Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
The Blue Quasar

EarthCaches to return to Geocaching

145 posts in this topic

I think we've upset the topic enough with our side conversation :anitongue: We can find another thread to start this discussion again :D

Take care, Bambi.

<_<

0

Share this post


Link to post

Well, though I kind of agree with opinions on both sides of the fence the thing is: Geocaching is a GAME!!!!!!

 

With that said, I am a true hater of lampost caches and most lame urban micros seemingly designed not for the location but the pure numbers. I may dislike them but I do not get on the forums to bash them (minus this post due to example purposes). I just do not do them even if they pop up .1 from my house (that is not an invitation). So if you do not want EC, WC and Virts on geocaching then don't do them. How painful is that? For me it does not have to be about the physical container as it should be how you got there and what happened, if I sign a logbook that truly is not a big deal to me.

 

flyingmoose

EarthCache Master

0

Share this post


Link to post

I'm fairly new at geocaching, so that sets my perspective.

 

I really enjoy Waymarking. Probably because of the subjects I've chosen to waymark, but that's not the point.

I don't care if anyone logs visits my waymarks or not, though I try to mention Waymarking as much as possible.

 

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned a container/non-container division, and someone else mentione cache purists, etc.

 

1. The name of the game is "geocaching". A cache really does imply a container.

 

2. The benchmark piece of geocaching.com is really really really similar to visiting someone else's waymarks.

 

How did non-container "caches" ever start on geocaching.com? (Maybe I should ask How.) (Don't answer this question...it's there to make a point not to get an answer.)

 

Why is Waymarking a separate site? (Okay, I'll take an answer to this one.)

 

Why can't the numbers and statistics all come together in some fashion? (This too.)

 

And if they ARE going to be separate sites, then nothing should have been "moved" until the new site was outta beta.

 

EDIT: I just visited www.earthcache.org and I have a theory.

 

I think the Earthcache move(s) have something to do with taxes and sponsorships and maybe about beta vs. production. And I didn't know I could start getting collectible pins!

Edited by 0ccam
0

Share this post


Link to post

Well even though Earthcaches are in the same place as Waymarks, they do not belong there as they are still designed as geocaches. I would be just as happy if they were just on Earthcache.org but alas i do not make the rules, I just play the game.

 

Geocaching: does imply container but many words imply many things, things evolve! It is a game not English class.

 

As far as I know the Benchmark part was from the very early days and from a 1998/99 dataset as well soo if you find any after 1998/99 you will have to log them on Waymarking.com. Just another growing pain of GC, we all have them, they realized it and have since decided not to upload any new benchmarks so you are stuck with what they got. I could be a bit off on this info but it is close enough.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Why can't the numbers and statistics all come together in some fashion? (This too.)

 

It would be especially nice if the geocaching and Waymarking numbers and statistics all came together in our profile.

 

J.A.R.S.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I think its great that they MAY be coming back, its a pain, visiting 2-3 different caching sites. like an above poster said, Geocachins a game, and all should be covered under that game.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Just in case you missed it in another thread... OpinioNate has indicated that in WM 2.0 that there will be data transfer features and improved navigation.

 

And Jeremy has indicated that Groundspeak plans on creating a super site to house everything... profile, caching, Waymarking... other stuff in the pipe. But that is far off in the future.

 

For the record... I never said that EarthCaches weren't broken. I like EC's, but on GC.com they were just as broken as Virtuals. Because EC's ARE Virtuals, with a required educational content.

 

It's funny how Jeremy tried to tell everyone that Geocaching had to add the "WOW" factor for Virtuals due to the fact that people would try to list anything as a Virtual.

 

Now, with Waymarking we can list nearly anything. And I bet if most of us were to be totally honest, most Waymarks are not WOW at all.

 

If I was Jeremy, inside I would be thinking "Told you so!" since Waymarking has opened Pandora's Box to all kinds of Virtual listings.

 

I can admit that NONE of my Waymarks even come close to making anyone go "WOW THAT'S AMAZING". Some are interesting, briefly. Most I would equate to collecting baseball cards (Got em, Got em, Need em)

 

To say that EC's weren't broken, but Virtuals were is incorrect. Yes the ESA (GeoAware) was reviewing them, but still had to take the word of the person supplying the content. Just like any Groundspeak Reviewer.

 

Again... this is not a dig against EarthCaches. They are great for educating people about Earth Science. But I've been to many that are "Take your picture at this spot" with all the education learned sitting on my couch/sofa. I won't give examples (but look in my profile if you want to know). That may differ now.

 

So, care to explain why people were bombarding the Reviewer base with Virtuals that lacked any WOW, yet they won't participate in Waymarking which would let them submit the same location?

 

Do I think EarthCaches are a good thing? YES

Do I think they were broken on Geocaching.com? YES

Do I still think they fit much better on Waymarking.com? OH HECK YES!

 

BTW... I suspect they were only called "EarthCaches" because all we had were caches. EarthPoints or EarthMarks makes far more sense to me. By adding 'caches' in the name doesn't make them actual caches.

 

B) The Blue Quasar

Edited by The Blue Quasar
0

Share this post


Link to post

Had Waymarking been around when earthcaches were developed I agree that we would likely have "earthmarks" or "earthpoints." I can see the logic for wanting them on Waymarking.

 

I am still very pleased they are being brought back to gc.com due to the visibility they will receive. Given a couple of years Waymarking may become more popular, but right now the simple fact is that gc.com gets a whole lot more traffic and use.

0

Share this post


Link to post
The Blue Quasar

Posted Today, 03:41 PM

It's funny how Jeremy tried to tell everyone that Geocaching had to add the "WOW" factor for Virtuals due to the fact that people would try to list anything as a Virtual.

WOW Dad, there is a pipe sticking out of the ground and there is water coming out of it! :D

Yes Son, it's called an "Earthcache" or Artesian Spring so take a good look at it as you may never see another one like that again. :D

 

c3708e4f-da6d-4c3d-90f7-c3693a5f5df4.jpgB)B)B)

0

Share this post


Link to post

We won't win a discussion with sarcasm or belittling other's listings. We don't look better by that method, trust me, I've made that mistake too many times

 

The fact that EarthCaches seem to be getting different treatment from other categories is the issue.

 

So far, no one has illustrated why EarthCaches should return to Geocaching. Exposure is not a valid reason. We could cover our Waymarks with bikini models to achieve more exposure too, that isn't the right approach either.

 

B) The Blue Quasar

0

Share this post


Link to post

So far, no one has illustrated why EarthCaches should return to Geocaching. Exposure is not a valid reason. We could cover our Waymarks with bikini models to achieve more exposure too, that isn't the right approach either.

Quite true that the full explanation and reasoning has been provided by the PTB. I'm just looking at the benefits I see to earthcaches, the effect rather than the cause. From my end, I just have to roll with what the PTB decide and play the game as I want to.

 

So when to the models start showing up? B)

0

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting thread. You will probably be able to tell that this is the first time I have visited the Waymark discussions, and only to look up the methods that Earthcaches will be migrated back to GC.com! I agree with a couple of earlier posts: firstly that something seems to be missing from Waymarking. I don't know what it is as when you look at caching finding a plastic box, usually (but not always) full of unwanted kids toys there is probably something missing there as well. But at the end of the day I do enjoy it but can't find the same enthusiasm for Waymarking. secondly to put a Waymarking tab on the GC profiles may provide some incentive. Sorry but as a discussion outsider I can't wait for Earthcaches to return, but good luck to you waymarkers.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Alright... I'll bite.

 

Captain Gore-tex Posted Today, 12:59 PM

{snip} But at the end of the day I do enjoy it but can't find the same enthusiasm for Waymarking. secondly to put a Waymarking tab on the GC profiles may provide some incentive. Sorry but as a discussion outsider I can't wait for Earthcaches to return, but good luck to you waymarkers.

 

Why? How is the actual EarthCache different on Geocaching from Waymarking? You get a 'check mark' either way, how is one better than the other?

 

:wub: The Blue Quasar

 

P.S. I agree with your comment of

 

I don't know what it is as when you look at caching finding a plastic box, usually (but not always) full of unwanted kids toys there is probably something missing there as well.

 

I don't care about trade items, just to find the container and sign my name is all I want. But I do remove Geo-Trash and clean containers, but the logbook is the important aspect for me.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I'm also hoping that this gets more people interested in placing earthcaches. I want to earn the various Earthcaching Pins. Right now my problem is finding other earthcaches I can reach.

0

Share this post


Link to post

... Most I would equate to collecting baseball cards (Got em, Got em, Need em). ...

I don't care much for collectibility, I want to show people geologically-interesting sites.

 

The fact that EarthCaches seem to be getting different treatment from other categories is the issue.

I understand peoples concern container vs. no container, but earthcaches ARE different than most other Waymarking categories because they have well-defined criteria and are held to a higher approval standard by the GSA (unlike many other wishy-washy categories of Waymarking). Also, many earthcaches are in places where a physical container is not allowed, like in national parks, where geological-wonders are abundant (although Parks Canada and geocaching groups around Canada are working towards a comprise), whereas many other waymarks are in places where a geocache can be placed.

 

So far, no one has illustrated why EarthCaches should return to Geocaching. Exposure is not a valid reason.

I disagree, exposure IS a valid reason. The fact is is that earthcaches listed on geocaching.com get FAR more visitors than those on Waymarking.com (though I won't speculate on reasons why earthcaches on Waymarking.com have failed to attract the same attention in this post), and if that's what it takes to attract visitors, then I'm all for it. It is very discouraging to spend the time developing a quality earthcache for Waymarking and have very few (if any) visitors, and yet watch all the ECs on gc.com enjoy immense popularity. It is obvious that people LIKE earthcaches, but they don’t want go out of their way to find them on (the still confusing) Waymarking.com.

 

We could cover our Waymarks with bikini models to achieve more exposure too, that isn't the right approach either.

I would whole-heartedly support this movement. Let me know what I can do to help, but I'm going to need some models. :laughing:

 

Why can't the numbers and statistics all come together in some fashion? (This too.)

It would be especially nice if the geocaching and Waymarking numbers and statistics all came together in our profile.

J.A.R.S.

In the end, this might be the best solution for everyone. I don't see why Groundspeak can't develop one all-encompassing site for geocaching AND Waymarking. I can see it now, a tab for waymarks between geocaches and trackables on My Profile page on geocaching.com. The bottom line is that I want earthcaches to be exposed to as many people as possible. If more people visited my earthcache, I would definitely develop more of them.

Edited by shearzone
0

Share this post


Link to post

The management of Groundspeak, before Waymarking was created, decided that Locationless and Virtual (and only those two) were in their words 'broken'.

 

Perhaps the reason behind the original fact that Virtuals were "broken" but Earth Caches weren't is that there was an independent body considering the validity of each cache. Maybe if a historical society were as involved in the placement of Virtuals as the Geological Society of America are with Earth Caches, it would solve the problem? Or maybe we need a new cache type for historical caches...

 

Just a thought...

 

Bambi.

 

It is true that one problem with virtuals was that they were reviewed by the same Groundspeak volunteer reviewers who review all other caches. Having to determine that a virtual met the "Wow" requirement was just too much to ask the volunteers to do. Earthcaches on the other hand are reviewed by a separate person who does this on behalf of the Geological Society of America. He doesn't check for "Wow" and instead evaluates the Earthcache based on its relevance to geology and its educational content. This is very much like Waymarking where waymarks are reviewed by group managers, who have an interest a category, to see that the waymark meets the requirements that are specific to that category. In fact, Earthcaches are a much better fit to Waymarking than to geocaching - as are historic sites, cultural sites, and anything else that doesn't involve finding a container with a log to sign. I can only guess that Earthcaches are going to be listed on Geocaching.com because of the fact that waymarks don't get very many visitors yet. I think this is short sighted. Waymarking is still in beta. It is still a mystery to many geocachers who only find out about it when they try to submit a virtual cache. It still needs a way to download the waymarks in your favorite categories so you can visit them. It probably needs to be better integrated with geocaching. Perhaps an option to show waymarks in your favorite categories on the geocaching map along with geocaches. My prediction is that as Waymarking becomes more popular, it will eventually get to the point where the GSA will realize that they can reach more people would really like to visit sites to learn about geology through Waymarking than they can reach through geocaching.

 

I mostly agree with this. I think based on what I've read here the reason Earthcaches are coming back is that there must be some sort of pressure out there from the Earthcache organization to put it back so it can go back to it's old level of popularity. Let's face it, the real reason for the popularity difference is the smiley count; if Waymarking had a smiley count I'm sure it would be 10 times more popular right now, especially since it is probably much easier on average to earn a smiley on Waymarking than on Geocaching.

 

But IMHO there are other factors at play that caused Waymarking to happen. Because for the most part virts and especially Locationless are almost "free smileys", the traffic on them was more than the gc.com site can bear, remember not too long ago when every weekend the site would be slow as molasses to use?

 

This does not mean I am totally anti-WM, it DOES make sense for the Locationless instead of having it flood gc.com, and while I think Virts are still better on GC.com, I can see the argument that without the "wow" factor admins will be overburdended with new requests to post Virts and that this "wow" factor can be quite subjective for admins to deal with and cause needless conflict, but right or wrong having a "smiley" count on WM would make it a lot more popular (lots of people in northern areas who cut on their caching in winter due to snow cover would go to WM in droves, look at how popular Locationless was during those months); but yet it will never happen because it would make it so popular as to make the site almost unmanagable to admin, Groundspeaks needs WM's use to be at a managable level that wasn't possible with the Virts/Locationless on GC.com

 

That is my 2 cents (or given the length of this, my $2).

0

Share this post


Link to post

Just got the email about EarthCaches being returned to Geocaching, which I assume means they are leaving Waymarking.

 

This, in my opinion, is a BIG mistake.

 

Finally Groundspeak had divided the Container from the Non-Container.

 

Now we are going to get an onslaught of "Great... now bring back Virtuals, WebCams and Locationless"

 

All I see this as is proof to the Geocachers that have been complaining.... that Waymarking was a bad idea.

 

Waymarking is still in Beta, and Version 2.0 is close to launch... why would you do such a thing?

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

Waymarking in my opinion is a complete waste of time, why it was ever created and We, virtual and earth caches were pulled is beyond comprehension.

0

Share this post


Link to post

There was no reason given, and I admit I'm very curious too.

 

I don't equate this move with anything negative regarding Waymarking.

 

I also don't agree with those that want to divide geocaching and Waymarking by container/no container. I think it's an artificial boundary that sounds tidy but otherwise carries no real significance.

 

Exactly, I would love to do some of these earthcaches and have done some of the grandfathered ones. I love seeing them added to my icon count. I do not like switching between sights. I am a geocahcher. Lets keep it all at geocaching. Neat and Tidy. Who cares if the log book I sign at the find I brought with me. LOL.

I spend to much time planning on one web site to worry about the Waymarking site. Come on guys its a hobby. I would love to have more options.

 

I would visit more earthcaches and virtuals if they were on geocaching. Visits are the point are they not.

 

I am still unclear as to why Groundspeak moved ANY type of cache away from the Geocaching website. Geocaching is just a hobby/game. There are no prizes to win and everyone plays the "game" the way it fits their likes, schedules, lifestyles, etc...So if someone does not like virtuals, then they don't do them. The same holds true for terrain, public places, remote places, and so on. Personally, I never really cared for locationless caches but I liked having the option to do them should I want to. (or NOT do them!) I know many people that hate micro caches, but they appreciate the option of being able to do them as well.

 

To me, unless I have missed the concept, Waymarking is nothing but an online yellow pages with different types of categories, and you use a GPS to find the store / restaurant / whatever...So I don't see the "game or hobby" aspect of it which is what draws me to the Geocaching website. Geocaching is an outlet at times for myself and my family.

 

I still go to the Waymarking site to check on the changes....I know it is still in Beta which is why I still visit it. I am waiting to see the changes and to see how it evolves. Perhaps I will understand it someday and I am maintaining an open mind for the Waymarking site. Who knows, I just may like it better than Geocaching someday! (Then again, maybe not!!) :laughing:

 

So I am happy that the Earthcaches are coming back to Geocaching. And yes, I'm afraid that I am one of those individuals that would like to see all of them come back. (Especially web cam caches as I particularly like them!) And yes, I would even be happy to see the locationless ones come back as well! :unsure:

Ditto

0

Share this post


Link to post

I understand peoples concern container vs. no container, but earthcaches ARE different than most other Waymarking categories because they have well-defined criteria and are held to a higher approval standard by the GSA (unlike many other wishy-washy categories of Waymarking). Also, many earthcaches are in places where a physical container is not allowed, like in national parks, where geological-wonders are abundant (although Parks Canada and geocaching groups around Canada are working towards a comprise), whereas many other waymarks are in places where a geocache can be placed.

 

Earthcache then ARE different from other geocaches. Aside from the "needs a container and log" aspect, all other geocaches are REVIEWED by volunteer reviewers while only Earthcaches will be reviewed by the GSA. What really ticks me off about the above statement is the false opinion that many other categories of Waymarking are wishy-washy. Every category of Waymarking is managed by a group of managers who have expressed interest in managing the category. Every submitted waymark is reviewed to see that it meets the criteria that are specified for that category. Earthcaches are NO DIFFERENT than any other Waymarking category. The expertise of the GSA in evaluating whether the waymark has geological interest and that the visit will be educational does not mean that their criteria is any more or less wishy-washy than any other criteria for any other Waymarking category. Other groups that have special expertise or interest could easily create a Waymarking group and have a Waymarking category without Geocaching.com having to create more SPECIAL geocaching types.

 

Since waymarks don't have containers they can be in places where a container is not allowed, and since there are many earthcaches on geocaching.com that have been placed where a physical container can be place, I can't follow what that is a argument for moving Earthcaches back to the Geocaching.com site.

 

Waymarking in my opinion is a complete waste of time, why it was ever created and We, virtual and earth caches were pulled is beyond comprehension.

 

Just as we were getting a group of people finding that Waymarking can be interesting and fun, as new categories get added almost every day, as new features for using the Waymarking site are about to come online, TPTB send out this letter with no explanation of their reasoning. The whiners who miss virtuals and earthcaches on Geocaching.com come out with remarks like this that show they haven't really thought about how they can use Waymarking to find these virtual type caches and get the same or perhaps better experience (other than the dadgum smiley)

0

Share this post


Link to post

The name of the game is "geocaching". A cache really does imply a container.

 

True, but if I had not seen a couple of virtuals, or waymarked points, I would not have been taken to some pretty neat sites or historical marks.

 

The benchmark piece of geocaching.com is really really really similar to visiting someone else's waymarks.

 

True, but in benchmarking, the purpose is to verify the existence of a survey mark that can be used yet again to verify property lines, distance, or survey questions.

 

We could cover our Waymarks with bikini models to achieve more exposure too, that isn't the right approach either.

 

:unsure: The Blue Quasar

 

Wait a minute BQ. For some of us, that idea may have a lot of merit! :laughing::ph34r::o

0

Share this post


Link to post

It is obvious that people LIKE earthcaches, but they don’t want go out of their way to find them on (the still confusing) Waymarking.com.

 

There was no reason given, and I admit I'm very curious too.

 

I don't equate this move with anything negative regarding Waymarking.

 

I also don't agree with those that want to divide geocaching and Waymarking by container/no container. I think it's an artificial boundary that sounds tidy but otherwise carries no real significance.

 

Exactly, I would love to do some of these earthcaches and have done some of the grandfathered ones. I love seeing them added to my icon count. I do not like switching between sights. I am a geocahcher. Lets keep it all at geocaching. Neat and Tidy. Who cares if the log book I sign at the find I brought with me. LOL.

I spend to much time planning on one web site to worry about the Waymarking site. Come on guys its a hobby. I would love to have more options.

 

I would visit more earthcaches and virtuals if they were on geocaching. Visits are the point are they not.

 

Totally. To me, container vs. no container is a non-issue. Geocaching is a hobby that has evolved beyond that limitation. The post above also further confirms that people like earthcaches, but don't want to deal with the hassle of Waymarking.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to see ALL of the outlawed caches come back to GC.com. In my opinion where they belong...

 

I, too, would like to see Waymarking removed and all those caches brought back to Geocaching. Sometimes your hunt is for a container, sometimes your hunt is for something bigger than the container.

 

And remember, friends don't let friends Waymark.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for proving my point!

 

As you can read for yourself, if EarthCaches are transferred back to Active Status on Geocaching.com, people will use it as leverage or justification that other grandfathered listing types should be reinstated.

 

I hope Groundspeak has taken note of this thread, as it serves as an excellent 'foreshadowing' of what is going to happen if they do return EarthCaches to Geocaching.com

 

:huh: The Blue Quasar

0

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for proving my point!

 

As you can read for yourself, if EarthCaches are transferred back to Active Status on Geocaching.com, people will use it as leverage or justification that other grandfathered listing types should be reinstated.

 

I hope Groundspeak has taken note of this thread, as it serves as an excellent 'foreshadowing' of what is going to happen if they do return EarthCaches to Geocaching.com

 

:lol: The Blue Quasar

 

When virtuals were moved to Waymarking and people would respond that virtuals were caches and belonged on geocaching.com, Jeremy would ask the rhetorical question "What is the definition of a virtual cache?". No matter the answer, he would respond that the definition was too subjective. Apparently, he got a definition of Earthcache that wasn't subjective. I just wish he would share it with us. Should other categories that don't have subjective criteria be moved to geocaching as well?

Edited by tozainamboku
0

Share this post


Link to post

I experienced firsthand the short-term benefits of migrating Earthcaches back to GC.com recently.

 

Instead of going through each listing, I just ran a PQ of Earthcaches in Oregon and Washington (21) last minute, then flew into Seattle. I decided on-the-fly which ones to visit based on proximity and time constraints, and also for the potential "WOW" factor based on the descriptions.

 

I await better integration of WM.com and GC.com to save preparation time. It's all about The Visit. :bad:

0

Share this post


Link to post

Earthcache then ARE different from other geocaches. Aside from the "needs a container and log" aspect, all other geocaches are REVIEWED by volunteer reviewers while only Earthcaches will be reviewed by the GSA. What really ticks me off about the above statement is the false opinion that many other categories of Waymarking are wishy-washy. Every category of Waymarking is managed by a group of managers who have expressed interest in managing the category. Every submitted waymark is reviewed to see that it meets the criteria that are specified for that category. Earthcaches are NO DIFFERENT than any other Waymarking category. The expertise of the GSA in evaluating whether the waymark has geological interest and that the visit will be educational does not mean that their criteria is any more or less wishy-washy than any other criteria for any other Waymarking category. Other groups that have special expertise or interest could easily create a Waymarking group and have a Waymarking category without Geocaching.com having to create more SPECIAL geocaching types.

 

Just as we were getting a group of people finding that Waymarking can be interesting and fun, as new categories get added almost every day, as new features for using the Waymarking site are about to come online, TPTB send out this letter with no explanation of their reasoning. The whiners who miss virtuals and earthcaches on Geocaching.com come out with remarks like this that show they haven't really thought about how they can use Waymarking to find these virtual type caches and get the same or perhaps better experience (other than the dadgum smiley)

 

I just recently got a Earthcache approved thru Waymarking and Irysh (whoever he is) declined it twice before GSa approved it so it looks like Groundspeak does have it's say in things. Though this does not validate Earthcaches approval system I just thought I would post that small bit of info.

 

As for Waymarking, if you do not like it. Do not use it or speak badly of it. I know a few Waymarkers who have no interest in Geocaching. Funny thing is that they do not badmouth geocaching. It is not about the numbers or icons, it is about the adventure.

0

Share this post


Link to post

The bottom line is that I want earthcaches to be exposed to as many people as possible. If more people visited my earthcache, I would definitely develop more of them.

 

I have to admit, I lost interest in developing my other earthcaches because Waymarking isnt getting the traffic. Ive been treating the categories as locationless only. Ive even been thinking of archiving my other waymarks since they are not getting the traffic. I do like the categories I have and plan to stay with them. Now that earthcaches are returning to gc.com, I will look into setting my planned earthcaches into approved earthcaches.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Ive even been thinking of archiving my other waymarks since they are not getting the traffic.

Please don't do that. They'll eventually get the traffic, assuming they're "visit-worthy" waymarks. Give it time.

 

:laughing:

0

Share this post


Link to post

If the reason for moving EarthCaches back to geocaching is because they don't get visited enough as waymarks as some have indicated, then I propose a little testing be done. If they are not being visited because people don't know about them when they are on the Waymarking site, then move them to the geocaching site but don't give the "smiley count" for a visit. This would give an indication of why they are not being visited. Is it not being aware of their existence because they are "hidden" on the Waymarking site or is the lack of a "smilely count"?

Here's a little test. I set up an earthcaching event with 3 close by earthcaches. 2 listed on geocaching.com and 1 on Waymarking. All of the them prominantly displayed on the event page. The Waymarking location was within say about 200 feet of the event coordinates and one of the geocaching locations about 500 feet the other direction. Both an easy walk along the beach so if you made it to the event, you could easily log both.

 

The geocaching earthcache got 13 logs that day. The Waymarking earthcache received 5 logs that day.

 

I even specifically pointed out the Waymarking location to the people that came. One of the responces I got was along the lines of they would be bothered to do a waymark.

 

Their loss :rolleyes: as the point of the event and the earthcaches was/is to learn about the geology of the area not get more smileys.

Edited by TerryDad2
0

Share this post


Link to post

If the reason for moving EarthCaches back to geocaching is because they don't get visited enough as waymarks as some have indicated, then I propose a little testing be done. If they are not being visited because people don't know about them when they are on the Waymarking site, then move them to the geocaching site but don't give the "smiley count" for a visit. This would give an indication of why they are not being visited. Is it not being aware of their existence because they are "hidden" on the Waymarking site or is the lack of a "smilely count"?

Here's a little test. I set up an earthcaching event with 3 close by earthcaches. 2 listed on geocaching.com and 1 on Waymarking. All of the them prominantly displayed on the event page. The Waymarking location was within say about 200 feet of the event coordinates and one of the geocaching locations about 500 feet the other direction. Both an easy walk along the beach so if you made it to the event, you could easily log both.

 

The geocaching earthcache got 13 logs that day. The Waymarking earthcache received 5 logs that day.

 

I even specifically pointed out the Waymarking location to the people that came. One of the responces I got was along the lines of they would be bothered to do a waymark.

 

Their loss :rolleyes: as the point of the event and the earthcaches was/is to learn about the geology of the area not get more smileys.

 

Kinda proves my point ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post

That hardly proves anything. We have a prominent Geocacher here that firmly believes that people avoid Multi-Caches. Based upon his data, it would appear that he is correct. The nearby Traditionals get far more hits than the Multi's do.

 

So????

 

That doesn't mean a thing. You can't say all caches are Traditionals of 1 to 10 stages.

 

To say that an EarthCache listed on Geocaching is far more popular than one on Waymark also proves nothing. If TPTB were to put all existing EarthCaches (and Web Cams) on notice of "You have until 31 DEC 06 to migrate your listing to Waymarking. At that time any listings on Geocaching that remain will be Archived, as was done with Locationless Caches." then people would have to go and enjoy EarthCaches on Waymarking, if they wanted to keep enjoying them.

 

This whole 'smilie' count also doesn't apply... I score a 'point' for every visit, in fact I have far more WM points than I do finds on Virtuals and their cousins.

 

While your example does illustrate a point, to me the real point is that because they exist in two places, people are clutching on to what they are familiar with.

 

If you really loved "Filet 'O Fish" and McDonald's no longer offered them, but Burger King bought the rights... wouldn't you go to Burger King to get what you loved? If your answer is "No", then perhaps you don't really "love them" afterall.

 

:rolleyes: The Blue Quasar

Edited by The Blue Quasar
0

Share this post


Link to post
Just got the email about EarthCaches being returned to Geocaching, which I assume means they are leaving Waymarking. This, in my opinion, is a BIG mistake. Finally Groundspeak had divided the Container from the Non-Container. Now we are going to get an onslaught of "Great... now bring back Virtuals, WebCams and Locationless" All I see this as is proof to the Geocachers that have been complaining.... that Waymarking was a bad idea. Waymarking is still in Beta, and Version 2.0 is close to launch... why would you do such a thing? :) The Blue Quasar
To me geocaching has always been about taking me to a cool place that I never would have known about had it not been for geocaching. So I'm glad to see Earthcaches come back! Woo Hoo! ;) You won't find an Earthcache under a freaking lamp post cover behind Wal-Mart! :rolleyes: Edited by TrailGators
0

Share this post


Link to post
Just got the email about EarthCaches being returned to Geocaching, which I assume means they are leaving Waymarking. This, in my opinion, is a BIG mistake. Finally Groundspeak had divided the Container from the Non-Container. Now we are going to get an onslaught of "Great... now bring back Virtuals, WebCams and Locationless" All I see this as is proof to the Geocachers that have been complaining.... that Waymarking was a bad idea. Waymarking is still in Beta, and Version 2.0 is close to launch... why would you do such a thing? :) The Blue Quasar
To me geocaching has always been about taking me to a cool place that I never would have known about had it not been for geocaching. So I'm glad to see Earthcaches come back! Woo Hoo! ;) You won't find an Earthcache under a freaking lamp post cover behind Wal-Mart! :rolleyes:

The thing is that you could still have a gps oriented adventure to take you to cool spots like earthcaches, natural arches, significant historic places, or whatever your interst is by using Waymarking. In fact, Waymarking would let you be rather specific about the type of location you want to see.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Just got the email about EarthCaches being returned to Geocaching, which I assume means they are leaving Waymarking. This, in my opinion, is a BIG mistake. Finally Groundspeak had divided the Container from the Non-Container. Now we are going to get an onslaught of "Great... now bring back Virtuals, WebCams and Locationless" All I see this as is proof to the Geocachers that have been complaining.... that Waymarking was a bad idea. Waymarking is still in Beta, and Version 2.0 is close to launch... why would you do such a thing? :ph34r: The Blue Quasar
To me geocaching has always been about taking me to a cool place that I never would have known about had it not been for geocaching. So I'm glad to see Earthcaches come back! Woo Hoo! :anicute: You won't find an Earthcache under a freaking lamp post cover behind Wal-Mart! :anicute:

The thing is that you could still have a gps oriented adventure to take you to cool spots like earthcaches, natural arches, significant historic places, or whatever your interst is by using Waymarking. In fact, Waymarking would let you be rather specific about the type of location you want to see.

If was a way to download a PQ of all nearby waymarks when I'm going somewhere I might try it. However, if they are really moving Earthcaches back to GC then there's really nothing to debate.
0

Share this post


Link to post

Received two emails today, both regarding my EarthCache listings. One was okay as it is, the other was not.

 

My reply to the Leader of the Earth"Cache" category, which was cc'd to Contact@Groundspeak is listed below.

 

You can start by explaining how my listing does not meet your new guidelines. Providing a 'cut and paste' form letter does not explain your position what so ever and is taking the easy way out.

 

Further, you can explain exactly why EarthCaches are returning to Geocaching.com, something which I am extremely opposed to. Regardless of what the new guidelines are updated to, my listing was approved BEFORE the change and as such should be grandfathered like all other types of listings when rules/guidelines change.

 

I am not going to jump through any hoops until an acceptable reason has been given to BOTH of these issues.

 

When I get your response, I will judge your comments accordingly and make my decision. Currently all I see is an effort being made to undermine the vast amount of time and thought I have given to promote and enhance Waymarking. Returning EarthCaches to Geocaching would elevate them to a status they do not warrant, and further fuel the fire to return other Virtual-esque listings back to the site.

 

EarthCaches, while educational in nature, are a variation of Virtual Caches... which belong solely on Waymarking.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

And as part of a reply to a Waymarker that I have nothing but huge respect for....

 

I don't wish to argue with you either. My belief is that physical containers belong on Geocaching, and location visits belong on Waymarking.

 

That is the whole point to me. Everything else is either resisting change, unable to look for alternatives or acting like spoiled children. In a term.. "Smoke and Bulls..."

 

I could care less about 'availability', or 'scoring', or 'popularity'.

 

It was plain to see when the 4 Grandfathered types were blocked from Geocaching, why they were blocked, where they moved to and why. It was a step forward in my eyes, and little is going to change that perception.

 

If TPTB cave on this issue, that is not a big issue. But it undermines everything we Waymarkers have tried to develop and create.

 

Personally I couldn't care less if the ESA is not happy with the decision to put EarthCaches on Waymarking... nothing makes them special. Groundspeak didn't listen when people demanded the return of Virtuals, why should they back peddle this time?

 

Yes, I can understand how some people firmly believe what they believe. Everyone has that right. But at least when Locationless and 'True' Virtuals were, as Jeremy put it, broken... it was explained why there was a problem.

 

All I see is the ESA shoving this at me, without so much of an explanation. I think I'm entitled to at least that much.

 

If the ESA wants to talk about EarthCaches... then get in the Forums and discuss it with those that are actually willing to help work on the issue.

 

B) The Blue Quasar (who is getting rather P!$$Y I might add)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Received two emails today, both regarding my EarthCache listings. One was okay as it is, the other was not.

 

My reply to the Leader of the Earth"Cache" category, which was cc'd to Contact@Groundspeak is listed below.

 

You can start by explaining how my listing does not meet your new guidelines. Providing a 'cut and paste' form letter does not explain your position what so ever and is taking the easy way out.

 

Further, you can explain exactly why EarthCaches are returning to Geocaching.com, something which I am extremely opposed to. Regardless of what the new guidelines are updated to, my listing was approved BEFORE the change and as such should be grandfathered like all other types of listings when rules/guidelines change.

 

I am not going to jump through any hoops until an acceptable reason has been given to BOTH of these issues.

 

When I get your response, I will judge your comments accordingly and make my decision. Currently all I see is an effort being made to undermine the vast amount of time and thought I have given to promote and enhance Waymarking. Returning EarthCaches to Geocaching would elevate them to a status they do not warrant, and further fuel the fire to return other Virtual-esque listings back to the site.

 

EarthCaches, while educational in nature, are a variation of Virtual Caches... which belong solely on Waymarking.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

And as part of a reply to a Waymarker that I have nothing but huge respect for....

 

I don't wish to argue with you either. My belief is that physical containers belong on Geocaching, and location visits belong on Waymarking.

 

That is the whole point to me. Everything else is either resisting change, unable to look for alternatives or acting like spoiled children. In a term.. "Smoke and Bulls..."

 

I could care less about 'availability', or 'scoring', or 'popularity'.

 

It was plain to see when the 4 Grandfathered types were blocked from Geocaching, why they were blocked, where they moved to and why. It was a step forward in my eyes, and little is going to change that perception.

 

If TPTB cave on this issue, that is not a big issue. But it undermines everything we Waymarkers have tried to develop and create.

 

Personally I couldn't care less if the ESA is not happy with the decision to put EarthCaches on Waymarking... nothing makes them special. Groundspeak didn't listen when people demanded the return of Virtuals, why should they back peddle this time?

 

Yes, I can understand how some people firmly believe what they believe. Everyone has that right. But at least when Locationless and 'True' Virtuals were, as Jeremy put it, broken... it was explained why there was a problem.

 

All I see is the ESA shoving this at me, without so much of an explanation. I think I'm entitled to at least that much.

 

If the ESA wants to talk about EarthCaches... then get in the Forums and discuss it with those that are actually willing to help work on the issue.

 

B) The Blue Quasar (who is getting rather P!$$Y I might add)

 

The problem was in the reviewing of these non-container caches. If there had been a good system it could have worked. No system is perfect so there will always be something to complain about. But if the geology experts reviewing these Earthcaches don't see the value in a proposed Earthcache then so be it. Accept it and move on. The irony is that you don't need a "wow" factor if you have a container. What is the opposite of "wow" because that is the fastest growing type of cache these days. To be honest, I have to hand it to Terracaching because at least they recognize the value of a great location regardless of whether or not it has a container. So reintroducing Earthcaches back to Geocaching is a step in the right direction. B)

0

Share this post


Link to post

Well if you have not started to bring your Earthcaches or waymarks into compliance please do so ASAP. This log was on one I haave not had a chance to fix yet. They are only giving us 10 days to comply

 

Location: Costa Rica

geoaware posted a reviewer note for Sit'in On Top of the World Earthcache (Earthcache) at 10/10/2006

 

Log Date: 10/10/2006

 

Requires Maintenance

 

Hi,

As part of the process of EarthCaches returning to geocaching.com, every EarthCache is reviewed to ensure that each EarthCache listing adheres to the new guidelines.

 

We wanted to inform you that your EarthCache has been reviewed but does not meet the new guidelines. Can you please read the guidelines carefully below and adjust your EarthCache listing so that it meets the guidelines? Once you have made changes, please email me (glewis@geosociety.org) and I will review the updated listing. EarthCaches that do not meet the guidelines by 20 October will be archived. Please let me know how I may be of further assistance.

 

Regards,

 

Geoaware

0

Share this post


Link to post
:) The Blue Quasar (who is getting rather P!$$Y I might add)

Someone needs a nap.

 

:)

0

Share this post


Link to post

I have a not-so-perfect but viable solution:

 

First off, from the reviewer letters that are popping around (I've gotten emails on a couple of Earthcaches that are on my watch list) I am fully convinced that the main reason that Earthcaches are going back to Geocaching is simply ESA complaining about how interest has declined since the move to Waymarking and realizing that right or wrong, the chance at the smiley does increase popularity. But I think they are trying to make it harder to log than a plain old Virtual or Locationless by adding,

 

"Logging of EarthCaches must involve visitors undertaking some educational task. This could involve them measuring or estimating the size of some feature or aspect of the site, collecting and recording some data (such as time of a tidal bore), or searching and sending via email to the developer, some fact that they find from signage. Developers should try to involve visitors in learning from the site … rather than just logging a visit. Logs should show that the visitors have 'learnt' by visiting your EarthCache"

 

From what I've seen, this is the main reason for the warning notes on many of the Earthcaches being reviewed. While the "official" reason I'm sure is to meet ESA's goals for earth science education (and I do think it's noble), I'm sure part of the idea is to cut the "load" that can overload GC.com's servers (remember back in Locationless's heydey when most of every weekend it was almost impossible to log onto the GC site?) by discouraging someone simply looking for the "free, easy smiley".

 

Anyway, back to my idea:

 

How about any Earthcaches that get archived or rejected are allowed to get a "2nd review" for Waymarking with the old guidelines? It does seem a bit wacky to have these on 2 sites, but technically we have virtuals and webcams on both sites (just no NEW ones on the GC site). Make it that you could only have your Earthcache on one of the 2 sites, not both.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Anyway, back to my idea:

 

How about any Earthcaches that get archived or rejected are allowed to get a "2nd review" for Waymarking with the old guidelines? It does seem a bit wacky to have these on 2 sites, but technically we have virtuals and webcams on both sites (just no NEW ones on the GC site). Make it that you could only have your Earthcache on one of the 2 sites, not both.

 

I like this idea. In fact, I've always said that I'd like to see Virtual, Webcam and Earth Caches return to GC.com but without removing them from WM.com. WM is a much more free-flowing game than GC, and some "caches" will be fine in one place and not in the other and some will fit in both (I suppose I should also say some will fit in neither :) ). Some people like the free-flowing game, others prefer the more structured game, but this way you get to please more people and the sites and games really are independent.

 

Bambi.

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

How about any Earthcaches that get archived or rejected are allowed to get a "2nd review" for Waymarking with the old guidelines? It does seem a bit wacky to have these on 2 sites, but technically we have virtuals and webcams on both sites (just no NEW ones on the GC site). Make it that you could only have your Earthcache on one of the 2 sites, not both.

There was a waymark category (geologic oddities) rejected because it was too close to earthcaches. Now that earthcaches are moving, I fully expect (and hope) that category to be resumitted and approved. The earthcaches that don't meet the guidelines for earthcaches can be submitted into that category if the owner wants to take the time to reinput the information.

 

Even earthcaches that meet the new guidelines can be submitted to that waymark category.

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

How about any Earthcaches that get archived or rejected are allowed to get a "2nd review" for Waymarking with the old guidelines? It does seem a bit wacky to have these on 2 sites, but technically we have virtuals and webcams on both sites (just no NEW ones on the GC site). Make it that you could only have your Earthcache on one of the 2 sites, not both.

There was a waymark category (geologic oddities) rejected because it was too close to earthcaches. Now that earthcaches are moving, I fully expect (and hope) that category to be resumitted and approved. The earthcaches that don't meet the guidelines for earthcaches can be submitted into that category if the owner wants to take the time to reinput the information.

 

Even earthcaches that meet the new guidelines can be submitted to that waymark category.

 

So it seems like those that prefer to Geocache and those that prefer to Waymark will be happy when all is said and done. That is the way it should be. :) I never understood why there couldn't be some overlap in the first place.....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Ive even been thinking of archiving my other waymarks since they are not getting the traffic.

Please don't do that. They'll eventually get the traffic, assuming they're "visit-worthy" waymarks. Give it time.

 

:)

 

I second that. Even if they're not getting any traffic, are they hurting anything NOT being archived?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Just got the email about EarthCaches being returned to Geocaching, which I assume means they are leaving Waymarking. This, in my opinion, is a BIG mistake. Finally Groundspeak had divided the Container from the Non-Container. Now we are going to get an onslaught of "Great... now bring back Virtuals, WebCams and Locationless" All I see this as is proof to the Geocachers that have been complaining.... that Waymarking was a bad idea. Waymarking is still in Beta, and Version 2.0 is close to launch... why would you do such a thing? B) The Blue Quasar
To me geocaching has always been about taking me to a cool place that I never would have known about had it not been for geocaching. So I'm glad to see Earthcaches come back! Woo Hoo! :D You won't find an Earthcache under a freaking lamp post cover behind Wal-Mart! :P

 

Just give Wal-mart more time!

 

(someone had to say it)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Ive even been thinking of archiving my other waymarks since they are not getting the traffic.

Please don't do that. They'll eventually get the traffic, assuming they're "visit-worthy" waymarks. Give it time.

 

:D

 

I second that. Even if they're not getting any traffic, are they hurting anything NOT being archived?

 

I help manage a Waymarking category called New World Ancient Evidence which is not exactly an Earthcache but is similar. Anyhow, we had approved several new waymarks to this category and it was growing. However I looked today and they are all gone except for one!!!! I have no idea what happened to them!!! B):):)

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

I help manage a Waymarking category called New World Ancient Evidence which is not exactly an Earthcache but is similar. Anyhow, we had approved several new waymarks to this category and it was growing. However I looked today and they are all gone except for one!!!! I have no idea what happened to them!!! B):):)

It's a new "feature." Just above the waymark listings and below the "Total Records:" is a pull down menu to filter on the age of the waymarks. The default is 1 week. Change it to a longer period and click update and they will be listed.

Edited by TerryDad2
0

Share this post


Link to post

Who is the ESA people keep talking about? I thought it was the GSA (Geological Society of America) that approved earthcaches.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Ive even been thinking of archiving my other waymarks since they are not getting the traffic.

Please don't do that. They'll eventually get the traffic, assuming they're "visit-worthy" waymarks. Give it time.

 

:D

 

I second that. Even if they're not getting any traffic, are they hurting anything NOT being archived?

 

I help manage a Waymarking category called New World Ancient Evidence which is not exactly an Earthcache but is similar. Anyhow, we had approved several new waymarks to this category and it was growing. However I looked today and they are all gone except for one!!!! I have no idea what happened to them!!! B):):)

 

Interesting.... I just submitted "Leo Petroglyph" to this category a couple days ago, and it is missing, as you say.

 

I've noticed that all my photos (as well as others, presumably) are in the category directory.

 

You might make mention of this in the V2.0 bugs thread.

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

I help manage a Waymarking category called New World Ancient Evidence which is not exactly an Earthcache but is similar. Anyhow, we had approved several new waymarks to this category and it was growing. However I looked today and they are all gone except for one!!!! I have no idea what happened to them!!! :D:D:)

It's a new "feature." Just above the waymark listings and below the "Total Records:" is a pull down menu to filter on the age of the waymarks. The default is 1 week. Change it to a longer period and click update and they will be listed.

Doh! The default should be 3 years! B) But thanks for letting me know where they were all hidden, Now I can go select the 3 year box everytime I visit a Waymarking category so I can see all the waymarks. :)

 

Anyhow, I was able to check how often our waymarks are gettting visited. As I suspected we have 12 waymarks and only 2 total visits on all 12 waymarks.....That's horrible! If these were caches we would have had at least 2-3 logs per cache. So this seems like some good data supporting why they are allowing Earthcaches back on GC.com.....

0

Share this post


Link to post

Who is the ESA people keep talking about? I thought it was the GSA (Geological Society of America) that approved earthcaches.

 

I think you're right, I was just following other posts, people are probably just getting confused and thinking it's ESA, with the E for "Earthcaching".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5