Geowoodstock Does The Location Change?

[+Ambrosia]

I think that it should be in Washington, that way I could go.

[+GeoCrickets]

I Have heard from a few people that California might try for GW5. I would like to see come over this way.

 

Richard of the GeoCrickets

[+mikeylou]

Okay, the groups from Colorado, Hawaii, and New Zealand can start putting their bids in! That's my wishlist.

 

Oooh, NZ. I need a good excuse to make another trip out there (and grab more caches!).

 

Somewhere in the northeast would be good, though. The past list appears to be a bit south-heavy.

[+Ambrosia]

Okay, the groups from Colorado, Hawaii, and New Zealand can start putting their bids in! That's my wishlist.

 

Oooh, NZ. I need a good excuse to make another trip out there (and grab more caches!).

 

Somewhere in the northeast would be good, though. The past list appears to be a bit south-heavy.

NW.

[+briansnat]

Harrisburg?

 

Surely you jest.....

 

?

 

What would be wrong with Harrisburg? Micros are plentiful there (over 50%) and it is a high cache density area.

And heck the area is a lot purtier than Jacksonville.

 

I vote for anywhere except..... metro NY, CT.

 

You can remove those from consideration right off the bat. They don't have the requisite micro spew.

[+Whirlwindgang]

My vote is Michigan, the Geobash going on next moth is setup real nice. And theres tons of caches to be had by all.

[+9Key]

You can remove those from consideration right off the bat. They don't have the requisite micro spew.

I guess its impossible to be positive in these forums.

[+sbell111]

You can remove those from consideration right off the bat. They don't have the requisite micro spew.

I guess its impossible to be positive in these forums.

His post seemed very positive. One might even call it assured, certain, and confident. 'Without doubt', perhaps.

Edited June 6, 2006 by sbell111

[+fishingfools]

I vote for anywhere except..... metro NY, CT.

 

You can remove those from consideration right off the bat. They don't have the requisite micro spew.

 

Why would you inject such a snide comment into a thread like this? What purpose does it serve to the topic?

[+briansnat]

I vote for anywhere except..... metro NY, CT.

 

You can remove those from consideration right off the bat. They don't have the requisite micro spew.

 

Why would you inject such a snide comment into a thread like this? What purpose does it serve to the topic?

 

It was a snide reference to what seems to be the fact that an area will only be considered if it has a super high cache density. If attendees can't nab 200-300 caches in 24 hours, you need not apply.

Edited June 6, 2006 by briansnat

[+clearpath]

Curious ... what if GW5 were held someplace that had very few caches. (Gasp !!!!) The caches that did exist had breathtaking views, spectacular vistas and nice hikes through the countryside. The event would focus more on the people (geocachers meeting other geocachers) and less on the need to rack up numbers. The spirit of the event would focus on quality of the geocaching experience and less on the competetive nature of the sport. The event itself would not promote finding caches but rather finding friendships ( I know the other GW's had lots of people making friends, I'm not trying to bash past GW). The original Woodstock (the music festival) was about peace, love and music. It was more about solidarity, letting your hair down and finding peace. There was very little in the way of a competition ... (yes, everyone knows it was also a drug fest, however that was part of finding 'peace' for some folks).

[+Totem Clan]

Curious ... what if GW5 were held someplace that had very few caches. (Gasp !!!!) The caches that did exist had breathtaking views, spectacular vistas and nice hikes through the countryside. The event would focus more on the people (geocachers meeting other geocachers) and less on the need to rack up numbers. The spirit of the event would focus on quality of the geocaching experience and less on the competetive nature of the sport. The event itself would not promote finding caches but rather finding friendships ( I know the other GW's had lots of people making friends, I'm not trying to bash past GW). The original Woodstock (the music festival) was about peace, love and music. It was more about solidarity, letting your hair down and finding peace. There was very little in the way of a competition ... (yes, everyone knows it was also a drug fest, however that was part of finding 'peace' for some folks).

 

Oh, God forbid No, We would not want that.

 

Edited June 6, 2006 by Totem Clan

[+Deliveryguy428]

The meaning behind the micro spew was correct just not said in a very nice way, because everyone knows who has been or has helped plan a Geowoodstock event that one thing the selection commitee does look at is the cache amounts within the local area and I believe up to 30 miles out from all directions

[+fishingfools]

I vote for anywhere except..... metro NY, CT.

 

You can remove those from consideration right off the bat. They don't have the requisite micro spew.

 

Why would you inject such a snide comment into a thread like this? What purpose does it serve to the topic?

 

It was a snide reference to what seems to be the fact that an area will only be considered if it has a super high cache density. If attendees can't nab 200-300 caches in 24 hours, you need not apply.

 

OK, I see what you mean. The group I travel with enjoys the high density areas, but not for any type of records thing. Over the last several years, we take a 4 or 5 day trip once a year with the intent to go "binge caching." We run from about 7 am to about 3 am, for 4 or 5 days. We realize this is not everyones cup of chowder, but it is fun for us. We try to mix it up and not just hit parking lots. One of the things we liked about Texas was we only saw like 2 bison tubes in 5 days. GW3 also had very unique and clever hides, and alot of them. I think the high density is a draw to alot of folks. It nice to have for the folks who like to go all day and night, and those who would rather socialize can do that too.

[+wimseyguy]

Must_think_positive_thoughts_and_not_take_bait.

 

I think geowoodstock needs to go somewhere with plenty of diversity, so all attendees can make their own choices about what they want to experience outside of the actual event itself. I know one group of cachers who passed on an afternoon to go to a Major League baseball game. I thought about riding the roller coasters at Six Flags, or trying to see some live music, but decided against it.

 

The original woodstock was about people coming together to share in an expereince.

The original geowoodstock event was conceived as a way to introduce the power cachers to each other, and people who like to find a lot of caches are more likely to attend if it is a location that has decent density. I think that aspect of the host city cannot be ignored. But you can have decent density without microspew.

 

There is a lot more going on at geowoodstock then record runs, pocket/moving caches, icon swapping; it's really a shame that the signal:noise ratio in the forums doesn't reflect that. I guess the forums wouldn't be as much fun though, if they truly reflected the geo-world and the community.

[+sbell111]

... it's really a shame that the signal:noise ratio in the forums doesn't reflect that. I guess the forums wouldn't be as much fun though, if they truly reflected the geo-world and the community.

Wow, another of those posts.

 

If you think the forums don't discuss topics that are useful, start a thread.

[+Team Perks]

I Have heard from a few people that California might try for GW5. I would like to see come over this way.

On behalf of the So Cal Geocachers, I hereby nominate us as LEAST willing to host a Geo Woodstock.

 

But San Jose suuuuuuuuuuure sounds like a nice place to do it instead.

 

(That oughta be enough to keep me off the planning committee! )

[+ozymandiasism]

I Have heard from a few people that California might try for GW5. I would like to see come over this way.

On behalf of the So Cal Geocachers, I hereby nominate us as LEAST willing to host a Geo Woodstock.

 

I dunno.... I would enjoy a nice GW5 in Palm Springs or Big Bear.... os San Diego. I missed this years and I would very much love to ateend next year's.

 

[Tahosa and Sons]

Send them to CO. And when they get here make it a RULE that in order to break the 24 hour power run at least a few of the caches should be some of those upper terrain and difficulty caches we have out here.

[Tahosa and Sons]

Um, is Colorado looking to expand its boarders?

 

Yes we just love the cash flow that the boarders bring when it comes to tourisim.

[Jeremy]

Curious ... what if GW5 were held someplace that had very few caches. (Gasp !!!!)

 

Geowoodstock isn't the only game in town. Champoeg, for example, is pretty large. I'd doubt you'd attract huge crowds to do hikes with 1,000ft elevation gains outside Seattle, and besides, they don't allow large groups hiking the trails together anyway. Some events are best left in places with high cache density to result in low visits per cache.

 

The Midwest Geobash is another nice and large event.

 

Personally I'm not a fan of moving events with local hosts. Preferable, for quality purposes, is to have a more regional event that improves over time, learns from its mistakes, and builds on what they created. I'm not bashing the Geowoodstock guys because they do a bang-up job, but I'd feel safer organizing something with less variables to consider.

 

/1 vote for California

[+wimseyguy]

Send them to CO. And when they get here make it a RULE that in order to break the 24 hour power run at least a few of the caches should be some of those upper terrain and difficulty caches we have out here.

OK but we get to hike up there first, then start the 24 hour clock so it's all downhill after that.

Seriously, I'd love to visit someday and enjoy your caches and cooking sometime; just not for geowoodstock.

[+paintfiction]

Personally I'm not a fan of moving events with local hosts. Preferable, for quality purposes, is to have a more regional event that improves over time, learns from its mistakes, and builds on what they created. I'm not bashing the Geowoodstock guys because they do a bang-up job, but I'd feel safer organizing something with less variables to consider.

 

/1 vote for California

 

I'm being slow (not snarky) here.... are you opining that GW should stay regional or should go to California or both?

[+Mopar]

Geowoodstock isn't the only game in town. Champoeg, for example, is pretty large.

 

The Midwest Geobash is another nice and large event.

 

 

Don't forget GeoJamboree IV this weekend.

Several hundred cachers from all over the North East in a beautiful New England state park. Sounds like a big ol' smiley to me!

[+clearpath]

Don't forget GeoJamboree IV this weekend.

Several hundred cachers from all over the North East in a beautiful New England state park. Sounds like a big ol' smiley to me!

I noticed the campsites are sold at the event. I'm sure someone of your stature in the Parks and Rec could pull a few strings and make a couple hundred more campsites available ...

[+501_Gang]

My vote is Michigan, the Geobash going on next moth is setup real nice. And theres tons of caches to be had by all.

 

Vote for Michigan or Northern Indiana from us.

[+5¢]

I vote for some other country other than the US. Let's be fair to the other countries.

[+El Diablo]

I vote for my house. I have a nice backyard with 2 patios (580 square foot) and a gas grill.

 

El Diablo

[Bashaw]

I'm shocked - SHOCKED, that Geowoodstock hasn't been held in geocaching's home state yet!!

[+Suziq]

I'm shocked - SHOCKED, that Geowoodstock hasn't been held in geocaching's home state yet!!

 

I'm Not

 

 

Geowoodstock isn't the only game in town. Champoeg, for example, is pretty large.

Edited June 9, 2006 by Suziq

[+mrmnjewel]

We, C.A.C.H.E. will NOT be putting our hat in the ring for GW5. GW6 may be a different story. Currently the infrastructure in Colorado could not do justice to an event of this size.

 

Um, is Colorado looking to expand its boarders?

 

Which state(s) are you planning to invade?

They are going to take Texas back from Mexico.

Somebody needs to.