Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

Thanks for the info. Dont suppose I can plead the case for more bookmarks? It would help grid out our cache regions.

I tried to create a new bookmark and got this message: Is there a limit to how many bookmarks we can have? I currently have 22 of them. It helps me divide up the caches into regional areas for future caching trips. If we have a limit, is 22 the limit? It seems an unusual number to limit them to.

Im not from Josey but I pronounce it the same.

Your opinions of these two earthcaches are interesting to me. I do have the science background and I see them differently. Again, it may be a beauty is in the eye of the beholder type issue. For the first one, the point of the earthcache is how the geology of the area impacted humans (that is an actual earthcache category). It seems to me the whole point of the cache is to have the visitor learn how the volcano benfitted humans who lived there. You wouldn't want to say that on the cache page, because you want people to learn that while they are there. I'm not sure I agree with you about the description reading like a guidebook to tourism destinations, either, at least the ones I've read don't usually discuss things like "high viscosity of the dacite" "linear vents along regional faults" and "concentric benches, spires, ramping shear fractures, longitudinal tension fractures, and conjugate shear fractures" If you read the second page, it explains that while the varnishing effect may be common, there is still active investigation into the process that couses it to form the way it does. Having people view the petroglyphs is an interesting way to get them to consider the forces of nature that might create this natural feature at that particular location. If those are examples of low-quality and uninteresting earthcaches in your opinion, I'd certainly like to spend some time in your area seeing the ones that you think are interesting! We don't have either of those types of features here in southern Indiana. I really hate it when Im wrong lol. I spent this past week thinking about this post and the earthcaches in my state. I guess some of them just seemed so commonplace to me, like the countless artesian well earthcaches in Tennessee. Today Im out caching with Mike, and he is doing a small hike to a cache on South Mountain, a mountain featured in one of my earthcaches. I remain in the car since my handicap wont allow me to hike. I happen to notice the desert patina on the rocks around me. And thought of the explanation on that Newspaper Rock Earthcache. I guess even earthcaches I thought were simple can have an impact.

Go for it. It was fun to put together. Very satisfying.

There are some in my area that have been missing for months, owner hasnt logged on in months, and they have several SBA posts on them. How many SBA posts does it take to get a cache archived? One example

I hope they still allow them. There are only 2 here but they were fun to do.

Which system are you asking about? Sorry, forgot to answer this one. For any system being proposed, I would like to know how my caches would be rated, given how Old Glory and Rx: GPS prn are good caches, but dont seem to stand out in any of the proposed methods that I can see. Rx: GPS prn is in a park, but its an ordinary hide in a special park. Old Glory is a special hide near a special place, but looks like its just off a parking lot. A rural cache I have, Lonesome Bush, just off a dirt road and a seemingly ordinary cache has a feature and history to go along with it. How would something like that stand out in any of the methods? For what I am proposing, which is just one additional piece of information to filter for, your first cache would be in my Pocket Queries because it is in a "Park." The second one would also be in my PQs because it would be "Historic." The last one would also be in my filter because of its "Rural" or "Trail" and/or "Historic" location. If a cache has been designated as being "Urban," which would encompass those caches hidden in parking lots, I would usually filter those out from my Pocket Queries. I believe a very general location designation would help filter for caches people want to find, without giving away what they would find (as on Waymarking), and without requiring a "rating." A brand new cache can be filtered in, or out, of someone's preferred caches with the addition of a generic "Location" added to the cache information. To implement a "rating" requires the cache to be found. The park one would seem to be the same as any old park when its not. It goes from standing out to being lumped in with other park caches. The same with the rural cache. I thought whatever system was used was to help someone have a better chance to get caches that were better than average caches.

Has anyone noticed this (part in bold)? Im rather curious now to see if that is the case.

Which system are you asking about? Sorry, forgot to answer this one. For any system being proposed, I would like to know how my caches would be rated, given how Old Glory and Rx: GPS prn are good caches, but dont seem to stand out in any of the proposed methods that I can see. Rx: GPS prn is in a park, but its an ordinary hide in a special park. Old Glory is a special hide near a special place, but looks like its just off a parking lot. A rural cache I have, Lonesome Bush, just off a dirt road and a seemingly ordinary cache has a feature and history to go along with it. How would something like that stand out in any of the methods?

Ive had DNFs on a few caches that I thought were very good ones and I enjoyed going there even though I didnt get the smiley. Some I found later, others I didnt.

How can any system guarantee you have a cache worth doing? My Old Glory: the Dogs of War cache, which is a good one and well liked, is just off a parking lot. How would your system filter out my cache as one worth doing?

Waymarking categorizes things so completely that one complaint is that it takes away from the surprise aspect of the location. Its one of 2 reasons I dont use Waymarking much. (The other is that the site lags on my computer for some reason, making it quite tedious to try and pull up category descriptions etc.) If you want to have a filter that allows you to only pull up caches for a prefered cache location, then I hope TPTB also allow someone not to see that filter if they so choose. I would like to retain the surprise element of the location. The caches are more fun for us if we get there and its something unexpected.

There is an earthcache in my state that is an Indian pueblo ruin that is open to the public. Not even that great of a ruin either. It happens to be at the base of an old volcano so the page marginally makes reference to that. The cache page could have been written from a guidebook of Arizona tourist destinations rather than any geological science text. There is another earthcache written about the varnish on a large rock covered with petroglyphs. Considering how common that varnish is on every rock in Arizona, that doesnt seem like that unique of an earthcache. Personally I do think the quality has decreased on the local earthcaches. I hope that future placement of earthcaches is done with an eye to the location and geology rather than getting that icon or master badge.

Posting my full post from the other thread.... That is something Ive been wondering about. Has the earthcache master program degraded the quality of earthcaches in general? I have the first 3 earthcaches in my state. It was quite difficult to figure out what to write about, even in Arizona. There are the popular places (one of my first was Barringer Crater aka Meteor Crater) but I wanted to do something beyond the well known sites. My other two are South Mountain Metamorphic Core Complex and Luke Salt Deposit Earthcache. These are relatively unique locations in my state, and in the world. I enjoyed the research and the write up. I like to think I presented a quality earthcache page. I have a 4th one planned that has taken me 2 years to get info on, and I finally have a contact name this week. This earthcache will highlight a relatively unknown yet important geological issue in my state. (No Im not giving anyone any clues what it is about. Its bad enough some people have tried to adopt my earthcaches just to get that icon for their master program or cache page.) Now there is a proliferation of earthcaches thanks to this master program. Due to distance and terrain, I have yet to see any of their places, but they seem to be mostly well known sites, and created in many instances by people from outside my state. Has the earthcache ceased to be about a geological feature that someone wants to share, and become more about numbers earthcaching, getting that required number in order to advance in rank?

That is something Ive been wondering about. Has the earthcache master program degraded the quality of earthcaches in general? I have the first 3 earthcaches in my state. It was quite difficult to figure out what to write about, even in Arizona. There are the popular places (one of my first was Barringer Crater aka Meteor Crater) but I wanted to do something beyond the well known sites. My other two are South Mountain Metamorphic Core Complex and Luke Salt Deposit Earthcache. These are relatively unique locations in my state, and in the world. I enjoyed the research and the write up. I like to think I presented a quality earthcache page. I have a 4th one planned that has taken me 2 years to get info on, and I finally have a contact name this week. This earthcache will highlight a relatively unknown yet important geological issue in my state. (No Im not giving anyone any clues what it is about. Its bad enough some people have tried to adopt my earthcaches just to get that icon for their master program or cache page.) Now there is a proliferation of earthcaches thanks to this master program. Due to distance and terrain, I have yet to see any of their places, but they seem to be mostly well known sites, and created in many instances by people from outside my state. Has the earthcache ceased to be about a geological feature that someone wants to share, and become more about numbers earthcaching, getting that required number in order to advance in rank?

I thought the idea was to get people to a certain spot and teach them something about why that area is special. If there is a virtual/traditional/multi there already which is achieving the same out come what need is there for anyone else to come along and 'place' an earthcache? The only reason I can see is they want it on their profile that they have placed one. Earthcache provides the geology lesson. The virtual/traditional/multi that is already there often does not provide the geology lesson.

Whatever was being done, it looks like it was resolved. Thanks.

From my state page, when I click on the map link, I get a page that says this instead of the map: Hmmm I tried it again, to verify what I was typing to you, and got another message: Either way, I dont get the state map with caches listed on it. I use firefox.

Cachers who maintain abandoned caches can formally adopt the cache. We did that with one abandoned cache that we were quite fond of. Its not that difficult to do. There was another cache in the area that was abandoned and not adopted but was locally maintained for a couple of years before it needed to be archived for other reasons. If there is evidence that a cache is being maintained, there is no reason to archive it.

Then why single micros out? Many regular caches could easily get the same attribute. There are some regular caches that have no redeeming value except to just place one (for the numbers). Some might be in historic places, some in scenic places, some in rest stops or parking lots too. Why single micros for special treatment when they could just as easily be filtered out in a pocket query by eliminating micros from the search. I disagree that micros are not caches. A cache by definition contains a log book. Micros contain that. Once people start claiming that micros are not "real" caches, then its just a matter of time before micros go the way of virtuals and cease to be on this site.

Many good cache hiders wouldnt bother posting new caches any more. Throwing out the baby with the bath water here.

Not so. You assume all those who look for what you call "micro-spew" are interested in numbers. You assume they deliberately bypass hikes in favor of racking up numbers. Ive looked for spew, and enjoyed it, without wanting to get numbers. Ive bypassed hikes because of my handicap and not because I wanted to rack up numbers. The assumption in geocaching has always been that long hike caches wouldnt get the same traffic as urban caches. Just like multicaches get fewer visits than traditional caches. That was not an issue before "micro-spew" so why is it an issue now? If you hide it, someone will come. Cachers should place caches because they want to, not because they want large numbers of finders going to their caches. I would rather have people show up at my caches who appreciate them, rather than those who only cache for the numbers. They leave better log entries.

If only that were true. There are several caches in my area, missing for months, owners long gone from geocaching, with several SBA posts on them, and they are still listed. Granted they are disabled, but they are not archived.

One of the complaints about Waymarking is that the thrill of the surprise is gone, hence the WOW category. I would be disappointed if every cache had to be that spelled out.