The Quality of Earthcaches

[+Super_Nate]

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.

 

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?

 

I have wondered the same thing. For me, it was finding earthcaches....I remember when they first came out and they were spread out to the point that you had to go an hour out of your way to go find one. Arriving at that earthcache was worth every single second of that hour because the site was facinating and jaw-dropping and probably my favorite geocache smileys EVER! I would go on cache runs in which for me numbers was the goal for the day, but we would go 10 miles out of our way because we were going to pass an earthcache.

 

Now when I go on big cache runs, two or three earthcaches are usually in the direct path of where we go because somebody somewhere saw an intact rock in the side of the road that has a crinoid in the center so they made an earthcache out of it.

 

I honestly think that earthcaches should still be published, but do away with the Earthcache Masters and having a scene of earthcache numbers....I think the earthcaching folks need to be just a little more strict on what should pass for an earthcache.

 

Just my $.02

 

This is a thread branching off of another earthcache thread that got off topic....voice your opinions on the quality verses quantity of earthcaches here

[+Jhwk]

Welcome to the newest expansion of the lame cache thread...

[+Super_Nate]

Welcome to the newest expansion of the lame cache thread...

 

So that would mean this hasn't been discussed yet, so what is your opinion on the topic at hand?

Edited September 13, 2007 by Super_Nate

[Mr.Yuck]

Welcome to the newest expansion of the lame cache thread...

 

Hey, you have to take it in a new direction. I'll bet this is exactly what happened when people started noticing lame virts in like 2001. I wasn't around then. For what it's worth, I really would say there has been a decrease in quality from the beginning of the Earthcache program, and I see many "placed" by out-of-staters. One in my area, it's quite obvious the 300 mile away placer just grabbed the exact same coords for a nearby cache. If he did visit the site to place the earthcache, he never found any of the nearby caches, including the one 25 feet from his object.

Edited September 13, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+wesleykey]

I agree, they do seem to be popping up everywhere, including a lot of places where a traditional cache would work well.

[+mtn-man]

Welcome to the newest expansion of the lame cache thread...

 

So that would mean this hasn't been discussed yet, so what is your opinion on the topic at hand?

I think the comment was not needed at all. Part of the reason some of these discussions go haywire is because of sarcastic comments like that. It is a shame that the second post had to be one. How about actually contributing to the discussion. I think Super_Nate has a right to make his point and ask opinions without being sniped at right out of the gate.

[+Jhwk]

Welcome to the newest expansion of the lame cache thread...

 

So that would mean this hasn't been discussed yet, so what is your opinion on the topic at hand?

I think the comment was not needed at all. Part of the reason some of these discussions go haywire is because of sarcastic comments like that. It is a shame that the second post had to be one. How about actually contributing to the discussion. I think Super_Nate has a right to make his point and ask opinions without being sniped at right out of the gate.

So, instead of bringing an off topic thread back on topic, we come over here and started a new one? That was my point. So do you jump down evryone's throat when they post a rolling eyes smiley to the latest "how do I change my username" thread or garmin vs. magellan rant?

 

Super_Nate has a right to make a point, and so do I. It's called an opinion as well as freedom of speech!

 

My opinion is that the forums have recently devolved into numerous threads decrying the quality of (insert cache type here) caches. It has become a little stale, and IMHO pointless. We each have our own tastes, likes, dislikes, and styles of caching. Some sign the container, while I choose to sign the log. Some cache from a chair, while I hike through the woods enjoying nature and the simplicity of a game centered around hide and seek. Some hate micros, while I like them, or lamp-post caches, while I still enjoy them. Bottom line, we will never all agree.

 

Guess instead of checking out the threads first thing in the morning, while on travel, I will just come here at night and make comments after others have taken their full swing. Time to take my ball and go home.

[+Harriet the Spy]

We don't have the saturation here. In fact there are only 20 in Washington state.

 

I wonder if the proliferation in your area has to do with being and icon hunter. Does everybody have to have one in their owned column?

[+StarBrand]

They are still rare enough in most of the areas I cache in. And BTW - the "quality" issue has been around for quite a while. I originally complained about the quality of one nearly 3 years ago. Then I found myself in charge of making that one better. I think the newest set of revised standards for earthcaches will at least ensure a few moments of education.

[+Kit Fox]

I have to agree with your premise. I know I had to work hard to make My Earthcache meet their requirements. They should call them geological caches, because they won't approve earthcaches based soley on earth sciences ,I learned the hard way.

 

I hope earthcaches don't degrade too much. I don't agree with the premise that someone can hide and earthcache based soley on internet research, without ever visiting the physical location.

[+Renegade Knight]

I agree, they do seem to be popping up everywhere, including a lot of places where a traditional cache would work well.

Or directly on top of a traditional cache that explains exactly the same thing as the earth cache.

 

That said. Geology isn't intereseting to most folks when you get past volcano's and certain rock formations. Once the cool ones are taking up you can still have a lot of intersting locations...if you are a rockhoud or geologist type. Boring for everone else.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+9Key]

Maybe its just something local to Tennessee? Heck there's only 13 earthcaches in all of Texas so its definitely not a problem here.

[+Super_Nate]

Maybe its just something local to Tennessee? Heck there's only 13 earthcaches in all of Texas so its definitely not a problem here.

 

I guess Tennessee would be one of the locations that it is local to because I just looked up the earthcache numbers here and we are over the 100 mark.

 

That is saying a lot since Texas is the second largest state in the country with 13 earthcaches...WOW!

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Posting my full post from the other thread....

 

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?

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

There is an earthcache in my state that is an Indian pueblo ruin that is open to the public. Not even that great of a ruin either. It happens to be at the base of an old volcano so the page marginally makes reference to that. The cache page could have been written from a guidebook of Arizona tourist destinations rather than any geological science text. There is another earthcache written about the varnish on a large rock covered with petroglyphs. Considering how common that varnish is on every rock in Arizona, that doesnt seem like that unique of an earthcache. Personally I do think the quality has decreased on the local earthcaches. I hope that future placement of earthcaches is done with an eye to the location and geology rather than getting that icon or master badge.

[Neos2]

Just clearing up one little misconception. Someone said:

"Their is a requirement to own 20+ earthcaches in order to get a higher ranking. So that triggers a bulk of it right there"

 

The highest level (so far) for the Earthcache Master program is the Platinum Level, which requires that you own three earthcaches.

 

Platinum Earthcache Master

Visit and log twenty (20) or more Earthcaches in five (5) or more states/countries and have developed three (3) or more Earthcaches.

[Neos2]

There is an earthcache in my state that is an Indian pueblo ruin that is open to the public. Not even that great of a ruin either. It happens to be at the base of an old volcano so the page marginally makes reference to that. The cache page could have been written from a guidebook of Arizona tourist destinations rather than any geological science text. There is another earthcache written about the varnish on a large rock covered with petroglyphs. Considering how common that varnish is on every rock in Arizona, that doesnt seem like that unique of an earthcache. Personally I do think the quality has decreased on the local earthcaches. I hope that future placement of earthcaches is done with an eye to the location and geology rather than getting that icon or master badge.

Your opinions of these two earthcaches are interesting to me. I do have the science background and I see them differently. Again, it may be a beauty is in the eye of the beholder type issue.

 

For the first one, the point of the earthcache is how the geology of the area impacted humans (that is an actual earthcache category). It seems to me the whole point of the cache is to have the visitor learn how the volcano benfitted humans who lived there. You wouldn't want to say that on the cache page, because you want people to learn that while they are there.

 

I'm not sure I agree with you about the description reading like a guidebook to tourism destinations, either, at least the ones I've read don't usually discuss things like "high viscosity of the dacite" "linear vents along regional faults" and "concentric benches, spires, ramping shear fractures, longitudinal tension fractures, and conjugate shear fractures"

 

If you read the second page, it explains that while the varnishing effect may be common, there is still active investigation into the process that couses it to form the way it does. Having people view the petroglyphs is an interesting way to get them to consider the forces of nature that might create this natural feature at that particular location.

 

If those are examples of low-quality and uninteresting earthcaches in your opinion, I'd certainly like to spend some time in your area seeing the ones that you think are interesting! We don't have either of those types of features here in southern Indiana.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I agree, they do seem to be popping up everywhere, including a lot of places where a traditional cache would work well.

Or directly on top of a traditional cache that explains exactly the same thing as the earth cache.

 

Yes. This seems to be a common problem around here. Been there. Saw the turtle back rocks. Or the old mine. Lots of other places to see either. Why are they at the exact same location???

Maybe, in case the regular cache gets archived? Just seems cheap to me. Show me something new!

[+DavidMac]

I'll copy over a quote from the other thread, to keep that one on topic.

 

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).

 

You probably know that my rant was more of a general soapbox thing, not really directed at you. I guess we have similar tastes, given the similar theme between our two earthcaches . I remember that site; in fact, I drove by it again just two weeks ago and had plans to stop by again, but it was getting dark and I was having car trouble and had to get to Mt. Vernon to get it fixed.

 

I'm more of a biology person, so I'm quick to admit that I don't know as much about geology as I'd like to and consider myself more of a layman. As such, I had to do a bit of book research to come up with a decent description that I was satisfied was interesting and educational enough. If I can learn something from an earthcache, then anybody can...

 

It sounds like we're both on the same page as far as the educational component of earthcaches is concerned. While I don't have the background to write up something grad-student quality (in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if my cache page contained a few glaring errors that any geology student would instantly pick up on), as long as your average middle/high school student can learn something from the description (and site), I'd consider it a good earthcache. That's one of the placement guidelines, after all. My problem is, it seems that some earthcache descriptions don't even strive for that level.

 

Go figure, on the same trip I actually passed within half a mile of that rock varnish earthcache, and didn't realize it because my route PQ didn't pick it up (although I did get several others in the park). I had never heard of rock varnish before, and when I saw the page later, wished that I had known to look for it when I was in the desert (maybe that's just my biology background...). Every rock in the desert, sure, I don't think deserves an earthcache, but from reading the cache page, it sounds like this particular rock was chosen wisely.

 

Oh, and I made a mental note to look for that issue of Science next time I'm at the campus library. Yeah, I'm a nerd .

[Neos2]

I agree, they do seem to be popping up everywhere, including a lot of places where a traditional cache would work well.

Or directly on top of a traditional cache that explains exactly the same thing as the earth cache.

 

Yes. This seems to be a common problem around here. Been there. Saw the turtle back rocks. Or the old mine. Lots of other places to see either. Why are they at the exact same location???

Maybe, in case the regular cache gets archived? Just seems cheap to me. Show me something new!

 

There is another way to look at it. If the cache location has so much geologic significance and the information is already on the cache page, why don't the owners switch them over to make them earthcaches?

 

The reason they are there along with the traditional cache is that earthcaches are open to people who aren't geocachers. Some people that aren't geocachers use earthcaches to learn/teach about the geologic wonders of the world, or just to find them and admire them. The GSA developed a series of lesson plans just for teachers to use in the classroom. (My classes took part in the beta test and created 2 earthcaches while on a mega fun field trip!).

 

For those of us who use the listings to teach about the Earth, earthcaching is a powerful tool. The access to maps and photos makes it a snap to get the kids interested in researching an area to see what natural forces are at work there. Geocaching has no way to effectively search for geocaches that have geologic significance (except by searching for earthcaches). Earthcaching does list all the earthcaches, and does it by country, by category, by owner, etc. If I want to teach my kiddos about volcanos, I can easily pull up just earthcaches about volcanoes. It isn't so easy to do on the geocaching end where so many things require you to know the name or the GC ID.

 

Since I'm a big fan of earthcaches, I really appreciate being able to find them while I'm on caching trips. Having them in a separate category makes that easier for me to do that. I've gone way out of route to find an earthcache on long caching trips. I might not have known about them if they were "just" caches.

 

Geocache owners in general don't want the responsibility of having to provide an educational experience for their visitors, or they would have converted them already. Some geocachers don't want additional logging requirements to log a cache, and dislike having to prove them have learned something at the earthcache location. For those reasons, I wouldn't dream of proposing that everyone with a geologically interesting cache ought to have to turn it into an earthcache! I would suggest they either convert them or be happy that someone else lists the earthcache so their cache gets more visitors.

 

I've seen plenty of very nice geocaches in places that really ought to be earthcaches. Those cache pages go on and on about the geocache and barely mentions the geologic marvel nearby, if they even mention it at all. We've all seen the forum threads where folks admit they load cords and go caching without even reading the cache page. You think those folks are learning much about the geology, or want to? So why should those of us who do want to know miss out on the fun just because there is already a cache there?

 

Oh sure, a few people might notice it while they are there, but earthcaches ask you to slow down and interact with the area in a way that leaves you knowing a bit more than you did before you got there. Earthcaches do no harm. They can be in the very same spot as a traditional cache, so they don't block the traditional cache; they can also be placed where traditionals can't be placed. For instance, my husband has one in a Nature Preserve; those sites are off limits for physical caches and virtuals aren't allowed any longer.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Neos2

[CoyoteRed]

I've mentioned this before and I'll say it again: it's my personal opinion that, because earthcaches aren't real caches at all and nothing more than a hopped up virtual, they don't belong mixed in with the physical caches.

 

I'm thankful that I can trivially filter those suckers out and they can't block a real cache. (Probably the reason I'm not nearly as vocal about them as some other issues.)

[+Kit Fox]

I've mentioned this before and I'll say it again: it's my personal opinion that, because earthcaches aren't real caches at all and nothing more than a hopped up virtual, they don't belong mixed in with the physical caches.

 

I'm thankful that I can trivially filter those suckers out and they can't block a real cache. (Probably the reason I'm not nearly as vocal about them as some other issues.)

 

The best thing Groundspeak did was allow "real caches" closer than .1 from existing virtuals. Call me elitist, but I would take it a step further by disallowing the practice of placing new earthcaches "on top" of pre-existing physical caches, unless they are minimum of 528 feet away.

 

The idea that pre-exisiting physical caches should be "converted to earthcaches" is a very bad idea.

[+nekom]

This must be one of those regional things, because in southwestern Pennsylvania, I have yet to find an earthcache. There only appear to be 2 within 50 miles of my home.

[+Renegade Knight]

...There is another way to look at it. If the cache location has so much geologic significance and the information is already on the cache page, why don't the owners switch them over to make them earthcaches?...

 

The reason they are there along with the traditional cache is that earthcaches are open to people who aren't geocachers. Some people that aren't geocachers use earthcaches to learn/teach about the geologic wonders of the world, or just to find them and admire them. The GSA developed a series of lesson plans just for teachers to use in the classroom. (My classes took part in the beta test and created 2 earthcaches while on a mega fun field trip!). ...

 

If you step back to the bigger picture about what geocaching is, it's more than the box. That's why virtuals, and benchmark are caches. They may not be a box but they capture something. In that light Earthcaches are the same. It's not so much that a regualr cache is closed to earthcachers as it is that the flavor of cache has a little bit different appeal.

 

That said an "Earth Cache " attribute for a cross listed cache would work just as well. The cache isn't broken.

 

Overall, though I'd rather see both co-exist. Though they have similar elements they are not the same and they don't conflict. There is a little courtesy when they are on top of each other that should be observed, but that's not fatal to co-existance.

[+DanOCan]

I think it is a regional thing. For example, we have 18 Earthcaches within a 61km radius of my home coordinates. I can illustrate the general decline in quality as follows:

 

Glacial Erratic as an Earthcache in 2005: GCP7ZG

 

Glacial Erractic as an Earthcache in 2007: GC14M9K

 

I mean, don't get me wrong, I will continue to hunt for them but does every erratic really need to be an Earthcache? The first one involves a drive in the country to an erratic larger than a house, the other is a drive in urban sprawl to a rock.

 

(Yes, sometimes size DOES matter! )

Edited September 14, 2007 by DanOCan

[Mr.Yuck]

I agree, they do seem to be popping up everywhere, including a lot of places where a traditional cache would work well.

Or directly on top of a traditional cache that explains exactly the same thing as the earth cache.

 

Yes. This seems to be a common problem around here. Been there. Saw the turtle back rocks. Or the old mine. Lots of other places to see either. Why are they at the exact same location???

Maybe, in case the regular cache gets archived? Just seems cheap to me. Show me something new!

 

OK, here's one I can relate to. I took 10 or so business trips to the area, and had studied all the caches in South Mountain Reservation, but never made it there (after all, they were business trips ) Turtle Back Rocks is an old school 2002 placement, which gives excellent information about this geological formation, and pictures. I don't get an earthcache 78 feet away that tells you the same thing. Then again, I suppose it could be a waymark too.

 

[edit] Oh, never mind, I just saw that other thread about "gentlemen's agreements" on EC's on top of established caches. That's an excellent solution, at this point in time, I think.

Edited September 14, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[mtbikernate]

I haven't seen an earthcache yet that I would call lame. I found the two in Mammoth Cave NP, and while the posted locations were awful close, they actually had you walking around quite a bit looking at different features in the park. The only thing I didn't like was that I had to pull info from signs. It would have been nice to have a little more thought put into the cache page, either providing additional info or telling you where to find it. Still, the earthcaches pointed out something to me that was not readily apparent on the guided tours I did. Totally worthwhile in my book.

 

I really wanted to do the Jeptha Knob earthcache, but it wasn't even close to my route to/from Mammoth Cave NP. It looks like it would be pretty cool.

 

I guess some folks are really only in it for the glamorous geological features, though, which seems to sum up the complaints I've read here about lame earthcaches. Not all interesting geological features are necessarily glamorous, but they have a story to tell nonetheless.

 

I'm working on my first earthcache placement. The geology I will take people to is not going to be glamorous by any stretch. There are no volcanoes, impact craters, or faults. However, the rocks and features have a story and I aim to tell that story, and maybe have folks learn a bit about the geology of the city where they live. The sedimentary rocks had a depositional environment, and the current state of the rocks is related to current processes of weathering and erosion.

[+Harry Dolphin]

If you step back to the bigger picture about what geocaching is, it's more than the box. That's why virtuals, and benchmark are caches. They may not be a box but they capture something. In that light Earthcaches are the same. It's not so much that a regualr cache is closed to earthcachers as it is that the flavor of cache has a little bit different appeal.

 

That said an "Earth Cache " attribute for a cross listed cache would work just as well. The cache isn't broken.

 

Overall, though I'd rather see both co-exist. Though they have similar elements they are not the same and they don't conflict. There is a little courtesy when they are on top of each other that should be observed, but that's not fatal to co-existance.

 

Nope. Sorry. Benchmarks are not caches. They're a separate category. One gets smileys for both, but benchmarks do not count toward my cache finds. (Hey! I've logged over 600 benchmarks! I'd love it if they counted. But they do not.) That's an entirely different hobby. As far as I'm concerned, that's where Earthcaches belong: In a separate category.

Yup. I have a multicache that would probably be a very good Earthcache. Not a lot of finds; it is a tough cache. Shall I overlay the two, and put an earthcache there too? I could probably use the same page! I may have to cogitate this prospect... But, I'm a geocacher, and put it out as a geocache. That's what geocaching is about. Isn't it?

Okay. I could use another icon. Look for the earthcache to appear sometime soon!

[+TerryDad2]

I have placed quite a few earthcaches. One or two have been mentioned in the above thread. And yes, many are quite a distance from my home. I realize that not all of them will be interesting to the general public. I would like to think that I have put enough effort in them to make them a learning experience. I have also had had to obtain approval from NPS which has deterred anyone from placing earthcaches in the area.

 

I won’t reiterate the argument that earthcaches are used by others beyond the caching circle, so duplicate/common features may be beneficial to the GSA educational outreach program.

 

A few of my earthcaches describe phenomena that are common to the region. Common is often overlooked and not understood. Hopefully the locations provide the added benefit of scenery or explain how the common affects us.

 

My background is in geology so my interest is in sharing. I may miss the traditional that is close by because of limited time (I travel with 2 or 3 small children that easily bore), so I spend my time on getting the geologic info.

 

I have visited a few earthcaches as well. Most have been good. A couple I find severely lacking in the write-up. As for relating the quality of the write-up to when it was placed, I haven’t seed a direct correlation, but my sampling is small

 

The premise of the thread is that newer earthcaches are of less quality than older ones. An alternate premise is that poor quality earthcaches are placed by cachers that generally put out poor quality caches of all types.

 

Each cache should be evaluated on its own. Find what you want. Ignore what you want. Provide constructive criticism of those caches you feel could use help.

[Neos2]

A few of my earthcaches describe phenomena that are common to the region. Common is often overlooked and not understood. Hopefully the locations provide the added benefit of scenery or explain how the common affects us.

When my classes started learning about earthcaches, some were very surprised to find that someone had placed an earthcache at the Falls of the Ohio State Park.

 

The park is located in the town where I teach (Clarksville, Indiana). Most of the kids have been there, on field trips or on their own, at some point in their lives. They take the place for granted. The park is the site of the world's largest exposure of Silurian/Devonian age fossils in the world, and people come from all over the world to research some of the rare fossils found there. Last time I counted, there were more than 30 types of fossils found there but no where else in the world.

 

On the other hand, "it's just some more of that old gray limestone that's all around here" according to one of my students.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

The premise of the thread is that newer earthcaches are of less quality than older ones. An alternate premise is that poor quality earthcaches are placed by cachers that generally put out poor quality caches of all types.

 

Has anyone noticed this (part in bold)? Im rather curious now to see if that is the case.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Hey folks,

Don't you have better things to complain about? Have any of you actually tired to get an Earthcache approved? It is much, much more difficult to get approval that any other cache with the exception of a Vrtual, which is now impossible.

Old school, new school bull! What counts is those good folks out in Colorado who work hard to make sure they are approving something worthwhile. Some of you are placing your judgment in place of the experts (the actual approver). There are more Earthcaches because of one simple fact........there are many more cachers! More cachers find more caches, find more places and yes, place more Earthcaches. Sorry,we cannot turn the clock back to the good old days whenever or whatever they were!

Complain about something worthwhile, like the proliferation of lame micros! Oops! I mentioned the dreaded micro subject!

[+Renegade Knight]

...Nope. Sorry. Benchmarks are not caches. They're a separate category. ...

 

They are not a box, but people enjoy the hunt much the same a cache. Virtuals are not caches, locationless are not caches but they all fall under the larger umbrella of "caching" You could call it "Location Based Games" or come up with something shorter for the larger pool of these kinds of things.

 

Another couple of examples. Waypoint.org wasn't "caching" while the Degree Confluence Project was. One captured that angle that makes for a fun activity one didn't. I know what you are saying, but I don't have a better word for the larger grouping of these kinds of activities.

[+Renegade Knight]

The premise of the thread is that newer earthcaches are of less quality than older ones. An alternate premise is that poor quality earthcaches are placed by cachers that generally put out poor quality caches of all types.

 

Has anyone noticed this (part in bold)? Im rather curious now to see if that is the case.

 

I'm not sure your standard numbers whore is going to run the gauntlet to get an earth cache approved. That takes time and effort. You can't just toss them out the window as you drive down the road.

 

I'll counter the premise. "People who place earth caches like earth caches, or they would not be placing them". The materials you have to work with are pretty much the same. Rocks & Dirt of geologic note, and a cache page to describe rocks and dirt of geologic note. Some people can make it seem like more than rocks and dirt, and others...well that's all they are good for. Not everone who likes geology can string the words together to bring the subject alive.

[+Ambrosia]

The premise of the thread is that newer earthcaches are of less quality than older ones. An alternate premise is that poor quality earthcaches are placed by cachers that generally put out poor quality caches of all types.

 

Has anyone noticed this (part in bold)? Im rather curious now to see if that is the case.

 

I'm not sure your standard numbers whore is going to run the gauntlet to get an earth cache approved. That takes time and effort. You can't just toss them out the window as you drive down the road.

 

I'll counter the premise. "People who place earth caches like earth caches, or they would not be placing them". The materials you have to work with are pretty much the same. Rocks & Dirt of geologic note, and a cache page to describe rocks and dirt of geologic note. Some people can make it seem like more than rocks and dirt, and others...well that's all they are good for. Not everone who likes geology can string the words together to bring the subject alive.

I've been wanting to create an earthcache for a while, now, but the whole process makes me nervous! I'll get to it someday...

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

I've been wanting to create an earthcache for a while, now, but the whole process makes me nervous! I'll get to it someday...

 

Go for it. It was fun to put together. Very satisfying.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

There is an earthcache in my state that is an Indian pueblo ruin that is open to the public. Not even that great of a ruin either. It happens to be at the base of an old volcano so the page marginally makes reference to that. The cache page could have been written from a guidebook of Arizona tourist destinations rather than any geological science text. There is another earthcache written about the varnish on a large rock covered with petroglyphs. Considering how common that varnish is on every rock in Arizona, that doesnt seem like that unique of an earthcache. Personally I do think the quality has decreased on the local earthcaches. I hope that future placement of earthcaches is done with an eye to the location and geology rather than getting that icon or master badge.

Your opinions of these two earthcaches are interesting to me. I do have the science background and I see them differently. Again, it may be a beauty is in the eye of the beholder type issue.

 

For the first one, the point of the earthcache is how the geology of the area impacted humans (that is an actual earthcache category). It seems to me the whole point of the cache is to have the visitor learn how the volcano benfitted humans who lived there. You wouldn't want to say that on the cache page, because you want people to learn that while they are there.

 

I'm not sure I agree with you about the description reading like a guidebook to tourism destinations, either, at least the ones I've read don't usually discuss things like "high viscosity of the dacite" "linear vents along regional faults" and "concentric benches, spires, ramping shear fractures, longitudinal tension fractures, and conjugate shear fractures"

 

If you read the second page, it explains that while the varnishing effect may be common, there is still active investigation into the process that couses it to form the way it does. Having people view the petroglyphs is an interesting way to get them to consider the forces of nature that might create this natural feature at that particular location.

 

If those are examples of low-quality and uninteresting earthcaches in your opinion, I'd certainly like to spend some time in your area seeing the ones that you think are interesting! We don't have either of those types of features here in southern Indiana.

 

I really hate it when Im wrong lol.

 

I spent this past week thinking about this post and the earthcaches in my state. I guess some of them just seemed so commonplace to me, like the countless artesian well earthcaches in Tennessee. Today Im out caching with Mike, and he is doing a small hike to a cache on South Mountain, a mountain featured in one of my earthcaches. I remain in the car since my handicap wont allow me to hike. I happen to notice the desert patina on the rocks around me. And thought of the explanation on that Newspaper Rock Earthcache. I guess even earthcaches I thought were simple can have an impact.

[+TerryDad2]

I've been wanting to create an earthcache for a while, now, but the whole process makes me nervous! I'll get to it someday...

It is not as challenging a process as the forums make it out to be. I've helped out a few get thier's approved and could help out anyone interested.

[+Harry Dolphin]

...Nope. Sorry. Benchmarks are not caches. They're a separate category. ...

 

They are not a box, but people enjoy the hunt much the same a cache. Virtuals are not caches, locationless are not caches but they all fall under the larger umbrella of "caching" You could call it "Location Based Games" or come up with something shorter for the larger pool of these kinds of things.

 

My point is that benchmarks have never counted towards one's cache finds. Virtuals, and locationlesses do/did.

[+Ambrosia]

I've been wanting to create an earthcache for a while, now, but the whole process makes me nervous! I'll get to it someday...

 

Go for it. It was fun to put together. Very satisfying.

 

I've been wanting to create an earthcache for a while, now, but the whole process makes me nervous! I'll get to it someday...

It is not as challenging a process as the forums make it out to be. I've helped out a few get thier's approved and could help out anyone interested.

I really should. We live in a great spot for doing Earthcaches. Of course, the first place that I can think of that I think is perfect already has a cache there. I could place an Earthcache there of course, but I feel silly and uncomfortable doing so, especially since they've done a splendid job explaining the geological features.

 

I need to just sit down and read the requirements and think about it. My mind's fuzzy right now, so I worry about writing up the info for the cache page. But I'll get around to it someday.

[+Renegade Knight]

...My point is that benchmarks have never counted towards one's cache finds. Virtuals, and locationlesses do/did.

 

Well heck. That's different.

[+wimseyguy]

I've been wanting to create an earthcache for a while, now, but the whole process makes me nervous! I'll get to it someday...

 

Go for it. It was fun to put together. Very satisfying.

 

I've been wanting to create an earthcache for a while, now, but the whole process makes me nervous! I'll get to it someday...

It is not as challenging a process as the forums make it out to be. I've helped out a few get thier's approved and could help out anyone interested.

I really should. We live in a great spot for doing Earthcaches. Of course, the first place that I can think of that I think is perfect already has a cache there. I could place an Earthcache there of course, but I feel silly and uncomfortable doing so, especially since they've done a splendid job explaining the geological features.

 

I need to just sit down and read the requirements and think about it. My mind's fuzzy right now, so I worry about writing up the info for the cache page. But I'll get around to it someday.

A slight digression, but still relevant to the OP's posit. The bolded part of Ambrosia's statement is part of why I think there is a disconnect with the earthcaches and geocaches and those who hide them. Just as vacation caches are not published, someone who lives hundreds of miles away, and is not a frequent visitor to an area, shouldn't be posting an earthcache there IMO. And I think the EC ranking system and merit badges encourage this behavior.

 

While maintenance is usually not an issue for EC's, one of the cool aspects of geocaching is being led to interesting/unusual/unique spots and aspects of someone else's backyard. When I travel, I seek out these kinds of caches, and often plan my trips around them. It seems that the locals are the ones who should be doing this, not someone who read about the spot on the internet or in their geology class, and then swapped emails with a park ranger to get permission. Someone who is placing EC's in this manner has the wrong motivation; and it does seem that there is a bit of that with EC's.

[+geoaware]

Hi folks

 

I thought that you should all know that part of our process here at EarthCache Central (Geological Society of America) is that we are constantly reviewing EarthCaches that are already published. While we may not respond to every complaint, we do check EarthCaches that are brought into question. We have found a number that had been 'altered' after publication....so they no longer meet the guidelines. These are automatically archived. Others are unpublished and developers asked to work on. We rely on you all to let us know of ones that are not up to par...and then let us deal with them.

 

The process to get an EarthCache published does involve us checking content...and the quality of this does range in ones we approve from outstanding to 'you will learn some lesson'. We are constantly making suggestions to developers to make their Earthcaches better......We want EarthCaches to be great...but we realise that we must have a 'standard window' that allows people of all abilities to be involved in developing Earthcaches - geologists, non-geologists, teachers, students etc etc

 

As we published the 1600 EarthCache, we can still sit back and say that EarthCaches are great and people around the planet (47 different countries) are out there learning about this planet we call home because of their visit to an EarthCache.

 

Thanks to you all for your input, debates and comments...it all helps us to keep things moving forward.

 

Gary

 

(Geoaware)

[mtbikernate]

A slight digression, but still relevant to the OP's posit. The bolded part of Ambrosia's statement is part of why I think there is a disconnect with the earthcaches and geocaches and those who hide them. Just as vacation caches are not published, someone who lives hundreds of miles away, and is not a frequent visitor to an area, shouldn't be posting an earthcache there IMO. And I think the EC ranking system and merit badges encourage this behavior.

 

While maintenance is usually not an issue for EC's, one of the cool aspects of geocaching is being led to interesting/unusual/unique spots and aspects of someone else's backyard. When I travel, I seek out these kinds of caches, and often plan my trips around them. It seems that the locals are the ones who should be doing this, not someone who read about the spot on the internet or in their geology class, and then swapped emails with a park ranger to get permission. Someone who is placing EC's in this manner has the wrong motivation; and it does seem that there is a bit of that with EC's.

 

I don't really think it's such a big deal if a non-local publishes an earthcache somewhere. It seems to me that the whole process isn't really conducive to doing all the research on a site online...you really do have to visit. And, especially for someone who knows geology to some degree, it shouldn't be a problem for them to create a worthwhile earthcache even after only one visit.

[+GEO WALKER]

I agree, they do seem to be popping up everywhere, including a lot of places where a traditional cache would work well.

Or directly on top of a traditional cache that explains exactly the same thing as the earth cache.

 

That said. Geology isn't intereseting to most folks when you get past volcano's and certain rock formations. Once the cool ones are taking up you can still have a lot of intersting locations...if you are a rockhoud or geologist type. Boring for everone else.

 

Now I realize from your profile you have yet to complete or create an Earthcache and as aresult understand your negativity to this issue. That being said, there is no logical reason that 2 caches w/completely different approaches can not share the same space...

 

Can you provide an example where the traditional cache "explains" an earthcahe, and does this explanation involve some type of actitivity related to the earthcache site?

 

I would have to disagree w/the comment of earthcaches only being of interest to the geologist type. Some of my best and most favorable responses have come from IT types and others who don not work in the Earth Sciences. I guess they provide an explanation to the "Golly Gee Wiz" factor.