Locationless Day

August 3, 2007

I wrote to Groundspeak with an idea, they told me to post it on the forums to see what you all thought.

Here's what I wrote.

Thought it would be a cool idea, if at all possible,

to have a special day(or week maybe) where all locationless

caches were unlocked just so us newer geocachers get a

chance to get the Icon. Just an idea I couldn't help to ask. It's

worth a try and I'm sure lots of geocachers would be

very excited if it went though.

August 3, 2007

As a newer cacher myself, I like the idea. I'd be willing to try for it.

8.9k · August 3, 2007

Not to sound harsh, but...

Why not make it so that there's one day a year (let's call it APE day) that one random cache in each state is labeled as an APE cache? Then when you find it, you get an APE icon.

I'm not really in favor of this idea.

5.3k · August 3, 2007

How would Groundspeak know which Locationless cache owners would still be willing/able to maintain their cache on this day/week?

7.2k · August 3, 2007

I would rather have them continue to focus on site performance and upgrades.

August 3, 2007

Not to sound harsh, but...

Why not make it so that there's one day a year (let's call it APE day) that one random cache in each state is labeled as an APE cache? Then when you find it, you get an APE icon.

I'm not really in favor of this idea.

Sarcasm aside, there's obviously quite a bit of difference doing what you proposed (re-classifying caches) and doing what the OP proposed (temporarily opening up a cache type to grab the icon).

I really never quite understood the reasoning behind archiving all locationless caches anyway (not that I'm a huge fan to begin with), but the OP's idea was a reasonable request.

1.5k · August 3, 2007

I had some fun doing a few locationless caches, but I don't really miss them either.

One problem I could see with this issue would be the rule around each "location" only getting listed once. For me, I came along fairly late in the locationless game, so there were a lot of things that had already been listed and I couldn't use to log one.

I think it would be a nightmare for the owners to try to determine who, on that one day, gets credit for adding the location if 3 get submitted at the same time.

Not a terrible idea, but I agree with the sentiment that I'd prefer Groundspeak and the community focus on other efforts right now.

5.2k · August 3, 2007

Every day is Waymarking Day

8k · August 4, 2007

Every day is Waymarking Day

Lil Devil is right. The decision was made to remove locationless caches from geocaching. Many people never thought they belonged in the first place. I myself never logged a locationless cache. Geocaching is also not about collecting icon types. I believe the geocoin people started that game in order to sell geocoins . Waymarking lets you do the same activity as locationless caches. Many of the old locationless caches have migrated over to Waymarking as Waymarking categories. And on Waymarking you get a different icon for each Waymarking category - so if you want to collect icons there are a lot more to collect on Waymarking.

Edited August 4, 2007 by tozainamboku

7.3k · August 4, 2007

...locationless caches were unlocked just so us newer geocachers get a chance to get the Icon....

I was fond of locationless and wouldn't mind seeing them unlocked so I could log a few that I missed -> in addition to allowing newer geocachers to get the Icon. However, there would need to be an active owner policing logs and for many many of them there isn't. Heck there wasn't when they were available.

I guess if it were just about the Icon you could see if the owner of Water Towers, Plain Jane or Picturesque would be available, they're still maintaining their other stuff. Just about anyone anywhere can log that and not produce a duplicate log.

Edited August 4, 2007 by Isonzo Karst

1.7k · August 4, 2007

22k · August 4, 2007

I wrote to Groundspeak with an idea, they told me to post it on the forums to see what you all thought.

Here's what I wrote.

Thought it would be a cool idea, if at all possible,

to have a special day(or week maybe) where all locationless

caches were unlocked just so us newer geocachers get a

chance to get the Icon. Just an idea I couldn't help to ask. It's

worth a try and I'm sure lots of geocachers would be

very excited if it went though.

If it could be done for a day or a week why not just bring them back completely?

Because gc.com decided to move them to Waymarking.

2.7k · August 4, 2007

Locationless caches were an interesting experiment. However they where never properly supported on the Geocaching website. For example, I have to exclude my locationless cache finds from my any stat generating programs or else my stats will show that I have found a cache in Australia which is completely wrong. The only thing I did was listen to a podcast of a radio show that originated in Australia.

Another thing a lot of people didn't like about locationless caches was that once one location was logged the owner typically didn't want the same location logged again. A good example of this is the Blue Star Memorial Highway Markers Locationless cache.

Owners had a hard time maintaining locationless caches because the Geocaching website offers no tools to help out in this. You are read about that in a thread called Locationless Cache Maintenace and see example of this on the cache page for the Yellow Jeep Fever Locationless cache.

A problem I see with bringing locationless caches back even for a day is that will need to be maintained and don't think any owners of archived locationless caches expect their locationless caches to ever be unarchived. Some owners don't even Geocache anymore.

As stated in other posts Waymarking has the tools to properly list and manage what we call locationless caches. A lot of geocachers have found Waymarking to be enjoyable despite the fact that your smiley count in geocaching profile doesn't increase and you don't get another icon.

August 5, 2007

It's just an icon.

August 5, 2007

I think they should do it. I do have a better understanding of what a locationless cache is, and see why Waymarking.com is set up the way it is. However, I don't like the ay Waymarking.com does things - you can't do pocket queries, or download large batches of waymarks to visit the sites listed and claim them. I also had to push really hard to get a list of the current categories (which is probably not current anymore, and they didn't seem interested in posting a regular update to it either).

I can also see, after reading some of the links, that the maintenance of them was difficult. But I don't think they should have been closed. Just my opinion. Waymarking.com was a way to get them off of here, but doesn't have the tools that GC.com has... and if they want us to use that site (I have, but with the difficulties I've had over there, haven't done anything with it for a while), they should make the same tools available that are in GC.com - mainly searches the way they are done on GC.com, access to the complete list of categories regularly, and pocket queries.

Bring locationless caches back completely... i think they were better off here.

9.1k · August 5, 2007

I also had to push really hard to get a list of the current categories (which is probably not current anymore, and they didn't seem interested in posting a regular update to it either).

Before posting, you should really visit the site you're criticizing, like maybe this page. Waymarking is a new site and it is constantly evolving.

I'd also be mindful of claiming credit for the addition of a new site feature. Others asked for the list of categories long before you did. It was, and is, a terrific idea!

2.3k · August 6, 2007

I think it'd be interesting to have this happen...

August 6, 2007

I also had to push really hard to get a list of the current categories (which is probably not current anymore, and they didn't seem interested in posting a regular update to it either).

Before posting, you should really visit the site you're criticizing, like maybe this page. Waymarking is a new site and it is constantly evolving.

I'd also be mindful of claiming credit for the addition of a new site feature. Others asked for the list of categories long before you did. It was, and is, a terrific idea!

Thank you for your opinion, and pointing out that they did get around to making the feature that I (and apparently a number of other people, since you state it... it must be a fact) requested, with support from other people when I posted the original thread. In response to my thread, I was directed to post the request in the following thread: http://portal.Groundspeak.com/forums/thread/2749.aspx - I did so, as post 2881 (01-28-2007, 9:14 AM). You will note that IMMEDIATELY following the request, a list was posted, which was EXACTLY what I was looking for.

I asked very plainly for it, several other people chimed in it would be nice, and someone posted a list because they said it happened to be up on their computer at that point in time. They indicated it was just a current list at the time.

The feature that made this available regularly has since been added, and I was not aware of that. I noticed when following your link, that they have changed a few things, and it appears to be mostly for the better.

I am not claiming credit for a new site feature. As a matter of fact, I have asked multiple times on the forum about the GC.com site for specific things, and have yet to receive responses to 2 specific ones from TPTB that I can think of off the top of my head. I am, however, claiming that a specific request for a list was answered with a list that was specifically asked for, and at some point since then, they made a self-updating list that is linked off the main page rather than a static list buried in a forum.

As of the last time I visited the site, my information was current. I apologise for not having the most current information in my previous post.

I would like to ask, since picking on me seemed to be the specific and only intent of that reply, what the relevance to the OP was in your message? Neither paragraph in your reply to one specific line of my post related to the OP in any way.

I simply indicated that I, having become active after the disabling of the locationless caches, feel that they should not have been disabled. I do not believe, from my reading of the history of this specific issue (and related ones, such as webcam caches and the "dreaded" virtuals), that banning them was necessary - better regulation of what fit into those specific categories was what was needed (again, in my opinion), rather than just chucking them because they weren't going as intended. If the basic requirement of having a container for a cache to be a GC.com listing was stuck to absolutely, then virtuals and webcams would not have been grandfathered - they would have been archived/locked. Also, no event caches (event, mega-event, or CITO event) could exist, as none of them include a container, and these should also be archived/locked. Earthcaches fit into this category also. (also, to clarify "active" above, I got the account in 2002, but didn't start really actively caching until March of 2006)

It really doesn't make sense to apply rules to things in an arbitrary fashion. A rule is a rule - if you require a container with a log, archive/lock the other ones and don't allow new ones. If one is not required, bring back locationless caches, and allow new virtuals and webcams. The picking and choosing that TPTB made in terms of what they like and what they don't like (or what they felt that they had problems with and what they would rather throw away, lock, or move to a new website with not nearly the functionality that GC.com has right now... lack of PQ's being the major one... and yes, they still don't have PQ's over there!), rather than being consistent in the application of "no container, no listing, period", is something I have a problem with.

So, in other words, without being sarcastic, I do feel that locationless caches should be returned. I also believe, since Waymarking.com exists and a great deal of effort has been put into it, this will not likely happen. However, I am entitled to my opinion, and I agree with the concept indicated by the OP.

Edited August 6, 2007 by FireRef

7.3k · August 6, 2007

<sigh>

5.2k · August 6, 2007

I also had to push really hard to get a list of the current categories (which is probably not current anymore, and they didn't seem interested in posting a regular update to it either).

Before posting, you should really visit the site you're criticizing, like maybe this page. Waymarking is a new site and it is constantly evolving.

I'd also be mindful of claiming credit for the addition of a new site feature. Others asked for the list of categories long before you did. It was, and is, a terrific idea!

In response to my thread, I was directed to post the request in the following thread: http://portal.Groundspeak.com/forums/thread/2749.aspx - I did so, as post 2881 (01-28-2007, 9:14 AM). You will note that IMMEDIATELY following the request, a list was posted, which was EXACTLY what I was looking for.

What I see is that the link that The Leprechauns provided is a dynamic list on Waymarking.com that is automatically updated to always contain all the categories.

The list in the thread that is after your post appears to be a copy/paste from that exact same dynamic automatic page, and is therefore out of date almost immediately. They should have given you a link to the active page.

So it seems the list you requested predated your request.

August 6, 2007

I also had to push really hard to get a list of the current categories (which is probably not current anymore, and they didn't seem interested in posting a regular update to it either).

Before posting, you should really visit the site you're criticizing, like maybe this page. Waymarking is a new site and it is constantly evolving.

I'd also be mindful of claiming credit for the addition of a new site feature. Others asked for the list of categories long before you did. It was, and is, a terrific idea!

In response to my thread, I was directed to post the request in the following thread: http://portal.Groundspeak.com/forums/thread/2749.aspx - I did so, as post 2881 (01-28-2007, 9:14 AM). You will note that IMMEDIATELY following the request, a list was posted, which was EXACTLY what I was looking for.

What I see is that the link that The Leprechauns provided is a dynamic list on Waymarking.com that is automatically updated to always contain all the categories.

The list in the thread that is after your post appears to be a copy/paste from that exact same dynamic automatic page, and is therefore out of date almost immediately. They should have given you a link to the active page.

So it seems the list you requested predated your request.

Incorrect. At that time, the "dynamic automatic page" was not available on the website. It was a feature later added. You will notice, on the following thread: http://portal.Groundspeak.com/forums/thread/2749.aspx - as of 1/24 it had not been implemented yet. When the list was posted, which was 1/28, it just happened to be opened on BQ's computer. It was NOT available to anyone who wanted to download an active listing - just the static one he posted for that request was available.

It was noted as an improvement in the Spring 2007 update according to the news link. As spring is well after January, this was not available when the request was made and the list was posted.

But again, I question the relevance to the OP's thread...this discussion is not related. If you wish to question the timeline of improvements to WM.com, their forums seem to be a much better place to do so. I am simply correcting an error in an off topic response to my response to the OP's question.

Edited August 6, 2007 by FireRef

2.7k · August 6, 2007

I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong but hasn't Waymarking always been categorized. From the beginning waymarks have been put in to categories. That was one of the original concepts of the Waymarking website and the categories have anyways been accessible. Although finding the correct links to click on to find the list of categories hasn't always been very intuitive.

7.3k · August 6, 2007

Yes, they've always been in categories. Never had a problem finding them, myself.

1.6k · August 6, 2007

Not to sound harsh, but...

Why not make it so that there's one day a year (let's call it APE day) that one random cache in each state is labeled as an APE cache? Then when you find it, you get an APE icon.

your worst idea evar!

If they want an APE cache, they need to go find it (them). Just like I did.

gee, maybe we could have a participant icon just for joining gc.com as a member.

1.5k · August 6, 2007

Is it for the icon or a cheap way to really boost your find #s because I remember one or two of them allowed you to log multiple locations (ie- American Flags)

August 6, 2007

Not to sound harsh, but...

Why not make it so that there's one day a year (let's call it APE day) that one random cache in each state is labeled as an APE cache? Then when you find it, you get an APE icon.

your worst idea evar!

If they want an APE cache, they need to go find it (them). Just like I did.

gee, maybe we could have a participant icon just for joining gc.com as a member.

I agree - this post sounded facitious to me... I think there's only a couple left anyway... But for locationless ones, there are a ton.

As for a later post asking for "Icon or multiple finds" - I believe the OP was looking for the Icon... and I'd like to have one too... extra smileys are gotten at the expense of finding extra caches...

8.9k · August 6, 2007

I agree - this post sounded facitious to me... I think there's only a couple left anyway... But for locationless ones, there are a ton.

Really? There's a ton of Locationless caches? As far as I know, there are NO Locationless caches currently listed on Geocaching.com, right? They were all migrated to Waymarking.com.

August 6, 2007

Is it for the icon or a cheap way to really boost your find #s because I remember one or two of them allowed you to log multiple locations (ie- American Flags)

Oh, <gasp!> the horror! Just think... someone, for example, could log a locationless cache more than once on a cache that allowed multiple logs, raising their find numbers! Then, they might end up having more total finds than unique finds! Which affects me by...er, uhmmm...with, ....uhhhhh...

...how, again?

I'm for it.

August 6, 2007

Oh The horror!

I have a better idea, to make everybody even, lets just delete all the previous finds on locationless caches, so nobody will have it. And before someone else says something, it would effect my numbers too but it would be a small price to pay.

10.1k · August 6, 2007

Hey! I worked darned hard on some of those Locationless caches! Including a side trip to West Virginia (Okay. I did also get to color in West Virginia on my 'found states' list.) (Oh, wait. That was the trip we planned to find the A.P.E cache in Maryland. With side trips to Delaware and West Virginia.) (Hey. We gots our priorities!) Some of those Locationless Caches were very difficult! My caching partner's name is Jesus. You try finding a street sign with 'Jesus' on it!!!!! Thirty mile side trip from Bear Mountain State Park to get to Carmel, New York to find an official street sign 'Jesus Gospel Way'.

Yes. That's an official road sign in the town of Carmel, New York. We workd long and hard on that one! Only street including the name 'Jesus' within seventy-five miles on New York City! (Of course, tthat one was much easier for most people. I picked Paul Robeson Road in Princeton for mine.)

So, don't say that they were all easy, or freebies. Many were very difficult. We earned our icons!

August 7, 2007

I agree - this post sounded facitious to me... I think there's only a couple left anyway... But for locationless ones, there are a ton.

Really? There's a ton of Locationless caches? As far as I know, there are NO Locationless caches currently listed on Geocaching.com, right? They were all migrated to Waymarking.com.

If that were true, then all of the "smileys" associated with them would have disappeared too. They have been archived/locked, not "migrated" - maybe copied to WM.com, but certainly not deleted. They're there - they just can't be added to.

5.2k · August 7, 2007

So what is geocaching again? Is it about finding boxes or collecting icons? :anitongue:

August 7, 2007

Just for another meaningless icon? :anitongue:

No.

2.7k · August 7, 2007

So what is geocaching again? Is it about finding boxes or collecting icons?

Both and Neither. It depends on how the cacher plays the game. Granted the original concept of geocaching was locating buckets and boxes with a GPSr, signing the log and trading items. But geocaching has evolved and to some geocaching is about or includes collecting icons.

9.1k · August 7, 2007

I also had to push really hard to get a list of the current categories (which is probably not current anymore, and they didn't seem interested in posting a regular update to it either).

Before posting, you should really visit the site you're criticizing, like maybe this page. Waymarking is a new site and it is constantly evolving.

I'd also be mindful of claiming credit for the addition of a new site feature. Others asked for the list of categories long before you did. It was, and is, a terrific idea!

Thank you for your opinion, and pointing out that they did get around to making the feature that I (and apparently a number of other people, since you state it... it must be a fact) requested, with support from other people when I posted the original thread. In response to my thread, I was directed to post the request in the following thread: http://portal.Groundspeak.com/forums/thread/2749.aspx - I did so, as post 2881 (01-28-2007, 9:14 AM). You will note that IMMEDIATELY following the request, a list was posted, which was EXACTLY what I was looking for.

I asked very plainly for it, several other people chimed in it would be nice, and someone posted a list because they said it happened to be up on their computer at that point in time. They indicated it was just a current list at the time.

The feature that made this available regularly has since been added, and I was not aware of that. I noticed when following your link, that they have changed a few things, and it appears to be mostly for the better.

I am not claiming credit for a new site feature. As a matter of fact, I have asked multiple times on the forum about the GC.com site for specific things, and have yet to receive responses to 2 specific ones from TPTB that I can think of off the top of my head. I am, however, claiming that a specific request for a list was answered with a list that was specifically asked for, and at some point since then, they made a self-updating list that is linked off the main page rather than a static list buried in a forum.

As of the last time I visited the site, my information was current. I apologise for not having the most current information in my previous post.

I would like to ask, since picking on me seemed to be the specific and only intent of that reply, what the relevance to the OP was in your message? Neither paragraph in your reply to one specific line of my post related to the OP in any way.

I simply indicated that I, having become active after the disabling of the locationless caches, feel that they should not have been disabled. I do not believe, from my reading of the history of this specific issue (and related ones, such as webcam caches and the "dreaded" virtuals), that banning them was necessary - better regulation of what fit into those specific categories was what was needed (again, in my opinion), rather than just chucking them because they weren't going as intended. If the basic requirement of having a container for a cache to be a GC.com listing was stuck to absolutely, then virtuals and webcams would not have been grandfathered - they would have been archived/locked. Also, no event caches (event, mega-event, or CITO event) could exist, as none of them include a container, and these should also be archived/locked. Earthcaches fit into this category also. (also, to clarify "active" above, I got the account in 2002, but didn't start really actively caching until March of 2006)

It really doesn't make sense to apply rules to things in an arbitrary fashion. A rule is a rule - if you require a container with a log, archive/lock the other ones and don't allow new ones. If one is not required, bring back locationless caches, and allow new virtuals and webcams. The picking and choosing that TPTB made in terms of what they like and what they don't like (or what they felt that they had problems with and what they would rather throw away, lock, or move to a new website with not nearly the functionality that GC.com has right now... lack of PQ's being the major one... and yes, they still don't have PQ's over there!), rather than being consistent in the application of "no container, no listing, period", is something I have a problem with.

So, in other words, without being sarcastic, I do feel that locationless caches should be returned. I also believe, since Waymarking.com exists and a great deal of effort has been put into it, this will not likely happen. However, I am entitled to my opinion, and I agree with the concept indicated by the OP.

Yeah, I have a response.

Uhhhh, What?

1.4k · August 7, 2007

Oh The horror!

I have a better idea, to make everybody even, lets just delete all the previous finds on locationless caches, so nobody will have it. And before someone else says something, it would effect my numbers too but it would be a small price to pay.

Actually, this isn't a bad idea (though it would wreck all those "milestones" I note in my profile :anitongue: )

The OP's idea on the surface isn't too bad, but honestly, I think Locationless belong on Waymarking and that should be the one and only purpose of Waymarking (not "guides to McDonald's" and Virtuals and Webcams should be back on GC.com too (though this cache: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...b2-038cec802ff0 was a very intriguing way to bring back an extremely popular Webcam cache to GC.com that was archived in Jan 2006).

Too many people loaded up on Locationless as ways to get "free, easy smileys" (yes, Harry Dolphin I know some where a challenge and I enjoyed them too.....) and this really made maintenance very hard as well as helped to really load up/crash the website. From that standpoint I can understand why they were taken off and moved.

I like icons too but I'm not crying over the fact that my local APE cache vanished long before I got into caching or that I have to either fly internationally or cross country to get one now. They were a one-time thing and that's life.......get over it!

10.2k · August 7, 2007

Every day is Waymarking Day

Or Terracaching.com locationless cache day. :lol: They have more than double the amount (over 600) that were ever available on this website.

Edited August 7, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

August 7, 2007

Yeah, I have a response.

Uhhhh, What?

Wow... now that is the definition of an intelligent response.

(Please pass the mop and bucket for the sarcasm dripping off of this reply.)

You pointed out incorrect information, and I corrected it. Get over it, and reply in an intelligent manner, or don't reply... You know the old saying "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything"?

I attempted to correct the error you raised, and to explain my reasoning for feeling these should come back, or at the very least, the rules that TPTB seem to be making should be enforced consistently (simply put, either container=listing... or container/no-container can be listed as well. Some are, some aren't. No consistency - read my original reply that you so graciously put the above picture as an insult if you need further explanation of that)

Are we trying to have an intelligent debate, using facts, or are we here to insult each other's replies? I've stuck to the former... moderator?

7.2k · August 7, 2007

This is something that probably will not happen, but you never know.

At this point, I think TPTB have seen this topic. I think their feelings regarding Waymarking and locationless caches is pretty clear. If they want to consider this, I am sure they will make some sort of announcement. At this point, I think the discussion is over.

Locationless Day

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment