Earthcache Placements

[+AB4N]

The guidelines for virtual caches, including earthcaches, are not bound by the 528' distance rule. That being the case, I have been seeing earthcaches listed for the same features where geocaches already exist. I don't have a problem with earthcaches being listed within the 528' for a regular cache, but another questions is raised by this.

 

Is there, or should there be, a gentleman's agreement that someone wanting to list an earthcache next to an existing cache contact the existing cache owner first? I have been asked by geoaware to do this for one of my earthcache listings, and in fact had already done so. I assumed that this was a gentleman's agreement at least, but I have been seeing several earthcaches places where this was not followed.

 

In this area of the country at least, there is no shortage of spectacular earth objects worthy of earthcaches. So in this case I don't see a need for someone to stomp on someone else's cache in this way. I think that at least the courteous approach would be for someone to ask first.

Edited September 10, 2007 by AB4N

[+DavidMac]

On one of my virtual caches, which has been in place for over four years, somebody stated in their log that they drove to the site to find the earthcache, and grabbed mine while they were there. Earthcache? What earthcache?. Oh, the one that was placed right on top of mine two weeks ago, only changing one digit in the coordinates.

 

At least their cache is well thought out and doesn't involve grabbing answers from the same sign, I can give them that. And it doesn't really impact my cache, so I can't be too upset about it. Still, it would have been nice to know.

[+briansnat]

I've been asked a few times by people who wanted to list earthcaches near one of my caches. I have no problem with it, as the worst thing that can happen is that my cache will get a few more visitors.

 

I wouldn't feel insulted if someone didn't ask. There is no requirement to do so.

[+joranda]

They are both two different styles of caches, it should be no big deal at all. Why would you have to ask another cache owner if you can place it there. It has always been there, even before the trad. cache was placed, it's the earth.

[+Kiwi Nomad]

They are both two different styles of caches, it should be no big deal at all. Why would you have to ask another cache owner if you can place it there. It has always been there, even before the trad. cache was placed, it's the earth.

 

I thought the idea was to get people to a certain spot and teach them something about why that area is special. If there is a virtual/traditional/multi there already which is achieving the same out come what need is there for anyone else to come along and 'place' an earthcache?

The only reason I can see is they want it on their profile that they have placed one.

[+J-Way]

There's been an explosive growth in earthcaches around here lately. Some of them deserve the name and are valuable learning tools. Others are just virtuals in disguise, and quite a few are placed directly on top of pre-existing virtuals and traditional caches already documenting the spot. The locations for some don’t really mean anything, but they are allowed because the owners put brief geography lessons in the description. Don’t get me started on the so-called “watershed” caches, which have started appearing along every ridge and river in Tennessee.

[Neos2]

Many people who use Earthcaches aren't geocachers. We have to remember that the earthcaches don't "just" belong to geocachers.

 

For example, there are teachers who use earthcaches for many subject areas--geology, geography, history, etc. The GSA provides lesson plans with listing of all earthcaches just for that purpose.

 

Since those folks won't necessarily have (or want their students to have) access to geocaches, and since the geocaches aren't necessarily written with geologic education in mind (even many virtuals are not geologically specific), I see nothing wrong with both being listed.

 

However, if the existing cache is a virtual cache, and especially if the existing cache does a good job of covering the geologic aspects of the area, it's only common courtesy to let the owner of the exisiting cache know about the earthcache request.

 

I had exactly that situation crop up, and geoaware also asked me to contact the cache owner. The cache owner decided to archive their cache in favor of the earthcache. I offered to allow them to have the earthcache, and even offered to create the earthcache page for them, but they decided to turn it over to me instead. One of their reasons was to attract more visitors to the area, as most of the local geocachers had done the virtual years ago and it was basically just sitting there, unvisited.

 

Most of the local earthcaches aren't near virtuals, but are near physical caches. Thankfully, there doesn't seem to be any concern over those spots for earthcaches.

 

As far as there being so many river confluences and sinkholes and watershed earthcaches being placed, etc --I think that's great, if it gives young people a chance to go to a spot near their school or home and see a geologic feature up close and personal. If and earthcache is "only twenty miles" from the next one similar to it, it may seem redundant to you and I, because we can jump in our cars and go see all of them if we want--but some schools can't manage even a short bus ride to see these kinds of things. The can arrange a quick walking trip to the one closest the school though.

[+DavidMac]

Many people who use Earthcaches aren't geocachers. We have to remember that the earthcaches don't "just" belong to geocachers.

 

For example, there are teachers who use earthcaches for many subject areas--geology, geography, history, etc. The GSA provides lesson plans with listing of all earthcaches just for that purpose.

 

Since those folks won't necessarily have (or want their students to have) access to geocaches, and since the geocaches aren't necessarily written with geologic education in mind (even many virtuals are not geologically specific), I see nothing wrong with both being listed.

 

This is a very interesting point, that I have to admit I hadn't considered before.

 

I probably came off a bit snarkier than I had intended in my first post, but I guess the root of the problem is what has been mentioned in previous posts: in some areas (the southeast in particular) there seems to be a trend toward placing an earthcache at any old site, without taking the time to show us something new or educate us about why that particular site is special.

 

As an example, it's great to visit a waterfall, and even better to take a class out to see it, but what relevance does it have to earthcaching? What formed it here? what's special about the underlying rock? There's probably an interesting lesson there, but the author hasn't taken the time to share it, instead copying/pasting a barely lengthy enough description to just squeeze the listing past the reviewers.

 

Three of the eight guidelines for submitting an earthcache (including the first two) have to do with an educational requirement. I'm not expecting anything amazing or earth shaking, just something a little more insightful than, a confluence is were two rivers meet.

 

edit: spellling

Edited September 13, 2007 by DavidMac

[Neos2]

As an example, it's great to visit a waterfall, and even better to take a class out to see it, but what relevance does it have to earthcaching? What formed it here? what's special about the underlying rock? There's probably an interesting lesson there, but the author hasn't taken the time to share it, instead copying/pasting a barely lengthy enough description to just squeeze the listing past the reviewers.

 

Three of the eight guidelines for submitting an earthcache (including the first two) have to do with an educational requirement. I'm not expecting anything amazing or earth shaking, just something a little more insightful than, a confluence is were two rivers meet.

 

I hear you, and in some ways I agree. I was in one area recently where half the earthcaches were artesian wells. I find artesian wells just fascinating (really, I do--but I teach Earth & Space Science, too, so go figure!), but hey, you've seen one, you've seen them all to some extent. Still, I reminded myself that it's a bit hard to pick up a geologic feature of the earth and move it somewhere it can be the only example of it's kind for miles around. To be honest, some of the folks made awesome cache pages for mediocre wells and others had mediocre pages for awesome wells. Like any other kind of cache, some folks have the gift of writing a good cacheage and others don't.

 

As an example or two, I have two earthcaches that we can compare:

 

One has a big looooooong write up about the local rocks. I pared it down and pared it down, but it was part of my undergraduate study in geological sciences, so I know too much about it. Most people skip the long write up and go look for the cool fossils there. That's my ultimate point, so I get over it (and a few people write to thank me for all the info). You went there yourself, looked around and really didn't find anything that struck you as too exciting that day. Other people go there and are thrilled to find rare examples of certain types of fossils the day they visit. Some people climb the steep cliff to find the "real" cache at the top and others wouldn't try that climb if you paid them. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

 

I have another earthcache where an asteroid reformed the landscape in a spectacular way. Some people go there and "just see a big hill" others get excited by what they see there and hunt all over for evidence that will make them "part of the ongoing investigation"-- and I get tons of compliments on that cachepage.

 

Of the two earthcaches, my heart goes out to the first (probably because I climbed that cliff so many times as an undergrad) but I'm very pleased that others like the second one, too. Again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and even I can admit the second one has a much more interesting cache page. I can also sympathize with the people who go to either of those places and just see rocks and dirt (I teach some of those people in my classes!). It takes at least a little imagination to see the value of some of the earthcaches if you aren't a geology buff; if the cache owner isn't pretty good at explaining things and making them sound interesting, it can be boring.

 

I know my kids at school hated learning about faults, until I started showing them this photo of a fault right in the middle of a city.

They can SEE there the earth has moved and it amazes them to think it happened in an area that is so urban today.

 

I know a lot of people really struggled with trying to come up with educational cachepages when the earthcaches added that requirement. Some people even gave up perfectly good earthcaches because they couldn't think of anything interesting to have people do. Some cachers were upset that it was no longer "enough" to read the cool sign and get your picture taken by the spot. They didn't like having to learn something to get their smiley. Some things just have more fun ways to learn than others do. Some things are just more interesting than others, and some people are just more creative than others.

 

Perhaps the folks creating earthcaches near you would appreciate some hints for ways to make their earthcaches more creative? Or perhaps you just need to put out more earthcaches, since you seem to have the knack for writing a good page. (That cache is on my "list of earthcaches to find" when I get near that area, by the way).

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

They are both two different styles of caches, it should be no big deal at all. Why would you have to ask another cache owner if you can place it there. It has always been there, even before the trad. cache was placed, it's the earth.

 

I thought the idea was to get people to a certain spot and teach them something about why that area is special. If there is a virtual/traditional/multi there already which is achieving the same out come what need is there for anyone else to come along and 'place' an earthcache?

The only reason I can see is they want it on their profile that they have placed one.

 

Earthcache provides the geology lesson. The virtual/traditional/multi that is already there often does not provide the geology lesson.

[+legacypac]

I have created a 6 Earthcaches so far.

 

A marl mine turned park. Sure the park has 5 caches in it but you would never know about the mine from them.

 

One is in a Hot Springs Resort - the area has caches too, but you would be amazed at the info people are digging up on this one. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...0c-6de332c410f9

 

Barkerville Gold Striike! in an old gold mining town

 

China's first earthcache in a massive show cave - yet to be logged though

 

All are here. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...amp;u=legacypac

 

All are unique and well received. Go set an Earthcache - they are a lot of fun to research and then see the logs. The best idea I had was to require that the seeker post some interesting information about the site in thier log. That ensures that the logs are interesting to read.

[+Super_Nate]

With the original topic at hand...I don't really see a big problem with earthcaches being listed on top of traditional caches. However, I am also okay with the guideline to be several feet off of an exsisting physical container. The worse thing that will happen to that container is a few more visitors.

 

Now if it was a PMO cache, then that would open doors for a little more questions...and thus warrent the need to ask the exsisting cache owner first.

 

But an earthcache is virtual, and would not disturb the physical container....so I don't see a need to ask permission from a cache owner.

 

Switching gears to earthcaches in general....I am from the part of Tennessee described earlier as the earthcache hub! They are literally EVERYWHERE! I have visited a good number of them and I have determined that it is about half-in-half on the quality of the site. Is this really an outstanding location, or is it another basic waterfall write-up? With nothing against these great folks, but a big factor in the amount of random earthcaches is the earthcache master program. Their is a requirement to own 20+ earthcaches in order to get a higher ranking. So that triggers a bulk of it right there.

 

I have to pull for Nenos here.....For those who can't go very far, the many earthcaches these days provides easy access to natural features right in the backyard.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Switching gears to earthcaches in general....I am from the part of Tennessee described earlier as the earthcache hub! They are literally EVERYWHERE! I have visited a good number of them and I have determined that it is about half-in-half on the quality of the site. Is this really an outstanding location, or is it another basic waterfall write-up? With nothing against these great folks, but a big factor in the amount of random earthcaches is the earthcache master program. Their is a requirement to own 20+ earthcaches in order to get a higher ranking. So that triggers a bulk of it right there.

 

That is something Ive been wondering about. Has the earthcache master program degraded the quality of earthcaches in general?

 

I have the first 3 earthcaches in my state. It was quite difficult to figure out what to write about, even in Arizona. There are the popular places (one of my first was Barringer Crater aka Meteor Crater) but I wanted to do something beyond the well known sites. My other two are South Mountain Metamorphic Core Complex and Luke Salt Deposit Earthcache. These are relatively unique locations in my state, and in the world. I enjoyed the research and the write up. I like to think I presented a quality earthcache page. I have a 4th one planned that has taken me 2 years to get info on, and I finally have a contact name this week. This earthcache will highlight a relatively unknown yet important geological issue in my state. (No Im not giving anyone any clues what it is about. Its bad enough some people have tried to adopt my earthcaches just to get that icon for their master program or cache page.)

 

Now there is a proliferation of earthcaches thanks to this master program. Due to distance and terrain, I have yet to see any of their places, but they seem to be mostly well known sites, and created in many instances by people from outside my state. Has the earthcache ceased to be about a geological feature that someone wants to share, and become more about numbers earthcaching, getting that required number in order to advance in rank?

Edited September 13, 2007 by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

[+Super_Nate]

The guidelines for virtual caches, including earthcaches, are not bound by the 528' distance rule. That being the case, I have been seeing earthcaches listed for the same features where geocaches already exist. I don't have a problem with earthcaches being listed within the 528' for a regular cache, but another questions is raised by this.

 

Is there, or should there be, a gentleman's agreement that someone wanting to list an earthcache next to an existing cache contact the existing cache owner first? I have been asked by geoaware to do this for one of my earthcache listings, and in fact had already done so. I assumed that this was a gentleman's agreement at least, but I have been seeing several earthcaches places where this was not followed.

 

In this area of the country at least, there is no shortage of spectacular earth objects worthy of earthcaches. So in this case I don't see a need for someone to stomp on someone else's cache in this way. I think that at least the courteous approach would be for someone to ask first.

 

Let's keep this thread on-topic!

 

I was inspired by what we were just talking about so I just started another thread to continue discussion on the quality of earthcaches.

 

Carry on.....

[+Renegade Knight]

...Is there, or should there be, a gentleman's agreement that someone wanting to list an earthcache next to an existing cache contact the existing cache owner first? ....

 

There isn't such a guideline. It would be the polite thing to do. For one thing if my spot is so good for an earthcache and I've got a cache there, perhaps I might also be the one to have first dibs on the earth cache. When I pass (and I will most likley pass) they can go forth and do a good earth cache.

 

Someone placed an earth cache on top of one of my caches. They didn't ask or say Boo until it was approved. When it was I took a quick look and their cache covers about the same information as my cache. I was dissapointed for not being asked, but not insulted. Life goes on.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

...However, if the existing cache is a virtual cache, and especially if the existing cache does a good job of covering the geologic aspects of the area, it's only common courtesy to let the owner of the exisiting cache know about the earthcache request.

 

I had exactly that situation crop up, and geoaware also asked me to contact the cache owner. The cache owner decided to archive their cache in favor of the earthcache. I offered to allow them to have the earthcache, and even offered to create the earthcache page for them, but they decided to turn it over to me instead....

 

Well done.

[+TerryDad2]

 

There isn't such a guideline. It would be the polite thing to do. For one thing if my spot is so good for an earthcache and I've got a cache there, perhaps I might also be the one to have first dibs on the earth cache. When I pass (and I will most likley pass) they can go forth and do a good earth cache.

 

Someone placed an earth cache on top of one of my caches. They didn't ask or say Boo until it was approved. When it was I took a quick look and their cache covers about the same information as my cache. I was dissapointed for not being asked, but not insulted. Life goes on.

Earthcaches have been around long enough for anyone interested in making an earthcache at an already existing traditional/virtual/multi cache to have already done so if they were interested.

 

Still common curtosy would call for contacting the owner of the existing cache, especially if it already has geologic information.

 

I have missed that curtosy a couple of times . I apologize for those instances.

[+BackBrakeBilly]

The guidelines for virtual caches, including earthcaches, are not bound by the 528' distance rule. That being the case, I have been seeing earthcaches listed for the same features where geocaches already exist. I don't have a problem with earthcaches being listed within the 528' for a regular cache, but another questions is raised by this.

 

Is there, or should there be, a gentleman's agreement that someone wanting to list an earthcache next to an existing cache contact the existing cache owner first? I have been asked by geoaware to do this for one of my earthcache listings, and in fact had already done so. I assumed that this was a gentleman's agreement at least, but I have been seeing several earthcaches places where this was not followed.

 

In this area of the country at least, there is no shortage of spectacular earth objects worthy of earthcaches. So in this case I don't see a need for someone to stomp on someone else's cache in this way. I think that at least the courteous approach would be for someone to ask first.

 

I was the one that listed the earthcaches that AB4N is talking about. At the time I listed the 2 earthcaches near where he had 2 caches placed at waterfalls he had all but given up geocaching and devoted almost all of his caching efforts to terracaching. The two traditional caches had been out over a year and the earthcache program had been going for just as log or longer. The earthcaches I listed in no way compromised his caches what so ever so I saw no need in asking for his so called permission to list the earthcaches. Geoware approved the earthcaches without question so they must have met the guidelines.

I see no problem in placing a earthcache on top of another existing cache especially when the earthcache does not compromise the existing cache in any way.

Heck, our state reviewer even placed a traditional cache right on top of one of my earthcaches upon his visit which I thought was very cool, it just lets me know that my earthcache was placed in a great area, at a great earth feature! And for the numbers/icon folks out there it makes for a twofur!

Some folks need to remember that this is only a game and we play for the fun of it and those who don't should find another hobby....

[+GEO WALKER]

...Is there, or should there be, a gentleman's agreement that someone wanting to list an earthcache next to an existing cache contact the existing cache owner first? ....

 

A There isn't such a guideline. It would be the polite thing to do. For one thing if my spot is so good for an earthcache and I've got a cache there, perhaps I might also be the one to have first dibs on the earth cache. When I pass (and I will most likley pass) they can go forth and do a good earth cache.

 

B Someone placed an earth cache on top of one of my caches. They didn't ask or say Boo until it was approved. When it was I took a quick look and their cache covers about the same information as my cache. I was dissapointed for not being asked, but not insulted. Life goes on.

 

A

One of the things which seems to have been overlooked in many of the replies is the "activity" portion of an Earthcache. The "activity" is a part of the educational factor of an earthcache and it usually is more detailed than a standard sign.

Often times many pre-existing caches are placed on what I call the "Golly Gee Wiz Factor" an earthcache defines the Golly Gee Wiz and gives an understanding of what it is and how it came to be so the next time the cacher comes across this again in their travels they have a much better understanding.

The greater purpose of an earthcache is education, not hide and seek. Most geocaher/earthcachers will confirm this, and most earthcachers are involved in geocachinig. Some of us are responsible professionals and this is just one more way of conveying knowledge to others.

 

B

There seems to be an assumption that all earthcaches are approved. Difiniately not so... This may explain the last minute request.

[+Renegade Knight]

...The greater purpose of an earthcache is education, not hide and seek....

 

You have that exactly backwards.

Geocaching and it's variations are hide and seek first and formost. Without the hide and seek, without the 'cache' element, you don't have an audience for the education.

What sets an EarthCache apart from most caches is the Geological Education.

It also happens to be a type of education that allows enthusiasts (who need not be professionals) to share their passion.

 

People who enjoy those kinds of things can use Earchcaches to focus their efforts on a cache type they find rewarding.

 

That said I think I will change my orginal opinion somewhat. If the cache that's in a prime earch cache spot draws attention to the geology the makes that locaiton earth cache worthy, then they should have first shot as a courtesy as creating an earch cache. After all while the cache may not meet earch cache standards, it does have some of the earch cache intent. To use a cache to draw your attention to a geological feature.

 

If it's just a "Gee, I stopped here and found a lamp post" (In other words unrelated) then since Earth Cache is a different type that doesn't have the proximity rule, place away.

Edited December 9, 2007 by Renegade Knight