Letterbox hybrid blurb

[J.A.R.S.]

I checked on one of my letterbox pages and noticed that the site has included definitions of the box type. A nice educational feature. For letterbox pages, at the top of the clue page, it says:

A letterbox is another form of treasure hunting using clues instead of coordinates. In some cases, however, a letterbox has coordinates, and the owner has made it a letterbox and a geocache. To read more about letterboxing, visit the Letterboxing North America web site [link].

Too bad it doesn't point people to Atlas Quest - I think it would be a better choice. People who use the gc site are used to web features (logging finds, pocket pc, attributes, profiles, watch listings, maps, trip planners, advanced search features, boards/forums). To me it makes more sense to point geocachers to AQ - it being a more bells & whistles site with many similar features. LBNA prides itself in being a depository site with (deliberate) limited web functions.

 

In terms of information pages, you'll find that AQ offers a interactive and extensive section of help pages including photo tutorials and wiki help pages.

[Keystone]

When did Atlas Quest become a widespread letterboxing site? The language you quoted is from 2001 or early 2002 and has never changed. At that time, I don't recall seeing AQ mentioned in these forums. So, it's a matter of not giving the Cache Types page anything more than band-aid update for several years, rather than any intentional omission.

[+CYBret]

Amazing. I went to Atlas Quest and found three letterboxes in a state park where I had to pull teeth to get permission to place one geocache?

 

Are these people asking permission too?

 

Bret

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Amazing. I went to Atlas Quest and found three letterboxes in a state park where I had to pull teeth to get permission to place one geocache?

 

Are these people asking permission too?

 

Bret

In short, the answer is likely "no". A problem which we have in our state (MD) within our state parks (where prior application to DNR for permission to emplace any geocacher or letterbox is required) is that none of the letterboxers from ANY of the letterbox sites ever have asked for permission to emplace their letterboxes, and yet we have, in our research, discovered numerous letterboxes placed in these parks (all placed without permission.) In fact, at least two of our nearby state parks had, until recently, more letterboxes than geocaches, all of which (letterboxes) had been emplaced without permisssion. And, letterboxers seem, for the most part, to totally ignore any emails or PMs sent to them via letterboxing sites asking them to apply to DNR for permission (as the DNR geocache/letterbox reviewer for two local state parks, I tried that tactic once, and finally gave up in frustration after a few failed attempts.) Further, I think it is a matter of "culture" and community standards: the letterbox sites do not seem to offer guidance on obtaining permission, nor do they seem to require permission before they will list a letterbox.

[J.A.R.S.]

When did Atlas Quest become a widespread letterboxing site? The language you quoted is from 2001 or early 2002 and has never changed. At that time, I don't recall seeing AQ mentioned in these forums. So, it's a matter of not giving the Cache Types page anything more than band-aid update for several years, rather than any intentional omission.

 

Ah, that explains it. Atlas Quest began in 2004 and continues to grow and develop into quite a nice site. (Just wish the site would offer online logs, but currently there's too much opposition to them in the letterboxing community).

[Max Cacher]

Attended a Letterboxing Event this pass weekend, Atlas Quest was said to be the easiest site to use, this quote is from their presenters “”Basic Letterboxing & Etiquette and Definitions booklet””

 

The quote : “ Do not ask the authorities about a letterbox if you cannot find it. While the placer should get permission to plant a letterbox before hand most letterboxers work under the theory that planting a letterbox is okay until they are told otherwise. In such a case not only will the authorities be unable to help you, they may instead confiscate the letterbox! “

 

Does that sound familiar,

 

The largest park system in Tennessee sent a request to Atlas Quest telling them that a permit was required for placing a letterbox in there parks. One letterboxer has gotten permits the others have not and the park department has been removing the ones that do not.

 

Seems to be an instant approving site, there are three letterboxes in the Great Smokey Mountains National Park, when those are found by the park officials it has to knock us back one more step in placing caches there.

 

Max Cacher

[Keystone]

Wow. I just checked the Atlas Quest site for the first time myself.

 

As a cache reviewer I keep pretty busy, making sure that the more than 30 permit systems and "no geocaches" policies in my review territory are followed. When one slips through the cracks (inaccurate borders, new park, park not shown on map, etc.) I hear from the land manager or one of the local cachers pretty quickly.

 

In the sample area I checked, I found letterboxes in parks where geocachers have been told to stay out of, and letterboxes from 2006 in parks where permits for 2006 caches expired in March 2007.

 

I will resist any effort to promote a letterboxing site unless it plays by the same land manager rules that geocaches are subject to.

[J.A.R.S.]

I will resist any effort to promote a letterboxing site unless it plays by the same land manager rules that geocaches are subject to.

 

LBNA terms of use:

http://www.letterboxing.org/lbna/tou.html

By submitting clues to this website, you warrant the following: That there is a safe, legal, and trespass free route to any boxes the clues may lead to, and that land owner/land manager permission exists to place the box(es) the clues lead to where they are placed.

 

Regarding AQ they do say this on the site:

http://www.atlasquest.com/aboutlb/rules/respect.html

Do not hide a letterbox where you know the land managers do not allow them, or if the park has letterboxing guidelines, follow them to the letter. They have the authority to confiscate your letterboxes—and everyone else's letterboxes if the land managers feel the letterboxing community isn't respecting their guidelines.

 

Both sites do not have reviewers. You'd have to ask the webmasters about what steps they take when a land manager contacts them.

 

If gc.com promotes one over the other, I vote for AQ because of web features and the promotion of box maintenance. The AQ webmaster does a sweep of emails each year. Owners who have not logged into AQ for a year will have their boxes put up for adoption. The AQ policy was created to discourage abandonment. LBNA does not have a similar policy and many of the boxes on the site are no longer maintained or are missing but that information is not updated.

 

But based on land manager guidelines, perhaps removing the reference to LBNA and not promoting either site would be the answer since neither quite conforms to the same land manager guidelines as laid out by geocaching.com. But to be sure about their policies and procedures, you'd have to communicate with the webmasters.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Ah, that explains it. Atlas Quest began in 2004 and continues to grow and develop into quite a nice site. (Just wish the site would offer online logs, but currently there's too much opposition to them in the letterboxing community).

So do I. Likely letterboxers want to keep thinking of themselves as the more enlightened activity. Sort of like fly fishing. Allowing online logs would not actually harm letterboxers (any more than stats harm geocachers) but perception is the rule of the day.

[J.A.R.S.]

Just found this help page on Atlas Quest regarding land manager policies:

 

http://www.atlasquest.com/aboutlb/wiki/browse.html?gCatId=31

 

It covers different policies in different parks in the USA, and includes links to policies and permits.

[CoyoteRed]

Allowing online logs would not actually harm letterboxers...

~ I about spewed my coffee all over my monitor! ~

 

Try telling some letterboxers that.

 

...and they have a point. It has to do with information beyond what they put out. They want to control spoilers. On caches listed here, the longer a cache has been out and logged the more hints you can glean. Some boxers don't want that. It's their right.

 

It's not wrong, just different. Not every site has to be just like GC.com.

Edited May 28, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[CoyoteRed]

As a cache reviewer I keep pretty busy, making sure that the more than 30 permit systems and "no geocaches" policies in my review territory are followed. When one slips through the cracks (inaccurate borders, new park, park not shown on map, etc.) I hear from the land manager or one of the local cachers pretty quickly.

 

In the sample area I checked, I found letterboxes in parks where geocachers have been told to stay out of, and letterboxes from 2006 in parks where permits for 2006 caches expired in March 2007.

You probably don't know, but some in the letterboxing community would consider this attitude rather arrogant. It's seen as passing judgment as to whether a cache should exist and it's not even completely based on criteria in the real world. A letterbox is one as soon as it is planted and the clue written. The website is simply a convenient way to share clues. Unlike geocaching, I have found clues in boxes to other boxes--typically a worn out, folded printout. How boxes are published, or not, is up to the owner. If LbNA.org or AQ.com went to a reviewer process in order to publish boxes they would be laughed right out of existence.

 

Also, you should note that not all boxes are actually listed on either site, but linked to where they are listed and that can include a private site. This is something that doesn't even exist on GC.com.

 

Besides, I probably wouldn't scoff at any permission issues on other sites. A blind eye is routinely turned here as "...you assure us that you have adequate permission..." is quoted, and hidden behind, time and time again. It's basically pay attention to the "big boys" like the various park systems and let the "little guy" fend for themselves. That's not to mention I had my own troubles getting an obviously illegal cache placement archived. Why? I was told that type of hide was used all the time in other areas? Really? I would have never though a cordless drill and 3/4" bits were part of a cache placement kit. It's okay to vandalize private property? I would hope not!

 

Sorry for the rant and I realize that part of the attacks on boxing is rivalry, but sometimes it just gets my goat.

[+CYBret]

As a cache reviewer I keep pretty busy, making sure that the more than 30 permit systems and "no geocaches" policies in my review territory are followed. When one slips through the cracks (inaccurate borders, new park, park not shown on map, etc.) I hear from the land manager or one of the local cachers pretty quickly.

 

In the sample area I checked, I found letterboxes in parks where geocachers have been told to stay out of, and letterboxes from 2006 in parks where permits for 2006 caches expired in March 2007.

You probably don't know, but some in the letterboxing community would consider this attitude rather arrogant.

 

I've read Keystone's statement and yours a few times and I'm not really sure I see the arrogance.

 

Where I live the Illinois DNR has a set of requirements for a geocache to be placed on their property. Over in Indiana their DNR has a different set and requires caches be licensed. I think Keystone's point is that letterboxers haven't subjected themselves to the same kind of approval system within parks that have restrictions for geocaches. Where's the arrogance there?

 

My concern with the state park near me is that they're likely completely unaware of letterboxing and if the boxes placed there are found by park workers they'll assume geocachers have left them. Who's going to hear about it and whose game is going to get hurt by it?

 

Bret

[+briansnat]

Where I live the Illinois DNR has a set of requirements for a geocache to be placed on their property. Over in Indiana their DNR has a different set and requires caches be licensed. I think Keystone's point is that letterboxers haven't subjected themselves to the same kind of approval system within parks that have restrictions for geocaches. Where's the arrogance there?

 

I think CR's point was that there is no approval system for letterboxing and to demand that it become more like geocaching in that respect might not sit well with letterboxers.

 

I agree that letterboxers should conform to the same rules. In many cases they do. A number of park systems address letterboxing and geocaching in their geocaching (or no geocaching) policies.

 

Letterboxing tends to fly under the radar (kind of where geocaching was 5 years ago) because there are far fewer letterboxes out there and also because there is no website some park manager can pull up that will show him precisely where all the letterboxes are located on his property.

[CoyoteRed]

I've read Keystone's statement and yours a few times and I'm not really sure I see the arrogance.

I'm not surprised. You're probably coming from a different mindset.

 

Letterboxing has never been subjected to a review process. Geocaching always has. Geocachers have always had to be used to having their caches "approved" in order to exist. It was pretty much a fact of life. Even of all of the alternate listing sites you can't self publish.

 

In letterboxing, there is no such activity. It is completely foreign to the typical boxer. You create your box, you plant, write the clues, and publish. Instantly. (Well, used to you had to have the clues manually uploaded by the webmaster, but that's it.) There's no one saying you can or can't do this or that except for the community.

 

If you look at it from the standpoint where no one has had to put up with someone telling what they can and can not do I think you will see my point.

 

Where I live the Illinois DNR has a set of requirements for a geocache to be placed on their property. Over in Indiana their DNR has a different set and requires caches be licensed. I think Keystone's point is that letterboxers haven't subjected themselves to the same kind of approval system within parks that have restrictions for geocaches. Where's the arrogance there?

What I get is a bit of "holier-than-thou."

 

I'm not saying folks should disrespect land owner wishes, but I think the "cache cop mentality" of the review process is what folks see--even here.

 

My concern with the state park near me is that they're likely completely unaware of letterboxing and if the boxes placed there are found by park workers they'll assume geocachers have left them. Who's going to hear about it and whose game is going to get hurt by it?

I wonder if these systems and organizations would even have restrictions on letterboxes if it weren't for bad cache placements. So, I have to ask, who hurt who?

 

...and now boxers have to fall in line because of cachers?

 

Dont' get me wrong, I cache a lot more than I box, but I've got to provide a bit of perspective from the other side.

[+briansnat]

I wonder if these systems and organizations would even have restrictions on letterboxes if it weren't for bad cache placements. So, I have to ask, who hurt who?

 

In most cases these rules didn't come about in response to a bad cache placement, but in to an overall concern about an activity on their lands that they had no control over

[+gravechaser]

Granted, I haven't been caching all that long, but I definitely agree with briansnat! Not because of bias due to never having letterboxed or because I've had to submit my caches for approval but because of being a landowner.

 

Parks may be open to the public but the public HAS to adhere to the park rules. If the park rules state that a permit must be obtained for a cache what makes LBers think they can ignore that? They are placing an unnatural item in said park so logic dictates that they have to have a permit. In IL a permit isn't required but, honestly, if I find that there is one in the State Park near our home I'll probably report it to the Park Office. There are some sensitive areas there so if the main office doesn't know it is there who knows how much damage the box visitors would be causing? If the box owner DID get permission, then FABULOUS! More visitors to my hometown and more income to the merchants in the area!

 

As a landowner I look at this rather simply. I know who has asked permission to be on our land. If they want to leave equipment they tell us where it is and mark it on our parcel map so we know where it is. Others in the area have "hunted there all our lives so we're going to continue on" -without receiving permission. We call the county sheriff and file trespassing charges against them. I have a cache on some land right next to our house. I'd be deeply angered if someone decided to put any gamepiece for ANY game on our ground without asking first. I doubt that I'd file trespass against them but if they put another one back I would.

 

It seems that SOME LBers (NOT ALL!!!) don't ask for permission to place their boxes. That nonchalance about common courtesy, to say nothing about trespass or ignoring park rules, seems to be the biggest beef and will eventually cause their game Public Relations difficulties and since geocaching is a very similar game it will cause us problems as well. I personally resent the concept that someone, REGARDLESS of what game they are playing, thinks they have the right to leave boxes/caches/anything else on land without gaining permission first.

 

I don't care if they don't have an approval process but there should be some way to show proof of permission before being posted online. And yes, I think we should have to show proof of permission in caching regarding private land and parks. I try to be consistent.

 

In closing please forgive my punctuation mistakes. I didn't do well in English classes all those years ago.

[+Renegade Knight]

Allowing online logs would not actually harm letterboxers...

~ I about spewed my coffee all over my monitor! ~

 

Try telling some letterboxers that.

 

...and they have a point. It has to do with information beyond what they put out. They want to control spoilers. On caches listed here, the longer a cache has been out and logged the more hints you can glean. Some boxers don't want that. It's their right.

 

It's not wrong, just different. Not every site has to be just like GC.com.

I've been kicking this entire concept around at the back of my mind. It's not working well. I can see the spoiler thing, but when I found a letterbox that looked like they had thrown the cache into the weeds off to the side there was no way to find the letterbox owner and email them about the problem of the cache and letterbox co-existing in the same place. The written instructions in the letterbox were really snobby, unrealistic, and wholy ignored by cachers who found the box and not the cache.

 

The lack of accountability, contact information, or anything that can be used to work with letterboxes is a major problem. It's more than the lack of an online log. They are not under the radar anymore.

 

OTOH a cache page with the Avitar of everone who found your cache would be kinda cool. You could see at a glance who's found your cache without reading logs.

Edited May 28, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[J.A.R.S.]

Allowing online logs would not actually harm letterboxers...

~ I about spewed my coffee all over my monitor! ~

 

Try telling some letterboxers that.

 

...and they have a point. It has to do with information beyond what they put out. They want to control spoilers. On caches listed here, the longer a cache has been out and logged the more hints you can glean. Some boxers don't want that. It's their right.

 

It's not wrong, just different. Not every site has to be just like GC.com.

I can see the spoiler thing, but when I found a letterbox that looked like they had thrown the cache into the weeds off to the side there was no way to find the letterbox owner and email them about the problem of the cache and letterbox co-existing in the same place. The written instructions in the letterbox were really snobby, unrealistic, and wholy ignored by cachers who found the box and not the cache.

 

The lack of accountability, contact information, or anything that can be used to work with letterboxes is a major problem. It's more than the lack of an online log. They are not under the radar anymore.

 

Last year I suggested, on the LBNA yahoo group, an *optional* online log capability for those of us who hide letterboxes and want finders to leave public messages - those hiders that don't want them could opt out. But that suggestion was met with animosity, especially by the old-timers. They don't want them and they don't want anyone to have them either, in fact they invited me to leave and not let the door hit my backside on the way out. I remember both Jeremy (gc.com) and Ryan (AQ.com) stepping into the fracas at one point.

 

I feel that online logs have far more advantages than disadvantages.

 

Online logs can do a hider a service. Good comments could drum up more visits. It makes my day to read kudos in an online log and good comments inspire me to continue hiding caches. Not so great comments are good too because they help me tweak the instructions to make the experience a more pleasant one for the finder.

 

Online logs help finders help other finders, which is especially important when the box has been abandoned. Online logs warn other finders of problems with the box (full logbook, cracked water-logged box) the location (poison ivy, druggie hangout), mis-leading or dead-end clues (turn left at the maple tree when you really need to turn right and the maple tree has been chopped down).

 

There was a message posted on the LBNA yahoo group back in November 2006 -- the letterboxer went out to a letterbox that instructed the finder to "dig deep" to get the box that was hidden under a rock. He started to remove the dirt under the rock with his hands. Buried in the dirt were shards of glass. He ended up in the emergency ward to stitch up his fingers. He didn't give out the name of the box but did give the out the name of the city, state and that what the directions said. I just did a search for the box and it's still on the LBNA site (placed in 2004) and clearly states to "dig deep".

[Keystone]

As a geocacher I would *love* to press the publish button to list a cache in a Summit County, Ohio MetroPark -- but I can't, because the land manager has banned geocaches. There's letterboxes there, though. I'd love to push the publish button the minute that I see a nice new cache in a Pennsylvania State Forest -- but I can't because the Pennsylvania DCNR bureau of forestry has a permit system. Legal agreements to be signed, environmental impact checks, and so forth. I doubt highly that any letterboxers have signed a permission agreement.

 

I did not invent these permission rules. I am told by Groundspeak to enforce them, though, so that we can maintain good relations with land managers. A lot of flak is thrown back at me, like it is *my* decision to ban or regulate geocaching. It isn't. I would much prefer a system where all land managers trusted the listing guidelines and review process here, but that isn't reality. Instead I must keep track of more than thirty land manager policies.

 

There was no arrogance intended in my prior post. Rather, I was expressing frustration because a letterboxer can dump a box any old place, while a geocacher desiring to place a cache in the same spot is told "no" or told to go follow the land manager's permit process. It's a double standard.

[CoyoteRed]

Last year I suggested, on the LBNA yahoo group, an *optional* online log capability for those of us who hide letterboxes and want finders to leave public messages - those hiders that don't want them could opt out.

You have always had that option. You simply set up your own page. There are plenty of blogging sites out there that will allow you to do just as you ask without forcing the LbNA.org site to do it for you.

[+Renegade Knight]

Last year I suggested, on the LBNA yahoo group, an *optional* online log capability for those of us who hide letterboxes and want finders to leave public messages - those hiders that don't want them could opt out.

You have always had that option. You simply set up your own page. There are plenty of blogging sites out there that will allow you to do just as you ask without forcing the LbNA.org site to do it for you.

 

If GC.com worked that way...We'd all be Navicachers. There is a lot to be said for the community spirit that binds geocaching.

[CoyoteRed]

It's a double standard.

Yep, it is.

 

However, the same holds true for any other cache listing site. TC.com and NC.com both could easily list caches that you are forced to archive. It's not a geocaching versus letterboxing issue in this respect.

 

Also, the arrogance is not from you, Keystone, specifically, but the review process in general as I tried to point out. I wasn't trying to single you out.

 

Personally, I find it unfortunate there is animosity between both some land managers and the hobbyist, and between the hobbyists themselves. Fortunately, more and more land managers are producing very friendly permitting schemes which are little more than notifications of placements. This is good thing as it promotes the permission process and gives the placer a published point of contact. I really do wish hobbyists who help draft and facilitate these policies consider there is more than geocaching on GC.com.

[+Kiwi Nomad]

I would hope that letterboxers were not placing on private land with out permission. As for placing in parks from what I have read over on the other sites they see cachers as the ones doing damage while hunting for the cache and causing the problems.

 

The difference is we have the option of using a hint or not, many people think they are better for not using it. Letterboxing using clues which tell you exactly where the box is so there should never be any need for seaching in ever increasing circles to find the box because you know where it is. Also because you have written instructions as to where it is there is better chance of it being put back in the 'right' place.

 

Letterboxing has been around for a long time the two main sites are mainly for North America only. A lot of boxes arn't on the internet at all. Many English ones get pubblished in books and then there are those that are word of mouth only.

 

Some people think that they are comparing apples with apples when they try and apply the same rules to letteboxing as we have in geocaching. If this is the way you think then just remember not all apples are grown for eating, some are good for cooking and others for making cider.

 

Having said that there are some badly placed letterboxes just as some caches are badly placed. I went to an area of bush with historical importance recently and there was both a letterbox and geocache there. In this instance the geocache was the better placed so finding no damage was caused by finding it, I left the letterbox as a did not find as it looked like some work had been done since it was placed and I didn't want to do any damage by looking for it.

 

So in summary both groups need to respect the others differences and ensure we/they place (and hunt) in a resposable way.

 

Arn't geocaching and letterboxing supposed to be fun! So why waste our time fighting and get out there and enjoy the hunt.

[+Kiwi Nomad]

Oh and by the way if neither letterboxing site meet the required geocaching standards then don't show any link.

Otherwise it will be seen as approving their way of doing things.

[CoyoteRed]

If GC.com worked that way...We'd all be Navicachers. There is a lot to be said for the community spirit that binds geocaching.

Sorry, but logging isn't why I don't use NC.com.

 

Personally, I think the online logging is part of what's wrong with geocaching.com. If logging is such a good thing then why are so many logs 20 words or less?

[Keystone]

It's a double standard.

Yep, it is.

 

However, the same holds true for any other cache listing site. TC.com and NC.com both could easily list caches that you are forced to archive. It's not a geocaching versus letterboxing issue in this respect.

Then TC.com and NC.com would be violating most of the land manager permit systems and regulations that I've read. I have yet to see one that says "this rule only applies to geocaches listed on Geocaching.com." Can you show me one?

[CoyoteRed]

Then TC.com and NC.com would be violating most of the land manager permit systems and regulations that I've read. I have yet to see one that says "this rule only applies to geocaches listed on Geocaching.com." Can you show me one?

There isn't one that I know of. My point is caches can be listed in violation of land manager wishes and that it's not a "only letterboxers violate land manager mandated rules" issue.

[+Renegade Knight]

If GC.com worked that way...We'd all be Navicachers. There is a lot to be said for the community spirit that binds geocaching.

Sorry, but logging isn't why I don't use NC.com.

 

Personally, I think the online logging is part of what's wrong with geocaching.com. If logging is such a good thing then why are so many logs 20 words or less?

21 words or more doesn't make a log a good, any more than a short but nice log of 20 words or less is a bad thing.

 

What makes logging a good thing is the sence of community and the feedback. We know our caches are being found. We placed them to be found. The logs tell us which are working how we intended and which are not so hot. Reading the logs we come to know at little about the cachers in our area and come to like some of them and maybe even dislike some of them. That's community.

 

If you take away online logging you would strip out a lot of the community. Even the letterboxing folks who are against logs get onine in forums and create letterboxing communities.

 

If GC.com did drop online logs, I'd quit this site. It would have removed one of the key things that I enjoy about geocaching. It's one thing to debate quality, virtual. It's another to actually remove one of the keystones that this activity is built on.

[CoyoteRed]

21 words or more doesn't make a log a good, any more than a short but nice log of 20 words or less is a bad thing.

Exceptions to the rule.

 

There are so many cut-and-paste or acronym-only logs that I wonder if there was a function to transparently indicate you've found a cache, and only you, the finder, could see it, how many would use it. I posit there would be enough to surprise you.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Wow. I just checked the Atlas Quest site for the first time myself.

 

As a cache reviewer I keep pretty busy, making sure that the more than 30 permit systems and "no geocaches" policies in my review territory are followed. When one slips through the cracks (inaccurate borders, new park, park not shown on map, etc.) I hear from the land manager or one of the local cachers pretty quickly.

 

In the sample area I checked, I found letterboxes in parks where geocachers have been told to stay out of, and letterboxes from 2006 in parks where permits for 2006 caches expired in March 2007.

 

I will resist any effort to promote a letterboxing site unless it plays by the same land manager rules that geocaches are subject to.

 

Keystone, you seem like you run a pretty tight ship and are pretty busy doing it. With all due respect here's one voice from the geocaching trenches saying that most of the urban hides listed on GC.com are following the AQ permission policy of "don't ask, don't tell" a lot closer than what you have printed in your guidelines when it comes to permission.

[+Renegade Knight]

21 words or more doesn't make a log a good, any more than a short but nice log of 20 words or less is a bad thing.

Exceptions to the rule.

 

There are so many cut-and-paste or acronym-only logs that I wonder if there was a function to transparently indicate you've found a cache, and only you, the finder, could see it, how many would use it. I posit there would be enough to surprise you.

 

I agree a lot would use it. Then I would lobby that I be able to make my cache non findable by the parasite crowd.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Keystone, you seem like you run a pretty tight ship and are pretty busy doing it. With all due respect here's one voice from the geocaching trenches saying that most of the urban hides listed on GC.com are following the AQ permission policy of "don't ask, don't tell" a lot closer than what you have printed in your guidelines when it comes to permission.

 

Time and again people blame this site and it's reviewers for their own mistrust of their fellow man. When you submit a cache you have said that you have adequate permission. That's enough until proven otherwise. This site's reviewers go above and beyond the call of duty when they also cross check locations that have known geocaching policies.

 

You have made a stand on explicit permission. Criminal has made a stand that no permission is needed unless it's required. Yet if I had to trust a cache to go find as holding to a higher standard I'd seek the Criminal cache. If you have to ask why, then you really don't understand cache placment well enough to make a judgement on "don't ask don't tell".

[+Team GeoBlast]

I

 

Personally, I think the online logging is part of what's wrong with geocaching.com. If logging is such a good thing then why are so many logs 20 words or less?

 

I know this is off topic as the post I am quoting but I could not disagree with this more. I think the best thing about Geocaching is the online log. As a cache owner, or someone who tries to pick through the cache hunts for my family, or someone who does some caching on the road, Geocaching would not have near the same appeal to me if people couldn't share their experiences and they weren't made available. It's one of things that makes it feel like a community to me.

[+Miragee]

21 words or more doesn't make a log a good, any more than a short but nice log of 20 words or less is a bad thing.

Exceptions to the rule.

 

There are so many cut-and-paste or acronym-only logs that I wonder if there was a function to transparently indicate you've found a cache, and only you, the finder, could see it, how many would use it. I posit there would be enough to surprise you.

 

I agree a lot would use it. Then I would lobby that I be able to make my cache non findable by the parasite crowd.

I don't know how many would use it . . . but like RK, if someone chooses such as option, I want my caches hidden from them.

 

Even though many of my caches involve a hike, and probably an adventure someone could write about, if they had that inclination, I still get a lot of "Cut and Paste" logs. However, those are preferable to none at all . . .

[+briansnat]

If GC.com worked that way...We'd all be Navicachers. There is a lot to be said for the community spirit that binds geocaching.

Sorry, but logging isn't why I don't use NC.com.

 

Personally, I think the online logging is part of what's wrong with geocaching.com. If logging is such a good thing then why are so many logs 20 words or less?

21 words or more doesn't make a log a good, any more than a short but nice log of 20 words or less is a bad thing.

 

What makes logging a good thing is the sence of community and the feedback. We know our caches are being found. We placed them to be found. The logs tell us which are working how we intended and which are not so hot. Reading the logs we come to know at little about the cachers in our area and come to like some of them and maybe even dislike some of them. That's community.

 

If you take away online logging you would strip out a lot of the community. Even the letterboxing folks who are against logs get onine in forums and create letterboxing communities.

 

If GC.com did drop online logs, I'd quit this site. It would have removed one of the key things that I enjoy about geocaching. It's one thing to debate quality, virtual. It's another to actually remove one of the keystones that this activity is built on.

 

I agree that online logs are important to geocaching and I'm sure, a big part of the reason for its success. Letterboxing had a 100+ year head start (and about a 3 year head start in the US) and doesn't require

the purchase of expensive electronic equipment, yet geocaching blew by it in terms of popularity.

 

I think the online logs and the instant feedback and sense of community they afford are a major reason for that.

 

I wouldn't quit the site if logs were removed, but I'm sure I'd be a lot less likely to place caches. I'm an instant gratification sort of guy and I don't want to have to visit my cache to see if anybody is finding it, as letterboxers do. It's probably why I've placed over 200 caches and 0 letterboxes even though I started both sports at roughly the same time.

[+Team GeoBlast]

...Keystone, you seem like you run a pretty tight ship and are pretty busy doing it. With all due respect here's one voice from the geocaching trenches saying that most of the urban hides listed on GC.com are following the AQ permission policy of "don't ask, don't tell" a lot closer than what you have printed in your guidelines when it comes to permission.

 

Time and again people blame this site and it's reviewers for their own mistrust of their fellow man. When you submit a cache you have said that you have adequate permission. That's enough until proven otherwise. This site's reviewers go above and beyond the call of duty when they also cross check locations that have known geocaching policies.

 

You have made a stand on explicit permission. Criminal has made a stand that no permission is needed unless it's required. Yet if I had to trust a cache to go find as holding to a higher standard I'd seek the Criminal cache. If you have to ask why, then you really don't understand cache placment well enough to make a judgement on "don't ask don't tell".

 

Easy now.

 

I wasn't blaming Keystone for anything in this instance but his first post came across as him personally (hard not to draw a parallel to him being a reviewer and a moderator) not supporting an alternate site because of their permission policy when I first read it. That policy described most of the caches I find in an urban setting. His post that I responded to was clarified quite well in a second post.

 

FWIW...I too would seek a Criminal cache any chance I got the opportunity.

[+Miragee]

If GC.com worked that way...We'd all be Navicachers. There is a lot to be said for the community spirit that binds geocaching.

Sorry, but logging isn't why I don't use NC.com.

 

Personally, I think the online logging is part of what's wrong with geocaching.com. If logging is such a good thing then why are so many logs 20 words or less?

I know this is off topic as the post I am quoting but I could not disagree with this more. I think the best thing about Geocaching is the online log. As a cache owner, or someone who tries to pick through the cache hunts for my family, or someone who does some caching on the road, Geocaching would not have near the same appeal to me if people couldn't share their experiences and they weren't made available. It's one of things that makes it feel like a community to me.

I agree. I think sometimes the reason online logs are fewer than 20 words is because a person doesn't like to write, or they are being led by example. When I first started caching, many of the logs on the caches I found were short . . . so that is the way I frequently wrote mine, until I read in the Forums that it was okay to write long logs.

 

I then, when I saw some other logs, I realized you could even tell a story, if you cared to.

[J.A.R.S.]

Last year I suggested, on the LBNA yahoo group, an *optional* online log capability for those of us who hide letterboxes and want finders to leave public messages - those hiders that don't want them could opt out.

You have always had that option. You simply set up your own page. There are plenty of blogging sites out there that will allow you to do just as you ask without forcing the LbNA.org site to do it for you.

But why make it harder for hiders and finders to communicate? Why make them leave the site?

 

Blogs and guestbooks have their problems. Some blogs require that you set up an account in order to respond. Some guestbooks have no spam filters, the guestbook owner needs to regularly clear out spam messages (I think this is also true for some blog sites). Most guestbook sites don't notify the owner when someone leaves a message, where gc.com does and aq.com does (for mail that is since they don't have an online log feature).

[J.A.R.S.]

I wouldn't quit the site if logs were removed, but I'm sure I'd be a lot less likely to place caches. I'm an instant gratification sort of guy and I don't want to have to visit my cache to see if anybody is finding it, as letterboxers do. It's probably why I've placed over 200 caches and 0 letterboxes even though I started both sports at roughly the same time.

My experience is that about 70% of the letterboxers that have found my letterboxes do not email me or log the find. Of those 70% about 90% do not leave a note in the logbook - just their stamp and trailname. I try not to take it personally and assume that they're lack of correspondence means they didn't like the box, since fortunately those that did contact me told me how much they enjoyed the find and the stamp. That's why I now prefer to post my letterboxes on gc.com, I need the feedback.

[CoyoteRed]

Personally, I think the online logging is part of what's wrong with geocaching.com. If logging is such a good thing then why are so many logs 20 words or less?

 

I know this is off topic as the post I am quoting but I could not disagree with this more. I think the best thing about Geocaching is the online log. As a cache owner, or someone who tries to pick through the cache hunts for my family, or someone who does some caching on the road, Geocaching would not have near the same appeal to me if people couldn't share their experiences and they weren't made available. It's one of things that makes it feel like a community to me.

"TNLNSL" logs makes you feel connected?

 

EDIT: fixed quotes.

Edited May 29, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[CoyoteRed]

But why make it harder for hiders and finders to communicate? Why make them leave the site?

Why make so much more work for the webmaster? Why make the webmaster use more resources?

 

LbNA.org is a hobbyist site and as someone who runs a site or two I can understand the desire to keep things simple. I'm sure you remember back when you had to email them your clues. Be thankful you can upload your own clues now.

[CoyoteRed]

I wouldn't quit the site if logs were removed, but I'm sure I'd be a lot less likely to place caches. I'm an instant gratification sort of guy and I don't want to have to visit my cache to see if anybody is finding it, as letterboxers do. It's probably why I've placed over 200 caches and 0 letterboxes even though I started both sports at roughly the same time.

My experience is that about 70% of the letterboxers that have found my letterboxes do not email me or log the find. Of those 70% about 90% do not leave a note in the logbook - just their stamp and trailname. I try not to take it personally and assume that they're lack of correspondence means they didn't like the box, since fortunately those that did contact me told me how much they enjoyed the find and the stamp. That's why I now prefer to post my letterboxes on gc.com, I need the feedback.

Now I get it. You want, by your calculation, 70% of the boxing population to change to suit you.

 

And because the folks over at LbNA don't want to bow to your will you would rather they not be linked by GC.com. God Lord, no wonder they didn't have kind words for you.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Easy now....

 

Sorry about that.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Now I get it. You want, by your calculation, 70% of the boxing population to change to suit you....

 

I think the reverse is the truth. The actions of 30% keep J.A.R.S. placing letterboxes so that the 70% can slide. J.A.R.S. would like it if the 70% followed the lead of the 30%.

[Keystone]

Keystone, you seem like you run a pretty tight ship and are pretty busy doing it. With all due respect here's one voice from the geocaching trenches saying that most of the urban hides listed on GC.com are following the AQ permission policy of "don't ask, don't tell" a lot closer than what you have printed in your guidelines when it comes to permission.

You missed my point. How many of those urban hides are on property that has a published geocaching policy that I can ask the owner about?

 

Cracker Barrel is an example of an organization, other than a park, which has a known geocaching policy. I don't publish "Off Your Rocker" caches without a statement from the hider that they've obtained permission per the policy.

 

My objections in this thread are in regards to policies published by land managers.

[J.A.R.S.]

...Now I get it. You want, by your calculation, 70% of the boxing population to change to suit you....

 

I think the reverse is the truth. The actions of 30% keep J.A.R.S. placing letterboxes so that the 70% can slide. J.A.R.S. would like it if the 70% followed the lead of the 30%.

Thank you Renegade. You are correct. Plus isn't it just common courtesy to at least acknowledge someone's gift? Is it so wrong to wish for a tip of the hat, some feedback and to be inspired by a finder's acknowledgement?

[J.A.R.S.]

duplicate - deleted

Edited May 30, 2007 by J.A.R.S.

[J.A.R.S.]

Now I get it. You want, by your calculation, 70% of the boxing population to change to suit you.

 

And because the folks over at LbNA don't want to bow to your will you would rather they not be linked by GC.com. God Lord, no wonder they didn't have kind words for you.

That's the tone that I was getting from the more vocal folks at LBNA.

 

After trying for a few months to persuade LBNA to consider online logs, and getting royally roasted and toasted, I came to terms with LBNA wanting to be a no-bells-and-whistles, finder-centric database. I'm not happy that the database is full of abandoned boxes, hiders that would rather see their box abandoned and become litter rather than adopted out, hiders who prevent finders from logging finds/attempts, webmasters that let a box remain in the database even though there was a report that the box was buried and embedded with shards of glass causing serious injury. But that is how the database is run, I can like it or lump it. But my problem is that geocaching.com promotes it.

 

I think Atlas Quest is more in keeping with the geocaching site - hiders can not suppress the finds/attempts feature, there is a community feel on the AQ boards - very little flaming, more finder-centric as opposed to hider-centric (less of a this-is-my-box-and-nobody-better-mess-with-it feeling), more web features, a tireless and patient webmaster that considers all suggestions and never berates someone for their suggestion.

 

But given geocaching's land manager policies it would probably be best not to sanction either site for neither have reviewers. Hiders can post unauthorized boxes because there are no checks and balances before a box can be published. I do not know what the procedure is when a land manager contacts the LBNA site or the AQ site and there is nothing on either site (that I could find) that discusses the procedure.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Keystone, you seem like you run a pretty tight ship and are pretty busy doing it. With all due respect here's one voice from the geocaching trenches saying that most of the urban hides listed on GC.com are following the AQ permission policy of "don't ask, don't tell" a lot closer than what you have printed in your guidelines when it comes to permission.

You missed my point. How many of those urban hides are on property that has a published geocaching policy that I can ask the owner about?

 

Cracker Barrel is an example of an organization, other than a park, which has a known geocaching policy. I don't publish "Off Your Rocker" caches without a statement from the hider that they've obtained permission per the policy.

 

My objections in this thread are in regards to policies published by land managers.

 

10-4. Thanks for helping me see the point you were trying to make and for contributing on the topic.