Locationless Caches (why End?)

[+glowstick]

kyky370@charter.net Why did the locationless caches have to end? they seem to be " ok "

Edited June 19, 2005 by glowstick

[+El Diablo]

Basically because it isn't a cache. Besides that they were getting out of hand. Do a search of the forums and I think you will understand.

 

El Diablo

[+Morgue]

I really enjoy locationless caches.... sure beats the heck out trying to find a microscopic container in a rock pile with thousands of bugs biting me... but that's just my opinion. I really hate to see the few remaining locationless caches archived too...

 

I found two locationless today that I had been searching for a long time... a historic hitching post and a life size presidential statue, only to find that they had been archived earlier this year. It's very discouraging to say the least.

 

I can see how some will log two sticks tied together as a find for a unique item or some other silly thing would drive an owner to archive a locationless cache, but for those of us who truly attempt to find a match for the quest, it is dissappointing.

 

Well, that's my two cents worth.... got to go buy some more bug repellent!

[+Renegade Knight]

I really don't know why the moratorium was put into effect. I suspect because they are backwards from a standard cache and the database wasn't designed to have caches that don't have a coordinate but do have an area, and where the coordinate is listed after it's found. That presents a problem to be solved and I do know that it was said that they would be back when the site was redesigned to better accomodate them.

 

That's my two cents.

[+CT A-Team]

Yes, I agree that locationless caches were a great addition to geocaching and their loss is our loss. I also believe it is a data base problem as their could be no other explanation. Glowstick had asked me the same question and while searching for caches by Anton (whose caches I enjoyed) I noticed that most of them have been archived.

Does anyone know of some good ones that are left so we could both enjoy them?

Walt

Edited June 20, 2005 by Connecticut A-Team

[+Eric K]

Hey, I get to do a Markwell!

 

Jeremy has mentioned they are working on a solution to locationless and virtual caches they hope to launch sometime soon.

 

Here is a mention of it in this thread.

 

Jeremy on Locationless cache solution

[+Sagefox]

Why did the locationless caches have to end?  they seem to be " ok "

Locationless caching is fun, especially if you live in a cache poor area like we do.

For your purposes there are approximately 250 active locationless caches to tackle. That should keep you busy for awhile.

 

Locationless cache list.

Edited June 20, 2005 by Team Sagefox

[+glowstick]

I have read other posts in the forums and if we restrict the number of locationless caches made it wouldent be mutch of an issue.

[+Thot]

Here is a caching group who invite new locationless caches. You can hunt ‘um and start new ones. Maybe the answer is just to separate locationless caches to a group who specializes in them.

 

I don’t know why I never see this outfit mentioned in these discussions bemoaning the moratorium on locationless caches. Are people trying not to ruffle Groundspeak's feelings?

Edited June 22, 2005 by Thot

[Jeremy]

Maybe the answer is just to separate locationless caches to a group who specializes in them.

Or maybe they're done wrong right now, so no one (except for a vocal few) really like them.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Having logged my 59th Locationless cache today (Smoke Report), perhaps I have an understanding of the problems involved.

"Maybe they're done wrong now" seems a bit simplistic.

There is definitely a 'maintenance' problem. That would seem to fall on three sets of shoulders. TPTB, the owner of the cache, and the cachers who log incorrectly. The onus falls majorly on the owner of the cache, to be sure. Several of the owners seem to have gone on to greener pastures. Perhaps they did not realize the traffic that the future would bring. Some are very well maintained. Some are poor concepts. An American Flag?

Cachers should know better than to log caches that are completely worng. (and I've seen a number of them.) But there are newbies, and others who will do anything for a smiley.

But, TPTB also have a responsibility to police what is going on. Yes, I realize that this is a volunteer organization. Perhaps I am one of the vocal minority. Locationless and virtual caches are part of this game. (As are benchmarks, which I like, as well.) Many do not like them. Many do. But, throwing the baby out with the bath water hardly seems the proper attitude.

I see many dropping off for lack of maintenance. As it should be with any cache. (Want a list of local caches that should be archived?) I guess that surveillance is the answer. Someone should keep their eyes on Locationless and Virtual caches to make sure that they are being properly maintained. As, theoretically, the local approvers do with caches in their area.

Hopefully the ones in existence that are being maintained will be grandfathered.

'Nuff said

[+glowstick]

if we turn down the more redicilous ones there would be less traffic...

[+Ladycacher]

I also like the Locationless. I am always looking around wondering if that could be a locationless cache. I don't get to log them often though because I am always short my camara or GPS.

[+Thot]

There is definitely a 'maintenance' problem.  That would seem to fall on three sets of shoulders. 

Speaking of maintenance. Is everyone familiar with my locationless analyzer program. It's free at http://factsfacts.com/geocachingsoft/locationless.htm

[+jeff35080]

There is definitely a 'maintenance' problem

 

Every couple of days I look at the locationless that I own and end-up deleting several logs. This, of course, makes some people mad and I get all kinds of lame excuses but I don't really care. If you don't log it like I ask you to, I will delete your find. I try to maintain my locationless as well as I do my traditionals, unfortunately not all locationless owners do maintain them.