An Open Letter To Groundspeak

[+Deliveryguy428]

99 post later and here is what I think someone was trying to say

 

The OP (Snoogans) wants TPTB to address the very aggressive archiving of caches after GW4 because some of the caches broke guidelines (others might not have, but I do not know).

 

Now turn about is fair play, He wants the TPTB to justifiy this, and if they want to explain this, they will, but what about the other side of the coin, justifiy the request for the APE cache.

[+TEAM 360]

I've never been to Oregon, but I did help pay for the Original Stash Tribute Plaque when Team360 visited me in New Mexico. Does that mean I can log it as a find? I mean, that's almost a pocket cache, since it was unveiled at an event in Arizona before 360 took it to Oregon.

 

Well, you can try, SmurfBoy, but your smiley will surely not last long...I hear the owner of the cache is a real ^%&$ when it comes to legit finds

 

Of course, this is coming from the one cacher that can log as many pocket caches as he wants because he doesn't log them on this website

 

I don't 'find' Pocket Caches. I don't 'find' Locationless Caches. I will not eat green eggs and ham. I will not, said 360 I am...

Edited June 4, 2006 by TEAM 360

[+TEAM 360]

So if the Illinois APE cache was brought in just for the event that would have counted as a legit log??

To the GWIV crowd? yes. To everyone else? no

 

Sax, please don't generalize. There were plenty of cachers in attendance that have higher 'caching ethics' than that, myself included...

[+Snoogans]

Now turn about is fair play, He wants the TPTB to justifiy this, and if they want to explain this, they will, but what about the other side of the coin, justifiy the request for the APE cache.

 

Not my department. I was just the travel bug wrangler for the event. I had no other function than that and hosting the Friday Meet & Greet & Sunday Terracaching event. I know nothing about it. Start another GW4 bashing thread for that one. I wash my hands of it.

Edited June 4, 2006 by Snoogans

[+Deliveryguy428]

Start another GW4 bashing thread for that one. I wash my hands of it.

 

I must have missed someone in my posting, anyone else on here see my bashing GW4? or Geowoodstock in general?

 

Oh yeah that is right, when I agreed with Cub about all the wonderful friends, fun, and stories you get at an event like this...bad me bad me

[+medic208]

Why should some be allowed to break the rules and not others? I've had caches rejected because they were too close to others; yet I was surprised to find two caches in downtown Dallas just 50 ft. from one another! Hmmm.......

 

We probably wouldn't have wasted our time (or our gas) on the temp caches - but wanted to show support for those who took the time to place them.

 

Not saying this is the case cause I don't know the details but maybe the reason you found two caches within 50ft of each other was because one of them was a temporary cache which therefore was never reviewed or approved by a GC.com approver, which therefore does not reside in the GC.com database?!?!?! A GC.com approver can't be expected to enforce the .10 mile rule on a temporary cache which never comes across their desk.

 

No it was not a temp cache. It's way too early in the morning to look for GC #'s but the cache Gatorgrl is referring to is a virtual cache in downtown Dallas that is located 50 feet away from a traditional cache. I remember those two caches quite well during our cache run, since I asked the same question myself.

Edited June 4, 2006 by medic208

[+clearpath]

I respect Snoogans and the rest of the Texas geocachers that put A LOT of time and money into the GW4 event. I see nothing wrong with 'event caches'. There should be an amendment to the guidelines for 'event caches'.

[+RichardMoore]

I respect Snoogans and the rest of the Texas geocachers that put A LOT of time and money into the GW4 event. I see nothing wrong with 'event caches'. There should be an amendment to the guidelines for 'event caches'.

I agree.

[+Snoogans]

Folks, I don't need anyone to stand in solidarity or to restate the issues that are running on half a dozen other threads. This is allllll I want:

 

Please back off and let the folks who are MOST affected come foreword to speak their mind. Mmm'kayyy?

[Keystone]

Why should some be allowed to break the rules and not others? I've had caches rejected because they were too close to others; yet I was surprised to find two caches in downtown Dallas just 50 ft. from one another! Hmmm.......

 

We probably wouldn't have wasted our time (or our gas) on the temp caches - but wanted to show support for those who took the time to place them.

 

Not saying this is the case cause I don't know the details but maybe the reason you found two caches within 50ft of each other was because one of them was a temporary cache which therefore was never reviewed or approved by a GC.com approver, which therefore does not reside in the GC.com database?!?!?! A GC.com approver can't be expected to enforce the .10 mile rule on a temporary cache which never comes across their desk.

 

No it was not a temp cache. It's way too early in the morning to look for GC #'s but the cache Gatorgrl is referring to is a virtual cache in downtown Dallas that is located 50 feet away from a traditional cache. I remember those two caches quite well during our cache run, since I asked the same question myself.

The cache saturation guideline (aka the 528 foot rule) does not apply to grandfathered cache types. In other words, you can hide a traditional cache 50 feet away from a grandfathered virtual cache. See the summary of the cache saturation guideline here. As this issue is a simple guidelines question totally unrelated to pocket caches, etc., if you have any questions about it, please quote this post and start a new thread. Thanks.

[Keystone]

Folks, I don't need anyone to stand in solidarity or to restate the issues that are running on half a dozen other threads. This is allllll I want:

 

Please back off and let the folks who are MOST affected come foreword to speak their mind. Mmm'kayyy?

Anyone with an opinion, pro or con, that is on topic to your original post is entitled to post that opinion in a reply to your thread. Any further efforts on your part to change that proposition will result in your thread being locked.

[Keystone]

Now turn about is fair play, He wants the TPTB to justifiy this, and if they want to explain this, they will, but what about the other side of the coin, justifiy the request for the APE cache.

 

Not my department. I was just the travel bug wrangler for the event. I had no other function than that and hosting the Friday Meet & Greet & Sunday Terracaching event. I know nothing about it. Start another GW4 bashing thread for that one. I wash my hands of it.

A request to move the APE cache to GW4 is directly related to the fact that other caches were temporarily relocated to GW4. Therefore, the posts on this point are on topic.

[+Grumpster]

Ok. Time to put my two cents worth in. I made my dog nugget a TB and it turned out to be a great ice breaker. Through that mutt I met a lot of great people. Not every one has a dog to use as a TB ice breaker. Pocket cache seems to me to be a great alternative. The fact that so many people participated in pocket caches, either by having one or logging one tells me VERY clearly that it's a popular and desired way to meet people. I met a number of people that way and thoroughly enjoyed it. Fact is, if no one could log my dog as a TB then no one would have bothered. So much for a ice breaker. Same for pocket caches. Ice breakers are a great thing to have at any event. If some one want's to call that a find then so what. If some one just uses it as a excuse to open a conversation with no intention of logging a fine that's okay too. It ain't hurting no one. We need ice breakers at event and I see no harm in what was going on there. I did see a lot of benefit though.

 

My thought on the issue. Create a category specifically for pocket caches or moving caches or event caches or whatever you want to call it and allow them at events. Make the event sponsors responsible for moderation of the event related caches. Allow those caches to be logged for a week or two following the event so that anyone that traveled to the event would have ample time to log their find. I really wish I could have ran a PQ and got all of the event related caches that were there. I'm sure I could have done a lot that I was not able to do because of personal time restrictions. I do not however condone taking a cache from some place else and bringing it to a event. That hurts the people that are trying to find it where it belongs.

 

As for the numbers thing. WHO CARES!!!!! Be it TBs or caches I don't care what your ethics are about numbers. If you want to take a list of TB numbers from some one and log discovered it on all of them without even touching or seeing them, then that's your deal. If you feel that you have to actually touch a TB to log it then that's fine with me as well. Same with a cache. If it comes to you and you choose to consider it a "find" then that's your deal. If you'd prefer to "hunt" it to consider it a "find", again, your deal. We all have our own way of playing the game. Some don't consider sidewalk urban caches to be real while others go after them for the easy numbers. That's okay too. It really is your game. We all have our way we like to play it. Me, I miss virtual caches. They took me to a lot of interesting places. (Yea, I know about waypoints.com. A great way of screwing up virtual for those of us that actually liked them IMHO.)

 

I don't know about you but when I find a cache I don't check to be sure it isn't breaking some rule before considering it a find. If it is a legitimate find to me then I expect to be able to log it. If that log is deleted and my find was taken away from me then I'd be irked. If it was a milestone for me and that was taken away it would sour me on geocaching entirely. If Groundspeak has some good reason to archive a cache then that's between them and the cache owner, but I don't think they have any business taking away my finds. If they choose to archive a cache a reasonable amount of time should elapse to allow people to return home and log a find on it for those who feel they have a find to log.

 

As far as numbers goes, I still haven't even logged GW4 yet. Maybe I'll get that done this week.

Edited June 4, 2006 by Grumpster

[+HoustonControl]

All right, I was at GW4, met a lot of nice people, had a great time. I found a few temporary caches in the park and had fun doing it. I didn't log any pocket caches -- it just seemed a little silly to me. It was my first Geowoodstock, so I didn't realize that the temporary caches had been moved here from some place else or that there was an issue until I tried to log them. So I guess you could say I have 3 or 4 more smilies beside my name than I should have -- or 3 or 4 less than I could have, depending on how you look at it. Either way, my conscience is crystal clear that my 613 total finds is representative of my true caching activity to this point.

 

But the bottom line is, that's between me and my conscience. I could care less if someone else has 6 finds, or 6,000. When I got home and stumbled into this whole quagmire on these boards, I was astonished. It just floors me the folks harping on here about easy finds or people padding their numbers. It's like complaining about someone else cheating at solitaire. Who cares?

 

As far as TPTB archiving all caches within the 50 states that are deemed to be outside of the posted guidelines, it seems a little draconian. A heads up, a warning or a stern rebuke might have been in order first so folks would know that things were being tightened up and that what had previously been overlooked was no longer acceptable. But thanks to a whole room full of sixth-grade hall monitors, screaming at the top of their lungs and posting "should be archived" notes on cache pages that they never found or attempted to find, this is what we are left with. Sad.

 

Just for the record, I plan on adding an APE cache to my count some day. But I'll travel to Illinois to log it, thank you very much.

 

And Cudlecub, I sorry about your bikes -- that just sucks. I'm very disappointed to think that someone from our great state would stoop so low as to do that to a visitor. I'm thinking it was probably somebody who slipped across the border from Oklahoma...

[+LaPaglia]

Just for the record, I plan on adding an APE cache to my count some day. But I'll travel to Illinois to log it, thank you very much.

No slight intended to our Illinois brethren but I did the one in WA. That was a fantastic cache. Which ever one you do it will be one you will remember.

[+Glenn]

<snip>

But the bottom line is, that's between me and my conscience. I could care less if someone else has 6 finds, or 6,000. When I got home and stumbled into this whole quagmire on these boards, I was astonished. It just floors me the folks harping on here about easy finds or people padding their numbers. It's like complaining about someone else cheating at solitaire. Who cares?

<snip>

I don't think you're reading the same threads as the rest of us. I wish this was the same old numbers padding argument. It is not. One thread was about a team of cachers that, for the sake of speed, defaced caches containers. The other thread was about cachers who never left Texas but clamed to find caches half way around the world.

[+HoustonControl]

<snip>

But the bottom line is, that's between me and my conscience. I could care less if someone else has 6 finds, or 6,000. When I got home and stumbled into this whole quagmire on these boards, I was astonished. It just floors me the folks harping on here about easy finds or people padding their numbers. It's like complaining about someone else cheating at solitaire. Who cares?

<snip>

I don't think you're reading the same threads as the rest of us. I wish this was the same old numbers padding argument. It is not. One thread was about a team of cachers that, for the sake of speed, defaced caches containers. The other thread was about cachers who never left Texas but clamed to find caches half way around the world.

I wasn't referring to the record cache run. There are several mentions in this thread that folks who were logging the pocket caches and what not were doing so to pad their cache count or to paraphrase DocDitto, "getting an illegitimate bump in their smiley count".

[+BillP3rd]

Assume that, for the purposes of this response, the word "rules" is synonymous with the word "guidelines."

 

Prior to May 27, 2006 were pocket and temp caches allowed to be logged at events?

 

If the answer is 'No' then the people had warning that the pocket and temp caches they had were against the guidelines and they ran the risk of being caught.

The answer is and has been "No" since at least January, 2003. I organized the first Washington State Geocaching Association Summer Picnic and wanted to do temporary caches for the event. I asked about this during the planning process (I was new to Geocaching) and was clearly advised that temporary caches were not permitted. As a workaround, I devised and placed four multi-caches in the area of the event and brought an adequate number of printouts so that anyone who wished to could hunt them. Many (most) did. We had a great turnout. There was fun. There was food. There were prizes (some were pretty nice!). There was no controversy. We asked, we planned, and we stayed within the published guidelines (at that time). Did I mention that everyone had fun?

 

Sorry 9key, but temporary caches are not permitted on the website.

Reread my post - I don't think you understood it.

It's you who misunderstand. Temporary caches have always been allowed at events.

Sorry... but as I said above, temporary caches have not been permitted at events since at least 1/2003 - Even if the event is held on Groundspeak's home turf (Seattle). If people got by with them then good for them. Maybe you haven't noticed but the sport is growing. More people are getting involved. The number of caches is rising so rapidly that we'll reach GCZZZZ soon. I'm sure (I haven't spoken with anyone there about this) that Groundspeak is trying their best to manage the nearly explosive growth. That means strictly enforcing the rules. It might even mean putting new rules into effect. To their significant credit, they've always "grandfathered" previosly placed caches when a new rule has been implemented.

 

An analogy:

 

Say it is your custom to drive at 45 MPH down a particular local street. Say that everyone else drives at that speed as well. Now say that the posted limit is 30 MPH. Now, you and everyone else have been doing this for some time. Months... years, maybe. At some point the authorities notice this and begin enforcing the posted limit and, guess what? You get tagged with a $100 speeding ticket and your insurance goes up! Whose fault is it? The officer who stopped you? The court that imposed the fine? Maybe it's your insurance company's fault for raising your rates. Could it possibly be your fault for breaking the law?

 

A real-world example of what can happen:

 

I broke a rule that nearly stranded me in Egypt for a week. Really! While pleading my case to the local authority I mentioned that "I didn't know that was a rule!" She pointed out "You should have know about the rule." I had to admit that she had me there. I got out but it taught me to make sure I know all the rules in advance and to follow them. It taught me to ask questions. Again, in advance.

 

Change the rules, but give notice and WARN first. THAT IS MY POINT.

No temporary caches is not a new rule. Had someone asked they would have been either 1/ Given a clear and unambiguous answer that temporary caches are not permitted under any circumstances; or 2/ Granted a waiver for this rule for the duration of this single event. So, who took the time to ask?

 

Criminal, I'm not hostile. I've seen so much hostility from you in the past few days I've reconsidered whether or not I want to meet you when I swing by that way. The jury is still out.

This is probably the most disappointing thing I've seen on this thread (or any other that I recall). I apologise in advance if my understanding of this statement is not as what was intended, but... It reads like "If you're not going to agree with me on this point then I'm not going to be your friend." I'm not going to editorialize or philosophize about this. I'm just pointing it out and it saddens me. I've met some great folks caching all over the country. One and all. People who I would never have otherwise encountered were it not for our shared interest in Geocaching.

 

In closing...

 

Groundspeak is, make no mistake, a for-profit company. To that end they offer Geocaching swag. They offer services such as premium membership and tracking of trading items. Remember, though, that participation in the sport of Geocaching (through geocaching.com) is free. You can create an "account," find and log caches, place caches, track trading items, and more at no cost. To provide these services they must maintain a substantial IT (Information Technology) infrastructure including (many) servers, (redundant) networks, web designers, and programmers. They are completely within their rights and within reason to establish and enforce rules (guidelines) for the use of their services. If you're not happy with the way that they conduct their business then you can certainly "vote with your pocketbook." You could even set up your own site that operates by your rules (or no rules at all if that's how you'd have it).

 

Perhaps the end result from all of this will be a group of "event organizers" that communicate better with "TPTB" and pay heed to the published rules.

[+Doc-Dean]

...after going to my first event and not knowing about some of the caches that were available, ie, pocket caches--who knew one was supposed to ask someone if they were holding something in their pocket??? perverted, if you ask me, or personal caches---people were a cache, what nonsense is that? These were only useful to only those who knew about them, I was turned off. Before I went, I had a lot of respect for the number of finds people had, and how many I had, but after that, the number means nothing to me. These people turn me off.

 

You've completely missed the point of going to an event. To meet the people and have fun. I'm sorry your first event was a negative experience for you. In my area, we take new people under our wing and explain to them everything as we go. I hope that given some time you give it another try. One thing about the numbers... there is only one person they should matter to.

 

I agree with Doc Dean's post and I back Snoogans. The OP's point, as I see it, is that there was no warning to the cachers that had temp or pocket caches at the event and they should have been given a head's up before the termination. A warning would have been the professional thing to do.

 

Both temp caches and pockets caches have been done at events for several years - if the practice was to be disallowed by TPTB, why not let us know before the event so we could have done something about it.

The archival of caches seems to be purely driven from reaction in these wholly unfriendly forums.

 

Thanks 9key! Pocket caches are not a new phenomenon. There were alot of them at GW3 however where were the complaints for public executions. Virtuals and Locationless were made illegal but we were given how long? ...a year to prepare for locationless to be archived. This could have and should have been handled in a more mature way than the witch burning method in which it occured.

 

Yes, its a witch burning. Can someone please explain to me how having bookmark lists listing "illegal caches" shown publicly for all the world to see promotes a positive image of geocaching??

 

Thanks for the honesty, Faith. The earlier Geowoodstocks were apparantly about the numbers, from what I've read of them. This year's seemed to be about "How many things can we claim as finds and get away with?"

 

Sorry Saxy, there is nothing that happened this year that did not also happen last year. There was a numbers run last year, a world record set and people logging pocket caches. Now you are just Monday morning quaterbacking...

 

Prior to May 27, 2006 were pocket and temp caches allowed to be logged at events?

 

It's not so black and white unfortunately. They were tolerated for years until the witch burnings started, if it was something new and was "cut off" or "nipped in the bud" that would be different.

 

Maybe some of these caches were legit before GWIV, but their owners decided to change them from what was originally published so that they no longer met the guidelines. What happens when a cache owner decided to turn a missing cache into a virtual? It gets archived since the new form does not meet the guidelines.

 

Generally, there were questions asked or warnings given before a cache was archived. No?

 

At GWIV people brought published caches to be logged at the event.

 

Again, no different from what I saw at GW3. What changed in one year?

[+gnbrotz]

Perhaps TPTB at GC should listen to those supporting their website and buying their products

 

Even though my 'real life' keeps me from astronomical numbers, I consider myself on a slow, consistent trend. I've been hangin' around these here parts since 2001.

 

Since that time I've heard similar comments from different sources about every controversy that's come down the line. Perhaps if the people who were genuinely upset would actually stop buying the merchandise and/or move their caches to another listing site instead of just threatening to do it, it would have an affect on TPTB. Some have tried, but apparently the larger community supports the general direction that things are going.

 

Do I agree with all the decisions that TPTB have made? NO! Do I still think this site is my best option when it comes to geocaching? ABSOLUTELY!!

[+CYBret]

 

Thanks 9key! Pocket caches are not a new phenomenon. There were alot of them at GW3 however where were the complaints for public executions. Virtuals and Locationless were made illegal but we were given how long? ...a year to prepare for locationless to be archived. This could have and should have been handled in a more mature way than the witch burning method in which it occured.

 

The difference: Locationless and Virtual caches were officially recognized cache types with their own icons and their own set of guidelines. There is nothing like that at all for pocket caches.

 

Instead, people take caches that have been listed at a certain set of coordinates and move them. We already have guidelines against that. We all know it can't be done. Why would TPTB need to spell anything out more clearly than is already in the guidelines?

 

Bret

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Both temp caches and pockets caches have been done at events for several years - if the practice was to be disallowed by TPTB, why not let us know before the event so we could have done something about it.

The archival of caches seems to be purely driven from reaction in these wholly unfriendly forums.

 

Pocket caches are not a new phenomenon. There were alot of them at GW3 however where were the complaints for public executions. Virtuals and Locationless were made illegal but we were given how long? ...a year to prepare for locationless to be archived. This could have and should have been handled in a more mature way than the witch burning method in which it occured.

 

Pocket caches may have been done, but they were never recognized as legal caches the way that virtuals and locationless caches were. In fact, the pocket caches violated the rules of Groundspeak for being moving caches. Temporary caches were allowed as part of event caches, but not allowed to be listed on the site. No one is saying you all cant still have the temporary or pocket caches. The only thing people are saying ...over and over again...is that these caches are not listed on the site, or are listed improperly, and therefor shouldnt be logged. GC.com's site, their rules.

 

What changed in a year? How many people ever heard of pocket caches until last month? I hadnt heard of them. Im not a newbie, nor a hermit. These pocket caches are like a bad case of the flu, spreading from the area of the country this started in. It diminishes the game. A lot of us dont want to see our game "polluted" by this type of caching. Since it is against the rules of GC.com, then we feel there is a standard to go by. Virtuals and locationless caches got the time to prepare for archival since they were legal caches to begin with. Pocket caches, and caches changed into secret moving caches were never permited and therefor could be archived at a moments notice.

 

(I take way too long to type out a post lol....someone else beat me posting a similar response.)

Edited June 4, 2006 by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

[+Mopar]

Pocket caches are not a new phenomenon. There were alot of them at GW3 however where were the complaints for public executions.

 

Sorry Saxy, there is nothing that happened this year that did not also happen last year. There was a numbers run last year, a world record set and people logging pocket caches. Now you are just Monday morning quaterbacking...

 

They were tolerated for years until the witch burnings started, if it was something new and was "cut off" or "nipped in the bud" that would be different.

At GWIV people brought published caches to be logged at the event.

 

Again, no different from what I saw at GW3. What changed in one year?

 

It seems some people have very selective memory. There were the same types of complaints a year ago. No, you can't search the forums for "GW3", just scroll back a year. How quickly some forget. Mutiple threads about temp caches and unethical logging and number padding.

When something happens once, it's a fluke.

When something happens repeatedly, you take action.

 

What's changed since last year is the fact the same issues came up again this year, so it's no longer a fluke. It's a problem. Since last year the site has almost doubled in size, which means the problem has doubled too. So TPTB took action, and people got caught breaking the rules they've been breaking for some time, and now they cry.

Edited June 4, 2006 by Mopar

[Luckless]

Snoogans hang on to your good memories and don't sweat the "discussions" to change the log in policy of events to more accurately reflect the guidelines of geocaching.com. IMHO comparing cache finds is like comparing apples and oranges. How do you compare a twenty minute micro find to an all day hike in the woods? So the DRR had the most finds at the event. Great! Hope they had fun. Should they have defaced the containers...Probably not... naughty , naughty...Don't do it again. So maybe there should be an agreed upon policy so no one does that again. Live and learn.

So people used pocket caches as icebreakers. Sounds like a fun way to meet people to me. Should they be able to log these finds on geocaching.com? Well isn't that really what the discussions are all about in the hopes that TPTB will set some rules about event caches we can all be happy with. Until then when the sh.. hits the fan just duck. These kinds of "discussions" happen all the time on the internet. Guess I've grown used to them...like water off a duck.

[+paintfiction]

Found this in the FAQ's on GC.com

 

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

 

1. Take something from the cache

 

2. Leave something in the cache

 

3. Write about it in the logbook

 

Where you place a cache is up to you.

 

Looks like they need to change the FAQ's if they don't want Pocket Caches.

 

Britney

Keep reading. When you get to the guidelines (you know the stuff you have to say you read before you can submit your cache for listing?) you'll find that moving and temporary caches are not allowed.

 

The "rules" are simple. The guidelines are not. The guidelines do not disallow moving or temporary caches. They merely say they will not be approved for listing. Further they NEVER discuss "moving" caches. The guidelines address caches whose goal is to move e.g. the old roaming style cache whose coordinates changed with each finder. Some of the pocket caches that were archived had goals to move so should've been archived after proper notice and through normal channels. Some of the caches are permanent installations that ocassionally move - a definite grey area in the guidelines. My cache is a good example. It was approved as written (with minor cache page edits for humor) after the roaming cache addition to the guidelines. The offensive part of this whole affair for me is that CO Admin archived my cache with no warning or allowance for me to change the cache page. If the cache needed to be archived, the appropriate thing to do would be to go through the proper channels i.e. send me an email describing the problem, allow me to change the cache page to reflect the latst guideline interpretation, if I failed to comply archive it. Further, it is an insult to the local reviewers to arbitrarily and unilaterally archive my cache without allowing the local reviewers opportunity to handle the situation. CO Admin has diminished their authority by bypassing them. If I were in their shoes, I would feel quite insulted and indignant.

[+Drgnsrealm]

Now I think I understand where Snoogans is coming from. He's upset because the Event Caches were archived before some people didn't have the chance to log them.

 

But they were logging Illegal finds in the first place. Correct? They were Temp, or Event Caches.

 

I'm sorry, but rules are rules. There has to be rules to play the game fairly for everyone.

 

Now Pocket caches are indeed a great ice breaker. When you have a large group of people, and hardly anyone knows anyone else, its good to have something there to 'break the ice', and get the laughter started. We're all human, and we need something sometimes to break the tension. Some use liquor, we Geocacher's use Pocket Caches. Go figure!

 

To say this is not a 'numbers game' is so far right field is beyond reasonable thought. Because to some, that's all it is, a 'see how many caches I can get' no matter what type of caches they are. Be them legal or not.

 

To some that's all it is, a numbers game, and I really feel sorry for them. I wonder how many of them stop to look around, to see the beauty around them. Most of them rush to the cache, sign the log, hide the cache, rush back to their cars and speed off to the next cache. They don't even stop to smell the roses.

 

What I can't understand is, what's the big deal about the number of caches you found? Be it 1 or 1,00,000? Now I've only found 20 or so caches, but I've driven, walked and biked to each and every one of them. I've battled thorns, ticks, poison oak and ivy, swatted down spider webs, and even did the dance a time or two. But I can say, even without posting my logs on GS.com I've enjoyed each and every one of them.

 

If I could not log my finds on paper, or in GS.Com, I wouldn't really care. Because each and every one of them are still fresh in my mind, and in my heart. I worked hard for every cache, and it doesn't matter if I logged it here or not. To me it still a find.

 

For that matter, to me all of my caches have been FTF, just for the sheer excitment.

 

It's the hunt, the fresh air, the sun shine, and the rain. And the people you meet along the way. It's all about the hunt.

 

But you say you're upset because the 'illegal caches' were archived. Boo-Hoo!

 

But I would rant, because GS.com placed them up in their board in the first place. If there wasn't a place to log the finds, then no one would be upset. Or would they? Two sided coin, what?

 

You said it's not a numbers game, but isn't logging each 'bad' cache just that, another notch on you're GPS?

 

As stated before these type of caches should not be logged. They are an event cache, meaning they are there for the enjoyment of the find, not the numbers. They are Temp Caches that will fade away soon after the event is over, and it doesn't matter if you found every one of them, or none at all. They should not be logged. You can still count them as found in your mind, and know that you had fun doing so. But to say you found so many finds, and most of them were pocket caches is absurd. You're screaming in my ear.

 

"ITS ALL ABOUT THE NUMBERS DUDE!"

 

Now of course you may or may not see it that way.That's your choice and your god given right. This is only MPOV.

 

But to me unless they were 'real' caches, not pocket caches, or ones brought from other states to have your numbers raised, then they are not true caches, and I would never log them. I would still count them in my head as being 'found', but only if I had to go out and search for them. Not have someone hand it to me and say, "Here, sign the log, so you can add another notch on your GPS."

 

I wouldn't try to log them, knowing they break all the rules of G.S.

 

To me it's just a game, but to some I guess its a way to say, "Hey! I found 5,000 caches in a day. But I can only truely log 30 of them because the others break GS.com rules. But screw that, I'm going to log them anyway, and bitc* about the ones that were archived because they were not real caches."

 

To me its all the find, the enjoyment I get when I go out, search for that little bit of heaven and finding it, be a ammo can, tupperware, or a log stuffed in a film canister. It may take me a minute, or an hour to find, but the pure enjoyment of doing just that beats me sticking my hand in someone elses pocket, just so I can rack up more 'finds'.

 

Now I've never been to one of these events, but I have been to other types of events over the years, and find them to be a great time to meet and greet people. To have fun, to see new faces and make new friends.

 

It isn't all about the find. It's who you meet along the way.

 

But it seems to some its all about the finds, and the ones that got away.

 

I really hope Snoogans, that you had a great time at that event, that you met somefun loving people, saw sights you thought you'd never, ever see, and dined on some fine food and had a laught or two.

 

I pray to the Geo Gods that you didn't just see this event as a way to get more numbers, more notches in your GPS.

 

Me, I would have went, just to meet and greet. The caches though would have been a special bonus for me. But to me, these events are all about the people.

 

And it seems to take only one person to draw the ugliness out of a great event.

 

Can you truely say your rant has nothing to do with the numbers? Isn't that's what this rant is all about? It has nothing to do with the archived caches, because if that's true, then why rant? Caches get archived each and every day, and no one gets this upset.

 

Is it because all those caches you and the others found are no longer on paper, so that means they cannot be proven as fact? To me that's BS, because as you mentioned before, you're not into the numbers. Yet you bring up one guy who found his 300 find, yet couldn't log it.

 

If that's not counting numbers, then what is it?

 

We're a competitive lot, I grant you that much. And we hold our heads a little higher each time the cache numbers rise. But we lower it too, when we're caught cheating.

 

So lower your head Snoogans. I know I would...

 

(Rant over)

[+Mopar]

What's changed since last year is the fact the same issues came up again this year, so it's no longer a fluke. It's a problem. Since last year the site has almost doubled in size, which means the problem has doubled too. So TPTB took action, and people got caught breaking the rules they've been breaking for some time, and now they cry.

 

What also "changed" this year is this time you (the collective you) pushed the guidelines a little harder with that Iraq cache. A bunch of people logging "found it at GW4, thanks for another smiley!" on that cache garnered more worldwide attention then a micro in FL would. Because it is so difficult and dangerous to legitimately log, it also offended those who had logged the legit cache. THAT in turn increased the wattage shining on other caches, and brought to light the fact that GW4 organizers tried to pull the same stunt by "borrowing" an APE cache.

In other words, you went from flying under the radar and simply annoying some people in the forums last year to painting a big red bullseye on the subject and pissing off the people who run the show this year. You (again the collective you) pretty much forced TPTB to take action.

Edited June 4, 2006 by Mopar

[+welch]

I won't comment on the topic of the post itself but......

If you want to write a letter to Groundspeak and not have anyone but them reply, you should email it to them, not post it in a forum where every topic is open for discussion by every user of the website.

I was going to say something like that, but its been said... a couple times now. Oh well.

[+The SuzyQs]

seems simple enough, from the "cache listings and requirements" page:

 

Cache Permanence

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

We realize that it is possible that a planned long-term cache occasionally becomes finite because of concerns with the environment, missing or plundered caches, or the owner’s decision to remove the cache for other valid reasons. Please do your best to research fully, hide wisely, and maintain properly for a long cache life.

 

I bolded and underlined a statement. Again, MOST LIKELY, it won't be listed, but then again, it does not say it WON'T.

[+ArcticNomad]

What's changed since last year is the fact the same issues came up again this year, so it's no longer a fluke. It's a problem. Since last year the site has almost doubled in size, which means the problem has doubled too. So TPTB took action, and people got caught breaking the rules they've been breaking for some time, and now they cry.

 

What also "changed" this year is this time you (the collective you) pushed the guidelines a little harder with that Iraq cache. A bunch of people logging "found it at GW4, thanks for another smiley!" on that cache garnered more worldwide attention then a micro in FL would. Because it is so difficult and dangerous to legitimately log, it also offended those who had logged the legit cache. THAT in turn increased the wattage shining on other caches, and brought to light the fact that GW4 organizers tried to pull the same stunt by "borrowing" an APE cache.

In other words, you went from flying under the radar and simply annoying some people in the forums last year to painting a big red bullseye on the subject and pissing off the people who run the show this year. You (again the collective you) pretty much forced TPTB to take action.

 

Since I wasn't at GW4, and am not a moderator, consider this a virtual log on an event I wasn't really at...

 

Mopar is right on, as are a number of other cachers above. As I just posted in another related thread... WHY DON'T YOU GET IT??? YOU didn't go hunt for the cache, someone brought it to you, so what makes you think it is OK to log it as a legitimate find???? It is a travesty for the rightful owner or anyone else to bring along a 'COPY-Cache' or the real container to an event so someone can log a unique find such as an APE cache, the Iraq cache, or even a guard-rail micro. YOU WEREN"T THERE. By the way, a geocache is simply the end of a hunt to a posted SET pair of coordinates. THAT'S where you were meant to go. The tupperware is not important other than to have a place to maintain a physical log (and some trinkets if you want), to PROVE you were really there.

[+CheshireFrog]

So if the Illinois APE cache was brought in just for the event that would have counted as a legit log??

To the GWIV crowd? yes. To everyone else? no

 

You're painting with a pretty broad brush there, don't you think?

[+nikcap]

... as I see it, is that there was no warning to the cachers that had temp or pocket caches at the event and they should have been given a head's up before the termination.

 

What's been the mind set around Groundspeak and Geacaching for the last 2 years?

 

I think moving caches have been outlawed since March of 2003.

 

Both temp caches and pockets caches have been done at events for several years - if the practice was to be disallowed by TPTB, why not let us know before the event so we could have done something about it.

 

How is it that I've been aware of this for the last 2 years?

What we have to realize is that just because a blind eye was turned to this practice, doesn't mean it wasn't against the guidelines of cache placement.

 

BTW, for those keeping score at home, I'm 100% guilty of logging a pocket cache at a event and bringing a moving cache to an event. At the time I thought it was cool.

 

But events are about meeting some of the interesting people the cache and putting faces with the names you've read about.

 

Anyway, the point of the post, even if you've stuck your head into the forums once every other month, or have been to one event. I don't see how you wouldn't know that pocket caches, moving caches, locationless, virtuals, multiple logging finds, and logging online without signing the log book, are no-no's in Groundspeak's ideal of Geocaching.

[+Snoogans]

Now turn about is fair play, He wants the TPTB to justifiy this, and if they want to explain this, they will, but what about the other side of the coin, justifiy the request for the APE cache.

 

Not my department. I was just the travel bug wrangler for the event. I had no other function than that and hosting the Friday Meet & Greet & Sunday Terracaching event. I know nothing about it. Start another GW4 bashing thread for that one. I wash my hands of it.

A request to move the APE cache to GW4 is directly related to the fact that other caches were temporarily relocated to GW4. Therefore, the posts on this point are on topic.

 

I didn't say it was off topic, nor did I admonish anyone to stop talking about it. I merely stated that I knew nothing at all about this matter before a mod from this site brought it up. It was a clever attemt to twist this thread in another direction and add more noise. I'm preparing a fix for the noise level on this thread right now. Stay tuned...

[Keystone]

No, Snoogans. Thread closed. I have been very patient in asking you to please let the moderators define how to manage your thread. You were out of line to tell Markwell to start another thread. Fair warning having been given, you've lost your thread. Feel free to write your letter to Groundspeak. Do NOT reopen this thread or start a similar one.