Extreme Caching?

[xhorntail]

I would first like to take the opportunity to say I have a great respect for geocaching and it's respective community. With that said, I would like to ask input on an idea I have had. This idea may never become a reality, as my web-design experience goes from geocities to FrontPage, just wondering what people think about the idea.

 

How would people feel about a website with minimal rules on caching, and focused mostly in urban areas. A sort of "at your own risk" geocaching. I am sure many of us have considered a cache location, only to remember the rules, then dismiss the thought. What if there was a site that you could post these caches on? For instance, a cache on a little island in a park pond labeled "no swimming" is considered in-accessible by the rules, but what if it was ok to post, and left up to user discretion? This site would also have ratings and stuff to tell you what possible "obstacles" there are. As I said, I am just wondering what people think of this idea, so criticism is welcome, whereas blatant disrespect is not.

 

Further, I would like to point out that this site n no way would be trying to compete with GroudSpeak. As it is made of primarily caches that are ruled out on GeoCaching.com, there should be little to minimal competition. It would be a hope to one day work in conjunction with possibly integrated databases or similar, so therefore I would appreciate staff thoughts as well.

 

I thank everyone for any and all input.

[Pto]

It would give geocachers in general a Bad Name if others were out hiding caches in places that are

currently off limits. There are reasons for the guidelines in place here, and the caching community has had to fight to be allowed in many places. IMO, its not something you'd want to start.....

[xhorntail]

It would give geocachers in general a Bad Name if others were out hiding caches in places that are

currently off limits. There are reasons for the guidelines in place here, and the caching community has had to fight to be allowed in many places. IMO, its not something you'd want to start.....

 

I had anticipated that to be the general negative view of the matter. Although I can't say I disagree in the means that it may portray a different image on the community, I am sure there are two crowds in this community. Weather or not it is a negative image is left to interpretation. I believe it could introduce many more people to fundamental GPS.

[+Airmapper]

I think an idea like that would only serve to destroy the efforts Geocachers have made to show our game is harmless and not disruptive or destructive in any way.

 

It is difficult enough to explain Geocaching to some people as it is, let alone try to differentiate between a site that is courteous to landowners / property and one that is not.

[+Sioneva]

Let me join in on the 'negative reaction', then. I don't mean any offense, but this is a very bad idea. It could set geocaching back years - park managers and the like aren't going to stop to distinguish between 'extreme cachers' and law-abiding, regulation-following ones; when they see geocachers breaking regs and rules, they'll ban caching faster then a GPS can pick up satellites.

 

Please don't try this.

[+Miragee]

If you want some Extreme Caching, search for caches that have a Terrain rating of 4.5 or 5. There are many on this Site that will provide you with an "Extreme caching" challenge, without jeapordizing our Activity the way your idea will.

 

I think what you propose is a very bad idea.

[xhorntail]

It is difficult enough to explain Geocaching to some people as it is

 

I suppose that would depend on the audience..

 

Let me join in on the 'negative reaction', then. I don't mean any offense, but this is a very bad idea. It could set geocaching back years - park managers and the like aren't going to stop to distinguish between 'extreme cachers' and law-abiding, regulation-following ones; when they see geocachers breaking regs and rules, they'll ban caching faster then a GPS can pick up satellites.

 

Please don't try this.

 

No offense taken. I understand your outlook on this, but you have to understand, the target is mostly urban areas, not parks and nature as is currently with geocaching. I see an opportunity to branch a sect of this 'game' to another type of crowd. One that is possibly younger and would not likely find time or interest otherwise. Like golf and miniature golf, if you will.

[+Sioneva]

It is difficult enough to explain Geocaching to some people as it is

 

I suppose that would depend on the audience..

 

Let me join in on the 'negative reaction', then. I don't mean any offense, but this is a very bad idea. It could set geocaching back years - park managers and the like aren't going to stop to distinguish between 'extreme cachers' and law-abiding, regulation-following ones; when they see geocachers breaking regs and rules, they'll ban caching faster then a GPS can pick up satellites.

 

Please don't try this.

 

No offense taken. I understand your outlook on this, but you have to understand, the target is mostly urban areas, not parks and nature as is currently with geocaching. I see an opportunity to branch a sect of this 'game' to another type of crowd. One that is possibly younger and would not likely find time or interest otherwise. Like golf and miniature golf, if you will.

 

By encouraging them to break the rules? A lot of children cache with their parents and enjoy it... I don't this this would be a particularly good way to attract people to the game. As far as urban caches - some of the most prolific and/or volatile posts on this board deal with the vast abundance of urban caches. The caches are out there.

[Mushtang]

I think that there are several sites that currently allow caches that gc.com does not (virtuals, etc), but to really push it and specifically target the stuff that gc.com wouldn't allow just to be extreme would be a bad thing for caching in general.

 

Currently land managers don't necessarily know, or care, about the different hosting sites. To them a cache is just a cache. If someone publishes some on another site that are almost certainly going to cause problems, those problems will be ours as well.

 

So I vote no.

[+briansnat]

How would people feel about a website with minimal rules on caching, and focused mostly in urban areas. A sort of "at your own risk" geocaching. I am sure many of us have considered a cache location, only to remember the rules, then dismiss the thought.

 

Geocaching is already at your own risk. The rules are there to make sure our sport stays legal in most places.

What the rules do not do is prohibit "extreme" caches. There are plenty of them here.

 

For example, in NJ we are lamenting the loss of a famous extreme cache because the abandoned RR trestle it was hidden on was just demolished. You had to walk about 6 feet on a 2 inch wide beam, suspended about 60 feet over a shallow river to get the cache. Perfectly legal as far as the rules are concerned, but pretty extreme.

 

A renegade site that promotes caches in what are now off limits areas (RR tracks, military installations, national parks, airports, etc...) would only threaten the long term legality of the sport.

[+Renegade Knight]

You could require that folks parachute to that wally world lamp post...That would up the difficulty a bit.

 

This site does have rules that exist entirly for the benefit of this site and are not in any way rules that make geocaching better for us all.

 

There is room to operate there. There is also room for urban exploration and a heck of a lot of variations on caching that have not been done yet that would be fun and for which no rules have been created or thought up yet.

 

Lastly, most people are not 'extreme' except when they are young and stupid.

[xhorntail]

If you want some Extreme Caching, search for caches that have a Terrain rating of 4.5 or 5. There are many on this Site that will provide you with an "Extreme caching" challenge, without jeapordizing our Activity the way your idea will.

 

I think what you propose is a very bad idea.

 

Thank you for your suggestion Miragee! If you would point out a way to search that way without being premium, i may have overlooked it, I would be happy to do so. However, I would like to inform you that due to my location, there isn't likely to be more than five of those caches within 25 miles of my zip code.

 

Furthermore, as appreciative as I am towards your idea and thought, i would more so appreciate supporting details on how it would jeopardize the community.

[xhorntail]

Geocaching is already at your own risk. The rules are there to make sure our sport stays legal in most places.

What the rules do not do is prohibit "extreme" caches. There are plenty of them here.

 

For example, in NJ we are lamenting the loss of a famous extreme cache because the abandoned RR trestle it was hidden on was just demolished. You had to walk about 6 feet on a 2 inch wide beam, suspended about 60 feet over a shallow river to get the cache. Perfectly legal as far as the rules are concerned, but pretty extreme.

 

A renegade site that promotes caches in what are now off limits areas (RR tracks, military installations, national parks, airports, etc...) would only threaten the long term legality of the sport.

 

So it is within the rules of the site to post a cache such as the one mentioned in my intro?

 

Thank you for your post, very constructive.

[+Miragee]

Let me join in on the 'negative reaction', then. I don't mean any offense, but this is a very bad idea. It could set geocaching back years - park managers and the like aren't going to stop to distinguish between 'extreme cachers' and law-abiding, regulation-following ones; when they see geocachers breaking regs and rules, they'll ban caching faster then a GPS can pick up satellites.

 

Please don't try this.

No offense taken. I understand your outlook on this, but you have to understand, the target is mostly urban areas, not parks and nature as is currently with geocaching. I see an opportunity to branch a sect of this 'game' to another type of crowd. One that is possibly younger and would not likely find time or interest otherwise. Like golf and miniature golf, if you will.

All the more reason to not try this. Is some 16-year old kid going to obey the "No Swimming" sign if there is a cache on the island?

 

I really hope you don't have the finances to get such a site started. As I already said, this is a very bad, irresponsible idea.

[xhorntail]

There is also room for urban exploration and a heck of a lot of variations on caching that have not been done yet that would be fun and for which no rules have been created or thought up yet.

 

Lastly, most people are not 'extreme' except when they are young and stupid.

 

UrbEx was my primary goal here. I'm glad you took time to think of possible benefits rather than just dismissing the idea altogether.

 

In regards to the last bit.. I suppose using the compound adjective "Young and stupid" was as fallacious as me selecting "extreme" as mine. It was for lack of better wording, my apologies.

[xhorntail]

All the more reason to not try this. Is some 16-year old kid going to obey the "No Swimming" sign if there is a cache on the island?

 

I really hope you don't have the finances to get such a site started. As I already said, this is a very bad, irresponsible idea.

 

Not only is your opening statement generic, but it is also hypocritical. To say "Some 16 year old kid" is incapable of obeying rules, as blatantly and generically as you did, is a self-negating argument due to the fact that someone of a medium to old age should realize that generalizations are generally frowned upon.

 

And furthermore, I already stressed that this is a hypothetical question designed to gather a response. Therefore expressing your wish for my lack of funding is unnecessary, as if it is truly a bad idea from my standpoint, I will not do it. Your posts are not supplying the material asked for in the beginning of this post, if you have further biased issues with me, feel free to PM. This thread is for CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Thank you.

[+Sioneva]

I'm getting the strong feeling that you are fishing for approval, and only intend to consider posts that will support what you already have decided to do. I hope that I am wrong.

[xhorntail]

I'm getting the strong feeling that you are fishing for approval, and only intend to consider posts that will support what you already have decided to do. I hope that I am wrong.

 

Well yes, I am biased to the idea myself, that's true. However I am not fishing for approval, I just abhor "It's stoopid..." posts that don't have any details to support. And may ask further questions pressing against a posters belief on the issue, but only to show them the other side of the argument and see if they think differently, or I ask out of general interest. I believe I am being rather hospitable.

 

And it would be financially ridiculous to launch a site that nobody would care for so no worries there.

[+Mule Ears]

I see RK also thought of "Urban Exploration," which was my first impression of the OP's idea. You're not going to get much traction here with this idea. It's not an inherently bad idea, it's just different from, and somewhat threatening to, established Geocaching. It would be like asking a group of middle-aged joggers what they think of parkour. "That's nuts and dangerous, and you'll probably get arrested and break your neck!"

 

You'll get a better reception to your thought experiment if you specify that your UrbEx game wouldn't have "caching" in the name

[+nittany dave]

...This thread is for CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Thank you.

Sorry, I have none based on your OP example. I just can't think how it does anyone any good to encourage others to disregard posted rules or ordinances. As others have said, regardless of what website you list caches like this, they are likely to have a negative affect on all. Sounds like your idea will just provide fuel for land managers and property owners to decide to forbid caching of any type and I'd ask you to reconsider.

 

Now if this is just a case of a very bad example and you were thinking about different extreme challenges that do NOT involve breaking laws, posted rules, etc. Give us an example of that. I'd be more receptive to an example of that nature - urban or not.

 

edit: even after reading it twice I managed to completely screw up my meaning on a sentence. All better now

Edited August 13, 2007 by nittany dave

[xhorntail]

I see RK also thought of "Urban Exploration," which was my first impression of the OP's idea. You're not going to get much traction here with this idea. It's not an inherently bad idea, it's just different from, and somewhat threatening to, established Geocaching. It would be like asking a group of middle-aged joggers what they think of parkour. "That's nuts and dangerous, and you'll probably get arrested and break your neck!"

 

You'll get a better reception to your thought experiment if you specify that your UrbEx game wouldn't have "caching" in the name

 

Now if only I could find a way to combine parkour, UrbEx, and caching.. lol. Fantastic!

 

Understandable, I can certainly change the name to Urban Treasure Hunt, or whatever, it's in the air.

[xhorntail]

...This thread is for CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Thank you.

Sorry, I have none based on your OP example. I just can't think how it does anyone any good to encourage others to disregard posted rules or ordinances. As others have said, regardless of what website you list caches like this, they are likely to have a negative affect on all. So unless your objective is to provide fuel for land managers and property owners to decide to forbid caching of any type, I'd ask you to reconsider.

 

Now if this is just a case of a very bad example and you were thinking about different extreme challenges that do NOT involve breaking laws, posted rules, etc. Give us an example of that. I'd be more receptive to an example of that nature - urban or not.

 

Certainly an acceptable request. I can see my original example may be a bit blatant, but it was merely to illustrate my point.

 

a more practical and typical example would be a cache hidden in a place of retail, say a magnetic box under a clothes rack or something similar. As far as an example that doesn't go against the posting rules, I can't give you that.. That's what seperates this idea from Groundspeak.

[+briansnat]

Geocaching is already at your own risk. The rules are there to make sure our sport stays legal in most places.

What the rules do not do is prohibit "extreme" caches. There are plenty of them here.

 

For example, in NJ we are lamenting the loss of a famous extreme cache because the abandoned RR trestle it was hidden on was just demolished. You had to walk about 6 feet on a 2 inch wide beam, suspended about 60 feet over a shallow river to get the cache. Perfectly legal as far as the rules are concerned, but pretty extreme.

 

A renegade site that promotes caches in what are now off limits areas (RR tracks, military installations, national parks, airports, etc...) would only threaten the long term legality of the sport.

 

So it is within the rules of the site to post a cache such as the one mentioned in my intro?

 

Thank you for your post, very constructive.

 

It would not be within the rules of this site. If the site is off limits for swimmers a cache that requires swimming would not be allowed here.

 

But if you wanted to put a cache on a small island in the middle of a class V rapids, that would be OK as long as caches are allowed there. Extreme? Yes. Yet still within the rules of this site.

[+nittany dave]

...a more practical and typical example would be a cache hidden in a place of retail, say a magnetic box under a clothes rack or something similar. As far as an example that doesn't go against the posting rules, I can't give you that.. That's what seperates this idea from Groundspeak.

That might be more fun. And I meant posted in the sense of a "No Swimming" sign, not posted as in Groundspeak guidelines so you have given an example.

[xhorntail]

It would not be within the rules of this site. If the site is off limits for swimmers a cache that requires swimming would not be allowed here.

 

But if you wanted to put a cache on a small island in the middle of a class V rapids, that would be OK as long as caches are allowed there. Extreme? Yes. Yet still within the rules of this site.

 

Ah, I understand. Well, when caches like that show up within 25 miles of 8520X zip codes, I'll have at 'em!

Until then, I think the rules are rather limiting to people such as myself.

Further, this site is becoming more and more exclusive for members, and I frown on that as well. Although I do understand the need for funding.

[xhorntail]

That might be more fun. And I meant posted in the sense of a "No Swimming" sign, not posted as in Groundspeak guidelines so you have given an example.

 

haha, very well then.

[+Mule Ears]

Now if only I could find a way to combine parkour, UrbEx, and caching.. lol. Fantastic!

 

Hmm, might be sorta possible. Imagine a multistage uh, hunt, that entailed some buildering to locate next-stage coords. For the parkour element, perhaps a time limit would do the trick. Actually, what would be neat would be real-time monitoring. People on the site would follow a moving dot representing the progress of the current participant in a particular challenge. Heck, why not a video stream from a helmet cam, as long as we're just blue-skying.

[xhorntail]

Hmm, might be sorta possible. Imagine a multistage uh, hunt, that entailed some buildering to locate next-stage coords. For the parkour element, perhaps a time limit would do the trick. Actually, what would be neat would be real-time monitoring. People on the site would follow a moving dot representing the progress of the current participant in a particular challenge. Heck, why not a video stream from a helmet cam, as long as we're just blue-skying.

 

haha, While my web design experience is minimal, I've been a programmer for four years, and I can tell you that the only think stopping me from this is equipment costs! lol, that and the fact that that road has been worn down to a ravine by reality TV

[+Mule Ears]

On a more realistic note, if your whatevers are in dicey locations (like the given example of of a magnetic box under a clothes rack in a store), you might just as well adopt another prohibited notion: the traveling cache, uh, thingy. At least that way you wouldn't be as much of a nuisance. It will be essential for you to fly under radar for your idea to work. This is one reason why the GC guidelines are conservative--they are meant to preserve the reputation of the activity and to protect the site from backlash (legal, public relations, etc.).

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I would first like to take the opportunity to say I have a great respect for geocaching and it's respective community. With that said, I would like to ask input on an idea I have had. This idea may never become a reality, as my web-design experience goes from geocities to FrontPage, just wondering what people think about the idea.

 

How would people feel about a website with minimal rules on caching, and focused mostly in urban areas. A sort of "at your own risk" geocaching. I am sure many of us have considered a cache location, only to remember the rules, then dismiss the thought. What if there was a site that you could post these caches on? For instance, a cache on a little island in a park pond labeled "no swimming" is considered in-accessible by the rules, but what if it was ok to post, and left up to user discretion? This site would also have ratings and stuff to tell you what possible "obstacles" there are. As I said, I am just wondering what people think of this idea, so criticism is welcome, whereas blatant disrespect is not.

 

Further, I would like to point out that this site n no way would be trying to compete with GroudSpeak. As it is made of primarily caches that are ruled out on GeoCaching.com, there should be little to minimal competition. It would be a hope to one day work in conjunction with possibly integrated databases or similar, so therefore I would appreciate staff thoughts as well.

 

I thank everyone for any and all input.

Speaking as a person who loves to seek extreme geocaches and who owns many well-known extreme geocaches (see the link to my Psycho Caches series in my sig line), I feel that this is not a good idea at all. It could easily destroy the public image of geocaching, and worse, could easily set back the relationships of the geocaching community with landowners by about a million years. And, much as I have related before, there is already one alternative cache listing website (terracaching.com) which claims, at least at times, that it employs more lax rules than does GC and that it will allow more "grey area" caches in terms of legality. In fact, I occasionally receive phone calls and emails from folks who are active on that site, urging me -- because of my well-known interest in extreme geocaches -- to travel up to northern NJ and the NYC/Staten Island area, where they claim that they have some "rather illegal" Terracaches listed which "...could never be listed at geocaching.com due to rules" (BTW, my response to such overtures is to say "Thanks, but no thanks!")

 

Lastly, I must note a bit wryly that a quick search of domain registry catalogs at WHOIS or a similar online facility, along with perusal of those now-abandoned domains at an archival site such as The Wayback Machine, will show that a goodly number of domain names such as "extremecaching.com", "extremegeocaching.com" and others have been registered in the past and that the owners made attempts to initiate exactly such start-up operations and that their websites failed rather rapidly due to extreme lack of response and support from the geocaching community, as well as other difficulties.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I see RK also thought of "Urban Exploration," which was my first impression of the OP's idea. You're not going to get much traction here with this idea. It's not an inherently bad idea, it's just different from, and somewhat threatening to, established Geocaching. It would be like asking a group of middle-aged joggers what they think of parkour. "That's nuts and dangerous, and you'll probably get arrested and break your neck!"

 

You'll get a better reception to your thought experiment if you specify that your UrbEx game wouldn't have "caching" in the name

 

Now if only I could find a way to combine parkour, UrbEx, and caching.. lol. Fantastic!

 

Understandable, I can certainly change the name to Urban Treasure Hunt, or whatever, it's in the air.

If you wish to see a goodly number of EXTREME geocaches which are quite "dangerous" and risky and which require special equipment, and many of which are total Urban Exploring (UE) experiences, and yet which are nonetheless fully within the guidelines of GC, please see our Psycho Urban Cache series, and also our Psycho Backcountry Cache #3 - Bitch Creek Crossing.

 

And, as Briansnat has already pointed out, WhereToGoVertigo!? was an excellent example of an extreme geocache which nonetheless met listing guidelines at GC.

Edited August 13, 2007 by Vinny & Sue Team

[xhorntail]

Lastly, I must note a bit wryly that a quick search of domain registry catalogs at WHOIS or a similar online facility, along with perusal of those now-abandoned domains at an archival site such as The Wayback Machine, will show that a goodly number of domain names such as "extremecaching.com", "extremegeocaching.com" and others have been registered in the past and that the owners made attempts to initiate exactly such start-up operations and that their websites failed rather rapidly due to extreme lack of response and support from the geocaching community, as well as other difficulties.

 

I would like to point out that extremecaching.com was a two page website.. Recipe for a flop right there.. and extremegeocaching.com was a website for a movie about geocaching.

[xhorntail]

If you wish to see a goodly number of EXTREME geocaches which are quite "dangerous" and risky and which require special equipment, and many of which are total Urban Exploring (UE) experiences, and yet which are nonetheless fully within the guidelines of GC, please see our Psycho Urban Cache series, and also our Psycho Backcountry Cache #3 - Bitch Creek Crossing.

 

And, as Briansnat has already pointed out, WhereToGoVertigo!? was an excellent example of an extreme geocache which nonetheless met listing guidelines at GC.

 

Unfortunately Psycho Urban Cache series is for paid users. Otherwise I would love to check them out! They sound great! and if I were able to see and say weather or not they ware waht I think they are, I could possibly dismiss my idea based on that.

 

EDIT: It appears both caches are premium only.

Edited August 13, 2007 by xhorntail

[+StarBrand]

Pay your $3 once a year to take a peek at the Members only caches. Yeesh.

 

 

No an alternate - "illegal" cache site would undo much of the work done to make cache friendly rules in many areas.

 

There are plenty of "extreme" caches if you mean putting yourself at risk of life and limb. If you mean breaking the law and posted rules - that isn't extreme - it is illegal and ill advised.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

If you wish to see a goodly number of EXTREME geocaches which are quite "dangerous" and risky and which require special equipment, and many of which are total Urban Exploring (UE) experiences, and yet which are nonetheless fully within the guidelines of GC, please see our Psycho Urban Cache series, and also our Psycho Backcountry Cache #3 - Bitch Creek Crossing.

 

And, as Briansnat has already pointed out, WhereToGoVertigo!? was an excellent example of an extreme geocache which nonetheless met listing guidelines at GC.

 

Unfortunately Psycho Urban Cache series is for paid users. Otherwise I would love to check them out! They sound great! and if I were able to see and say weather or not they ware waht I think they are, I could possibly dismiss my idea based on that.

 

EDIT: It appears both caches are premium only.

First, I am not sure why you are employing the term "both caches", as my post had referenced a total of 15 Psycho caches owned by our account.

 

Next, I must confess that I am absolutely stunned and appalled that you have, in your most recent post, cited the fact that the caches which I listed are Premium Member Only Caches (PMOCs) and thus you cannot view them. This puts your original post and the propositions contained therein in an even more unfavorable light, since you now admit that you did not even bother to perform due diligence (that is, explore the excellent extreme geocaches at the GC site) prior to going out on a very shaky limb and making your rather extreme proposal. I am rather amazed and stunned at these developments, and, due to the very poor quality of the arguments and excuses which you offer, along with your failure to perform due diligence, I will not be participating in this thread further after having sent this post.

[mtbikernate]

I agree with the others who have stated that it's a pretty rotten idea. Forget that we're talking about geocaching for a second and let's look at what you're putting out there.

 

You PURPOSELY want to set up a listing service that will list only caches where people have to break some sort of rules to place, as well as to find (ie: on an island in a pond posted 'no swimming', or placing a cache on private property without permission, or placing a cache in an area with restrictions on caches). These are not really Groundspeak's rules to follow or obey. These are the rules of the landowner or land manager/agency that governs the property in question. By starting a listing service that encourages this sort of activity, you are opening yourself to liability for encouraging illegal activity. Encouraging people to break the rules or laws, you are going to end up, like others have said, influencing how EVERYONE plays the game. What if you have an individual or group in your area who goes overboard with this idea and puts caches all over private property, which generates a flood of calls to police about trespassing? Police get sick of this and start complaining to the city council. Someone in city council proposes a BLANKET BAN on geocaching in the city. Now you've gone and screwed over everybody who enjoys the activity whether they played by the rules (not Groundspeak's rules, but the rules of the park, rules of city/state government) or not.

 

I will liken this to another activity somewhat on the fringes...mountain biking. Just recently, mountain biking became illegal in the entire Czech Republic. The whole country. Many city parks systems and state parks systems have blanket bans on mountain biking. Mountain biking is prohibited in ALL Pennsylvania State Game Lands. Why is it like this? Because a few people have done what they shouldn't and made a bad name for everyone else.

 

The idea is bad. Get over it, move on, come up with a new idea.

[xhorntail]

I will not be participating in this thread further after having sent this post.

 

Well at least we both understand the fact that your arguments are fallacious, and the only possible way for you to escape the matter, reputation un-scathed, is by merely leaving the debate.

 

As far as

very poor quality of the arguments and excuses which you offer

I implore you to show me any "poor" arguments I have made. Being as many of them come from a well-backed five year reputation of structured Policy and LD debate experience.

 

As for mtbikernate, I have been mountain biking since the age of 12. Growing up in Utah, I had many opportunities to bike in moab, and completed slickrock, no-dab, at 14. Unfortunately, I have since sold my gear to fund bills and other such necessities. However, I have tried to keep up with the culture as much as possible. So you can imagine my confusion when someone such as yourself mistakes the Czech Republic for their neighbor, Slovakia!

 

At any rate, this thread may be closed, as the majority or responders seem to be harshly mistreating the theory of the post as an attack on the community.

[+Ambrosia]

I think that there are several sites that currently allow caches that gc.com does not (virtuals, etc), but to really push it and specifically target the stuff that gc.com wouldn't allow just to be extreme would be a bad thing for caching in general.

 

Currently land managers don't necessarily know, or care, about the different hosting sites. To them a cache is just a cache. If someone publishes some on another site that are almost certainly going to cause problems, those problems will be ours as well.

 

So I vote no.

 

Geocaching is already at your own risk. The rules are there to make sure our sport stays legal in most places.

What the rules do not do is prohibit "extreme" caches. There are plenty of them here.

 

For example, in NJ we are lamenting the loss of a famous extreme cache because the abandoned RR trestle it was hidden on was just demolished. You had to walk about 6 feet on a 2 inch wide beam, suspended about 60 feet over a shallow river to get the cache. Perfectly legal as far as the rules are concerned, but pretty extreme.

 

A renegade site that promotes caches in what are now off limits areas (RR tracks, military installations, national parks, airports, etc...) would only threaten the long term legality of the sport.

 

So it is within the rules of the site to post a cache such as the one mentioned in my intro?

 

Thank you for your post, very constructive.

 

 

If you wish to see a goodly number of EXTREME geocaches which are quite "dangerous" and risky and which require special equipment, and many of which are total Urban Exploring (UE) experiences, and yet which are nonetheless fully within the guidelines of GC, please see our Psycho Urban Cache series, and also our Psycho Backcountry Cache #3 - Bitch Creek Crossing.

 

And, as Briansnat has already pointed out, WhereToGoVertigo!? was an excellent example of an extreme geocache which nonetheless met listing guidelines at GC.

 

Unfortunately Psycho Urban Cache series is for paid users. Otherwise I would love to check them out! They sound great! and if I were able to see and say weather or not they ware waht I think they are, I could possibly dismiss my idea based on that.

 

EDIT: It appears both caches are premium only.

First, I am not sure why you are employing the term "both caches", as my post had referenced a total of 15 Psycho caches owned by our account.

 

Next, I must confess that I am absolutely stunned and appalled that you have, in your most recent post, cited the fact that the caches which I listed are Premium Member Only Caches (PMOCs) and thus you cannot view them. This puts your original post and the propositions contained therein in an even more unfavorable light, since you now admit that you did not even bother to perform due diligence (that is, explore the excellent extreme geocaches at the GC site) prior to going out on a very shaky limb and making your rather extreme proposal. I am rather amazed and stunned at these developments, and, due to the very poor quality of the arguments and excuses which you offer, along with your failure to perform due diligence, I will not be participating in this thread further after having sent this post.

I think that this is one of the bigger things that struck me from this thread. It seems to me that a lot of the things that the OP is thinking of can actually be done within geocaching. Unfortunately, the OP doesn't seem to understand what can be done within geocaching. It would be unwise to start or even think about starting an "alternative" to geocaching when you don't even understand what geocaching has to offer. How silly.

 

It's too bad that you don't even seem to listen to nor respond in an intelligent way to some of the better thought out "constructive criticisms" that some people have given you in this thread.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Ambrosia

[+ODragon]

So it is within the rules of the site to post a cache such as the one mentioned in my intro?

 

Yes... No Swimming does not mean No Boating.

[+admo1972]

I too had the thought of a darker, underground geocache website. One that accepts, no, encourages dangerous caches. Caches on top of power lines, on private property (with no knowledge or permission of owner). And the most extreme, in National Parks!

[+Stargazer22]

I think this is a particularly bad idea.

There are plenty of ways to hide extreme geocaches that would comply with the rules of this website, so such caches can be listed here if done properly.

Encouraging people to break rules in order to geocache is a terrible way to promote geocaching.

Try doing a few extreme caches listed on this site before you decide you need to start a new site for it.

[+wimseyguy]

If you want some Extreme Caching, search for caches that have a Terrain rating of 4.5 or 5. There are many on this Site that will provide you with an "Extreme caching" challenge, without jeapordizing our Activity the way your idea will.

 

I think what you propose is a very bad idea.

 

Thank you for your suggestion Miragee! If you would point out a way to search that way without being premium, i may have overlooked it, I would be happy to do so. However, I would like to inform you that due to my location, there isn't likely to be more than five of those caches within 25 miles of my zip code.

 

Furthermore, as appreciative as I am towards your idea and thought, i would more so appreciate supporting details on how it would jeopardize the community.

There are ways to search on this website already that don't require $3/month.

Try this link, and simply scroll down focusing on the D/T rating column until you come to a cache you want to seek.

Why yes, that is centered on a 5* terrain cache that you have already found. The link is also easily found on that cache page-'show all nearest caches'. You've got over 2500 to look for within 100 miles of this location, so I'm going to call bull on your claim that there are less than five caches nearby that fit your needs.

1, 2, and 3 all have terrain ratings of 3.5 which I imagine in your area will have some substantial elevation changes and involve some climbing. They are all within 5.3 miles of the center of the search.

I think you can find 4&5 on your own within the next 20 miles.

 

And it doesn't depend who your audience is when talking to non cachers about geocaching. They do not make a distinction between listing services or websites. I've spoken with park rangers, land managers, and law enforcement officers. To them we are all grouped together as people using GPS receivers to find hidden containers.

 

You have found 9 caches, or have posted 9 online find logs, in over six months. Why not see if some of the other 2500 caches listed on this website in your area suit your needs?

[+jerandjana]

If you want some Extreme Caching, search for caches that have a Terrain rating of 4.5 or 5. There are many on this Site that will provide you with an "Extreme caching" challenge, without jeapordizing our Activity the way your idea will.

 

I think what you propose is a very bad idea.

 

Ditto