Gc.com Guidelines Update

[Lactodorum]

The Geocaching.com guidelines have been updated to reflect recent changes in the site so it might be a good time to check them out.

 

Also, for better or worse, with the introduction of Waymarking anyone submitting a cache will notice some changes in the types of caches that are now possible. Only "physical" caches and events are allowed, all others have gone !! So that means no more Virtuals, Locationless and Webcams

 

Regarding existing caches of these types the guidelines make clear that "all locationless caches will be archived and locked at the end of this year; and that existing virtuals and webcams will remain on the site as "grandfathered."

[Nediam]

"all locationless caches will be archived and locked at the end of this year;....."

Do you know if that will effect peoples stats?

[+rutson]

Good job I got a webcam approved yesterday then!

 

No more earthcaches either....

Edited November 3, 2005 by rutson

[Deego]

"all locationless caches will be archived and locked at the end of this year;....."

Do you know if that will effect peoples stats?

No archived finds still count.

 

More Rules Guidleines

[+rutson]

No archived finds still count.

 

Do you mean:

 

No, archived finds still count.

 

or

 

No archived finds still count.

 

Ask Lynn Truss for clarification

[Deego]

No, Your stats will stay the same, as archived finds still get counted.

 

Thank you Ian

[+lordelph]

There's something about rutson's final webcam which is eerily significant about the death of webcam caches. Should we notify the police?

[+rutson]

No, Your stats will stay the same, as archived finds still get counted.

 

Thank you Ian

The please was ALL mine

 

(I'll resist a dig at the capital 'Y')

[+lordelph]

The please was ALL mine

 

Shurely shome mishtake? "pleasure" perhaps?

[+rutson]

Thanks to Gadgeteer for actually READING the new guidlines and pointing out:

 

Virtual, Reverse Virtual (Locationless) Caches and Earthcaches

 

These are special categories of caches that ask the seeker to find a pre-existing item to log. We are no longer accepting new Virtual Caches, Webcam Caches, Reverse Virtual Caches, or Earth Caches. Caches which existed before August of 2005 have been allowed to remain as grandfathered caches.

 

So what about these caches listed from August to now?

[+Haggis Hunter]

Quote from guidelines:

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been posted and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be “grandfathered” and allowed to stand as is.

 

Other than at the top of the guidelines page, which tells you the last time the page was updated, there are no dates to tell you when a certain guideline came into force. Therefore if a certain cache violates a guideline how is someone supposed to know if it was grandfathered or wrongly approved?

 

Someone who I believe to be a hypocrite uses long standing caches to make a point about the guidelines, despite that person owning two holiday caches, one of which was muggled possibly by children almost immediately, luckily it wasn't the other holiday cache that was placed a few days earlier, that one had a soft drink, but worse than that a packet of cigarettes in it. What an irresponsible thing for someone who dictates responsibility to have put into a cache.

 

But it may have been alright to have placed these irresponsible caches and contents, but I don't know? As there is no date to say when certain guidelines came into force!

[Lactodorum]

Thanks to Gadgeteer for actually READING the new guidlines and pointing out:

 

Virtual, Reverse Virtual (Locationless) Caches and Earthcaches

 

These are special categories of caches that ask the seeker to find a pre-existing item to log. We are no longer accepting new Virtual Caches, Webcam Caches, Reverse Virtual Caches, or Earth Caches. Caches which existed before August of 2005 have been allowed to remain as grandfathered caches.

 

So what about these caches listed from August to now?

The new guidelines were drafted in August but come into effect now. They will shortly be amended to read "November of 2005" so anything before November will be Grandfathered except, as I understand it, Locationless caches which will be Archived at the end of the year. They will all still count in people's stats. Not that any of us are numbers people of course !!

[+The Hokesters]

EDIT - to remove emotional post.

Edited November 3, 2005 by The Hokesters

[+wildlifewriter]

Someone who I believe to be a hypocrite uses long standing caches to make a point about the guidelines, despite that person owning two holiday caches,

I didn't know he was a holiday cacher! <hawk, spit>

 

No surprise, though - to quote Dryden: "All, all of a piece throughout."

 

-Wlw.

[Alan White]

Some strange changes in there. For example:

 

Mystery or Puzzle Caches

The information needed to solve the puzzle must be available to the general caching community and should be solvable from the information provided on the cache listing. For example, a puzzle that requires research on public websites in order to determine the coordinates may be acceptable, while a puzzle that requires sending an e-mail to the cache owner with the solution in order to obtain the coordinates may not be.

 

Well, that stifles innovation. I can think of a few challenging and unusual caches that now wouldn't get approved.

 

Cache Saturation

This guideline applies to all stages of multicaches and mystery/puzzle caches, except for any “bogus” posted coordinates for a puzzle cache.

 

And that prevents two caches starting with clues from the same noticeboard and then going in different directions with the caches actually being miles apart. This is a strange guideline, given that one of its stated intentions is "to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another".

 

I just feel sorry for Peter and Dave...

[+Happy Humphrey]

Cache Saturation

This guideline applies to all stages of multicaches and mystery/puzzle caches, except for any “bogus” posted coordinates for a puzzle cache.

 

And that prevents two caches starting with clues from the same noticeboard and then going in different directions with the caches actually being miles apart.

 

Alan,

I think (perhaps Lactodorum could confirm) that this only applies to true multicaches. The guideline doesn't mention offset caches: this is the category into which your example falls. Otherwise, as you suggest, it doesn't make much sense.

 

I can see why the guideline on caches which require response from a second party has been brought in, though. You may be simply wasting your time solving the puzzle when the cache owner has given up the sport and will never reply.

 

HH.

[+kewfriend]

[ OPEN RANT MODE ]

 

I understand the thinking behind the changes. I'm not sure that TPTB have understood the reasoning behind some of us geocaching.

 

Purists wish to identify the finding and logging of a physical location as the core activity. In this variant of the 'sport' the prize is in the box.

 

Others ( and I hope I am not alone ), identify the finding of an interesting location as the core activity. In this variant of the 'sport' the prize is the location, not whats in the box - though thats always welcome as well.

 

Leaving only boxes to find wont make the locations of the box either better or worse. It will merely reduce the range of locations able to be found.

 

Of course having lots of locationless, earthcaches, webcams and virtuals doesnt make the caches potentially any more interesting - there's a lot of drivel out there - but it does allow locations to be brought into the 'geonet' which might otherwise never be accessible to a 'box'.

 

[ CLOSE RANT MODE ]

[+Chris n Maria]

Others ( and I hope I am not alone ), identify the finding of an interesting location as the core activity. In this variant of the 'sport' the prize is the location, not whats in the box - though thats always welcome as well.

Nope - not alone. you can count us in that group too

[+wildlifewriter]

[ OPEN RANT MODE ]

 

(snip)

Others ( and I hope I am not alone ), identify the finding of an interesting location as the core activity. In this variant of the 'sport' the prize is the location, not whats in the box - though thats always welcome as well. (snip)

[ CLOSE RANT MODE ]

Of course.

 

You probably aren't aware of this, but TPTB have gone to the trouble of setting up a website specifically to cater for your interest.

 

It's called Waymarking.com, and can be found HERE.

 

-Wlw.

[+Learned Gerbil]

A box in an uninteresting place is a box in an uninteresting place. If getting to the box did not involve interesting locations or physical or intellectual challenges, what is the point?

 

The new guidlines seem to stop the better sort of virtual, whilst continuing to allow the worst sort of physical caches.

 

I would rather do one GC2613 than 100 GCKZJC!

Edited November 3, 2005 by Learned Gerbil

[+Renegade Knight]

...existing virtuals and webcams will remain on the site as "grandfathered."

I can live with that since I have one of each.

[+welch]

Other than at the top of the guidelines page, which tells you the last time the page was updated, there are no dates to tell you when a certain guideline came into force. Therefore if a certain cache violates a guideline how is someone supposed to know if it was grandfathered or wrongly approved?

Couldn't you just report the cache to contact AT geocaching.com and let someone there figure out when whatever broken rule came into effect?

[nobby.nobbs]

well atleast the existing virtuals get to stay. could have been worse.

 

no point getting all worked up about it. the decision is made and nothing we do say or think will change it. maybe Waymarking will become better than it looks now.

have to say that i've not been to look after the first few looks a few weeks back.

 

i do have to say it's the location for me. a good cache container and goodies are a bonus.

[Lactodorum]

Some strange changes in there. For example:

 

Mystery or Puzzle Caches

The information needed to solve the puzzle must be available to the general caching community and should be solvable from the information provided on the cache listing. For example, a puzzle that requires research on public websites in order to determine the coordinates may be acceptable, while a puzzle that requires sending an e-mail to the cache owner with the solution in order to obtain the coordinates may not be.

 

Well, that stifles innovation. I can think of a few challenging and unusual caches that now wouldn't get approved.

 

Cache Saturation

This guideline applies to all stages of multicaches and mystery/puzzle caches, except for any “bogus” posted coordinates for a puzzle cache.

 

And that prevents two caches starting with clues from the same noticeboard and then going in different directions with the caches actually being miles apart. This is a strange guideline, given that one of its stated intentions is "to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another".

 

I just feel sorry for Peter and Dave...

I hope, Alan, your fears are generally unfounded. Eckington and I have always tried to interpret the SPIRIT of the guidelines and wherever possible we have tried to work with setters of "innovative" caches to get them listed. We most certainly will continue to do so.

 

As far as multi caches starting at the same place and diverging is concerned, have no fear, we will continue to allow these wherever possible. There may be occasions where this is not possible but in general we'll try and accommodate them.

 

I hope this helps.

 

On a personal note, I am a firm believer in the Location element in the Box/Location argument. I'd much rather be taken to an interesting place only to find a half empty box full of McTat than a dump containing a well stocked Ammo box My least favourite caches were film cans hidden in shopping mall car park lamp posts of which there seemed to be loads on past trips to the US. Fortunately the design of lamp posts over here prevents this sort of thing

[chuffer]

Geocaching for us has always been about the location. Whether the cache is virtual, puzzle, micro, or whatever, it has never been the reason for visiting or not visiting a cache.

 

Removal of these types of caches will simply means there will be less caches to visit and some locations that will never be listable.

 

Very sad. What a pity there is no alternative UK specific site for geocaching... but, of course, that could change.

[Team 'James W']

GCKZJC

Eugh, yuk!

[Alan White]

I would rather do one GC2613 than 100 GCKZJC!

I agree, though I'd argue that they're each interesting in their own way. What let down GCKZJC is that the owner hadn't thought things out properly. It was posted as a multi but the coords were actually that of the cache. Except for the interest factor there was no need to visit the waypoints at all. And the building work put paid to the cache anyway. See our log for the rest of our views. But the interesting architecture of the Brunswick Centre is worth a look. I learned from it, just as I learned from GC2613.

 

Yes, caching is about locations not boxes of toys. The younger team members don't always agree, though.

[Alan White]

I hope, Alan, your fears are generally unfounded.

I'm sure you're right, though that will be as a result of yours and Dave's common sense, rather than because of the increasingly unnecessary rules.

 

I'd much rather be taken to an interesting place only to find a half empty box full of McTat than a dump containing a well stocked Ammo box

Absolutely, though the younger team members don't always agree.

 

After all, if GPS isn't about location, what is it about?

[+Haggis Hunter]

Other than at the top of the guidelines page, which tells you the last time the page was updated, there are no dates to tell you when a certain guideline came into force. Therefore if a certain cache violates a guideline how is someone supposed to know if it was grandfathered or wrongly approved?

Couldn't you just report the cache to contact AT geocaching.com and let someone there figure out when whatever broken rule came into effect?

I could but I am not going to, I got seriously slagged off about a comment I made about not being the cache police, this was on a forum that Jeremy was in, in fact it was Jeremy that was the main culprit.

 

The owner of the cache is British and lives here, but the cache is in a foreign country, and it isn't in Europe either.

 

That person is an unbelievable hypocrite though, as he does so many things wrong, but conveniently forgets about them when tryineg to demeanor others.

[+Pieman]

I guess GCKZJC will be the most looked at cache of today. Although clearly unpleasant I think irony is the effect the setter was striving for- nice as a political statement but no so much fun to do.

 

We have to accept that there is no practical way of stopping lame physical caches whatever rules are introduced. It is quite easy to spot them, though, by reading the logs or checking on geocacheuk and as there are very few really poor ones why fret?

[Lactodorum]

Couldn't you just report the cache to contact AT geocaching.com and let someone there figure out when whatever broken rule came into effect?

I could but I am not going to, I got seriously slagged off about a comment I made about not being the cache police, .......

If you feel reticent about reporting concerns about particular caches to Groundspeak you could drop myself and/or Eckington an e-mail. We get these from time to time and always check them out. Sometimes we act, sometimes we don't, however we will always respect your anonymity.

[Lactodorum]

The reason for starting this topic was to draw attention to the revised guidelines. Althoug I expected a discussion to develop (and it has ) I think that we're drifting away from the original topic. Thanks for your comments about the guidelines. I'll now close the topic so you can get back to the serious business of hunting boxes .