Earth Caches

[+TnT]

Just wondering why earth caches were shut down. I like going to visit earth caches ,and feel there are a few I could plant.

[+The Leprechauns]

Shut down? There are now 83 earthcaches in that category at Waymarking.com. Since earthcaches are the third most popular category out of 227, apparently a lot of people agree with your opinion of them.

 

So, happy earthcaching!

[+Team Laxson]

From what I understand (and I may not understand much), no new Earthcaches are being published on geocaching.com. Existing ones are grandfathered on the site.

 

The reason for this is all geocaches must have a logbook and a container. Earthcaches didn't fit that idea.

 

I really enjoyed the 2 Earth caches we've completed so far. The history of the area and buildings is something I wouldn't have know about otherwise. If you'd like to do an Earthcache today, do it. List it as a multi and have "virtual historic stages" and put a small container with a logbook near the end of the tour. I'd search for it.

Edited March 25, 2006 by Team Laxson

[+NotThePainter]

If you'd like to do an Earthcache today, do it. List it as a multi and have "virtual historic stages" and put a small container with a logbook near the end of the tour. I'd search for it.

The nice thing about it being a "real" geocaching.com earthcache is the extra bit of impact it gives when talking to landowners. I working with a local forestry foundation, they're very much into geocaching and I'd love to put an earthcache on their property, but I don't feel like explaining Waymarking to them. Too much data, just today I taught they about CITO and FTF...

 

I'd like to see them back.

 

Paul

[+welch]

Because the trend of the last year for gc.com has basically been to get geocaching back to finding boxes hidden somewhere.

Tighten virtuals to those that really WOW and can't have a container there. Then with Waymarking going up, kicking locationless out, and stopping new virutals, earthcaches, webcams (anything without a physical component) from being geocaches.

[+hb'sbear04]

That's too bad - we've always enjoyed the webcams and virtuals... we've only done one earthcache, but thought it was a cool idea too.

 

I haven't had time to explore the Waymarking site and figure it out... plus, I like having the idea of having it all on one site.

[+fizzymagic]

Shut down? There are now 83 earthcaches in that category at Waymarking.com

Translation: Earthcaches are now lumped in with McDonald's restaurants, water towers, interestingly colored outhouses, and enormous quantities of other mundania.

 

Whoopee.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Shut down? There are now 83 earthcaches in that category at Waymarking.com

Translation: Earthcaches are now lumped in with McDonald's restaurants, water towers, interestingly colored outhouses, and enormous quantities of other mundania.

If you want to look at it that way, then they used to be lumped in with leaking plastic containers placed in uninteresting locations, so this represents a step forward.

[+The Leprechauns]

Shut down? There are now 83 earthcaches in that category at Waymarking.com

Translation: Earthcaches are now lumped in with McDonald's restaurants, water towers, interestingly colored outhouses, and enormous quantities of other mundania.

 

Whoopee.

Translation: Someone hasn't figured out how to move his Waymarking popularity filter to show the top 10% of categories only. 'Cause that's where earthcaches are. McDonald's is in the bottom 10%.

[+Moosiegirl]

Just wondering why earth caches were shut down. I like going to visit earth caches ,and feel there are a few I could plant.

Shut down? There are now 83 earthcaches in that category at Waymarking.com. Since earthcaches are the third most popular category out of 227, apparently a lot of people agree with your opinion of them.

 

So, happy earthcaching!

IMHO it was a PC way to kill them off. I doubt Waymarking will last long because it won't make enough $$ for the omniscient few in Seattle.

[+budd-rdc]

There's an interesting legacy nomenclature here. Even though Earthcaches are listed on Waymarking now, people still call them CACHES.

 

I use a filter that's better than any software filter ever made - my brain. Like LCs of the past, I ignore the ones I have no interest in.

[+Harry Dolphin]

We did a spectacular earthcache that took two days, and a few hundred miles of driving. Even managed to get the car stuck on a sand road. Loved the cache! Did another that was a statue. Boring. Oh, well.

TPTB have decided to return to the roots of geocaching: Sign a log, get a smiley. That's their prerogative. Oh, well. We have to live with it.

[+fizzymagic]

Translation: Someone hasn't figured out how to move his Waymarking popularity filter to show the top 10% of categories only. 'Cause that's where earthcaches are. McDonald's is in the bottom 10%.

More like someone doesn't have the time or inclination to spend hours trying to find the few categories that don't completely suck.

 

Oh, and who doesn't feel like taking the time to locate and then try entering a new waymark only to have it rejected by the control-freak category owner because it doesn't exactly match his idea for the category.

 

But none of that is germane to this discussion; what is germane is that Earthcaches have been banished to a site where they are lost amid all the, um, garbage.

 

I'm sorry, but if you are going to continue to post "helpful" links to Waymarking as if it adequately replaces virtual caches or Earthcaches, you will have to expect responses that point how how awful a site it is.

Edited March 28, 2006 by fizzymagic

[+The Leprechauns]

Does anyone have any bandaids? My ankles are bleeding again.

 

I will continue to post helpful links to Waymarking because I believe in its potential. It's a brand new site that hasn't even been fully launched. I'm looking forward to this week's redesign.

 

I'd rather have a site where thousands of waymarks are being posted, than a "virtual cache" category where it was nearly impossible to get one cache posted. By my count, exactly zero of the 500+ waymarks I've approved would have been published as virtual caches.

[+sbell111]

...Oh, and who doesn't feel like taking the time to locate and then try entering a new waymark only to have it rejected by the control-freak category owner because it doesn't exactly match his idea for the category. ...

I didn't reject yours, did I?

[+The Leprechauns]

...Oh, and who doesn't feel like taking the time to locate and then try entering a new waymark only to have it rejected by the control-freak category owner because it doesn't exactly match his idea for the category. ...

I didn't reject yours, did I?

My own approve/reject percentage for waymark submissions in my category is well north of 99%. It is very nice not having 47 different rules to check against!!

 

Ironically, and to get back on topic, earthcache waymarks have very detailed rules for getting a submission approved. Yet lots of people want to do it, as evidenced by the number of waymarks in the category and its high votes in the popularity ranking.

[+tozainamboku]

I can never tell about the people who call it "Lamemarking". Are these people who liked locationless/virtual/earthcaches/webcams and are upset because these are now lumped with some Waymarking categories they don't like or are these the people who always thought that locationless/virtuals/earthcaches/webcams were lame? Just as some physical caches are lame, some Waymarking categories are lame. I guess I'll stop geocaching because I don't have the inclination to spend hours trying to find the good caches that don't completely suck.

[Jeremy]

 

IMHO it was a PC way to kill them off. I doubt Waymarking will last long because it won't make enough $$ for the omniscient few in Seattle.

 

I'm not sure why you need to be so ugly. I ran Geocaching for 2 years for free and another year with subscriptions before we had enough subscription money to allow me to quit a job and go full time to work on this. We're offering more services than ever and you don't even have to pay $3/mo for most of them.

 

Sorry if you are jealous about the success of this web site. If you sacrifice and dedicate yourself to something with the possiblity of little reward you might eventually have successes of your own someday. But don't belittle others for working on projects like Waymarking by being unnecessarily spiteful or ugly in your comments. It's not helpful and honestly not welcome.

 

If you do have something constructive to say please do so.

[+fizzymagic]

IMHO it was a PC way to kill them off. I doubt Waymarking will last long because it won't make enough $$ for the omniscient few in Seattle.

I'm not sure why you need to be so ugly.

Agreed. Whatever I think about Waymarking, Groundspeak is not doing it for the huge profits it will generate, and I think they are committed to making it as good as they can.

 

But if we want to discuss Waymarking, rather than Earthcaches, we should start a new thread.

[Jeremy]

 

I'm sorry, but if you are going to continue to post "helpful" links to Waymarking as if it adequately replaces virtual caches or Earthcaches, you will have to expect responses that point how how awful a site it is.

 

What's a better way to separate the wheat from the chaff?

[+JDandDD]

What's a better way to separate the wheat from the chaff?

How does Waymarking separate wheat from chaff when it adds considerably more chaff to the wheat mixture? At least locationaless and virtuals were somewhat differentiated on geocaching.com and earthcaches stood out. Now try finding them. And I'm sorry but using the filters doesn't work as well as The leprechauns would have you believe.

 

The problem always was the definition of virtuals not virtuals themselves. Earthcaching did the first good job of that but, rather than using that as a starting point for proper definitions of virtuals, they were relegated to the far less popular site and are now lost on Waymarking. Why are they lost Leprechauns? Because they are no on a site that has managed to turn off a very large number of people not the methods of finding the listing.

 

I realize its not easy to do definitions but frankly those for virtuals could have been worked on more. The moving of locationaless to Waymarking is one thing but virtuals is not. And before I get the reply that virtuals are the same as locationaless they are not and never were. Locationless were actually multi-location caches while virtuals, if more clearly defined, were specific, unique locations.

 

JDandDD

[+tozainamboku]

As far as Earthcaches you can just click here. No additional chaff needed. Use the location filter to filter to ones near your home. If there are not enough Earthcaches try Active Quaries, Cave Entrances, or Hot Springs.

 

As far a Webcams you can just click here. Once again no chaff.

 

As far as those Wow!! virtuals, I agree that Waymarking is weak. If you know that you would like to see historic sites you can look in those categories. If you like natural places you can look there. But what if you just want to be suprised. I'm still a proponent of a Wow!! category or a Suprise category. But you have to accept that this is subjective. The group that manages this will decide what is "wow" and some people will be disappointed when their waymark is turned down. If I were part of this group, I would take the position that unless the waymark is really unusual it would be better put in a different category. People who want to visit unusually shaped buildings or Vietnam POW/MIA memorials shouldn't have to look for them in the Wow!! category. If something were really Wow, it could be listed in multiple categories.

 

Personally, I think that the real reason some people are complaining is that you don't get a geocaching find for visiting a waymark - they just won't admit it. Aside from that one thing, there are categories where Waymarking is already better than geocaching; and with a little creativity it can be made to be just as good, if not better, for everything else.

[+budd-rdc]

Most of us just carry one GPSr when we go outdoors for an adventure. If there's an elegant way to combine Geocaching and Waymarking on one Pocket Query, then maybe there would be fewer complaints. Maybe this is in the works?

 

I think Waymarking is a legitimate, but unrefined replacement for the Locationless but not for Virtuals. Can't speak for webcams or Earthcache waymarks since I haven't tried them yet.

 

Personally, I think that the real reason some people are complaining is that you don't get a geocaching find for visiting a waymark - they just won't admit it

 

I'll admit it, and even say why. Going home and sharing the experience by logging a find is the goal of the trip, whether to show off the numbers, or to tell a story, isn't it? That's how we've been conditioned to enjoy this hobby, so of course we are going to object to anything that takes this away.

[+mongoose39uk]

If Waymarking has taken over from all none physically logable caches: shouldn't Benchmarks be on there?

[+Munkeh]

yea lets get rid of the rubbish

[+fizzymagic]

I'm sorry, but if you are going to continue to post "helpful" links to Waymarking as if it adequately replaces virtual caches or Earthcaches, you will have to expect responses that point how how awful a site it is.

What's a better way to separate the wheat from the chaff?

I would be delighted to talk about my views of Waymarking, but I feel uncomfortable doing it in this topic. Would this be better done in the Waymarking forums?

[+Mopar]

Personally, I think that the real reason some people are complaining is that you don't get a geocaching find for visiting a waymark - they just won't admit it.

B

I

N

G

O

And Bingo was his name-o!

[+MountainMudbug]

Personally, I think that the real reason some people are complaining is that you don't get a geocaching find for visiting a waymark - they just won't admit it.

B

I

N

G

O

And Bingo was his name-o!

 

I was going to stay out of this until that statement.

 

That has absolutely nothing to do with why I don't like Waymarking, so don't go thinking

you've hit all the nails on the head there.

 

I'm not a numbers hound, as you can see by my caching numbers.

I just don't care for the overall layout, search and categorization system of that site.

But like others who don't care for it in general, the answer is pretty much 'tough noogies'

or being called 'childish' or 'resistant to change'. Well, when you don't find the change

suits your preferences, you are still entitled to an opinion and to voice it.

Some of the honchos seem quick to jump in and belittle. Perhaps sometimes

it is not unjustified as there has been lots of whining regarding this matter, but the

overall response often feels rather snide to me.

I cancelled my premium membership after one of the many other threads on virtuals.

 

(How long til I read "gc doesn't need your $3, there are other sites you can use"

That is fine, I can go get a nice coffee instead)

 

Back on topic, I have yet to find an earthcache, but I hope to as there are a few in my general area.

I am always intersted in discovering neat geological features.

 

(These are all my opinions and I am entitled to voice them in a calm and respectful manner,

I expect the same in response)

[Jeremy]

I'm sorry, but if you are going to continue to post "helpful" links to Waymarking as if it adequately replaces virtual caches or Earthcaches, you will have to expect responses that point how how awful a site it is.

What's a better way to separate the wheat from the chaff?

I would be delighted to talk about my views of Waymarking, but I feel uncomfortable doing it in this topic. Would this be better done in the Waymarking forums?

 

You bet. Feel free to do so there (if you haven't already. I'll check).

[+briansnat]

Personally, I think that the real reason some people are complaining is that you don't get a geocaching find for visiting a waymark - they just won't admit it.

 

You hit the nail on the head. If finding waymarks increased our smiley counts it would probably be praised as the greatest thing since pizza.

[+The Leprechauns]

There are 157 event caches with the word "pizza" in the title. So it is pretty easy to get a smiley for eating pizza.

[+budd-rdc]

 

<censored the expletives>

 

I was going to stay out of this until that statement.

 

That has absolutely nothing to do with why I don't like Waymarking, so don't go thinking

you've hit all the nails on the head there.

I'll pound the nail harder for you.

 

Me, too posts are equivalent in effectiveness to parking lot micros.

 

Waymarking could use some refinement on the interface, but overall, I see it as a good replacement for LCs which had limited appeal to the general Geocaching audience anyway.

[+JDandDD]

Personally, I think that the real reason some people are complaining is that you don't get a geocaching find for visiting a waymark - they just won't admit it.

B

I

N

G

O

And Bingo was his name-o!

Definitely not bingo in my case. Numbers have never been the reason I've been in geocaching so I don't care about that.

 

I don't like Waymarking because of several factors but the worst part is that there is so much chaff on it that its tedious to find things on it. Yes you can find earthcaches, but the interface does not work as well outside of the US as the geocaching site from my perspective. And, it gets buried in piles of chaff.

 

But here's my biggest reason. I don't see what the point of it is. For anything to be of interest to me it has to have a challenge of some sort to it. Too much of the content is simply going out the door and walking or driving to something and saying, I think I'll start a Best Western motel category. Here's the question I've never seen a good answer to: So what? What does that process prove other than I looked at a motel this morning on the way to work. I don't need a GPS, I don't need any skill using the GPS, I don't need search skills, I don't have to know how to navigate in the woods, I don't have to have map reading skills or any other skills except go on Mapquest and get directions and print htem out. SO WHAT?

 

Without having to have any skills, numbers of finds, going to the items, WOW items, etc. have very little point to them. You can find all of what Waymarking offers online somewhere else (historical markes and sites,even earthcaches folks). Geocaches and good virtuals took some skill to find but motels, sushi houses, McDonalds, Walmarts, and so on require nothing.

 

I think the proof that something is seriously wrong with the concept is in the amount of negative commentary and the fact it doesn't go away. Instead of trying to dismiss it with simple reasons that have face validity (feel right but are wrong) rather than real validity (may or may not look good on the face ofo things but are right) work on why this negative reaction is there and whether the whole thing has to be revisited, and IMHO it does before it will be anywhere near as widely accepted as geocaching. Give it some reason to be around that catches peoples interest.

 

So no bingo, not even a simple line much less a full board.

 

JDandDD

[+tozainamboku]

I think the proof that something is seriously wrong with the concept is in the amount of negative commentary and the fact it doesn't go away. Instead of trying to dismiss it with simple reasons that have face validity (feel right but are wrong) rather than real validity (may or may not look good on the face ofo things but are right) work on why this negative reaction is there and whether the whole thing has to be revisited, and IMHO it does before it will be anywhere near as widely accepted as geocaching. Give it some reason to be around that catches peoples interest.

 

There seems to be as much positive feedback on Waymarking as negative. Many people have started listing waymarks. Some will look for interesting or somewhat unusual categories that have the feel of locationless caches while others are very happy to be able to document benchmarks that are not in the NGS database, or tell us about their local zoo. People looking for interesting sites to visit can ignore McDonalds Restuarants and look for Gynormous Everyday Objects or Vietnam War memorials.

 

The problem here is the refusal to accept a broader more generic Waymarking site that can be useful to a lot of different people because, for the the time being, you have have to work a bit to find interesting categories. Locationless were fine because there were only 200 or so of them and a moratorium on creating new ones? I guess with the limited number you could just look at the whole list and decide if there might be something interesting/challenging to find. Of course without some third-party script, it was hard to determine whether someone else had already found the item you were going to list. Virtuals were fine because someone decided for you that there was a wow factor? In fact, many virtuals were ordinary type places often where a physical cache could be hidden or at least it could be part of a multi ending in a physical cache. And while some people put some thought into their virtual to make it interesting or challenging, the truth is that most were not.

 

I really have not seen any "real validity" to in any of JDandDD's arguments other than its too much work to use Waymarking to find the categories/waymarks they would want to visit. Perhaps they can make some concrete suggestions on how to correct this issue. I believe it may be solvable without scrapping all of Waymarking. I agree that Waymarking does lack some way, other than brute force, to find what is interesting/challenging/educational (or has any other attributes). There is of course the issue of assigning these attributes to categories and waymarks since they tend to be subjective which also must be addressed.

Edited March 30, 2006 by tozainamboku

[+JDandDD]

I think the proof that something is seriously wrong with the concept is in the amount of negative commentary and the fact it doesn't go away. Instead of trying to dismiss it with simple reasons that have face validity (feel right but are wrong) rather than real validity (may or may not look good on the face ofo things but are right) work on why this negative reaction is there and whether the whole thing has to be revisited, and IMHO it does before it will be anywhere near as widely accepted as geocaching. Give it some reason to be around that catches peoples interest.

 

There seems to be as much positive feedback on Waymarking as negative. Many people have started listing waymarks. Some will look for interesting or somewhat unusual categories that have the feel of locationless caches while others are very happy to be able to document benchmarks that are not in the NGS database, or tell us about their local zoo. People looking for interesting sites to visit can ignore McDonalds Restuarants and look for Gynormous Everyday Objects or Vietnam War memorials.

 

The problem here is the refusal to accept a broader more generic Waymarking site that can be useful to a lot of different people because, for the the time being, you have have to work a bit to find interesting categories. Locationless were fine because there were only 200 or so of them and a moratorium on creating new ones? I guess with the limited number you could just look at the whole list and decide if there might be something interesting/challenging to find. Of course without some third-party script, it was hard to determine whether someone else had already found the item you were going to list. Virtuals were fine because someone decided for you that there was a wow factor? In fact, many virtuals were ordinary type places often where a physical cache could be hidden or at least it could be part of a multi ending in a physical cache. And while some people put some thought into their virtual to make it interesting or challenging, the truth is that most were not.

 

I really have not seen any "real validity" to in any of JDandDD's arguments other than its too much work to use Waymarking to find the categories/waymarks they would want to visit. Perhaps they can make some concrete suggestions on how to correct this issue. I believe it may be solvable without scrapping all of Waymarking. I agree that Waymarking does lack some way, other than brute force, to find what is interesting/challenging/educational (or has any other attributes). There is of course the issue of assigning these attributes to categories and waymarks since they tend to be subjective which also must be addressed.

I have no problem with locationaless leaving geocaching.com. Locationaless, better called multi-location, didn't really work and perhaps Waymarking can be useful for that. So I never said locationless were fine.

 

Virtuals at least gave one a sense of accomplishment, IF the virtual required some gps usage and skill. The issue was definitional not the category itself. WOW was poorly defined and may as well have not been used.

 

I take issue with you saying the my arguments about it being too much work. I never said that. What I did say is that the interface is awkward and not as easy to use as geocaching's is. My real issues are quite clearly stated, finding a waymark or even creating one requires absolutely no skill. Because of this it proves absolutely nothing to be involved. The second issue is that this information is already available so why create another database. The whole concept cries out So What? That's not about being difficult to find information its about being meaningless as a concept and overwhelming good concepts such as earthcaches with too much meaningless information.

 

Finally, of course there would be positive feedback. I'm not surprised that always occurs. Again my point is misconstrued and misinterpreted. The amount of negative feedback is what proves the point that the concept isn't working. A small amount of negative commentary is always expected but the amount seen on the forums is NOT small by any measure. That was my point and I never implied that there wasn't positive feedback but in business you never want this amount of negative reaction. It means you got it wrong.

 

To exist, the purpose and reason for existence of the concept, Waymarking.com in this case, have to be well communicated and understood generally, even by those who don't like it. That's missing and I note that when I've asked for Jeremy's input on these forums he never replies which also says to me that the concept is as yet poorly defined.

 

Again, without a purpose other than just a database of information that already exists on the internet the concept ends of as SO WHAT?? Please someone answer what its supposed to be about.

 

JDandDD

[+fizzymagic]

Shut down? There are now 83 earthcaches in that category at Waymarking.com. Since earthcaches are the third most popular category out of 227, apparently a lot of people agree with your opinion of them.

So, happy earthcaching!

I thought, in response, that I would quote something Jeremy wrote here about his vision for Waymarking:

What I mean is that the current intent is not to be a database of waypoints for you to find. Geocaching was a "if you hide it they will come" concept while this is a scavenger hunt style game much like locationless caches. IMO the exciting part happens when a category gets filled up and it gets more difficult to find a new waymark for that category.

Clearly, TPTB don't consider Waymarking a replacement for Earthcaches. Why should we?

[Jeremy]

 

Clearly, TPTB don't consider Waymarking a replacement for Earthcaches. Why should we?

 

Are you saying that the value of the location of Earthcaches hinges on them being listed on geocaching.com? So if an Earthcache is listed on Geocaching.com - going to the earthcache location is in some way enhanced when you reach the destination?

 

Finding an Earthcache on Geocaching.com:

 

"Oh boy! What a great location! Thanks for bringing me here!"

 

On Waymarking, reaching the same location:

 

"Ho hum. This isn't interesting at all!"

[+Mopar]

 

Clearly, TPTB don't consider Waymarking a replacement for Earthcaches. Why should we?

 

Are you saying that the value of the location of Earthcaches hinges on them being listed on geocaching.com? So if an Earthcache is listed on Geocaching.com - going to the earthcache location is in some way enhanced when you reach the destination?

 

Finding an Earthcache on Geocaching.com:

 

"Oh boy! What a great location! Thanks for bringing me here so I can add another smiley to my GC.com find count!"

 

On Waymarking, reaching the same location:

 

"Ho hum. This isn't interesting at all if it doesn't increase my GC.com find count!"

 

Fixed it for you.