Is An Event Cache Really A Geocache?

[+Bob Blaylock]

  I was just thinking (yes, I know how dangerous that can be).

 

  It seems that one of the points of the new Waymarking "game" is to purify Geocaching, to reserve the term "Geocache" to refer to an actual, physical container, hidden somewhere and containing a logbook to sign; by giving us another place to put "virtual caches", "locationless caches", Earthcaches, benchmarks, and other things previously treated as Geocaches that really aren't.

 

  It occurs to me that an Event Cache doesn't really seem to meet the strict definition of a Geocache, inasmuch as it is not a hidden container with a logbook therein.

 

  Will event caches eventually be moved to Waymarking?  I can see various arguments that could be made in favour of doing so, as well as for keeping them under Geocaching.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

 

Oh... you had to open it.... didn't you!

[+The Leprechauns]

There are many geocachers who have no interest in Waymarking. They ought to be able to get together at an event cache to talk about geocaching. Maybe someday there will be giant Waymarking conventions that will make Star Trek conventions look like a small town's high school reunion.

 

I've been to plenty of events that had logbooks to sign... probably the majority of them... and most also had cache containers, either for temporary event caches or for holding dropped-off travel bugs.

 

I'm good with any logical inconsistency that might be present.

[+BlueDeuce]

Well, when I consider the paradox of not being able to hold an event to geocache and being able to rack up stats to find peusdo geocaches, what's the problem with waymark events?

 

Edit: spelling

Edited October 6, 2005 by BlueDeuce

[+geognerd]

Moving event caches to Waymarking really doesn't make sense. An event cache is for people to discuss geocaching. TBs are dependent on geocaching, and events have gobs of TBs and geocoins. At the moment, you can't log a TB visit at a waymark (interesting idea for a future feature). Event caches have more in common with geocaching than Waymarking. Perhaps Waymarking could show you cool places to visit near the event cache. A move of event caches to Waymarking wouldn't bother me, but it just doesn't seem to make sense. I don't think there's much to discuss.

[CoyoteRed]

I've been to plenty of events that had logbooks to sign... probably the majority of them... and most also had cache containers, either for temporary event caches or for holding dropped-off travel bugs.

Bingo.

 

They should stay here.

[+Isonzo Karst]

There's nothing pseudo about an event cache - there's an actual physical location, and you actually have to visit it to log a find. There's also no requirement that a cache be hidden. The 1 difficulty category refers to caches that are "in plain sight or fairly obvious". I've found a couple of 5 gallon bucket caches just sitting in the open (okay, a healthy hike into preserves, but not hidden in any way). Events are real caches with a limited life. I've never been to one without a log to sign, in some cases a tough find. Lots of bugs and coins travel through as well.

[+ODragon]

There's nothing pseudo about an event cache - there's an actual physical location, and you actually have to visit it to log a find.

 

Playing the devil here, the same is true about webcam caches... Many virtuals/earthcaches also have to be visited... The problem is that there is no log book. (Personally, that doesn't bother me but it does others).

 

I've never been to one without a log to sign, in some cases a tough find. Lots of bugs and coins travel through as well.

 

Well, on the other side of the spectrum, I've been to 13 events and there were only logs at <50% of them.

[+The Leprechauns]

Well, on the other side of the spectrum, I've been to 13 events and there were only logs at <50% of them.

Wow, a lot of codeword events in your area, I guess.

[+ODragon]

Well, on the other side of the spectrum, I've been to 13 events and there were only logs at <50% of them.

Wow, a lot of codeword events in your area, I guess.

No, codewords are not acceptable (or so I'm told... unless it's a virtual/earthcache where those sometimes contain requirements where the answers are essentially codewords)...

 

Just cachers getting together. A log book or not doesn't bother me at an event... now if there was a way to not let people log a CITO who don't actually CITO anything...

[+Nazgul]

They should stay here.

Agreed!

 

After all, it is a *geocaching* event, not a Waymarking event.

[+Renegade Knight]

Events are not caches in the traditional sence. They are not permanent, they often don't have a lot and a log certainly isn't required for listing, plust you are not finding a container.

 

As I understand Waymarks they should be permanent as well. An event is pointless on the Waymark site. You can't find it 2 weeks after the fact.

 

So, you are partly right, but even so you can't move them over either.

 

On the other hand I don't think Waymarking is about purifying the game at all.

Edited October 8, 2005 by Renegade Knight

[+chstress53]

I need to think about this for awhile and see how the waymarks site procedes. But I am also doing some thinking. This Event Cache is still avaiable to log, Has no log book, Cachers never even get together, there is not even a place that this happens at. The event occurs everywhere and anywhere and only involves one cacher and a Govt person or person. I logged this one myself when I was a fairly new cacher. Others are logging an awful lot. Here is the event cache.GC36F3 Meet with your Government Agents

[+chstress53]

All that was needed to log this cache was to send a photo of someone doing cache maintience at this CITO you did not actually have to CITO to be a finder. GCN7CM

This was there way to control if you CITOed or not.

"If you are not local, or can't attend the event, then post photographic evidence on this cache page, between May 1 and May 8, that you have performed CITO and cache maintenance at your cache sites (or at least some of them, if you own many caches). It's spring - time to get your caches in order!"

[Jeremy]

Will event caches eventually be moved to Waymarking? I can see various arguments that could be made in favour of doing so, as well as for keeping them under Geocaching.

Yes. However, so will geocaches (since they too are waymarks). But they will occupy both the geocaching site and the Waymarking site, sharing the same data (and database).

[CoyoteRed]

Will event caches eventually be moved to Waymarking?  I can see various arguments that could be made in favour of doing so, as well as for keeping them under Geocaching.

Yes. However, so will geocaches (since they too are waymarks). But they will occupy both the geocaching site and the Waymarking site, sharing the same data (and database).

This statement is actually rather disturbing.

 

If everything that is listed on gc.com is going to be listed on wm.com (but not the other way around), and considering folks propensity to use only one site, wouldn't most folks start to move away from gc.com? (This is very much like the navicache paradox.) Would that make gc.com less useful and then become the "red-headed stepchild" of Groundspeak?

 

Additionally, wouldn't geocaches become confused with waymarks? After all, Waymarking was born to handle non-physical caches, wouldn't moving physical caches over cause confusion? I predict within a couple of years people will be calling all of our caches "waymarks."

 

This doesn't bode well for the future of geocaching. Let's keep placed physical caches on one site and virts on another.

[+budd-rdc]

Will event caches eventually be moved to Waymarking?  I can see various arguments that could be made in favour of doing so, as well as for keeping them under Geocaching.

Yes. However, so will geocaches (since they too are waymarks). But they will occupy both the geocaching site and the Waymarking site, sharing the same data (and database).

It's not so much disturbing, but a bit confusing, since there have been noises about GC and WM being separate. But I've seen you say this on another thread in a different way, so your other remark wasn't as sarcastic as I thought.

 

All Event Caches I've attended so far had log books to sign. One can argue that the house, restaurant, or picnic area that hosted the event is a container, since it does keep people, Geocoins, Travel Bugs, gossips, and other trade items in a confined area. (and when the event is no longer there, it gets archived )

 

Seriously, it won't bother me either way where or how it's listed, although having them listed under Geocaching makes sense to me. There's a trend of "Un-Events" in our area recently, where people are informed about a gathering, but it's not officially listed on GC.com - very popular, since most people just want to socialize and don't need the credit to enjoy it.

[Jeremy]

It's not so much disturbing, but a bit confusing, since there have been noises about GC and WM being separate.

No. The noises are about whether geocaches and virtuals are separate things, not whether geocaching and Waymarking is the same thing. A geocache is a waymark but a waymark isn't always a geocache. But this isn't part of this topic which I have answered already.

 

A geocache event is not a physical container in the woods so it is not technically a geocache. But for the sake of community building the event "cache" category will continue to exist on geocaching.com.

[+BlueDeuce]

There's nothing pseudo about an event cache - there's an actual physical location, and you actually have to visit it to log a find. There's also no requirement that a cache be hidden. The 1 difficulty category refers to caches that are "in plain sight or fairly obvious". I've found a couple of 5 gallon bucket caches just sitting in the open (okay, a healthy hike into preserves, but not hidden in any way). Events are real caches with a limited life. I've never been to one without a log to sign, in some cases a tough find. Lots of bugs and coins travel through as well.

I didn't say that an event cache was pseudo, (check it again).

 

Tie geocaching events with geocaching and you'll better understand my point.

[Skovar]

No, but there is at least one geocache that never leaves the hands of its owner and appears almost exclusively at cache events. It's listed as a mystery cache, but I suppose it really should be considered an elite traveling cache. I wonder if anybody has lobbied TPTB for a special icon for it? Someone really should.

Edited October 9, 2005 by Skovar