History Cache

[+Falcon Loader]

History Caches:

 

Dear Geocaching.com. Being a person who greatly enjoys history and sees a need to promote education in history, I would like to create a new cache category similar to the Earth Cache. This would be a “History Cache”.

 

This would work along the principle of Earth Caches in that it would take the cacher to places of historic value:

For example but not limited to:

• Battlefields

• Old Forts and Castles

• Points of national interest

o Political Speeches – (IE Gettysburg Address Location)

o Boston Harbor

• Historic Anchorages

o The constellation

o The Constitution

• Historic Passes/Trails

o Oregon Trail

o Cumberland Gap

• Historic Land Marks

o Old border markings

o The towers near Annapolis

• Open to ideas…..

 

The purpose of the History Cache is to:

1. Promote history education

2. Make history more enjoyable for students and assist history teachers by giving them another tool to make history more interactive.

3. Encourage people to visit historic sights and learn why these are important.

 

How this will work and used for approval

1. The request for a History cache would be submitted to a group of volunteers that would check legitimacy of the cache.

2. Permission must be granted by the land owner/manager

3. The Cache in the way of the earth cache MUST BE EDUCATIONAL

4. Again in the way of earth caches, the cacher must answer questions for credit

 

I would be willing to moderate such an undertaking and know I have several others from the Military Association of GeoCachers that would also help in this Endeavour.

 

To contact me:

falconlaoder@militarycache.org

 

Thank you for considering this

Sincerely

M. “Duke” Clements

Aka Falcon Loader

HTTP://www.militarycache.org

[+The Leprechauns]

That looks like a nice list of Waymarking categories. The history categories are the ones I like best!

 

There are tons of caches which show off points of history. I don't think they warrant a special cache type, since some are traditionals, some are puzzles, some are multi's, etc. I would, however, be in favor of a "Historic Area" attribute. This would help history buffs to filter through the caches to zero in on the ones that show us interesting historic sites. We have "scenic view" as an attribute; why not "historic view?"

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

That looks like a nice list of Waymarking categories. The history categories are the ones I like best!

 

There are tons of caches which show off points of history. I don't think they warrant a special cache type, since some are traditionals, some are puzzles, some are multi's, etc. I would, however, be in favor of a "Historic Area" attribute. This would help history buffs to filter through the caches to zero in on the ones that show us interesting historic sites. We have "scenic view" as an attribute; why not "historic view?"

Lep, I like your overview and proposal much! I agree with what you suggest!

[+Totem Clan]

I have (had, dam muggles) a very nice historical cache and I plan on placing a whole series of the same kind in all the little towns and at other places of historical interest in the area. I like caches that take me to such places. It's a chance to pursue two of my hobbies at once. But like Lep, I don't know if I would want a different cache type, but an attribute would be great. You could still single them out in a PQ that way.

[+baloo&bd]

I am also not really a fan of another category, however this is one of the few suggestions I have seen that would justify a new attribute.

 

Not sure why everyone keeps trying to cram Waymarking into these threads since that is OT. The question was about caching, not a list of places they've been.

[+briansnat]

I would, however, be in favor of a "Historic Area" attribute. This would help history buffs to filter through the caches to zero in on the ones that show us interesting historic sites. We have "scenic view" as an attribute; why not "historic view?"

 

I agree and in fact asked for this when the attributes were first introduced. Apparently TPTB didn't agree.

 

I think it would be a good way for me to filter out a lot of what I consider to be junk caches, especially when traveling. I don't automatically rule out urban micros, because they somtimes highlight an interesting historic site - even in mall parking lots, but the overwheming majority of the time I'm disappointed.

 

An historic site attribute would allow me to skip the micro spew.

Edited March 12, 2007 by briansnat

[+StarBrand]

I will strongly agree with Lep on this one. What the OP suggests does really belong over at Waymarking if there is to be no physical container. Caching should be about finding something somewhere not just finding somewhere.

 

A historical area attribute has been suggested before and I think it is time to implement it.

[+The Leprechauns]

I am also not really a fan of another category, however this is one of the few suggestions I have seen that would justify a new attribute.

 

Not sure why everyone keeps trying to cram Waymarking into these threads since that is OT. The question was about caching, not a list of places they've been.

Perhaps the OP is not aware of Waymarking.com. Waymarks are a lot like earthcaches -- something mentioned in the original post. And lots of Waymarking categories deal with history -- more than 75 different categories, with nearly 10,000 waymarks already recorded and ready to visit. If the OP wants this to work along the "principle of earthcaches," well, earthcaches cannot have cache containers. Waymarking is a site for places of interest but without cache containers.

 

Not every historic site can or needs to support a geocache container. I'm there to see the old buildings and read the markers, not to search for a film canister.

[+matcat]

I'll chime in and offer my interest in a Historical Attribute addition .

[+Totem Clan]

I would, however, be in favor of a "Historic Area" attribute. This would help history buffs to filter through the caches to zero in on the ones that show us interesting historic sites. We have "scenic view" as an attribute; why not "historic view?"

 

I agree and in fact asked for this when the attributes were first introduced. Apparently TPTB didn't agree.

 

I think it would be a good way for me to filter out a lot of what I consider to be junk caches, especially when traveling. I don't automatically rule out urban micros, because they somtimes highlight an interesting historic site - even in mall parking lots, but the overwheming majority of the time I'm disappointed.

 

An historic site attribute would allow me to skip the micro spew.

This brings to mind another good point. There are some points here in town that have to do with the "Flood of '97." I would like to put caches at many of them, but some would only be suitable for the use of a micro. I have nothing against micros in and of themselves mind you. Some of the stops really have nothing to offer accept the facts related to the flood, such as the downtown street corner where you can view the buildings that burned during the flood and have since been rebuilt. Without the a historical attribute and the info on the cache page they would be one step away from Mirco-spew. Because of that, many folks would ignore them based on their size and geographic location.

 

I'll probably place them later this year anyway. I just think the attribute would help filter good caches like that out of the bad. Or if you don't like history caches, filter the bad out of the good.

[+wimseyguy]

I'll sixteenth the request for an attribute to highlight a historic cache. I have several urban micros that would benefit from the ability to filter them out from some of the noise.

I also have some that wouldn't. (but at least one will lead you to the Krispy Kreme.)

Edited March 12, 2007 by wimseyguy

[+sbell111]

...Some of the stops really have nothing to offer accept the facts related to the flood, such as the downtown street corner where you can view the buildings that burned during the flood and have since been rebuilt. ...

That always seems wrong to me.

[+tozainamboku]

I agree that an Historic/Cultural attribute (like the scenic attribute) would be nice for people who want to filter traditional (physical) caches to avoid ones in parking lots (unless there's an historic marker in the parking lot). However, I think the OP is asking for a way to bring back virtual caches. Seeing as how Geocaching.com has brought Earthcaches back from Waymarking, ostensibly because they have strict requirements - especially in the educational area, and are administered by a third party (earthcache.org), the OP is suggesting a similar setup for Historical caches. An outside orgainization would administer these history caches and there would be similar requirements as there are for Earthcaches.

 

This is one of the reasons, I objected to moving of Earthcaches back from Waymarking. Soon we could be overwhelmed with special categories of "virtual" caches on geocaching.com while Waymarking, which was set up to support this type of category based "virtual" will end up with just the commercial listings like McDonald's Restaurants or the novelty categories like Funny Mailboxes. Either Waymarking should be the home to these more interesting categories or we might as well get rid of Waymarking altogether. If the issue is that people won't visit Earthcaches or History caches unless they are listed as caches on Geocaching.com, then the solution is to better integrated Waymarking and Geocaching so that you can search for Geocaches + your favorite Waymarking categories and get Geocaches + your favorite Waymarking categories in one pocket query. You should see your waymark visits and your waymarks founded on your stats page with geocaches you found or owned.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Totally agree with the Historical attribute.

 

As far as Waymarking, that's not the language of location, that's the language of database categorization.

 

70 categories of thousands of historical sites, but no way to get them in a PQ of caches (places) in the geographical area of interest to me?

 

I just ran a search on Waymarking on my zip code, 35210, followed link after link to get Natural Cave Openings, where I found 1 listing - almost 100 miles away from my zip!

 

No thanks. I don't have much to do, but almost any of it is better than wading through that site!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I agree that an Historic/Cultural attribute (like the scenic attribute) would be nice for people who want to filter traditional (physical) caches to avoid ones in parking lots (unless there's an historic marker in the parking lot). However, I think the OP is asking for a way to bring back virtual caches. Seeing as how Geocaching.com has brought Earthcaches back from Waymarking, ostensibly because they have strict requirements - especially in the educational area, and are administered by a third party (earthcache.org), the OP is suggesting a similar setup for Historical caches. An outside orgainization would administer these history caches and there would be similar requirements as there are for Earthcaches.

 

This is one of the reasons, I objected to moving of Earthcaches back from Waymarking. Soon we could be overwhelmed with special categories of "virtual" caches on geocaching.com while Waymarking, which was set up to support this type of category based "virtual" will end up with just the commercial listings like McDonald's Restaurants or the novelty categories like Funny Mailboxes. Either Waymarking should be the home to these more interesting categories or we might as well get rid of Waymarking altogether. If the issue is that people won't visit Earthcaches or History caches unless they are listed as caches on Geocaching.com, then the solution is to better integrated Waymarking and Geocaching so that you can search for Geocaches + your favorite Waymarking categories and get Geocaches + your favorite Waymarking categories in one pocket query. You should see your waymark visits and your waymarks founded on your stats page with geocaches you found or owned.

Lots of assumptions and OT concepts in there.

 

I think the Historical Site attribute under discussion is an attribute for currently legal caches, that's all, nothing to do with cache types, sizes, quality, new types... it would just let us look for caches at historical sites.

[+Totem Clan]

...Some of the stops really have nothing to offer accept the facts related to the flood, such as the downtown street corner where you can view the buildings that burned during the flood and have since been rebuilt. ...

That always seems wrong to me.

It is.

It's weird to even think about. I've seen the photos, but wasn't here when it happened.

[+Falcon Loader]

I beleive "tozainamboku" is correct on the basics of my intentions. I would like to bring this category out of the (what I feel) monsterous website of Waymarking. The concept of Waymarking is good, but what it has become is almost undignified to relegate historic sites alongside the closest grease pit.

 

Another earlier post identified the "local search" for a cave opening. I've tried similar searches here and end up finding nothing in my local area so I submit them... but never get responses. Long story short, Waymarking is a nightmare that needs help.

 

As a attribute, that would be a step in the right direction, but as an educator; adding an incentive to get young folks out to a battlefield or to a stop on the underground railroad is much more important to me. This is why I like the Earth Cache concept and suggest same for History caches. Like the sadly now gone virtual, they can be placed in Natinoal Parks (with permission) as they "leave no trace" and they if run by a 3rd party (I've already got some volunteers) won't put too much more of a work load on the overtaxed folks at Groundspeak.

[+StarBrand]

.... "leave no trace" and they if run by a 3rd party (I've already got some volunteers) won't put too much more of a work load on the overtaxed folks at Groundspeak.

 

Great!!! Sounds like a concept for a new website. History Marking - www.histmark.com maybe?? I'll provide some web space.

 

It just isn't Geocaching.

[ParentsofSAM]

I like History Caches. When traveling it would be nice to have an easy way to see the neat and sometimes little known historical locations.

 

The fact is you can not do that over at Waymarking. The site is difficult to navigate.

 

We are always pleasantly surprised when traveling when we come upon a cache in a nice local historical area. We never would have seen that location except for geocaching.

 

Good idea.

[+baloo&bd]

And lots of Waymarking categories deal with history -- more than 75 different categories, with nearly 10,000 waymarks already recorded and ready to visit. If the OP wants this to work along the "principle of earthcaches," well, earthcaches cannot have cache containers. Waymarking is a site for places of interest but without cache containers.

 

I think the OP understood what they were requesting, since in their description they list getting land owners permission. It appears they want something that will be visited, not just listed.

 

Waymarking, aside from being off topic, is not what they are looking for.

 

Knowing the number of schools that are now incorporating geocaching on a limited basis into some of their activies and lessons, this attribute may be a way to offer them a "twofer".

[+tozainamboku]

Waymarking, aside from being off topic, is not what they are looking for.

I disagree that Waymarking is off-topic. This indicates that you not only think that Waymarking is broken but that it can't be fixed. I understand the frustration of the people who enjoyed finding virtual caches of one sort or another. Waymarking is not giving them the same experience as virtual caches did. And its not just that you don't get the geocaching smiley for finding a waymark. However, instead of trying to get virtual caches restored throught the backdoor by inventing new cache types that Jeremy is unlikely to go along with, I think it would be better to spend the effort to fix the problems of Waymarking. Waymarking is a good solution because it is relatively easy to put together a group to manage a new category. If you want to create a History Cache category that mimics the way Earthcaches work you can do that. If you want to have locations that invite visitors and chanllenge them to discover something and answer questions, you can do that as well. Not all of the categories on Waymarking are simple lists of POIs that fit into a category. I keep hoping that some of the nay-sayers would join me in the Waymarking forums and ask for the changes to make these categories more visible and to suggest how the search and download of waymarks along with geocaches can be done to encourage more geocachers to find the waymarks. So far they seem to want to only want to make Waymarking off-topic whenever a proposal to bring back virtuals is brought up. Too bad.

[+baloo&bd]

You guys really need to read the OP. He is not asking for a virtual, nor do I think anyone else in this thread is.

[+Kit Fox]

I hid four Historical Caches, but they all have cache containers.

The Llano Del Rio Geocache

 

I'm also in favor of a Historical Attribute.

[The 2 Dogs]

I don't think a new cat is required for historical themed caches.

 

Many of my caches are based on historical themes, in placement or style. Most can be done just as a normal cache but with the added bonus of teaching the finders something special about the location and it's history, but then the same could be said of most cache locations. If you start to set up special listings you'll end up with hundreds of different categories and this would just get way too out of hand. Better to leave the sorting to the finders, that is if they want a particular type.

Edited March 13, 2007 by The 2 Dogs

[Suscrofa]

I don't think a new cat is required for historical themed caches.

 

Many of my caches are based on historical themes, in placement or style. Most can be done just as a normal cache but with the added bonus of teaching the finders something special about the location and it's history, but then the same could be said of most cache locations. If you start to set up special listings you'll end up with hundreds of different categories and this would just get way too out of hand. Better to leave the sorting to the finders, that is if they want a particular type.

 

A new category would allow people interested to sort them out. I am for it too.

Note that it can be just an attribute provided we can use it for sortering/filtering.

[+Harriet the Spy]

Put another person down who would LOVE to have this attribute! It would make it easier to find cool places especially when I travel to a different town. I don't think it warrants a new category.... unless it would give me a new icon.

Edited March 13, 2007 by Harriet the Spy

[+gof1]

It sure sounds to me like the OP wants to make historical virtuals. He even said "leave no trace" in a subsequent post, along with "National Parks". I took that to mean no container.

I don't think it is a good idea to keep trying to bring back the virts one small type at a time. Either bring them back or don't, and TPTB seem very adamant about the don't option.

All that being said, I do like the attribute that Lep suggested. A way to bring a bit of the cream to the top is a good thing.

[+DrAwKwArD]

Historical site attribute? Sounds good in theory, but I can see how this would easily become overused and abused.

[+Totem Clan]

Just thinking here. And for me that's a dangerous thing.

 

First, I love the idea of a history attribute so don't flame me for this, but....

 

And just being Devil's advocate here, if they do add a history attribute then they should add a military attribute, or maybe a statue one, or an architecture one. I could see some one arguing this.

 

Like I said, just thinking.

[+gof1]

A more comprehensive list of attributes could be helpful.

I think a statue or architecture attribute may be more use than one for livestock.

Then again, I don't live in "cattle country".

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Great!!! Sounds like a concept for a new website. History Marking - www.histmark.com maybe?? I'll provide some web space.

 

It just isn't Geocaching.

Agreed. If Waymarking isn't working smoothly, then fix it. There's no reason to piggyback a waymark on the geocaching website.

 

You guys really need to read the OP. He is not asking for a virtual, nor do I think anyone else in this thread is.

 

Is it a hidden box? Then it's probably just a traditional cache. Do we really need a special attribute for that? Can we have an attribute for caches that tell a story? How about an attribute for in-plain-sight caches, or an attribute for in-a-bush caches?

 

History caches...yikes. We'll get an oversight commitee or authority to decide if it's legitimate history. Then they'll bastardize history the way they've been bastardizing science. Just another cache type to ignore.

[+opa and oma]

History Caches:

 

Dear Geocaching.com. Being a person who greatly enjoys history and sees a need to promote education in history, I would like to create a new cache category similar to the Earth Cache. This would be a “History Cache”.

 

This would work along the principle of Earth Caches in that it would take the cacher to places of historic value:

For example but not limited to:

• Battlefields

• Old Forts and Castles

• Points of national interest

o Political Speeches – (IE Gettysburg Address Location)

o Boston Harbor

• Historic Anchorages

o The constellation

o The Constitution

• Historic Passes/Trails

o Oregon Trail

o Cumberland Gap

• Historic Land Marks

o Old border markings

o The towers near Annapolis

• Open to ideas…..

 

The purpose of the History Cache is to:

1. Promote history education

2. Make history more enjoyable for students and assist history teachers by giving them another tool to make history more interactive.

3. Encourage people to visit historic sights and learn why these are important.

 

How this will work and used for approval

1. The request for a History cache would be submitted to a group of volunteers that would check legitimacy of the cache.

2. Permission must be granted by the land owner/manager

3. The Cache in the way of the earth cache MUST BE EDUCATIONAL

4. Again in the way of earth caches, the cacher must answer questions for credit

 

I would be willing to moderate such an undertaking and know I have several others from the Military Association of GeoCachers that would also help in this Endeavour.

 

To contact me:

falconlaoder@militarycache.org

 

Thank you for considering this

Sincerely

M. “Duke” Clements

Aka Falcon Loader

HTTP://www.militarycache.org

 

I am in total agreement with Falcon Loader. I'm bumping this thread after doing a search for just such a subject. Maybe it could be sponsored by the National Historical Society as the EarthCache is by the GSA. Yes even with its own icon like EC's.

 

I don't understand why all the negativety to this or even virtuals in general. A lot of historical places can't or shouldn't have even a bison placed, but the "container" sought is the knowledge gained in your brain bucket.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I cannot say that I'm a fan of whybothermarking.com. One stop shopping for me. While my brother was visiting, he found a few <name deleted> caches. I did not bother logging them.

I've only done one of the new Earth Caches. Beautiful area, that I'm glad I visited, but get real with the additional logging requirements. Measure the height of a cliff with my GPS???

Anywho. I'm surprised that TPTB resurrected Earth Caches, given their roll back to caches with a log book. It is good that they are open to variations.

But, according to the guidelines, a precedent is only applicable to that cache. Earth Caches have a governing body that sets the requirements. History caches would not, unless some historical group makes a pitch to TPTB. My experience iwth Earth Caches is limited, but I have not seen one where a regular cache could not have been hiddn. (In fact, one is about fifteen feet from an existing cache set out to show the feature that the Earth Cache is showing.)

I, for another, would love to see a new category of caches for historical sites. The emphasis being to show the historic site, rather than hiding a lame cache nearby. (The same precedent set for Earth Caches.) But, alas, I do not see an historical group willing to administer this series of caches. Alas, and alack.

[+mommio]

I like the idea of an attribute. Currently I am working on creating a whole series of caches titled Texas Ghost Towns. Have done 13 caches in the counties surrounding my home and am about to put out another 18. I have bookmarked the completed caches so anyone interested in ghost towns has a list handy. Have been trying to get cachers in other areas of the state to contribute to the list but so far no takers. :-(

[+Renegade Knight]

That looks like a nice list of Waymarking categories. The history categories are the ones I like best!

 

There are tons of caches which show off points of history. I don't think they warrant a special cache type, since some are traditionals, some are puzzles, some are multi's, etc. I would, however, be in favor of a "Historic Area" attribute. This would help history buffs to filter through the caches to zero in on the ones that show us interesting historic sites. We have "scenic view" as an attribute; why not "historic view?"

While I'm not really sure on the merit of history caches any more than earth caches. The simple fact that earth caches are not earth waymarks tells me that if this idea has merit, it's as a cache.

 

The attribute idea has some merit but not as just another one in the current mix. Perhaps as an alternate attribute that defines the general nature of the cache.

Historical, Scenic, Urban Slag...That's not so easy to do except for intent...

Edited May 26, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

...I've only done one of the new Earth Caches. Beautiful area, that I'm glad I visited, but get real with the additional logging requirements. Measure the height of a cliff with my GPS???...

 

Someone stuck an earth cache on top of one of my caches. I'm not sure it's any more educational than the real deal.

 

Oh well.

[+TrailGators]

...I've only done one of the new Earth Caches. Beautiful area, that I'm glad I visited, but get real with the additional logging requirements. Measure the height of a cliff with my GPS???...

 

Someone stuck an earth cache on top of one of my caches. I'm not sure it's any more educational than the real deal.

 

Oh well.

That's how I feel.

[+Ringo67]

History Caches:

 

Dear Geocaching.com. Being a person who greatly enjoys history and sees a need to promote education in history, I would like to create a new cache category similar to the Earth Cache. This would be a “History Cache”.

 

(snip)

 

I agree with Falcon Loader. I checked out Waymarking.com and once I saw the McDonald's category, I said forget about it. However, I do like the idea of virtual caches as long as they bring you to significant points of interest. Earthcaches are a good start, but why not historical caches as well?

 

Of course, the question always becomes who decides what is "significant" or "of interest."

 

- Ringo67

[+"we two want to play too"]

Put another person down who would LOVE to have this attribute! It would make it easier to find cool places especially when I travel to a different town. I don't think it warrants a new category.... unless it would give me a new icon.

 

Historical site attribute? Sounds good in theory, but I can see how this would easily become overused and abused.

 

Ditto. Would have loved this attribute on my U.P. tour, especially once I got into the Keweenaw peninsula.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Waymarking, aside from being off topic, is not what they are looking for.

Well they certainly aren't looking for geocaching. Geocaching is about finding a container. If that container is in a special location then that's a bonus.

 

Why do some people think that geocaching is about finding a special place and if a container is there then it's a bonus?

Edited May 26, 2007 by Team GPSaxophone

[+Hiking Cockroachess]

History Caches:

 

Dear Geocaching.com. Being a person who greatly enjoys history and sees a need to promote education in history, I would like to create a new cache category similar to the Earth Cache. This would be a “History Cache”.

 

This would work along the principle of Earth Caches in that it would take the cacher to places of historic value.

 

I LIKE this idea. Having a actual container at a historic site is not always wise or feasible. There is a micro cache that I remember where it was placed about 15 feet away from an old log cabin. GZ for many of us was at the corner of the cabin, and I kept telling my partner to "leave the cabin alone." It took a few return visits to find this one, and each time, the cabin was in worse and worse repair, presumably from searchers taking out loose bits to check for the film canister. Having people gather information from the site and actually LEARN something would solve the issue of damaging the site, AND it would be a more worthwhile visit.

[+Miragee]

Waymarking, aside from being off topic, is not what they are looking for.

Well they certainly aren't looking for geocaching. Geocaching is about finding a container. If that container is in a special location then that's a bonus.

 

Why do some people think that geocaching is about finding a special place and if a container is there then it's a bonus?

Maybe because Earthcaches were moved back to this site from Waymarking . . .

 

I found an Earthcache last weekend that was less than 300 feet away from a Traditional Cache. However, I learned something from reading the Earthcache page and completing the requirements. That was actually, for me, more interesting and memorable than finding the container with trinkets in it without learning anything about the amazing rock formations nearby . . .

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Waymarking, aside from being off topic, is not what they are looking for.

Well they certainly aren't looking for geocaching. Geocaching is about finding a container. If that container is in a special location then that's a bonus.

 

Why do some people think that geocaching is about finding a special place and if a container is there then it's a bonus?

Maybe because Earthcaches were moved back to this site from Waymarking . . .

 

I found an Earthcache last weekend that was less than 300 feet away from a Traditional Cache. However, I learned something from reading the Earthcache page and completing the requirements. That was actually, for me, more interesting and memorable than finding the container with trinkets in it without learning anything about the amazing rock formations nearby . . .

Geocaching wasn't started to teach you about historic sites or whatnot. It's a way to hide things for others to find using the Global Positioning System. Yes, there are other things you can do with the GPS, but that doesn't mean those other things are geocaching.

Edited May 26, 2007 by Team GPSaxophone

[+Too Tall John]

I, for another, would love to see a new category of caches for historical sites. The emphasis being to show the historic site, rather than hiding a lame cache nearby. (The same precedent set for Earth Caches.) But, alas, I do not see an historical group willing to administer this series of caches. Alas, and alack.

Didn't I read from the OP that the Military Geocachers' Assoc. is willing to take this on?

[+Knight2000]

Maybe if Waymarking was in some way tied or connected to the GC site it would be easier. I have been to the Waymarking site several times and i have yet to figure it out.

 

I can understand both sides of the coin. I would like for my family to visit some cool places whether or not they have actual caches. The way it is now, i would have to go to a separate site and endure a learning curve. It would be nice if they were connected somehow and the users could choose if they wanted them shown or not in their searched. Like preferences or something.

[+Renegade Knight]

Waymarking, aside from being off topic, is not what they are looking for.

Well they certainly aren't looking for geocaching. Geocaching is about finding a container. If that container is in a special location then that's a bonus.

 

Why do some people think that geocaching is about finding a special place and if a container is there then it's a bonus?

 

If geocaching is all about the container then I've got about 30 ammo cans in my garage you can log. My wife has about 200 Mason jars you can log, and you can dig through our cupboards and log tupperware until the cows come home.

 

Personally I think there is something more to it than the container, something that virtuals can capture even without the container. I'd say that's just me, but it's not.

[+Miragee]

Waymarking, aside from being off topic, is not what they are looking for.

Well they certainly aren't looking for geocaching. Geocaching is about finding a container. If that container is in a special location then that's a bonus.

 

Why do some people think that geocaching is about finding a special place and if a container is there then it's a bonus?

If geocaching is all about the container then I've got about 30 ammo cans in my garage you can log. My wife has about 200 Mason jars you can log, and you can dig through our cupboards and log tupperware until the cows come home.

 

Personally I think there is something more to it than the container, something that virtuals can capture even without the container. I'd say that's just me, but it's not.

Very well said! I have more enduring memories from the Virtual caches I have found both locally, and on roadtrips, than I do for most of the "containers" I have found.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Waymarking, aside from being off topic, is not what they are looking for.

Well they certainly aren't looking for geocaching. Geocaching is about finding a container. If that container is in a special location then that's a bonus.

 

Why do some people think that geocaching is about finding a special place and if a container is there then it's a bonus?

 

If geocaching is all about the container then I've got about 30 ammo cans in my garage you can log. My wife has about 200 Mason jars you can log, and you can dig through our cupboards and log tupperware until the cows come home.

 

Personally I think there is something more to it than the container, something that virtuals can capture even without the container. I'd say that's just me, but it's not.

It's not *just* about the container, but about *hiding* it and finding it using the GPS. The logbook is also an essential part of the game. Containerless "caches" don't have that. They also don't have anything hidden. Yes, you can reference these pre-existing landmarks or whatever with coordinates, but they weren't placed there to be found with a GPSr.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Waymarking, aside from being off topic, is not what they are looking for.

Well they certainly aren't looking for geocaching. Geocaching is about finding a container. If that container is in a special location then that's a bonus.

 

Why do some people think that geocaching is about finding a special place and if a container is there then it's a bonus?

If geocaching is all about the container then I've got about 30 ammo cans in my garage you can log. My wife has about 200 Mason jars you can log, and you can dig through our cupboards and log tupperware until the cows come home.

 

Personally I think there is something more to it than the container, something that virtuals can capture even without the container. I'd say that's just me, but it's not.

Very well said! I have more enduring memories from the Virtual caches I have found both locally, and on roadtrips, than I do for most of the "containers" I have found.

Finding historical or meaningful sites is something else you can do with the GPS, but just because you use the GPS doesn't make it geocaching.

[+TrailGators]

Waymarking, aside from being off topic, is not what they are looking for.

Well they certainly aren't looking for geocaching. Geocaching is about finding a container. If that container is in a special location then that's a bonus.

 

Why do some people think that geocaching is about finding a special place and if a container is there then it's a bonus?

 

If geocaching is all about the container then I've got about 30 ammo cans in my garage you can log. My wife has about 200 Mason jars you can log, and you can dig through our cupboards and log tupperware until the cows come home.

Personally I think there is something more to it than the container, something that virtuals can capture even without the container. I'd say that's just me, but it's not.

The bottom line is that there are different styles of cachers. There are treasure hunters that prefer larger containers with swag. There are numbers hunters who prefer quick easy caches and could care less where they are hidden. There are location hunters that prefer caches in cool locations. I'm pretty much a location hunter, but I do enjoy finding a well-hidden cache too.

 

As far as the history thing, I think it would work better if it were managed like Waymarking category with a peer review. If you just let people hide history caches it would become a mess. Some people would hide them in stupid locations just to get the new history cache icon. I also think the attributes are a mess because they are so inconsistently applied. I don't use them for that reason.

Edited May 26, 2007 by TrailGators