Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
The Blue Quasar

EarthCaches to return to Geocaching

145 posts in this topic

shearzone Posted Yesterday, 11:14 AM

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

 

Yup.. you're right, my mistake.

 

robert

 

(The Blue Quasar @ Oct 10 2006, 08:25 PM) *

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

 

Someone needs a nap.

 

I went Geocaching... helped a lot. But a nap sounds nice too.

 

The option to create new categories to emulate EarthCaches is a great idea, and like was mentioned we have some already. Good call!

 

Have we actually had an official word from Groundspeak that this is actually going to happen?

 

:unsure: The Blue Quasar

Edited by The Blue Quasar
0

Share this post


Link to post

I received a reply from the Leader of the EarthCache Group, which gave some insight into the decision to return EarthCaches to Geocaching.com

 

Although it is often considered bad form to post another person's email in the forums, I am providing a snippet because I believe in being fair. I've done a large amount of complaining about this issue and it would be unfair of me to not show the positive side.

 

What is quoted below is the relevent section that applies to us, as Waymarking participants

 

EarthCaches are being returned to Geocaching.com to support earth science education. We are working diligently to review EarthCaches specifically for this reason so that "virtual-esque" caches do not return to the system. This move is also not indicative of the failing of Waymarking.

 

So, I've had to make a personal decision. When it comes to Geocaching, I do not place any caches that are beyond my 'regional border', even though I do seek caches beyond it. As I own two EarthCaches on Waymarking, one is a copy of my one on Geocaching and the other is outside my Geocaching range, I will be releasing them.

 

The one that outside my area, is the same location that Jake39 tried to get approved and was declined. I will ask him to adopt it from me, and make the needed changes. Hopefully OpinioNate can help there as well.

 

So, while I am still not in agreement that EarthCaches should return to Geocaching, I am not going to engage any further attempts to prevent it.

 

EarthCaches have been and still remain a very good idea, and with the tighter guidelines they will be more enjoyable.

 

I do hope that Groundspeak does continue with its current "No Virtuals, Locationless or Webcams" directive, and further wish they would set a time limit to migrate the Virtuals, Webcams and Benchmarks over to Waymarking where the next generation of GPS Gaming has already embraced them.

 

:) The Blue Quasar

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

EarthCaches are being returned to Geocaching.com to support earth science education. We are working diligently to review EarthCaches specifically for this reason so that "virtual-esque" caches do not return to the system. This move is also not indicative of the failing of Waymarking.

 

 

So why not just have it on Waymarking? I'm curious why having it on GC.com rather than on Waymarking with the other "non-container" caches better supports earth science education.

0

Share this post


Link to post
So why not just have it on Waymarking? I'm curious why having it on GC.com rather than on Waymarking with the other "non-container" caches better supports earth science education.

 

Well it all started back in may when the two parties met up in a diner at the end of a lonely street..............

 

Check out Earthcache.org

0

Share this post


Link to post

While there hasn't been anything official from Groundspeak, the only real emails I have received have all been from the GSA but also included "Team Groundspeak" as a signature.

 

It kinda suggests that the GSA and Groundspeak are partners in this venture.

 

Either way, there still has not been a firm "Reason" given for the EarthCaches to return to Geocaching.com but I don't think we are going to get one.

 

EarthCaches by definition seem to fit better on Waymarking, but due to the low exposure they are receiving compared to the attention they would get on Geocaching, it really isn't a surprise.

 

I can understand it from that point of view especially when it comes to promoting the GSA's objectives to seek the most utilized site, but I still think that EarthCaches are more like Waymarks than they are like Geocaches.

 

Regardless, it seems the decision has been made, and based upon other Forums the decision is being well received.

 

;) The Blue Quasar

0

Share this post


Link to post

Any more news as to when this is going to happen? I see Earthcaches are still a category on Waymarking.com.

 

(Waiting anxiously to resubmit my Places of Geologic Intereset category).

0

Share this post


Link to post

For about the next 3 weeks geoware is doing maintence on existing Earthcaches both here and on gc.com bringing them all into compliance or archiving them. So it will probably be after that is finished when they migrate back.

0

Share this post


Link to post
So why not just have it on Waymarking? I'm curious why having it on GC.com rather than on Waymarking with the other "non-container" caches better supports earth science education.

 

Well it all started back in may when the two parties met up in a diner at the end of a lonely street..............

 

Check out Earthcache.org

 

HMM, it seems like they think the geological landmark itself is the "container" :-)

0

Share this post


Link to post

Until than, i guess if we wanted to create a new one, we either wait or make a WM?????? No option on the GC site.

0

Share this post


Link to post

They are requesting that no new Earthcaches be created until the move back to gc is complete. (Not on Waymarking either).

0

Share this post


Link to post

Ok I guess it's time for me to chime in on this.

Waymarking sux, who cares about every stupid thing in every little town in the USA.

I see waymarks for everything from bars to who knows what. I can't be bothered with having to log into 2 different sites to find interesting things. Alot of earthcaches are in areas where no physical container can be located at, or where someone like me would not place a container.

I for one don't care one way or the other but as has been stated hundreds of times before, everyone has their own way of playing the game. If you don't like a certain kind of cache, don't do it! The Virts and locationless caches where getting way out of hand, like I don't give a big rotten apple about logging a fire truck, or a cab, or some other common everyday thing. Earthcaches are supposed to take an individual to a unique feature created by mother nature, and help us learn about the earth.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Ok I guess it's time for me to chime in on this.

Waymarking sux, who cares about every stupid thing in every little town in the USA.

I see waymarks for everything from bars to who knows what. I can't be bothered with having to log into 2 different sites to find interesting things. Alot of earthcaches are in areas where no physical container can be located at, or where someone like me would not place a container.

I for one don't care one way or the other but as has been stated hundreds of times before, everyone has their own way of playing the game. If you don't like a certain kind of cache, don't do it! The Virts and locationless caches where getting way out of hand, like I don't give a big rotten apple about logging a fire truck, or a cab, or some other common everyday thing. Earthcaches are supposed to take an individual to a unique feature created by mother nature, and help us learn about the earth.

 

We couldn't think of how to put our opinion on this, but I think you put it best in a way we couldn't. Waymarking is technically not a bad idea, but it seems (in a different way) to be producing the "excesses" problems that virts and especially locationless had (we logged the fire truck one on both sites but thought it was "ridiculous"; honestly, a fire truck rarely stays in a set location (except at the firehouse itself) so how can it really be logged).

 

Are any "qualifying" Waymarking earthcaches automatically going to GC.com? When? The nearest Earthcache to us is currently 30 miles away as the crow flies and involves 2 toll bridges (or a train to a ferry), so it takes well over an hour to get to, but WM has one that is <10 miles away (still involves crossing a toll bridge to another state, but very close). We were at it yesterday, but didn't log it (nor go directly to the Earthcache coords to do the "educational" part) thinking it would be in "logging limbo" right now.

Edited by HaLiJuSaPa
0

Share this post


Link to post
programmer64 Posted Yesterday, 04:30 AM

Ok I guess it's time for me to chime in on this.

Waymarking sux, who cares about every stupid thing in every little town in the USA.

I see waymarks for everything from bars to who knows what. I can't be bothered with having to log into 2 different sites to find interesting things.

 

Perhaps you could take your own advice, and go play your game your way. Hope you enjoy the dwindling amount of Virtuals around you to "find".

 

Alot of earthcaches are in areas where no physical container can be located at, or where someone like me would not place a container.

 

That's funny, it sound like the definition of a Virtual Cache to me.

 

Hope you enjoy EarthCaches when they return to Geocaching.... and if you don't like Waymarking and aren't willing to help improve it, then by all means stick to the original Groundspeak site you know and love.

 

:D The Blue Quasar

0

Share this post


Link to post
HMM, it seems like they think the geological landmark itself is the "container" :-)

 

GSA and Groundspeak are not forcing cachers to log Earthcaches, if you do not agree with the decision just do not log or create the caches. I do not like LPCs and hense I do not log them, I do not make a fuss with Groundspeak or complain on the forums about their existance as other cachers enjoy doing them. Why would I want to mess up other people fun.

 

Enjoy geocaching! IT IS A GAME!!!!!!!!

0

Share this post


Link to post
HMM, it seems like they think the geological landmark itself is the "container" :-)

 

GSA and Groundspeak are not forcing cachers to log Earthcaches, if you do not agree with the decision just do not log or create the caches. I do not like LPCs and hense I do not log them, I do not make a fuss with Groundspeak or complain on the forums about their existance as other cachers enjoy doing them. Why would I want to mess up other people fun.

 

Enjoy geocaching! IT IS A GAME!!!!!!!!

 

I actually do agree with it, but I think for consistency they should allow Virtuals to then come back too. If they made Waymarking as similar to navigate as the Geocaching site (though I will say it has improved with the 2.0 upgrade) it would make more sense.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I got my first waymark transferred to gc. It's here. They start out owned by geoaware and he sends you an adoption request. Then it is all yours.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Wow!!! I am impressed!!! Well done. You'r the best :blink:a40bd616-4cd6-4c4a-b397-654fd1ca4571.jpg

How about I send you one to 'dress up' like yours. :huh:

0

Share this post


Link to post

Wow!!! I am impressed!!! Well done. You'r the best :blink:a40bd616-4cd6-4c4a-b397-654fd1ca4571.jpg

How about I send you one to 'dress up' like yours. :huh:

Sure. I'd be willing to help out where I can. I just throw in a "<img align="right" src=

"http://img.Groundspeak.com/cache/1b000380-8f72-45e6-958f-14b304454f34.jpg"

border="0">" tag in the description. I find the source image by uploading an image to the gallery, then clicking on the image and copying the url that comes up.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I actually do agree with it, but I think for consistency they should allow Virtuals to then come back too. If they made Waymarking as similar to navigate as the Geocaching site (though I will say it has improved with the 2.0 upgrade) it would make more sense.

 

Well I kind of agree to a certain extent but sad to say, Waymarking has killed the virtual, even exisiting ones. If you look at some virtuals and check out nearby waymarks sometimes the answer is right there. I sort of stress the photo part as that way there are no armchair logs to the Earthcaches I own.

 

I thought webcams were pretty neat as well but I am content with Earthcaches as they are one of my favorites to seek out, aside from mine there is only 2 within 100 miles. Maybe Terrydad can come visit my area? But I think I got a good bit of the nearby spots already.

0

Share this post


Link to post

This earthcache languished on Waymarking since the end of July without even a "Boo" from waymarkers. It took only a few hours for it to be found on Geocaching.

 

From the log, the earthcache brought him to a place he didn’t know existed before. For me, that I point of setting up these earthcaches and wanting them visited. Maybe they'll learn something as well :tired:

 

Someday, soon I hope, people will figure out that Waymarking can show them places they didn’t know existed in their own back yard.

0

Share this post


Link to post

so are earthcaches back on gc.com?

 

if I submit one, do I go through the Waymarking site, gc.com, or the earthcaching site?

 

I have a couple of sweet spots that I have developed the materials and coordinates for, but don't want to send it to the wrong site...

 

Jamie - NFA

0

Share this post


Link to post

so are earthcaches back on gc.com?

 

if I submit one, do I go through the Waymarking site, gc.com, or the earthcaching site?

 

I have a couple of sweet spots that I have developed the materials and coordinates for, but don't want to send it to the wrong site...

 

Jamie - NFA

GSA has asked us to hold off submitting new ones for now while they deal with the transfer. I've got a few waiting as well.

 

When new ones are accepted it will be on a form a earthcache.org.

0

Share this post


Link to post

...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....

 

What you see is proof that caches had many forms and that waymarks are not caches. Waymarking and Caching are two different things with different people who will enjoy both. Some may like both, but not all.

0

Share this post


Link to post

so are earthcaches back on gc.com?

 

if I submit one, do I go through the Waymarking site, gc.com, or the earthcaching site?

 

I have a couple of sweet spots that I have developed the materials and coordinates for, but don't want to send it to the wrong site...

 

Jamie - NFA

GSA got the submitall form up. New EarthCaches can be submitted at http://www.earthcache.org/. On the menu bar on the left click "Submit Your

EarchCache"

 

I'll have to wait till I get home to submit my new ones. I would also suspect that you will need to wait a while for them to be approved.

0

Share this post


Link to post
This earthcache languished on Waymarking since the end of July without even a "Boo" from waymarkers. It took only a few hours for it to be found on Geocaching.

ack! vacation earthcache!

 

:tired:

 

looks cool!

0

Share this post


Link to post

Have to admit that Robert's comment does ring true, even if he was kidding.

 

The guidelines for Geocache listings (ALL) do require that the owner resides within a reasonable distance for maintenance. I think the rough line was 100 miles / 160 kilometers.

 

I have seen EarthCaches approved that the owner is FAR away, and there is no reason to believe they actual "Cache" in the area apart from a vacation they were on.

 

That too troubles me about an independent group being able to review EarthCaches. When someone lives over 4 hours away, how can they be allowed to submit and get an EarthCache listed?

 

:tired: 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?

 

:unsure: The Blue Quasar

 

Oh Oh Oh ....and don't forget Locationless Caches... those were my fav... I like Scavenger Hunt style... I knew taking those pics with my GPS in Hand or in the pic would pay off someday soon... :laughing:

0

Share this post


Link to post

Have to admit that Robert's comment does ring true, even if he was kidding.

 

The guidelines for Geocache listings (ALL) do require that the owner resides within a reasonable distance for maintenance. I think the rough line was 100 miles / 160 kilometers.

 

I have seen EarthCaches approved that the owner is FAR away, and there is no reason to believe they actual "Cache" in the area apart from a vacation they were on.

 

That too troubles me about an independent group being able to review EarthCaches. When someone lives over 4 hours away, how can they be allowed to submit and get an EarthCache listed?

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

 

I think the answer is that there is no container to maintain, so the "vacationosity" of the cache is less important...if the cache meets the guidelines set up by the earthcache org, there shouldn't be any problems that require the earthcache owner to live close by...just my thoughts on the matter...I do think that the return of Earthcaches to geocaching.com from Waymarking.com does, or should, open the door on the virtual cache discussion...again...

 

Jamie - NFA

0

Share this post


Link to post

ack! vacation earthcache!

 

:laughing:

 

looks cool!

No getting around that one. Called it like it is. I was still able to show a fellow cacher a place they didn't know existed. I am quite pleased by that.

 

I think I have followed the spirit of the guideline (note guideline not hard and fast rule written in stone, though as a geologist I know even something written is stone is not permanent :unsure: )

 

I have placed a cache at a feature that for all intensive purposes will be around for my life-time. I can not check on it as frequently as a container cache needs, but I will check on it when I go visit family. Based on the rates of erosion in the area, that should be more frequent than is needed.

 

I will check on my other earthcaches should the geology of the area change :blink:

 

I think my thoughts are similar to NFA’s

0

Share this post


Link to post
I think the answer is that there is no container to maintain, so the "vacationosity" of the cache is less important...

Virts on gc.com still had to abide by vacation/maintenance guidelines, but not sure how EC's were prior to any of the changes.*

 

No getting around that one. Called it like it is. I was still able to show a fellow cacher a place they didn't know existed. I am quite pleased by that.

TerryDad2, I was totally kidding. I've looked at a few of your EC's and they look cool.

 

*edit: In the case of an earthcache, however, I'd be confident in saying it's a lot less likely to go away than many or most of the virts that were submitted (plaques, signs, etc., though there are also those that are quite unique, like an EC) which makes the earthcache quite interesting! well that and the reduced need for a local 'maintainer'. And there's certainly the fact that if the EC guidelines allow it, then that's great! Some of the locals may not know about the uniqueness of the locations TerryDad2 has submitted, but because of the effort he put into the pages, now they do.

 

:laughing:

Edited by robert
0

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone have a timeline on the migration? All my EarthMarks passed approval and I'm waiting for them to become EarthCaches...and I see from TerryDad2 that they're moving them over, so...

 

Just curious.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone have a timeline on the migration? All my EarthMarks passed approval and I'm waiting for them to become EarthCaches...and I see from TerryDad2 that they're moving them over, so...

 

Just curious.

Most of mine have moved over. I was told there were just about 150 left to go. It seems the only ones left are yours and the ones I visited on Waymarking. :) I've been checking to relog on gc.com.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone have a timeline on the migration? All my EarthMarks passed approval and I'm waiting for them to become EarthCaches...and I see from TerryDad2 that they're moving them over, so...

 

Just curious.

Most of mine have moved over. I was told there were just about 150 left to go. It seems the only ones left are yours and the ones I visited on Waymarking. :) I've been checking to relog on gc.com.

 

I'm still waiting for my EC to make the move too.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone have a timeline on the migration? All my EarthMarks passed approval and I'm waiting for them to become EarthCaches...and I see from TerryDad2 that they're moving them over, so...

 

Just curious.

Most of mine have moved over. I was told there were just about 150 left to go. It seems the only ones left are yours and the ones I visited on Waymarking. :) I've been checking to relog on gc.com.

Ah, the logs don't make the transition, then? Interesting.

Hm - how does that work for the ECMasters program, then? What if you logged an EarthMark that didn't survive the transition; do you still get to claim it?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, the logs don't make the transition, then? Interesting.

Hm - how does that work for the ECMasters program, then? What if you logged an EarthMark that didn't survive the transition; do you still get to claim it?

When you fill out the form you have to put in the ID of the earthcache. You would put in the WM id and it would get verified by looking at the archived log on Waymarking. If there is an issue, which I wouldn't expect there to be, I would just relog the GC with the original date.

 

Again I'm not doing the reviewing, but that's how I would expect it to work.

Edited by TerryDad2
0

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps you guys could start a new thread to attract more attention to the valid discussion you are having. There are probably supporters of EarthCaches out there that avoid this thread due to the title.

 

While I conceed that in spite of my efforts to reverse Groundspeak's decision to return EarthCaches to Geocaching from Waymarking, for whatever unpublicized reason they have, appear to have been unsuccessful it would appear that it is time to close this thread so that a new one that provides a better 'moving forward' resourse is in order.

 

Groundspeak has not commented in any fashion regarding this change in direction, whether to confirm it, deny it, explain it or otherwise. Unless anyone has a strong objection, I think it is time for OpinioNate, Bootron or Jeremy to lock this thread as it no longer serves the purpose that it was created to do.

 

Like I've said in the past, I am not going to fight about this anymore. I don't agree with the change in direction, but it's not up to me to decide.

 

:unsure: The Blue Quasar

0

Share this post


Link to post

ack! vacation earthcache!

 

:unsure:

 

looks cool!

No getting around that one. Called it like it is. I was still able to show a fellow cacher a place they didn't know existed. I am quite pleased by that.

 

I think I have followed the spirit of the guideline (note guideline not hard and fast rule written in stone, though as a geologist I know even something written is stone is not permanent :mad: )

 

I have placed a cache at a feature that for all intensive purposes will be around for my life-time. I can not check on it as frequently as a container cache needs, but I will check on it when I go visit family. Based on the rates of erosion in the area, that should be more frequent than is needed.

 

I will check on my other earthcaches should the geology of the area change ;)

 

I think my thoughts are similar to NFA’s

 

True, the geological feature is not very likely to move or change in our lifetimes. But if the verification questions depend on educational signage found at the location, there could be some issues. :o They need to be maintained, and understaffed and underpaid park rangers and land managers may not make repairs as quickly as we would like. The historical marker for the Origins of Raleigh virt lay on the ground and was barely visible after a traffic accident for almost a year. That was just one of the problems that led to the end of virtuals. :o

0

Share this post


Link to post
The Blue Quasar Posted Yesterday, 08:08 PM

Groundspeak has not commented in any fashion regarding this change in direction, whether to confirm it, deny it, explain it or otherwise. Unless anyone has a strong objection, I think it is time for OpinioNate, Bootron or Jeremy to lock this thread as it no longer serves the purpose that it was created to do.

Agreed!!! .... time to move it to ---->Earthcaches Link

0

Share this post


Link to post

True, the geological feature is not very likely to move or change in our lifetimes. But if the verification questions depend on educational signage found at the location, there could be some issues. :huh: They need to be maintained, and understaffed and underpaid park rangers and land managers may not make repairs as quickly as we would like. The historical marker for the Origins of Raleigh virt lay on the ground and was barely visible after a traffic accident for almost a year. That was just one of the problems that led to the end of virtuals. :(

I see the issue and have been concerned about it when I've set up earthcaches. I love the program and since very few others were really makig the effort to set these up (especially in the national parks) I went ahead and did it. Those people that have visited have had positive responses to them and in quite a few instances have commented that they didn't know some of the features existed or had no clue what they meant.

 

I have considered putting up some of these for adoption by local cachers (if there are in some of these remote areas). I haven't because I don't want to loose control over the caches I spent alot of time researching and setting up. Control Freak?, maybe :P I'm attached to my work :D

 

I guess I have to admit that I am also abit of a numbers freak in this area. :huh: I like the big earthcache number on my profile page. Have the PTB figured out a way to keep track of the number of caches you place and later give up for adoption?

 

I am resigned that at some point I will have to put some up for adoption should I get indications that the access to the sites have changed. :( (Then again I I don't plan to let my daughters date until they are 25 :D just kidding)

0

Share this post


Link to post

Seeing as how the NEW earthcache thread has gone off topic in a hurry, I'm going to post this here for the moment:

 

True, the geological feature is not very likely to move or change in our lifetimes. But if the verification questions depend on educational signage found at the location, there could be some issues. :huh: They need to be maintained, and understaffed and underpaid park rangers and land managers may not make repairs as quickly as we would like. The historical marker for the Origins of Raleigh virt lay on the ground and was barely visible after a traffic accident for almost a year. That was just one of the problems that led to the end of virtuals. :huh:

 

What is it that needs maintenance? The rock was there before we got here and will likely be there (barring new development that requires blasting) long after we blow our selves up sky high. There is nothing to sign on site. In fact, one of the requirements for an earthcache is that you are not allowed to leave anything at the site. If there is dirt on the rock, the finder can brush it off. The developer shouldn't need to sweep the rock clean so that the finder doesn't get dirty. Maybe it's the type of geologist I am, but I can't see why a rock requires maintenance. Rocks outlived dinosaurs.

Edited by shearzone
0

Share this post


Link to post

What is it that needs maintenance? The rock was there before we got here and will likely be there (barring new development that requires blasting) long after we blow our selves up sky high. There is nothing to sign on site. In fact, one of the requirements for an earthcache is that you are not allowed to leave anything at the site. If there is dirt on the rock, the finder can brush it off. The developer shouldn't need to sweep the rock clean so that the finder doesn't get dirty. Maybe it's the type of geologist I am, but I can't see why a rock requires maintenance. Rocks outlived dinosaurs.

Access to the site, changes to the signs, vandalism, all those pesky things people do to ruin the experience for those of us that just want to get out there and enjoy the world that belongs to all of us.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Access to the site, changes to the signs, vandalism, all those pesky things people do to ruin the experience for those of us that just want to get out there and enjoy the world that belongs to all of us.

 

True, I suppose. However, the factors mentioned above are generally beyond the publisher control to fix or power to change. An earthcache can readily be disabled or archived based on an honest finder's testimony without having to physically visit the site. In the case of physical caches, it is the hider's responsibility to ensure the cache does not become geo-trash. The problem of a trashed geocache requires that the cache be fixed by the hider either by replacing or removing, and thus the hider must be available to make changes accordingly.

0

Share this post


Link to post

True, the geological feature is not very likely to move or change in our lifetimes. But if the verification questions depend on educational signage found at the location, there could be some issues. :blink: They need to be maintained, and understaffed and underpaid park rangers and land managers may not make repairs as quickly as we would like. The historical marker for the Origins of Raleigh virt lay on the ground and was barely visible after a traffic accident for almost a year. That was just one of the problems that led to the end of virtuals. :blink:

The good folks at the GSA have already taken steps to prevent problems related to signage problems. I new earthcaching guidelines request that the developer NOT tie the educational activity to a word off the sign etc. (See earthcache.org and choose "submit your earthcache"):

 

It says (italics and emphasis mine):

To meet the EarthCache guidelines and be approved, your long description MUST contain an educational task that is related to the EarthCache site/lesson. Taking a photograph or mentioning a word or number from a sign does not meet these guidelines. We suggest asking people to answer a question or undertake some form of measurement is the best type of task. Please see the submital guidelines for more information about this logging requirement.

 

I agree that earthcaches are very permanent features, for the most part. Very few are ephemeral by human standards. Most are quite old by geologic time standards (millions of years). For an earthcache with that kind of lasting quality, there really isn't any reason that a developer couldn't maintain an earthcache at great distance. The only problem with that kind of location I can forsee would involve changes to infrastructure around the area (new roads etc requiring new directions on the page). The first email you got from someone with a concern like that would clue you to visit the site, or have a trusted local visit the site to get new data.

 

Of course, there are some more potentially 'fragile' earthcaches (rockslides tumble unique formations to the ground, springs change their course, volcanoes blow their tops). Common sense would dictate that a developer would only want to create an earthcache for a spot like that if they could reasonably visit the site to check on it if there were to be a reported problem.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5