Earth Caches in the UK

[+PopUpPirate]

Noticed on another part of the forums that Earth Caches are back... is this true and what implications / procedure is there?

 

Thanks!

[+mongoose39uk]

Yes, they are back.

 

Or to be more accurate they are coming back but not quite yet.

[nobby.nobbs]

earthcaches for the official site with guidelines

[+wizard1974uk]

so this means they will no longer be on the other site?

[+Jaz666]

It looks like the biggest change is in this section of the new guidelines

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.

 

So no more turning up at the site and taking a quick photo.

It also implies that any existing earthcache which doesn't involve this will have to either change, or get archived

[Deceangi]

Earth caches have been returned to GC as part of Groundspeaks commitment to Education. The guidelines will be more vigorously enforced. Existing Earth Caches must be altered to meet these guidelines which now involve the finder taking part in an educational element to claim a find. The quality of all Earth Caches will be monitored to insure that standards do no t drop.

 

As a bonus the EarthCache Masters will allow you to claim pin badges for reaching certain levels of Finds/Placements.

[+The Golem]

Sounds like a great idea to me! Now, where can I find to set one...

[+Haggis Hunter]

Existing Earth Caches must be altered to meet these guidelines which now involve the finder taking part in an educational element to claim a find. The quality of all Earth Caches will be monitored to insure that standards do no t drop.

Does that mean that I will have to change both my Earthcaches to fall in line with this NEW rule??

[+Moote]

Does this mean as an Earthcache owner, that I will be required to change my cache for educational purposes?

 

Not that it is not already, but you could ignore the text and just claim the find at present.

 

What do I have to do as an original Earthcache owner?

[+Haggis Hunter]

I have just read the email that I got yesterday about this, here is the contents as far as new earthcaches go -

 

Greetings from Geocaching.com and EarthCache.org!

 

 

As part of Groundspeak’s ongoing commitment to education, we are pleased to announce the return of EarthCaches to the Geocaching.com website. This change will occur over the next few months; EarthCache owners do not need to make any changes for this transition to occur. In related news…

 

 

New EarthCache Guidelines

 

We have created new guidelines to ensure the successful educational impact of EarthCaching. These changes are essential to EarthCaches returning to Geocaching.com. Please review these guidelines, especially those related to the new logging requirements, and make any changes necessary to ensure that your EarthCache meets our new educational standards. View guidelines at www.earthcache.org and click on “submittal guidelines.” On an ongoing basis, each EarthCache will be independently reviewed by our team to ensure compliance with the guidelines. EarthCaches which do not meet the new guidelines must be revised or the cache will be archived.

 

Guideline number 5 is what we are interested in -

 

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.

 

It takes me all my time to get people to log one of my earthcaches correctly as it is, how I am going to police to make sure that they put in a statement showing they have learnt something is beyond me?

 

However the two main paragraphs appear to contradict each other, until you read into it. It says "earthcaches returning to GC.com", does that mean that the earthcaches that are currently already listed are safe as they are?

[+Chris n Maria]

Does the "comitment to education" mean that they will soon be allowing educational virtuals?

 

[+Teuchters]

I have just read the email that I got yesterday about this, here is the contents as far as new earthcaches go

 

I'm still waiting for any email about this....

[Deceangi]

I have just read the email that I got yesterday about this, here is the contents as far as new earthcaches go

 

I'm still waiting for any email about this....

 

Copy sent via GC's email facility

[+purple_pineapple]

We're not earth cache owners, but this does appear to be a step forward, and all for the good. (Anything that gets these things back to GC.com is good!) It appears that they now need to be logged in a similar way to many virtuals - with an e-mail to the owner stating something learnt... Maybe some info from a board or something? This should be perfectly acceptable, possibly even easier than photos, as no uploading is needed!

 

One concern with existing earth caches is that owners may need to revisit the site to see what information is appropriate. In some cases, this may not be a simple task - the cache could be many hundreds of miles from its owner, so I would hope that GC.com give plenty of time for existing owners to find a suitable question.

 

Our other concern is that some excellent earth cache sites have little or nothing that can be obtained from the site - a good example of this is Submerged Forest on the North Wales Coast. This is a great earth cache where we were educated about these ancient forests that had grown up and then be submerged again, but there is nothing at the site which provides any information about what it is... All the information came from the cache page. Is googling going to be a requirement, which would mean a cacher wouldn;t have to visit the site at all...

 

Just some thoughts!

 

Dave

[+kewfriend]

I have one existing Geocaching Earthcache and one Waymarking Earthcache. As it so happens these are the ONLY TWO EARTHCACHES in FRANCE. The Dune de Pilat Geocache gets visited regularly with heaps of nice pictures and and comments. The Pont d'Arc Waymarking Earthcache has been visited ONCE in two years. I think that probably indicates the problem with Waymarking Earthcaches.

 

The educational requirement is a bit of a nonsense as the educational discovery lies in the discovery of the earthcache feature. With rigorous enforcement of educational additions, all that will happen is there will grow up a plethora of sites giving the educational 'answer' to earthcache educations. So its really a non-starter - if well intentioned.

 

I'd love my Pont d'Arc to move over to Geocaching.Com -

 

SO HURRY UP PLEASE AND DO IT ASAP

[+Jaz666]

Whatever happened to the policy of "grandfathering" caches which don't meet updated guidelines?

 

If it means new Earthcaches are going to appear - great.

If it means some old Earthcaches are in danger of getting archived - not so great!

 

There are only 48 Earthcaches currently in the UK, owned by 27 cachers, who are all active cachers with the sad exception of one.

I trust our esteemed reviewers will do their best to ensure his 3 Earthcaches will survive (along with his regular caches)?

Edited September 17, 2006 by Jaz666

[+mongoose39uk]

Which reviewer Jaz?

 

Don't think our reviewers can force adoptions anymore.

Edited September 17, 2006 by mongoose39uk

[+TerryDad2]

Our other concern is that some excellent earth cache sites have little or nothing that can be obtained from the site - a good example of this is Submerged Forest on the North Wales Coast. This is a great earth cache where we were educated about these ancient forests that had grown up and then be submerged again, but there is nothing at the site which provides any information about what it is... All the information came from the cache page. Is googling going to be a requirement, which would mean a cacher wouldn;t have to visit the site at all...

 

Just some thoughts!

 

Dave

The educational requirement can include simple measurements or the application of something learned at the site to find something new or guess at the cause of some feature. In this particular case the owner could request an example of areas which may become like this site should the predicted rise in sea levels occur.

 

I've got a number of earthcaches that I've got to update the requiremets for so they aren't archived. A few are out in the middle of nowhere, so there's no plaque to use, so I'll have to have them look at specific features and do some simple measurements.

[nobby.nobbs]

quite happy to amend my couple to fit the new requirements and if someone doesn't log proerly then it's easy just delete their entry if they are unwilling to amend and comply with the new rules...

[+allieballie]

I have just read the email that I got yesterday about this, here is the contents as far as new earthcaches go

 

I'm still waiting for any email about this....

 

Me too.........

[Deceangi]

I have just read the email that I got yesterday about this, here is the contents as far as new earthcaches go

 

I'm still waiting for any email about this....

 

Me too.........

 

Check your emails copy sent via GC's email facility

 

Deceangi

[alistair_uk]

For what this is worth I think this is great. There are many places that I would like to have an earth cache or virtual listed because of the scientific and historical interest of the place, but paradoxically this is preventing a cache from being placed. I also pleased the guidelines have been tightened up a bit as I guess people will try and use it as a backdoor to create virtuals. In reality I will probably not get around to listing any such caches in the near future, but I wonder if they will take off more now we do not have a virtual cache.

[+Alibags]

I hope this is a way that eventually virtuals can be allowed back onto the site, with more stringent guidelines attached. I have a degree in geology, but I think that history is just as important as science, and so a virtual which makes you answer some cultural or historical questions... or perhaps some questions relating to engineering and industry would be just as worthy. The Greenwich Meridian virtual is one such cache which already has such a criteria listed for logging it. I Googled for the answer when I logged it, but learned something interesting in the process. Can't be bad!

Edited September 18, 2006 by Alibags

[+purple_pineapple]

I hope this is a way that eventually virtuals can be allowed back onto the site, with more stringent guidelines attached. I have a degree in geology, but I think that history is just as important as science, and so a virtual which makes you answer some cultural or historical questions... or perhaps some questions relating to engineering and industry would be just as worthy. The Greenwich Meridian virtual is one such cache which already has such a criteria listed for logging it. I Googled for the answer when I logged it, but learned something interesting in the process. Can't be bad!

 

I was thinking of the meridian cache earlier as well - it was a very educational cache and is well 'policed' by the owner - i had to go back and do some more homework for this one - my first answer wasn't complete enough! Just as educational as an earth cache, to my mind, and more so in many cases!

[+wizard1974uk]

I like the idea of the earth caches coming back, even though I wasn't really around when they were moved to Waymarking. Sounds great that you have to perform some sort of task to log the find. Can't wait

[alistair_uk]

I hope this is a way that eventually virtuals can be allowed back onto the site, with more stringent guidelines attached.

I sort of agree with that, but my concern is that people will "big up" or "sex up" something to make it an earth cache when it does not deserve to be. Let's hope that this is a start of a turnaround that allows a limited reintroduction of actual vitals as well, or perhaps a new type of virtual with a more concise guideline to prevent everything becoming a virtual cache.

 

I will now stop typing as I can see where this is going, and it normally ends in an argument. :-)

 

One interesting fact that is only slightly off topic... Did you know if you have found 3 earth caches in at least 2 countries then you can apply for a bronze EathCahce pin. I have only just found this out by checking on the earth cache web site and have applied for mine just now.

[+rutson]

Doesn England and Wales count?

[+TerryDad2]

 

One interesting fact that is only slightly off topic... Did you know if you have found 3 earth caches in at least 2 countries then you can apply for a bronze EathCahce pin. I have only just found this out by checking on the earth cache web site and have applied for mine just now.

 

It's actually 2 or more states/countries. I don't know how you guys do "states", but you could probably get by with England, Wales, Scotland, etc. counting as seperate "states"

[+rutson]

Well, it's quite simple really:

 

The "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is composed of four countries: England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland. Each of these countries is subdivided into counties. Just to make it interesting, the borders move every now and again and come and go. Oh yeah, then there are Unitary authorities and other such wonderful inventions just to make it even more interesting.

 

The British Isles however...

 

I'll shurrup now

 

Now if only the GFWoC would actually lemme LOOK at the Earthcache site....

Edited September 19, 2006 by rutson

[Lactodorum]

There are only 48 Earthcaches currently in the UK, owned by 27 cachers, who are all active cachers with the sad exception of one.

I trust our esteemed reviewers will do their best to ensure his 3 Earthcaches will survive (along with his regular caches)?

Thanks to representations made by Deceangi those three caches are guaranteed by Groundpeak to remain.

[+mongoose39uk]

Well, done to jaz666 for raising the issue.

 

Well done to Dave for getting it sorted

[Deceangi]

I too would like to thank Jaz666 for bringing Billy's Earthcaches to my attention. As for Billy's other caches rest assured that between the Scottish caching community and the UK reviewers, Billy's caches will be kept in good order.

 

I'd also like to thank Groundspeak for such a quick response to my request. And to a certain cacher who broke the news to me this morning before I had time to read my emails

[+Haggis Hunter]

I too would like to thank Jaz666 for bringing Billy's Earthcaches to my attention. As for Billy's other caches rest assured that between the Scottish caching community and the UK reviewers, Billy's caches will be kept in good order.

 

I'd also like to thank Groundspeak for such a quick response to my request. And to a certain cacher who broke the news to me this morning before I had time to read my emails

Am I missing something here? Are we talking about Billy Twigger and if we are, has he taken a turn for the worse??

[alistair_uk]

It's actually 2 or more states/countries. I don't know how you guys do "states", but you could probably get by with England, Wales, Scotland, etc. counting as seperate "states"

England, Wales and Scotland are all actually countries not states. The United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is a nation and not a country, but that is not relevant here.

[+Bambi&Thumper]

It's actually 2 or more states/countries. I don't know how you guys do "states", but you could probably get by with England, Wales, Scotland, etc. counting as seperate "states"

England, Wales and Scotland are all actually countries not states. The United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is a nation and not a country, but that is not relevant here.

 

I saw the badges the other day and thought about this since we have found three Earth caches.

 

However, I suspect that the states/countries are those listed on GC.com, so since England, Wales and Scotland are all the same "Country" (United Kingdom) I'm guessing it wouldn't count. If I'm wrong though, please let me know...

 

B.

[+gingerbreadmen]

It's actually 2 or more states/countries. I don't know how you guys do "states", but you could probably get by with England, Wales, Scotland, etc. counting as seperate "states"

England, Wales and Scotland are all actually countries not states. The United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is a nation and not a country, but that is not relevant here.

 

I saw the badges the other day and thought about this since we have found three Earth caches.

 

However, I suspect that the states/countries are those listed on GC.com, so since England, Wales and Scotland are all the same "Country" (United Kingdom) I'm guessing it wouldn't count. If I'm wrong though, please let me know...

 

B.

 

I e-mailed the appropriate authorities about this very point a couple of times about 6 months ago, still waiting for my reply. I did try to make out the point that if they considered Scotland and England the same country they should maybe try and explain it at Hampden or Murrayfield one day. Ahem .

[markandlynn]

Add your support here please.

[alistair_uk]

I e-mailed the appropriate authorities about this very point a couple of times about 6 months ago, still waiting for my reply. I did try to make out the point that if they considered Scotland and England the same country they should maybe try and explain it at Hampden or Murrayfield one day. Ahem .

I must be missing something, or someone else it. If it it says country then why should it not mean country. I would also say that our countries are more significant than many (if not most) US states and european countries. Anyway, I have not tried to second guess the misinterpretation of what we are and have applied, if they want to ignore my application then I see it is there loss.

[Lactodorum]

While the status of different countries (and counties) is a perfectly valid thing to discuss when categorising caches, this particular thread was started to discuss Earthcaches. Can we keep on topic please.

 

By all means start a separate thread about countries etc.

[+The Forester]

I suspect that the states/countries are those listed on GC.com

 

The GC.com list of "countries" is an appalling indictment of the Murricane education system and shows a breathtaking ignorance of real-world Geography. Just take a look at the first page of "countries" to see the absurdities.

 

Åland is a country? No, it is part of Finland.

Antarctica is a country? No, it's a continent, not a country.

Why are Wallis and Futuna regarded as being a country, but not St Pierre et Michelon?

What aren't Svalbard and Jan Mayen regarded as being part of Norway? What about Bear Island?

Why are the British Virgin Islands regarded as being a country, but not the Falklands?

Why St Helena but not Ascension? After all, St Helena is dependent upon Ascension, not vice-versa.

 

Then there is the issue of whether you should break such a list down into the constituent parts of countries, such as the States of the US, the provinces of Canada etc.. After all, as has already been pointed out, Texas is bigger than a large number of "countries" combined. California, if a country, would have one of the dozen or so largest economies in the world. You could probably put the combined landmasses of half the GC.com list of countries into the Gibson Desert of Western Australia and make not so much as a dent in a tinnie of XXXX or knock the froth off a stubbie of the amber nectar.

 

If you're going to examine the constituent parts of countries, then you immediately have to revisit the questions over why such countries as Scotland were not already in the list of "countries". Whatever one thinks of Nationalism, either for it or agin it, it is undeniable that Scotland has almost all of the characteristics of a country. The Scottish parliament, like its Welsh counterpart, is functionally autonomous from the "Mother of all Parliaments" on devolved issues. Scotland, unlike the individual States of the US, prints and mints its own currency. The Scottish legal system, both Criminal Law and Civil Law is completely distinct from the English equivalent. Culturally and linguistically, Scotland has a very clear separate identity. By almost any measure, except UN recognition, Scotland is a de facto and almost a de jure "country".

 

If you're going to break down the list of countries into constituent "states" and "provinces" then sooner or later you have to decide when to stop. Take the United Arab Emirates as an example. Dubai and Abu Dhabi are both large, culturally identifiable and quite distinct entities. What about the smaller Emirates? What about Sharjah? Ok, I'll give you that one. What about the real teenieweenies? What about Umm al Qawain? It's about the size of a VW Beetle. What about Enclaves? They're "States" too, at least nominally. What about Oman's Madha? It's about the size of the coin-return tray in a Japanese telephonebox. It hasn't even got enough room for a chihuahua's ID-tag-sized Micro -- though it has got a Virt! Should Madha be put in the same "state" category as Canada's Northwest Territories or the Strine Queensland or Brazil's Matto Grosso, or Alaska?

 

Earthcaches are physical, not political geography, but when you try to break it all down into categorised "countries" and/or "states", you cannot ignore political and social geography or even separate it from the geological stuff.

 

The UN recognises about 196 countries, plus a small handful of other "entities" such as Palestine and the Vatican as "observers". Surely that list of countries, which is no doubt available from one of the UN websites, would be a more supportable list of countries, especially for a project which aims to improve education in Geography?

[+kewfriend]

 

SNIPPED

 

 

I've just altered the requirements on my Waymarking Earthcache ..... I shall report back how long it takes to drift over to Geocaching.Com. I think the education bit is itself a bit of a nonsense as often the visit to the location is often as educational as one would want to be anyway.

[+Team Maddie UK]

I suspect that the states/countries are those listed on GC.com

 

NOT 'SNIPPED'

 

The GC.com list of "countries" is an appalling indictment of the Murricane education system and shows a breathtaking ignorance of real-world Geography. Just take a look at the first page of "countries" to see the absurdities.

 

Åland is a country? No, it is part of Finland.

Antarctica is a country? No, it's a continent, not a country.

Why are Wallis and Futuna regarded as being a country, but not St Pierre et Michelon?

What aren't Svalbard and Jan Mayen regarded as being part of Norway? What about Bear Island?

Why are the British Virgin Islands regarded as being a country, but not the Falklands?

Why St Helena but not Ascension? After all, St Helena is dependent upon Ascension, not vice-versa.

 

Then there is the issue of whether you should break such a list down into the constituent parts of countries, such as the States of the US, the provinces of Canada etc.. After all, as has already been pointed out, Texas is bigger than a large number of "countries" combined. California, if a country, would have one of the dozen or so largest economies in the world. You could probably put the combined landmasses of half the GC.com list of countries into the Gibson Desert of Western Australia and make not so much as a dent in a tinnie of XXXX or knock the froth off a stubbie of the amber nectar.

 

If you're going to examine the constituent parts of countries, then you immediately have to revisit the questions over why such countries as Scotland were not already in the list of "countries". Whatever one thinks of Nationalism, either for it or agin it, it is undeniable that Scotland has almost all of the characteristics of a country. The Scottish parliament, like its Welsh counterpart, is functionally autonomous from the "Mother of all Parliaments" on devolved issues. Scotland, unlike the individual States of the US, prints and mints its own currency. The Scottish legal system, both Criminal Law and Civil Law is completely distinct from the English equivalent. Culturally and linguistically, Scotland has a very clear separate identity. By almost any measure, except UN recognition, Scotland is a de facto and almost a de jure "country".

 

If you're going to break down the list of countries into constituent "states" and "provinces" then sooner or later you have to decide when to stop. Take the United Arab Emirates as an example. Dubai and Abu Dhabi are both large, culturally identifiable and quite distinct entities. What about the smaller Emirates? What about Sharjah? Ok, I'll give you that one. What about the real teenieweenies? What about Umm al Qawain? It's about the size of a VW Beetle. What about Enclaves? They're "States" too, at least nominally. What about Oman's Madha? It's about the size of the coin-return tray in a Japanese telephonebox. It hasn't even got enough room for a chihuahua's ID-tag-sized Micro -- though it has got a Virt! Should Madha be put in the same "state" category as Canada's Northwest Territories or the Strine Queensland or Brazil's Matto Grosso, or Alaska?

 

Earthcaches are physical, not political geography, but when you try to break it all down into categorised "countries" and/or "states", you cannot ignore political and social geography or even separate it from the geological stuff.

 

The UN recognises about 196 countries, plus a small handful of other "entities" such as Palestine and the Vatican as "observers". Surely that list of countries, which is no doubt available from one of the UN websites, would be a more supportable list of countries, especially for a project which aims to improve education in Geography?

 

Hear... Hear...

 

Martin

[+purple_pineapple]

 

SNIPPED

 

 

bl**dy big scissors you needed there!!!

 

as Mr Lacto said, this really should get back on topic, so well done kewfriend for doing so!

[+Teuchters]

My 3 Earthcaches have never been moved to Waymarking.com.

 

I have emailed the Earthcache organisation in the US and await a reply about existing Earthcaches on GC.com and what criteria and how soon, they need to be applied.

 

There are quite a few Earthcaches still on GC.com so I will post back here when I receive a reply to let existing owners know what they have to do.

 

Despite the good intentions of this thread, I cannot find any information that is of any practical use so far, only (unfortunately) some longwinded attempts at confusion. Thanks to those posters who are trying to keep it on topic.

[+TerryDad2]

I have emailed the Earthcache organisation in the US and await a reply about existing Earthcaches on GC.com and what criteria and how soon, they need to be applied.

 

I got a deadline of October 15th before the guy that runs the organization went on a business trip.

 

He'll be back September 25th so don't expect an answer till then. I would expect he'll have alot of messages regarding this, so it may take him a while after that to get back to you.

[nobby.nobbs]

from how i see it the education question or task doesn't need to be hugely taxing as the original idea was to inspire a school child level of knowledge.

 

so just enough of a task to make the cache more than a cache and dash. stop look around and see/experience the location. intend to amend mine slightly to include a task.

 

please stay on topic. plenty of other threads to try and sort out things like county searches. this was just to celebrate the return of the earth caches to the main site.

 

cheers

[alistair_uk]

One thing I have missed is when will the Earth Caches be appearing on GC.com again? ...and for that matter how have the guidelines changed?

[+Haggis Hunter]

One thing I have missed is when will the Earth Caches be appearing on GC.com again? ...and for that matter how have the guidelines changed?

The main change is that the logging of EarthCaches must involve visitors undertaking some educational task. Where as before you just told them about the location.

[+Teuchters]

Gary Lewis at Earthcache has sent me this email:

Hi Nick

 

I will be checking each EarthCache to see if it meets the guidelines, and in particular the logging guidelines.

 

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.

 

My strong advice is to fix (if you have to) your EarthCache to meet these guidelines, and that will greatly speed up the process.

 

Gary

 

The advice is clear - check your logging guidelines and change if necessary.

[+Haggis Hunter]

After asking and getting some suggestions from other cachers I have now changed my logging instructions for both of my Earthcaches. I thought it was going to be a nightmare, but it has turned out to be quite simple.

 

Thanks to those that helped.