that any specialized terms are explained. cezanne has a point that different countries have different educational expectations and that each person will have their own abilities. Additionally, a person caching in a different country may not have enough of a grasp of the language to understand the EarthCache description (and bablefish may not translate well). Any description will not be understood by 100% of the visitors, but it should be written such that most of the readers can grasp the concept. All we can do is write to what we think is the intent of the guideline. You will get feedback from the reviewer if you are writing above the guideline. The guidelines also allow for an additional section that is targeted to the more educated visitor or a visitor willing to look up unknown concepts/terms. However, any logging requirements based on concepts/terms not explained in the description of the EarthCache are optional and can’t be used as justification for deleting the log.

I rated one as high difficulty because it requried identifying the layering of the rocks, then measuring the strike and dip of them. I though the concept of visualizing the horizontal and the 3 dimentional plane of the rock beds would be quite difficult for most people. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC1ABZY A nearby one I also rated as high because of the technical jargon I used in the question and having to relate the pictures (that are always drawn so perfectly) to the messy real world example. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC1AAAP

As I mentioned in a threadthat looked at a comparable situation from the cache owners point of view. Their responses/logging policing is the only way most cachers will ever interact with them. They are building thier own Karma. It works on both sides of the log.

Do the people that post logs like that realize that their logs are the only way most geocachers will ever know them? Smiley or no, they are making thier own Karma.

So there is nothing that you aspire to or are proud of? Most people have something that they are happy to have done, I don't think anyone is looking for your approval. They are just sharing. The discussion above has sidetracked many a topic. Come back to topic and start another to discuss that issue.

An excellent idea and should be done more often. Relating EarthCaches to nearby EarthCaches to get a wider understanding is a tool that geocaching can utilize. Be sure to include links to the other caches in the series in the specific locations in the text that relate to them. Each individual site should show a specific concept you are discussing and the questions relate to that concept. You can go on to explain other concepts as well. Using your foothills example, your description must include an explanation of that particular fault or fault type in general and the question must be about the fault at that road cut. The description could include info on the regional timing, rock types, etc of the mountain building linking to those other sites that would be focused on just one (or a few) rock types in the mountains. Another could be on the geomorphology of hills where the rocks faulted vs folded. These are just suggestions as it will be your series. Go make them up.

Canary Springs in upper terrace of the Mammoth area, somewhat between the main area of the Mammoth and Orange Mound earthcaches. We generally tried to hit the main tourist areas early, but by the time we got up to Mammoth (having been distracted by several earthcaches along the way), there were already groups of tour buses that made it a bit crowded. So we came back to it later in the day, after hiking in the Lamar Valley, and there was hardly anyone there. Timing is everything in many locations. There is probably room for even more. There were a few spots that struck me as being great earthcaches, but my lack of geological knowledge (and inability to find much information relating to the particular site) will probably mean that someone else has to do them. The entire area seemed like the "holy grail" of earthcaching. I have not run across any similar area that is so rich in both numbers and experience. Do it before the supervolcano blows and ends Western civilization as we know it. I could help you find info on the places you thought would be good. I ran out of time going to all the places I researched when I was there. I plan to go again someday and want a bunch of EarthCaches to find while I'm there.

Has anyone gone on to be like rock superstars getting double or triple Platinum EarthCache Masters? (pun intended )

So a log proclaims that they visited the EarthCache at night . Since the feature is a large outcrop about 1/4 mile away, the visitor didn't really observe the feature . However the answers were correct (probably due to research of some sort). My initial thoughs are, too bad for them, they lost out on a great experience . The log stands as they got the logging requirements correct. Second thought is that they didn't really get with the program and they couldn't have really done the logging requriement since they couldn't see the outcrop at night, delete the log . Obviously, the logging requirement isn't robust enough if someone can find and answer somewhere other than at the site. But really, how realistic is it to find a requirement at a famous location that isn't published somewhere. Can a logging requirement include that the site must be visited during the day?

Actually, this is rather seen as achievement by Jeremy and not as a challenge. Cezanne tomāto / tomăto. But the guy with the website gets to make the rules.

This is where a challenge to find an EarthCache from each category could be issued. Geoaware or TPTB would have to create it as it would be a world wide challenge.

I hope it wasn't me. You got the answer I would have given. Log it.

I had gotten the impression that if there were no other examples of the EarthCache type close by and the question was more than just determine the size, these subjects would still be accepted. This should be the case if, in the case of an erratic, it was shown how the source of the erratic is different to the country rock by examining the difference in rock types.

Shelley Ellis BLM Wildlife Biologist 300 S. Richmond Ridgecrest CA 93555 760-384-5426 Shelley_Ellis@ca.blm.gov She approved locations at Fossil Falls and Trona Pinnacles.

Which district?

Unfortunately your situation is not much different from others dealing with the NPS. Where is that so called endorsement between the NPS and GSA? Somebody (like one of the PTB) ought to make contact with the highest levels of the NPS and remind them of their endorsement or renew it or something! It, the old endorsement, obviously isn't worth the paper it's printed on. If you (GSA, GS, etc.) still insist on permission to have people use our public National Parks (find earthcaches) why not grease the skids a little bit? I don't know if I can still find it or not, but that old letter between the NPS and GSA hasn't helped one bit! Sorry, even though we are recognized volunteers with the NPS and have received awards from them, it hasn't helped with EC approvals. For now, it just isn't worth it. Often, we must deal with the Feds and cannot avoid it, but with regard to earthcaching and the NPS, it's like watching mud turn to shale! So to shale with it! (Sorry, if you get it, the devil made me do it!) It all depends on the park. I wouldn't take your experience with the Grand Canyon as typical. My experience with Yosemite was similar, but now they are working quite well with the additional ones I've proposed. My submittals to Yellowstone, Pinncales, Zion, Point Reyes, Wupatki, and Wanut Canyon were very smooth and took only a few weeks. In addition, there are many other locations where the approval is not so arduous.

Is it from the road less traveled? If so, it is worth the journey.