Jump to content

ClayJar

+Charter Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    962

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by ClayJar

    ClayJar?

    in General geocaching topics

    Posted

    Someone told me I should drop by because there was this thread over here, so I have. icon_biggrin.gif

     

    I've been coding away almost non-stop all week, and I'm getting near the end. (Right now I'm on a security audit, then it's the last few features and bugs, and then it'll be up for testing.)

     

    The good news: MinuteWar will have a completely automated, really cool site (nowhere near GC.com, of course), and I'll have really enjoyed coding it up. The bad news: I'm not quite done yet. icon_wink.gif

    ClayJar?

    in General geocaching topics

    Posted

    Someone told me I should drop by because there was this thread over here, so I have. icon_biggrin.gif

     

    I've been coding away almost non-stop all week, and I'm getting near the end. (Right now I'm on a security audit, then it's the last few features and bugs, and then it'll be up for testing.)

     

    The good news: MinuteWar will have a completely automated, really cool site (nowhere near GC.com, of course), and I'll have really enjoyed coding it up. The bad news: I'm not quite done yet. icon_wink.gif

    Locationless geocaches.

    in General geocaching topics

    Posted

    quote:
    Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

    I wonder whether you never noticed http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=1980966883&m=9450936793&r=2120966504#2120966504 thread, or if you just felt we hadn't adequately discussed the "concept" of locationless caches there, as opposed to simply sharing links? I would have thought that thread would have been a good place to pose the question you brought up here.

    Actually, I saw that. A conceptual discussion of locationless caches would have been off-topic for that thread. In addition, it is in "The Unusual", which is not the place for general discussion of concepts (unless they are concepts regarding UFO-proofing GPS receivers, but we've already had that discussion. icon_biggrin.gif)

    quote:
    Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

    Anyway, almost ALL caches exclude many cachers, at least in the practical sense, merely by proximity. Chances are that most of us will never have a reasonable opportunity to log a cache posted in Iceland. Does that mean caches should be 'disallowed' there? Of course not!

    That is going beyond the exclusivity issue discussed here. The issue is not that some caches are extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a cacher to get to. I've placed some rather handy ones myself, and I've read about some real doozies.

     

    The problem is not that exclusive caches like "Namesake" are hard or impossible to log; rather, the problem is that cachers are arbitrarily denied even the opportunity to try. If I make a cache that requires an ultralight aircraft, scuba gear, a small boat, and a few weeks of work on a really hairy cipher, that's perfectly fair. Anyone who is enough of a raving lunatic cacher (like I aspire to one day become) can go through the effort of finding it. On the other hand, if I put a cache out on my front porch and say "only cachers with a nickname that starts with a letter not yet logged can log this, and all others are simply out of luck", that's not fair.

     

    It's not the difficulty (or terrain) that makes a cache unfair; it's the disen-cache-izing of cachers for no valid reason. (Any and all cachers are welcome to fail in the hunt for my 5/5 when it comes out. icon_biggrin.gif)

    quote:
    Originally posted by bspeng:

    Caches such as Don't know history, Georgia Historic markers, Sisters and Not so Famous Town have a finite number of choices, but, there's plenty to go around. The requirement to select unfound caches is part of the quest. These are okay.

    For these caches, I'd feel better if these caches would *request* finders log unlogged points, rather than *require* it. They can even say something like, "If you log a previously logged point, it's not really a find, is it?" but to delete duplicates would be venturing pretty close to the slippery slope.

     

    That said, I'd trust the approvers on this one if a solid line cannot be drawn. I'd prefer a solid line so that everyone is on the same page, but I understand that we are human and that, in this, there are shades of grey. I'd have nothing against a cache hider giving special rewards to the first loggers, just as I have no problem with hiders leaving a special "first-finder trinket" in a cache. It's their perogative, but when it comes to deciding what's okay and what isn't, having a rule regarding exclusivity would seem like a good idea (or at least the best compromise between creativity in hiding and availability for finding).

     

    Here's a little idea for us regarding "exclusive-find" locationless caches: Take something, leave something. With exclusive-find locationless caches, once someone has "taken something" (the found log for a given point), there is nothing left. The "hider" has then madated that nothing be left, which is against the spirit of geocaching.

    Locationless geocaches.

    in General geocaching topics

    Posted

    quote:
    Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

    I wonder whether you never noticed http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=1980966883&m=9450936793&r=2120966504#2120966504 thread, or if you just felt we hadn't adequately discussed the "concept" of locationless caches there, as opposed to simply sharing links? I would have thought that thread would have been a good place to pose the question you brought up here.

    Actually, I saw that. A conceptual discussion of locationless caches would have been off-topic for that thread. In addition, it is in "The Unusual", which is not the place for general discussion of concepts (unless they are concepts regarding UFO-proofing GPS receivers, but we've already had that discussion. icon_biggrin.gif)

    quote:
    Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

    Anyway, almost ALL caches exclude many cachers, at least in the practical sense, merely by proximity. Chances are that most of us will never have a reasonable opportunity to log a cache posted in Iceland. Does that mean caches should be 'disallowed' there? Of course not!

    That is going beyond the exclusivity issue discussed here. The issue is not that some caches are extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a cacher to get to. I've placed some rather handy ones myself, and I've read about some real doozies.

     

    The problem is not that exclusive caches like "Namesake" are hard or impossible to log; rather, the problem is that cachers are arbitrarily denied even the opportunity to try. If I make a cache that requires an ultralight aircraft, scuba gear, a small boat, and a few weeks of work on a really hairy cipher, that's perfectly fair. Anyone who is enough of a raving lunatic cacher (like I aspire to one day become) can go through the effort of finding it. On the other hand, if I put a cache out on my front porch and say "only cachers with a nickname that starts with a letter not yet logged can log this, and all others are simply out of luck", that's not fair.

     

    It's not the difficulty (or terrain) that makes a cache unfair; it's the disen-cache-izing of cachers for no valid reason. (Any and all cachers are welcome to fail in the hunt for my 5/5 when it comes out. icon_biggrin.gif)

    quote:
    Originally posted by bspeng:

    Caches such as Don't know history, Georgia Historic markers, Sisters and Not so Famous Town have a finite number of choices, but, there's plenty to go around. The requirement to select unfound caches is part of the quest. These are okay.

    For these caches, I'd feel better if these caches would *request* finders log unlogged points, rather than *require* it. They can even say something like, "If you log a previously logged point, it's not really a find, is it?" but to delete duplicates would be venturing pretty close to the slippery slope.

     

    That said, I'd trust the approvers on this one if a solid line cannot be drawn. I'd prefer a solid line so that everyone is on the same page, but I understand that we are human and that, in this, there are shades of grey. I'd have nothing against a cache hider giving special rewards to the first loggers, just as I have no problem with hiders leaving a special "first-finder trinket" in a cache. It's their perogative, but when it comes to deciding what's okay and what isn't, having a rule regarding exclusivity would seem like a good idea (or at least the best compromise between creativity in hiding and availability for finding).

     

    Here's a little idea for us regarding "exclusive-find" locationless caches: Take something, leave something. With exclusive-find locationless caches, once someone has "taken something" (the found log for a given point), there is nothing left. The "hider" has then madated that nothing be left, which is against the spirit of geocaching.

    Locationless geocaches.

    in General geocaching topics

    Posted

    quote:
    Originally posted by Markwell:

    Based on your definitions, I would want to stress that the Photographer's Caches (1-10) are then __not__ Locationless Caches, and definitely not an exclusive Locationless Cache.

    The Photographer's Caches would best be described as "muti-hider moving virtual caches". Just because the effective hider and coordinates can change doesn't make it locationless.

     

    For another example, look at Impress Me Cache. It's a moving physical cache. It is not a locationless cache. (Notice the definition intentionally avoids saying "original hider".)

    Locationless geocaches.

    in General geocaching topics

    Posted

    Okay, I did some searching and didn't come up with any good threads about "locationless caches". They've been commented on here and there, but no directed discussion specifically about the concept seems apparent. So here goes.

     

    What is a locationless cache?

    Before we can discuss the merits of locationless caches, we must first have a definition of just what a locationless cache is. A locationless cache is any cache where the hider does not know all the coordinates.

     

    Pros of locationless caches:

    There are several advantages to well-conceived locationless caches. Prime among these is the availability of the cache. Instead of being confined to one location, the cache is shared among all possible locations. The wide availability of a locationless cache means that cachers everywhere can interact via the logs, and community is the driving force of geocaching.

     

    Another advantage of locationless caches is that they add creativity to the list of skills required to log a find. Instead of being handed all the coordinates on a platter, the prospective hider must do at least a little work to find a place to log the cache on their own. This also adds to the community aspect, as the various cachers will log the cache in their various ways.

     

    Cons of locationless caches:

    Based on the merits alone, it would seem that locationless caches would be a good idea, but for every coin, there are two sides. One primary problem cachers may have with locationless caches is that, by their very nature, they are not like any other geocaches. There are, in essence, no coordinates to the caches, and in that way they differ from all other caches. On the other hand, locationless caches are simply a logical extension of virtual caches, and so, there is a known link back to "pure" geocaching (and we wouldn't want to limit ourselves to "pure" geocaching, as that would rule out all multis, all offsets, and all other creative and fun caches).

     

    A far greater problem with locationless caches is the exclusivity of finding some of them that has been mandated by the respective "hiders". If a "hider" of a locationless cache disallows anyone from logging a find on a given location because it has already been logged, they have, in no uncertain terms, moved against the very thing that makes the geocaching community run. Only allowing one log per location is the "hider"-madated equivalent of plundering the cache on every visit. While there have been one-time-use caches (merits notwithstanding), there is nothing that says that a finder cannot trade and leave even those, and such has happened in my state with one such cache.

     

    Parting thoughts on locationless caches:

    Any (legal and allowed) cache that adds to the community is a good thing. Locationless caches such as A Cache of Palindromes (mode 2) and Hometown (Where Yall From)

    add to the game and do not prohibit multiple logs on the same location. They are "open-find" locationless caches.

     

    Conversely, caches such as My Town's Namesake and NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB Sports Nut Cache. (archived) which prohibit more than one cacher from logging a given find are exclusive and therefore bad caches. They are "exclusive-find" locationless caches.

     

    The fundamental basis of geocaching is the community, and by saying, as "My Town's Namesake" does, that you can only log this if nobody else has (and if you want to log a really neat spot in a city you're not from, tough cookies), that community is harmed by the exclusivity.

     

    Conclusions:

    On the basis of the points above, I propose that exclusive-find locationless caches are not caches at all, but merely a way of compiling waypoint lists. These caches should either be modified to be open-find locationless caches or be archived. It is perfectly fair to ask cachers to try to log unlogged locations, but to mandate it is to step over the line.

     

    Open-find locationless caches, on the other hand, are merely a logical extension of virtual caches. It would be beneficial to have a special type icon for locationless caches, for the benefit of cachers who would like or not like to search for them, but there is nothing about them which should prohibit them from being listed -- we're far beyond "pure" geocaching.

     

    Poll question:

    Should geocaching.com allow locationless caches?

    Louisiana hydrocaches...

    in South and Southeast

    Posted

    quote:
    Originally posted by pizzachef:

    So it seems like it's not accesible by a powerboat?

    You can probably get to it that way if you put in at the state park ramp. I heard boats and actually saw one through the trees as I approached the cache (it was on the north side of the island).

    Louisiana hydrocaches...

    in South and Southeast

    Posted

    quote:
    Originally posted by pizzachef:

    So it seems like it's not accesible by a powerboat?

    You can probably get to it that way if you put in at the state park ramp. I heard boats and actually saw one through the trees as I approached the cache (it was on the north side of the island).

    Thankyou Jeremy

    in General geocaching topics

    Posted

    After all, without you, how would I get people to come chat with me? icon_wink.gif

     

    (Why is it that all I can think of is Vash the Stampede saying, "Love and peace... love and peace..." icon_biggrin.gif)

     

    [This message was edited by ClayJar on March 08, 2002 at 04:30 AM.]

    Thankyou Jeremy

    in General geocaching topics

    Posted

    After all, without you, how would I get people to come chat with me? icon_wink.gif

     

    (Why is it that all I can think of is Vash the Stampede saying, "Love and peace... love and peace..." icon_biggrin.gif)

     

    [This message was edited by ClayJar on March 08, 2002 at 04:30 AM.]

×
×
  • Create New...