Jump to content

earth caches return!

nobby.nobbs

By nobby.nobbs
in General geocaching topics

Followers 5

Recommended Posts

wavector

+wavector

Posted
Posted

I agree nobby, a great decision.

I am going to go and rework my first Earthcache before I plan the next one. They have modified the submittal guidelines and they will be looking at the older Earthcaches to make sure they comply.

 

I am thinking about organizing an Event to celebrate EarthCache Day which will be October 8 this year.

 

It is great to see the Earthcache return.

 

I also just squeaked in for an Earthcache Master Pin, I qualified for the Bronze, I just have to see if I get approved.

ThePropers

+ThePropers

Posted
Posted

OH DEAR GOD....BUT THERE'S NO CONTAINER AT AN EARTHCACHE!

 

Has the world gone crazy? Did I wake up in some other dimension? Oh the horror.....the room...it's spinning. I feel faint....

mgbmusic

+mgbmusic

Posted
Posted (edited)

best news i have seen for ages, a great decision by tptb.

 

so need to read the guidelines and set a couple more.

 

<_<;):huh:;):huh::huh::huh:

 

I know this is kinda like a Red State/Blue State issue, but here goes:

 

This is ok news, but I can see both sides of the argument:

 

On the one hand, it'll be nice to have one resource to go to for all your caching needs, but on the other hand, there is a strong argument for serparting containter and non-container caches. However, speaking from experience, Waymarking.com just palin sucks. The interface is clunky at best and frankly pretty hard to figure out. It's not even close to efficient. If Waymarking.com worked the same as geocaching.com (and I don't see why it couldn't) then I would use it a lot more because I like the idea of non-container caches. I like the thought of learning something and taking a nice hike to an unusual point of interest without having to stick my hand into a tree where God-knows-what is currently residing...<_<

 

Heck, I'd say quit beating aorund the bush, bring them all back to GC.com and simply add a checkmark (checked by default) that says "Ignore containerless results"

 

Just my $0.02

 

Edited to add content

Edited by mgbmusic
CoyoteRed

CoyoteRed

Posted
Posted
OH DEAR GOD....BUT THERE'S NO CONTAINER AT AN EARTHCACHE!

 

Oh, just like at an event?

 

A geocache doesn't have to have a container, but it does have to have a logbook. Plenty of events I've been to have had logbooks.

 

But, then again, logbooks are a form of verification. If the event coordinator saw you there...

budd-rdc

+budd-rdc

Posted
Posted

I applaud TPTB for making changes for what they consider to be in the best interest of Earthcaching. They get several <_<:huh::huh:;) for being not afraid of change.

 

I never bought into the "logbook/container" argument for migrating things to Waymarking. <_<

Mopar

+Mopar

Posted
Posted

Soooo... does this mean all the lame virts masquerading as earthcaches will return too? Wasn't there an "earthcache" approved for taking a picture of a deer? Half the earthcaches I've seen had little or nothing to do with geology.

mtn-man

+mtn-man

Posted
Posted

From what I understand, they will be coming back with better controls. A deer will not be an earthcache. Only time will tell, of course. I would not hold your breath on virtuals though. Their home is now on the Waymarking site where they can are dealt with better. That is where new ones belong.

 

mgbmusic, Waymarking.com works better than geocaching.com did when it was a year old. You are comparing apples and oranges. In 5 years, I am sure Waymarking.com will be much more efficent than it is now. Remember, the Waymarking site is still in beta. As one who was here when the GC site was only six months old, it is easy to deal with Waymarking as it is now. Comparing apples to apples, the one year old Waymarking is more advanced that the one year old GC site.

Groovy Cachin' Dude!

+Groovy Cachin' Dude!

Posted
Posted
OH DEAR GOD....BUT THERE'S NO CONTAINER AT AN EARTHCACHE!

 

Oh, just like at an event?

 

A geocache doesn't have to have a container, but it does have to have a logbook. Plenty of events I've been to have had logbooks.

 

But, then again, logbooks are a form of verification. If the event coordinator saw you there...

 

True...but a WEBCAM cache has verification automatically built in...so...how about bringing them back too? I tried to create a webcam cache on Waymarking.com and it still won't go through...even after e-mailing Jeremy. I haven't been back to WM.com since. Thankfully there are still "grandfathered" Earth and Webcam caches still around for those that like a change of pace every once in awhile (including us).

ParentsofSAM

ParentsofSAM

Posted
Posted

That is good, IMO. I happen to like virtuals, webcam and locationless caches (OT - I even like micros). I bet I will like earthcaches too (we have not had the opportunity to do one yet)

 

I do not like Waymarking. Sorry but just can not get into it. It is too hard to figure out. But if I knew what I was doing then I would probably like it too.

 

As for compairing it to gc.com, it is not apples to oranges, they already have the knowledge of what works since they have gone through the growing pains on gc.com first. They should apply the things that they know work over here to over there and maybe it would be more popular. (or maybe it is already widly popular and I don't know)

mtn-man

+mtn-man

Posted
Posted
True...but a WEBCAM cache has verification automatically built in...so...how about bringing them back too? I tried to create a webcam cache on Waymarking.com and it still won't go through...even after e-mailing Jeremy.

Doubt that would happen either. I am helping him manage webcams. I'll send you a message to see if we can get you going.

mtn-man

+mtn-man

Posted
Posted
As for compairing it to gc.com, it is not apples to oranges, they already have the knowledge of what works since they have gone through the growing pains on gc.com first. They should apply the things that they know work over here to over there and maybe it would be more popular. (or maybe it is already widly popular and I don't know)

It is popular. It just isn't explosive like GC.com. The sites really are apples and oranges. They handle listings in a totally different way. Here are a few examples.

 

GC -- reviewers look at submissions. WM -- category owners look at submissions.

GC -- everything goes into one database. WM -- database is split into categories.

GC -- proximity guidelines keep separation. WM -- no proximity, and category cross listing is encouraged.

 

I won't keep going, but one thing that would help WM is PQ's. Since the sites are built differently, they are working on PQ functionality. At least we will be able to download .loc files for waymarks soon. We will have to see what happens to earthcaches as they migrate back.

wavector

+wavector

Posted
Posted (edited)

In the email I received it says that the new guidelines for Earthcaches are listed on the www.earthcache.org website, look under Submittal Guidelines. The new guidelines do look far more comprehensive than the original guidelines and I understand all existing Earthcaches will be reviewed to make sure that they do meet the new guidelines. It looks like some of the changes appear to be related to the the educational component of Earthcaches and what Earthcache placers ask geocachers to do to log the Earthcache.

It appears that the submission process will be similar to the orginal Earthcache submission process, all Earthcaches will first be submitted to the GSA who will approve the listing and then submit the cache to the geocaching.com listing service. I am not sure that Earthcaches will appear on the list of Cache Types at geocaching.com but I do not know this for sure.

Edited by wavector
swizzle

+swizzle

Posted
Posted

Link's Link's I wanna see some links on who, what, when, where, why and how to get an earthcache going. What will be covered with earthcaches? Waterfalls? Cliffs? Caves? Or just geologically important area's? I would hope that a nice hike with a beautiful view is all that is required. Tell me more. Swizzle

mtn-man

+mtn-man

Posted
Posted

I welcome the return of Earthcaches to GC. Does it mean they will be removed from WM or are they going to be parallel listed?

From what I understand, the old ones on GC will be reviewed and relisted if they qualify. The ones on the WM site will then be reviewed and moved over if they qualify. The category will then be closed on the WM site.

mtn-man

+mtn-man

Posted
Posted

Link's Link's I wanna see some links on who, what, when, where, why and how to get an earthcache going. What will be covered with earthcaches? Waterfalls? Cliffs? Caves? Or just geologically important area's? I would hope that a nice hike with a beautiful view is all that is required. Tell me more. Swizzle

It sounds like just geologically important areas, according to the guidelines.
EarthCaches must provide earth science lessons. They take people to sites that can help explain the formation of landscapes or to sites of interesting phenomena such as folds, faults, intrusions or reveal how scientists understand our Earth (such as fossil sites etc.)
fizzymagic

+fizzymagic

Posted
Posted
From what I understand, the old ones on GC will be reviewed and relisted if they qualify. The ones on the WM site will then be reviewed and moved over if they qualify. The category will then be closed on the WM site.

Happy, happy. Joy, joy.

 

And I'm happy about it for reasons unrelated to my deep antipathy to Waymarking. The educational value of Earthcaches is great, and the ability to place them in spots where regular caches would be forbidden means that they can be used to spread geocaching to new areas.

HaLiJuSaPa

+HaLiJuSaPa

Posted
Posted

While it's nice to see Earthcaches coming back, I think there's only two reasons Waymarking has not taking off; the concept is not the problem:

 

1) Virtuals don't really "fit" on the site, the site is really in my view a replacement for Locationless Caches

 

2) No smileys! Whether you agree or not with the concept of smileys and scoring, I can tell you that if in that sense it worked like GC.com, popularity would increase overnight! Think of how popular Locationless was vs. Waymarking. If TPTB tried it, they'd see.

mtn-man

+mtn-man

Posted
Posted
The educational value of Earthcaches is great, and the ability to place them in spots where regular caches would be forbidden means that they can be used to spread geocaching to new areas.

Again, just from what I understand, that is one of the big things they like about earthcaches -- the educational value. I think there is great potential in that if they keep their focus.

Shop99er

+Shop99er

Posted
Posted
The educational value of Earthcaches is great, and the ability to place them in spots where regular caches would be forbidden means that they can be used to spread geocaching to new areas.

Again, just from what I understand, that is one of the big things they like about earthcaches -- the educational value. I think there is great potential in that if they keep their focus.

From reading the guidelines, it seems obvious to me that if there is no educational value, a propsed EC will not be approved. Period.

TD Lover

+TD Lover

Posted
Posted

I strongly agree that earthcaches should be in the geocaching.com area. What about virtual caches? We have seen some incredible things where a cache absolutely can not be hidden. We would like to see it in the geocaching area also. We have attended two large geocaching events, one in Upstate New york and one in France and everyone was complaining about not being able to have virtuals in geocaching.com. :huh:

CoyoteRed

CoyoteRed

Posted
Posted
We have attended two large geocaching events, one in Upstate New york and one in France and everyone was complaining about not being able to have virtuals in geocaching.com.

 

"Everyone?" I doubt that.

Juicepig

+Juicepig

Posted
Posted (edited)

can't we just change the rule a little bit so people have to hide a physical cache container in the area? Earth caches require the finder learns something along the way, so why not make it a mystery or multi style cache but with geology style content...?

 

UPDATE : Guess it would interfere with their "leave no trace" ethic.. Still very excited! Whoo hoo!! Where can i sign up to have my earth-marks transfered? Maybe someone will actually visit them!

Edited by Juicepig
enjoys

+enjoys

Posted
Posted

Interesting guidelines. Does the Geological Society of America really want to approve my proposed earthcache in Norway?

 

Yes. For EarthCaches all over the world. As i recall, the leader for the approving commity is living in Australia, and members of the commity lives in Europe and the USA.

 

I Do also have some ideas i actually are working on, for EarthCaches in Norway. But i dont want them to be waymarks. My question is: When is it open for sending in EarthCaches for approving under GC.com?

enjoys

+enjoys

Posted
Posted (edited)

I recieved some info from the GSA today.

 

During the next moth will all EarthCaches that meet the guidlines for an EartCache in GC.com be transferred from WM.com to GC.com.

Edited by enjoys
budd-rdc

+budd-rdc

Posted
Posted

I liked locationless caches also wish they'd come back too

I liked locationless, too, but I'm very certain it won't come back. If you take time to read the threads on this issue from late 2005 to early 2006, you'll come to the same conclusion.

 

There have been Waymarkers who have predicted some of us will "whine" and wish for it back. I want to prevent them from saying "I told you so" so I keep quiet. :laughing:

The Blue Quasar

+The Blue Quasar

Posted
Posted (edited)

Well maybe it would be better to have EarthCaches returned to Geocaching from Waymarking.

 

And maybe it would be time better spent if TPTB would create a method for having all container style finds and non-container style finds available on one master site.

 

There has been a lot of 'inconsistency' on both sites, most of which probably couldn't be helped.

 

If you really want to look at everything, with the exception of Traditional Cache... every other type of listing has some potential issue with it, logisitically, at the website level. But there is always a way around the issue.

 

Most of the issues cannot be fully corrected because of the age of some listings, and it would be a great deal of work for TPTB to do.

 

Personally, it would be great if there was some kind of directory structure like File Sharing programs use. You could check off the listing types that interest you.

 

Container Caches

- Traditional Cache (includes Project APE)

- Multi Cache

- Unknown Cache

 

Non-Container Caches

- Virtual Cache {side note - imho: should be filtered by type}

- Webcam Cache {side note - imho: should be in 'technology' below}

- Educational (includes EarthCaches, others to be developed)

- Extended Categories {formerly known as Waymarking}

----- Animals

----- Art/Music

----- Benchmarks

----- Buildings

----- Business/Commerce

----- Entertainment

----- History/Culture

----- Memorials/Monuments

----- Nature

----- Oddities

----- Signs

----- Sports/Recreation

----- Structures

----- Technology

----- Games

 

Social Caches

- Event Cache

- CITO Cache

 

You could click on or off any classification that does or doesn't appeal to you.

 

I think EarthCaches and the rest of the Virtuals were a great alternative to the hidden container, and they have been a lot of fun.

 

This would be a MASSIVE job... and would require a lot of community support, but creating a new cataloguing system for listings could make everyone happier in the end. As it is now, there are certain groups that see things as 'broken' and not getting 'fixed'. Everyone sees it differently, and maybe if everyone was willing to give up something to gain something else, we would actually get somewhere.

 

Those that know me from the Waymarking side of the coin know that I strongly support the concept of Waymarking, but I also know that there are issues with it too. But you also have to open minded enough to see that there are issues in Geocaching too, issues that we have gotten used to working with.

 

I also favour the idea that all existing Virtuals should have to be classified as one of the 15 Extended Categories. Not that they need to become Waymarks, just that should be "filtered". As in 'What type of Virtual is this?' Then the original Virtuals could float to the top of the classifications as a highlighted listing.

 

:o The Blue Quasar

Edited by The Blue Quasar
The Blue Quasar

+The Blue Quasar

Posted
Posted

Don't get me wrong.... I still think that there were problems under the old system of Virtuals, Locationless and Web Cams. They didn't work right for several reasons, that it seems some people like to pretend never happened.

 

Those problems will come right back again if they migrated back from Waymarking, or were 'Un-Grandfathered' here on Geocaching.com

 

But perhaps a hybrid of the two sites could solve the issues.

 

:o The Blue Quasar

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
Followers 5
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...