Earthcaches

[South Surrey Scavengers]

A new Earthcache has just been approved and is located in the Vancouver (White Rock) area. Canada has the second most Earthcache listings (18) behind the US (61) currently. By province the stats are: Ontario - 7, BC - 6, Alberta - 3, Quebec - 1, New Brunswick - 1.

 

With the exceptional geology and geography of our country we should be able to list many more sites. If you have any ideas submit them to www.earthcache.org

[leafdolfan]

I like traditional and multi-caches, but i am not to keen on earthcaches.

[South Surrey Scavengers]

Since I'm a by the numbers guy and an Earthcache promoter, the list of countries with more than 1 Earthcache are as follows (as of June 27):

 

US - 100

UK - 23

Canada - 22

Germany - 14

Australia - 4

New Zealand - 3

Norway - 3

Czech Republic - 2

Spain - 2

 

The total is now at 182 and growing fast.

 

Earthcaches may not be for everyone but hopefully there are lots of people interested in them. They may be a virtual cache type which does not appeal to everyone but most of them will lead you to sites of great interest and often spectacular scenery in locations that you could not otherwise cache. Better yet, submit your own if you know of a suitable location. The link for submitting is in the first post. Oh, and since I'm a by the numbers guy, "Come on Canada help me retake the number 2 spot from the UK"

[+j2d2]

Earthcaches may not be for everyone but hopefully there are lots of people interested in them.  They may be a virtual cache type which does not appeal to everyone but most of them will lead you to sites of great interest and often spectacular scenery in locations that you could not otherwise cache.  Better yet, submit your own if you know of a suitable location.  The link for submitting is in the first post.  Oh, and since I'm a by the numbers guy, "Come on Canada help me retake the number 2 spot from the UK"

So, can someone explain the point of this Earthcache,

The Big Rock Earthcache

 

when there has been a virtual there since October 2001:

Where the beer got it's name!

 

Both have the exact same coordinates and the same logging requirement (i.e. none)

 

I'm not saying it shouldn't be there, I just don't understand the point of it.

[South Surrey Scavengers]

You're correct there is a lack of logging requirements for the Earthcache. You are also correct that there is a virtual at the same location. I will contact Geoaware about this. In my opinion the owner of the virtual should have been contacted and asked if they would like to convert their cache to an Earthcache and not put an Earthcache at the same location. Also the Earthcache should not have been listed without some form of logging requirement (normally it would be take a photo or email the answer to a question about the site).

[BC Tripper]

Personally I've never done an Earthcache, but I am really enthusiastic about the idea. I think that not only is it a great learning experience for individuals, but also offers the option for school classes to "get out and see it live".

 

After browsing through my BC: A Regional Analysis text from Geography last semester, I do have an idea for another one in BC, but I'll have to look up the details first.

 

Also, I can't wait to be FTF for the Barrier and Black Tusk. Hope to hike it in a few weeks from now w/ GPS and digital Camera in hand!

 

BC Tripper

[South Surrey Scavengers]

The Barrier Earthcache has now been officially done. But the Black Tusk Earthcache is still unfound. I was up there myself 4 years ago but I wasn't caching then and I didn't take any photos up close.

[+geoaware]

Some earthcaches are being placed close to other caches. Before they are approved we check to see if the earthcache adds to the educational reason to visit the site - if they do, then they are approved. Some earthcache developers check with the other cache owners too - which makes a great deal of sense.

 

Just read the notes of the two listed above ....its sort of evident why both can exist. You wether are drwn to the place cause you like beer, or cause you want to learn something about the planet. Either is valid!

 

Geoaware

[+Newfiezedder]

Just quick question on earth caches. My home town has a rock formation that I is extremely rare (prehaps the only one like it in NA). I thought of this as an earthcache but the informational signs are taken down during the winter. My question is, would it be acceptable if there was a note saying that it is only available from Month A to Month B, or could I just disable the listing when the information is unavailable?

Thanks

Greg

[South Surrey Scavengers]

I have seen traditional caches say they are only available during certain times of the year (due to snow or other reasons) or others that are available at certain times of day so I think you could do the same with an Earthcache. You could also disable the listing during the "off-season". You could also even have it available all year by putting the information on the cache page so that the signage isn't necessary. But I wouldn't recommend that way since cachers would go the site without the cache page in hand and not really understand what they're looking at.

[South Surrey Scavengers]

Determining the number of Earthcaches is more difficult than I first thought. Searching by keyword = Earthcache turns up most of them but it misses the ones that do not have Earthcache in the title which seems to be about 20-30. After running a number of searches by Country and by State I have compiled the following.

 

Updated stats:

 

USA-137

UK-27

Canada-23

Germany-19

Australia-4

New Zealand-3

Norway-3

Czech Republic-2

Spain-2

9 others with 1

 

225 total

[+dogbreathcanada]

But the Black Tusk Earthcache is still unfound. I was up there myself 4 years ago but I wasn't caching then and I didn't take any photos up close.

That seems wrong somehow. Seems to me, just like a regular cache, you should have visited the site fairly recently (last couple of months). I also think all Earthcaches should have photos in the description, if only to educate those who might not be able to visit.

 

I mean, what's stopping me from just breaking out the old photo album and creating Eartcaches for sites I visited 10 years ago? Using only Mapsource to create the coordinates? I was up at Blask Tusk about 8 years ago, and have photos from the top, thus I could have, I suppose, created an Earth cache from those. I'm not going to do that, of course, because I think it's inherently wrong (and you already have done it).

 

The way we set up an Earthcache should really be no different than a regular cache. Otherwise, what's to stop people from simply pulling photos off the net and grabbing coords from a mapping app?

 

I don't create the rules, just have an opinion on them.

[South Surrey Scavengers]

I agree that photos should be required on the cache page of Earthcaches and I have been lobbying for them. I have looked at a number of Earthcache cache pages and wondered if it was suitable as an Earthcache. A picture would tell me a lot about the site (I'm a geologist). Not only would the picture be useful for educating people that cannot visit the site it would also serve to show the uniqueness of the site which gets lost in the description when judging its merits as an Earthcache.

 

I would also agree that the submitter should have made a recent visit to the site to determine its suitability, access routes, coordinates, take pics, etc. But that's not currently a requirement. It is required though that the site is suitable, has access, and has the correct coordinates and if you can determine all of these things without visiting the site and it meets the criteria of being an Earthcache then you can get it listed.

 

So there isn't really anything stopping you from pulling photos off the net and grabbing coordinates from a mapping application. As long as you can show that the information is accurate and complies with the Earthcache requirements of it being educational and related to the Earth Sciences you too could have an Earthcache.

 

One of the reasons that I'm lobbying for photos (and I assume the submitter has gone to the site to get the pics) is that it ensures the submitter has visited the site, determined the suitability of people travelling to the site, checked out the access routes, gotten the coordinates of the site with their gps, and the photo itself should be an important bit of information when judging if a site should be an Earthcache.

[+geoaware]

Hi ya

 

While earthcaches have their own guidelines, these are just in addition to the standard guidelines for setting up any cache.

 

While we don't insist that people have been to the site recently, we have rejected some earthcaches because developers have just 'guessed' coordinates. We tend to reject rather than approve of something does not look 'right' to us! We then ask for clarification from the developer.....just to be sure.

 

With that said, we are still getting a fabulous array of great earthcaches being developed!

 

Cheers

 

Gary