Icenians

The crazy thing is, a cache event, in a pub, was publish just yesterday. The pub name, the fact that drinks and bacon rolls will be on sale, the lot. If it's OK for an event, then surely it must be OK to mention the name in a cache page. Lets face it, a publican is far more likely to get something from that, especially as it's at 9am, than a name check in a bog standard cache listing. I'm sorry guys but you're approach to this, no matter how much you defend it, just makes you look very silly and very petty.

"You can park in the pay and display carpark <coordinates, attribute> or there is limited on-street parking available in Exmoor Street <coordinates>. You can also park at the pub <coordinates> but may get clamped if you don't buy something." or you can just provide advice on the best locations to park; "You can park in the pay and display carpark <coodinates, attribute> or there is limited on-street parking available in Exmoor Street <coordinates>." And as a result of all this sillyness about not using names you have managed to neatly send the cacher to a commercial company and drumming up business for them. So, still benefits the company and just hinders everyone else that little bit more. You guys at Groundspeak really do need to get a life and a little perspective on reality!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Here we go again. Stick around long enough and the same arguements keep resurfacing. This is why I never place caches here anymore. Pathetic!

Well said

Could someone explain to me what makes a Mega Event 'Official' ? Am I missing something here? I thought it was an event with over 500 accounts attending. What happens if an event goes mega by accident? Do the 'official' mega event police stop the 500th person entering?

Given that opencaching has existed for 1 day in the uk it's probably a bit too early to tell. The site does however state that cache placement will be on gagb guidelines so I don't see it having so many issues. For me, I happen to think a logging password is a good thing sometimes. We use it over a tc where it doesn't seem to cause any problems. Virtuals were popular on GC before they were banned and perhaps have a greater role to play these days in the likes of central London. Personally, I prefer a world with competition and choice as it makes all participants work harder to keep their customers. I see no reason not to help them along their way.

Make that using 3 as we now have another site in the UK from today.

"The game" is find a cache using navigation. I can show you "caches", where navigation is completely useless (e.g. cache is in owner backpack and you have to contact him and arrange meeting, or container is hidden in train, so you have to know what is number of this train), or virtuals, where goal is just find answer and people finding it in Google and not leaving home posting "find". There is many different rules like digging allowed, password needed to log, moving caches, no proximity alerts and many, many others. TB are missing, because someone moved it to cache registered in other database, or people coming for FTF and finding in cache 10 previous logs because it was published one month ago in other database etc. It's same useful like left side traffic, sterling currency or strange 3-pins power plug in GB for people from other part of EU. Don't take it personally, it's just more complicated for users, and if something is complicated you are loosing your time, and time is money. For the same reason people mostly prefer pay for petrol to your car and don't use bicycle what is free. And for the same reason I'm talking to you English not Polish (even my English is poor, but still easier for other users than translate my Polish). Is not that easy as you think. I fail to see what any of the above has to do with alternative listing sites. I cache on 2 activly and have cached on a 3rd in the past. I've found virtuals on all 3, I've never found a cache I've had to dig for (but have heard of them in other countries on GC). There is no rule to say you must use a password to log a cache although there is the facility. Of course, having found the cache that really isn't much of an arguement for not caching there. I have used navigation on all the caches I've done, including the virtuals on all 3 sites. When I go out to cache, I go to an area, find some caches, come back home and log them. The game to me is finding the cache. It isn't about who has the prettiest site, the tightest set of rules, or even the best caches. The whole point of caching is to go out and find something. The only arguement I can think of for walking past a good cache that you would like, regardless of the listing site, is because the numbers don't all join up somewhere. Personally, I couldn't give a monkeys about the numbers, especially as they mean nothing on GC. I find the arguement that having two or more cache counts to be the kind of arguement that I expect from a 10 year old. As for replying in English, I applaud your English, it's certainly far better than my non existant Polish, but I think it only right that you should attempt to post in English on a UK Forum. Just as I would make an attempt to post in Polish on a Polish forum.

How's this for an idea. Rather than having yet more self appointed people telling folk when and where they should run an event, we just let people run with an event if they want to organise one.

Are we only allowed one Mega event a year then? All the talk seems to be about 'this years' or 'that years'.

Surely 'the game' is finding caches. It's fundamentally the same on any of the sites. You don't have to pay a subscription on any site as far as I'm aware.

My mistake. I thought the original post was about Alternative caching websites! I guess I'm not able to read English!

Same here ... Let's keep things in proportion chaps! According to TC it only has 175 caches in the UK, GC has over 45,000. I bet if TC had that many there would be plenty in stone walls?? As for the policing of TC caches, this is only as good as the two individuals (which could be family members, good friends or even yourself with sock puppet accounts) that are monitoring it. At least with GC you have written guidelines, and I know that in the UK the 3 reviewers always consult each other if they are going to take action that may cause friction. Policing of TC caches is also as good s the entire worldwide TC community if required. It's an approach that has been used before. I find it amusing that the only cache found so far that was in a stone wall was from the site with all the written guidelines. This suggests that those don't work so well either. Oh, and I found it a number of years ago when there were far fewer GC's I'm not saying any system is perfect, just saying that there is more than one way of doing things and that they can both work. Most of the active TC cachers in he UK are active GC cachers as well. We all know what should and shouldn't be done and cache with that in mind. Just because guidelines are not written down, we do actually have guidelines just not 150 pages of them, doesn't mean we caches without any scruples.

Hang on. Each cache on TC is reviewed TWICE before going live! If any of my sponsorees tried to list such a cache it wouldn't go live. As I said earlier, the opinion of GC is they do it right therefore any body else does it wrong. I would politly suggest that perhaps it's yourself that is uninformed in this instance. We have mechanisms to stop caches such as these being posted and mechanisims to have them archived by the cachers themselves should they not think they are appropriate. It is very much a checks and balances system, it's just a different system from yours. Oh, and the only cache I've ever come across in a stone wall is a Geocache!

Google is your friend (Yes, it's an international call.) More disinformation about TC I see. I see you quoted "Self approval of Caches" Pray tell me where it says that? Had you dragged your cursor round the corner when you hit the comma, rather than taking the previous sentence and running past the full stop at the end, you would have seen that what I actually said was I would have hoped that it was reasonably clear that this meant that the sentence as a whole applied to opengeocaching.net and not TC (the full stop at the end of the sentence about TC being the clue). But I apologise for not starting a new paragraph. And perhaps I should have re-quoted the link to Opencaching.net. I stand corrected. Of course you're whole point was that only GC do it right therefore the rest of us are law breaking mavericks. But in fairness this is hardly the place to expect support for the oppostion

Nope. Can't find geocaching in the phone book either. More disinformation about TC I see. I see you quoted "Self approval of Caches" Pray tell me where it says that? There are at least 4 TC's in the UK that have been in dispute with the reviewers for months now. Doesn't quite fit the picture you paint.

Why not try a different peak in the Lakes? In the summer THOUSANDS do this and the damage to the environment is not worth it. As someone else said, it's more a driving challenge than a walking one and it's been done to death now. Being quiet is all well and good but people turn up, qiute literally, in bus loads. the vehicles disturb locals everyone wants a pee when they get off there etc. To top it all, is it really a challenge when you get to the top and find a hundred others all with the same idea?

Just my nature. I tend to rebel against an form of self appointment. Just something that rubs me up the wrong way. My post was just saying how I would feel about an approach in that way.

In this case the nag wasn't from a finder.

It's more the thought that someone is sitting at home LOOKING for these caches with issues that bothers me. If I found a cache that needed archiving I would SBA it but that is very different from me appointing myself as a reviewer and spending the day looking for caches to SBA just because I feel they have been unavavilable for some time.

I think I would far rather have an approach of CurryKev's style from someone looking to find the cache and maybe even help sort the issue than the approach which, quite frankly, comes across as a self appointed reviewer nagging me. That is an approach that doesn't tend to get the best from me whether caching or any other field.

Sorry but this is quite simply incorrect. The only role I provide as a sponsor is cache review to the cachers I am a sponsor for. The cache owner can choose to display the coords to non members at the time they create the cache. There is nothing stopping non members seeing where the caches are in general terms on a map and view the cache page. The sponsors are TC's way of sharing the reviewer role allowing ANYONE to be a review if they choose. I realise that this isn't about TC but I couldn't et you post incorrect information and then ask for no reply. Kev

I imagine that it would deter a significant percentage, maybe a majority, of new starters. Well, it puts me off using TerraCaching so I think your point is well made . Hmm. The sponsors on TC are nothing to do with mentoring or training. It's simply a way to get your cache approvers. Nothing more than that.

Isn't that just a little pointless? It's a bit like starting a conversation in the pub, others joining it, then announcing as the starter of the conversation that all should stop talking about it at this table but feel free to move along to the next table and start the conversation again. Why not just let the conversation continue where it is. The OP can always wander off to other conversations when they have had enough.

I'd like to see a site that gives caches a score based on how often it's found, how long it's been there, and taking into account the score of other local caches. A system that allows finders, and non finders, to rate a cache so that caches general not liked BY THE MAJORITY, will give the setters the hint and even allow the to e archived if their rating drops too far. I'd like to see points for the numbers people that are based on the difficulty of the cache rather than all caches the same. Scores that reward cache setters for great caches not poor ones. Virtuals for urban areas, they make sense there. Hmmm, sounds a lot like a site that already exists