Temp Caches Being "Listed" on GC.com

[+sbell111]

It amazes me how many people are posting in this thread with posts that clearly ignore the fact that this very issue was debated in two spirited threads just a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps someone could just link those very recent threads. That way we won't have to go round and round. The con-side won't have to argue that logging these event caches is 'against the rules' and the pro-side won't have to counter with 'Jeremy said it was OK'.

 

How can people keep getting wound up about issues that were just debated??? Everybody gets your position. You don't like the practice and you think that everyone should follow your lead. Message received (but not agreed with).

Edited November 8, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Here's a couple of links to the threads from just a few weeks ago. Please read them and enjoy the angst.

 

link 1

 

link 2

Edited November 8, 2007 by sbell111

[+The Leprechauns]

I'm failing to get the urge to grab my pitchfork and light my torch.

 

Perhaps when these loggers of temp caches start to erase MY finds. I'll tax a braincell to care. *yawwwn*

 

I love it when the geo-police make themselves known. Annnnd from several states away yet. Thanks OP.

Thanks for a BIG laugh with my morning coffee! That post is so ironic coming from you. Do you remember the pocket cache debate from summer 2006? My stats are free of pocket cache finds now. Yep, I actually deleted 'em, rather than watch people pick them apart. I didn't merely *say* I was going to delete them, then continue to log pocket cache finds.

[+Snoogans]

I'm failing to get the urge to grab my pitchfork and light my torch.

 

Perhaps when these loggers of temp caches start to erase MY finds. I'll tax a braincell to care. *yawwwn*

 

I love it when the geo-police make themselves known. Annnnd from several states away yet. Thanks OP.

Thanks for a BIG laugh with my morning coffee! That post is so ironic coming from you. Do you remember the pocket cache debate from summer 2006? My stats are free of pocket cache finds now. Yep, I actually deleted 'em, rather than watch people pick them apart. I didn't merely *say* I was going to delete them, then continue to log pocket cache finds.

 

Ummm, what's so ironic with my post.

 

I believe I'm on the exact same side of the fence I was on during the great pocket lint debate of aught six. Did the property line move?

 

I was just thinking in that case too it was someone crying foul from several states away.

[+Snoogans]

I believe I'm on the exact same side of the fence I was on during the great pocket lint debate of aught six. Did the property line move?

 

Or is something I said back then still stuck like a pebble in your shoe?

Edited November 8, 2007 by Snoogans

[+The Leprechauns]

I believe I'm on the exact same side of the fence I was on during the great pocket lint debate of aught six. Did the property line move?

 

Or is something I said back then still stuck like a pebble in your shoe?

Nope, what you and others said doesn't bother me at all, or else I would've said more. I solved the problem and moved on. I brought it up here since it was ironic to see you say "stay away from MY finds" (paraphrasing).

 

Pitchforks and torches can be carried on both sides of a fence. Whether it's temp caches at events or pocket caches, I much prefer putting down the pitchforks and torches, picking up a hiking stick and GPS, and finding a geocache.

[+baloo&bd]

Do a search in the forums and you will find that multiple logs on the same cache is not a new problem. I think that the thing that gets people bickering is that there is a small but vocal group who see geocaching as a game and the find count is how they keep score. Remove the score from public view and these people will quiet down and stop logging multiple Attended logs.

[+ArcherDragoon]

 

I'm failing to get the urge to grab my pitchfork and light my torch.

 

Perhaps when these loggers of temp caches start to erase MY finds. I'll tax a braincell to care. *yawwwn*

 

I love it when the geo-police make themselves known. Annnnd from several states away yet. Thanks OP.

 

That's awesome!!! Now I feel better

[+baloo&bd]

EDIT: Removed so only previous posters can see temp message.

 

Thanks for the post count.

Edited November 8, 2007 by baloo&bd

[+jaxstraww]

 

78 posts in 6 years and you used one on this thread. Wow.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I'm assuming that when the Additional Waypoint feature was implemented, Groundspeak intended to make use of the feature above and beyond it's current primary public use (mechanism for storing parking coordinates and getting them into GPX files, and as a mechansim for storing intermediate waypoints for multicaches in the database). Presumably, over time, as people add additional waypoints for their caches, the database is getting populated with all sorts of useful information that might be of great use to cache owners, reviewers, and Groundspeak in general.

 

Now consider the additional waypoint 'type' selection: some of the types have an obvious purpose (Final Location, Parking Area, Stages of a Multicache, Trailhead). But the purpose of the other two waypoint types are not so clear: Reference Point and Question to Answer. If I'm not mistaken, most of the temporary caches identified on the event cache mentioned in the OP makes use of the Reference Point additional waypoint type (I believe one of the temporary caches is identified using the Question to Answer additional waypoint type).

 

 

I think a legitimate question is whether or not TPTB intended additional waypoints to be used as a place to store and distribute temporary event cache information in general, and more specifically, if Reference Point and Question to Answer are the appropriate waypoint types for temporary caches. If so, perhaps it would make sense to say so, or name the types in a more obvious way (i.e. Event Temporary Cache Location) If this is not the intended use of this feature, or if the wrong waypoint types are being used to describe temporary event caches, is the additional waypoint table in the database going to be slowly filled with the wrong type of information as the use of this feature becomes more common for temporary event caches?

[+sbell111]

... Pitchforks and torches can be carried on both sides of a fence. Whether it's temp caches at events or pocket caches, I much prefer putting down the pitchforks and torches, picking up a hiking stick and GPS, and finding a geocache.

Just don't find it if the owner is still present.

[+sbell111]

Do a search in the forums and you will find that multiple logs on the same cache is not a new problem. I think that the thing that gets people bickering is that there is a small but vocal group who see geocaching as a game and the find count is how they keep score. Remove the score from public view and these people will quiet down and stop logging multiple Attended logs.

The funny thing about your post is that I thought that you were talking about the con-side until I got to the last few words.

[+sbell111]

... I think a legitimate question is whether or not TPTB intended additional waypoints to be used as a place to store and distribute temporary event cache information in general, and more specifically, if Reference Point and Question to Answer are the appropriate waypoint types for temporary caches. ...

Most likely, TPTB will decide, once again, that they don't care about this issue and remain silent.

[+BlueDeuce]

It amazes me how many people are posting in this thread with posts that clearly ignore the fact that this very issue was debated in two spirited threads just a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps someone could just link those very recent threads. That way we won't have to go round and round. The con-side won't have to argue that logging these event caches is 'against the rules' and the pro-side won't have to counter with 'Jeremy said it was OK'.

 

How can people keep getting wound up about issues that were just debated??? Everybody gets your position. You don't like the practice and you think that everyone should follow your lead. Message received (but not agreed with).

 

You are correct this wasn't supposed to be a hot topic until three months after the last go-round. If I'm reading my calendar right we are supposed to debating caches that require an access fee this week, knives and other inappropriate trade items next week, followed Religious tracts left in caches. (those two topic always follow each other) and random personal attacks closer to the end of the month. (Holiday stress related issues and all)

[+Quiggle]

You are correct this wasn't supposed to be a hot topic until three months after the last go-round. If I'm reading my calendar right we are supposed to debating caches that require an access fee this week, knives and other inappropriate trade items next week, followed Religious tracts left in caches. (those two topic always follow each other) and random personal attacks closer to the end of the month. (Holiday stress related issues and all)

Can I get a copy of this calendar? That way I can schedule my vacations accordingly. Well, my vacations as well as the therapy visits I need to be able to deal (and re-deal) with some of these threads.

 

[+sbell111]

It amazes me how many people are posting in this thread with posts that clearly ignore the fact that this very issue was debated in two spirited threads just a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps someone could just link those very recent threads. That way we won't have to go round and round. The con-side won't have to argue that logging these event caches is 'against the rules' and the pro-side won't have to counter with 'Jeremy said it was OK'.

 

How can people keep getting wound up about issues that were just debated??? Everybody gets your position. You don't like the practice and you think that everyone should follow your lead. Message received (but not agreed with).

You are correct this wasn't supposed to be a hot topic until three months after the last go-round. If I'm reading my calendar right we are supposed to debating caches that require an access fee this week, knives and other inappropriate trade items next week, followed Religious tracts left in caches. (those two topic always follow each other) and random personal attacks closer to the end of the month. (Holiday stress related issues and all)

Actually, my point wasn't that the issue was dredged up again so quickly. My point was that many people who participated in the other recent threads are clearly ignoring the points that were made in them. I tried to make my point clear, but I guess that I missed the mark.

[+ArcherDragoon]

It amazes me how many people are posting in this thread with posts that clearly ignore the fact that this very issue was debated in two spirited threads just a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps someone could just link those very recent threads. That way we won't have to go round and round. The con-side won't have to argue that logging these event caches is 'against the rules' and the pro-side won't have to counter with 'Jeremy said it was OK'.

 

How can people keep getting wound up about issues that were just debated??? Everybody gets your position. You don't like the practice and you think that everyone should follow your lead. Message received (but not agreed with).

 

Hey,

 

So, let me be among the first to say “opps”…the thread has kind off lost the topic brought up by the OP. I will admit that my statements probably helped take it a little off course.

 

So, as Cardinal Red stated (and as sbell11 reminded us) the topic of logging temp caches has been brought up many times…and most likely there will never be an agreement until gc.com draws their own line in the sand (not being negative here…just realistic). Currently, the guidelines (as they stand) are just that, guidelines…our disagreement is that some log temps and some don’t and who is right and who is wrong….but this is a topic for debate already in another thread…

 

The topic here is…

 

Were the temp caches being listed on the event page as Additional Waypoints a violation of the gc.com guidelines???

 

My opinion is No.

So, here is my reasoning…

If a cache is to be listed on gc.com, it receives its own/individual cache page. Were any of these temp caches listed on their own/individual cache page…nope. They were listed on the event page as part of the event. As Jeremy’s post in another thread (yep, bringing that up again…sorry) mentioned, it may not have been the original intent for Additional Waypoints, but he sees it as a acceptable use of that feature for Event Caches and their Temporary Caches.

 

If we really want to get “Black and White” about the spirit of the game…shouldn’t there only be Traditional caches??? More specifically…shouldn’t they all be Large-Traditional caches…All these other categories came about because of someone’s wish to play the same game a little bit differently then others…people don’t like puzzles, so they don’t do them…is it fair that my “Find Count” has puzzles??? To them it may or may not be…to me, what does it matter??? My find count is just that My Find Count…if you want to use them, go right ahead…but I am not playing against you…I am playing against myself.

 

So, as far as getting back onto the topic at hand…that is my answer…but more important that is my opinion…go ahead and tear it apart if you want. Will I sleep well tonight…yes, because I have chosen a side in this discussion and am willing to voice my opinion (thanks to Driver Carries Cache-another thread)…I will continue to participate as long as this remains a discussion.

 

At least the mob has arrived with their torches and is warming things up!!!

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

[+Kit Fox]

In short, there are many of us that would like Geocaching.com to have more black and white guidelines, to follow.

 

Kit--

 

Let me begin by saying that I don't intend this to be a personal attack against you. I am simply trying to understand your line of thinking. You are a very active person on these forums, and often advocate for changes as you believe they should be, and that is why I take this example from your post to ask my question. I would gladly welcome an answer from anyone to this question, not just you.

 

I can't help but wonder what it is about people such as yourself that makes you insist on defining what's right for everyone else. People participate in geocaching in different ways for different reasons. What may seem right to you may not seem right to someone else, and vice-versa.

 

Just like the idea of what is fun and what is not fun. What some people think is a fun aspect of this game, others want no part of. The bottom line is, these forums would be much more pleasant if people could accept that just because people disagree with them doesn't make that person wron, inferior, or any less of a participant in the game then they are.

 

I'm not advocating a hardline stance, I simply wish TPTB would make a real decision (not a fencesitter response) whether they are for or against logging event caches, by logging multiple attended logs. There has a been a zillion references to Jeremy's past posts regarding the issue. Both sides use his past posts to bolster there argument.

 

If he would simply say officially, "temp caches are approved by TPTB," or "there will be no more logging of temp caches on my website." I would be happy with his answer. This would end this silly debate for the most part.

 

Most of the debates on these forums have more to do with the "mixing pot" of ideologies that also love geocaching. Rather than debating "conservative versus liberal," or "religious versus athiest," we debate merits of the game.

[+ArcherDragoon]

I'm not advocating a hardline stance, I simply wish TPTB would make a real decision (not a fencesitter response) whether they are for or against logging event caches, by logging multiple attended logs. There has a been a zillion references to Jeremy's past posts regarding the issue. Both sides use his past posts to bolster there argument.

 

If he would simply say officially, "temp caches are approved by TPTB," or "there will be no more logging of temp caches on my website." I would be happy with his answer. This would end this silly debate for the most part.

 

Most of the debates on these forums have more to do with the "mixing pot" of ideologies that also love geocaching. Rather than debating "conservative versus liberal," or "religious versus athiest," we debate merits of the game.

 

Kit,

 

I guess as being a member of the group on the other side of the fence...I agree with your statement. I would follow what ever was stated by TPTB.

...no more temp caches logged on the site, then so be it, I would not log temp caches.

...temp cache logging is ok, then I would continue to log temp caches but still respect the views and opinions of those that most likely would not log temp caches.

 

Right now...with it being left to the finder and the owner...I respect the wishes of the owner. If temp caches are not allowed to be logged I will not log them. If the temp caches are allowed to be logged I will log them because I choose to log them. Either way, I will enjoy myself at the event and continue to go with or without temp caches...temp caches are not the reason I go to events...meeting new people and forming friendships is.

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

[+sbell111]

... If he would simply say officially, "temp caches are approved by TPTB," or "there will be no more logging of temp caches on my website." I would be happy with his answer. This would end this silly debate for the most part.

Jeremy posted clearly that he didn't care. Isn't that, combined with the fact that no steps have been taken to curb the practice, close enough? Edited November 8, 2007 by sbell111

[+briansnat]

Your stats aren't the main issue. Its the nasty stink created by all of the "liberalization of geocaching," ploys. Examples include:

 

1. Cachers log attends for non GC approved caches.

2. Cachers log finds for caches they never found, but since they visited "ground zero" they deserve a find.

3. Cachers log each waypoint of a multi as finds.

4. Cachers continue hiding crappy caches in crappy locations, all to increase their hide stats.

5. Cachers share TB and Geocoin lists to "discover" trackables they never found.

 

I can't help but wonder what it is about people such as yourself that makes you insist on defining what's right for everyone else. People participate in geocaching in different ways for different reasons. What may seem right to you may not seem right to someone else, and vice-versa.

 

It's all part of the morphing of this game from one where the point was to find boxes hidden in the woods, to one where the point is to accumulate smileys. The original sport was geocaching. This new game sometimes doesn't even involve using a GPS to find things. Perhaps we can call the new game Smiley Hunt, but it's no longer the sport it was. It's not geocaching.

 

To me, the pursuit of the almighty smiley has changed the sport for the worse. For example it's the reason for the explosion in mundane micros. This practice of multiple attendeds at events is just numbers pumping and a symptom of the change in the direction of this sport.

 

"Why do you care BrianSnat? How does the way we play the game effect you?"

 

Well the change in this sport has affected me. One of the things that attracted me to this sport in the beginning was the cool places it took me. I was able to load my GPS with waypoints and the vast majority of the time I would be directed to someplace interesting, scenic or offbeat.

 

No longer. Because of the influx of the smiley hunters I can't play the game the way I like to. If I do things the way I used to, I'm treated to a tour of strip malls, dumpster areas, trash strewn lots and Wal-marts. When I bring this up I'm told I'm going to have to change the way I play the game - which is my point.

 

So just as people are free to play the game as they choose and log bogus finds, log dozens of attendeds for attending one event, log bonus found its for standing on their heads at the cache site and whatever else they do to pump their numbers these days, I should be free to come here and say that I think it stinks without people casting aspersions on me and my motives.

Edited November 8, 2007 by briansnat

[+tozainamboku]

I love what KingBoreas has now posted on his cache page. And he is exactly right.

 

It seems that the same people that want the rules enforced exactly as written are the same ones that get upset when people do things within the rules that they just don't agree with.

 

You can't have it both ways.

tozainamboku has a Truth In Numbers section in his profile for a long time. Note that while I personally don't log temporary event caches there are somethings I have logged that a purist may object to - such as caches hidden while I was with the hider. Purist are free to adjust my numbers if the must for their own purpose.

[+sbell111]

I can't help but wonder what it is about people such as yourself that makes you insist on defining what's right for everyone else. People participate in geocaching in different ways for different reasons. What may seem right to you may not seem right to someone else, and vice-versa.

It's all part of the morphing of this game from one where the point was to find boxes hidden in the woods, to one where the point is to accumulate smileys. ...

I'm not saying that wasn't a fine rant, because it was. However, I think that it's fair to point out that the practice that you are railing about in this thread is finding boxes hidden in the woods; the very thing that you state that geocaching is supposed to be.

[+briansnat]

I can't help but wonder what it is about people such as yourself that makes you insist on defining what's right for everyone else. People participate in geocaching in different ways for different reasons. What may seem right to you may not seem right to someone else, and vice-versa.

It's all part of the morphing of this game from one where the point was to find boxes hidden in the woods, to one where the point is to accumulate smileys. ...

I'm not saying that wasn't a fine rant, because it was. However, I think that it's fair to point out that the practice that you are railing about in this thread is finding boxes hidden in the woods; the very thing that you state that geocaching is supposed to be.

 

Boxes that are not listed on this website because they do not comply with the guidelines here.

[+ArcherDragoon]

... If he would simply say officially, "temp caches are approved by TPTB," or "there will be no more logging of temp caches on my website." I would be happy with his answer. This would end this silly debate for the most part.

Jeremy posted clearly that he didn't care. Isn't that, combined with the fact that no steps have been taken to curb the practice, close enough?

Makes Sense...

 

The practice of Logging Temp Caches is not being ignored, but it is also not being called a problem. You want to log them...fine. You don't want to log them...fine. That is first up to the cache owner to say yes or no to logging temp caches and then it is up to the finder to decide if she/he will log those caches. I think the system works just fine the way it is.

 

If you don't agree, that is fine...I still resecpt your opinion.

[Mushtang]

When I bring this up I'm told I'm going to have to change the way I play the game - which is my point.

So other people should change the way they play the game so you won't have to change the way you play?

[+StarBrand]

... If he would simply say officially, "temp caches are approved by TPTB," or "there will be no more logging of temp caches on my website." I would be happy with his answer. This would end this silly debate for the most part.

Jeremy posted clearly that he didn't care. Isn't that, combined with the fact that no steps have been taken to curb the practice, close enough?

He also posted that it was silly and abusive.

 

Thus the need for a clear statement.

[+tozainamboku]

... If he would simply say officially, "temp caches are approved by TPTB," or "there will be no more logging of temp caches on my website." I would be happy with his answer. This would end this silly debate for the most part.

Jeremy posted clearly that he didn't care. Isn't that, combined with the fact that no steps have been taken to curb the practice, close enough?

Jeremy has clearly stated in the guidelines that temporary cache will not be listed as separate caches on this website. He also clearly suggested that coordinates for temporary event caches could be listed in the event description. The capability to add additional waypoint and have those waypoints show in the pocket query was precisely because cachers asked for this capability to avoid having to enter addition waypoints manually. It shouldn't matter if the additional is a parking location, a trailhead, a reference point you need to pass on your way to the cache, or a location where you get answers to questions for a multi or unknown cache. In his comment in this post, Jeremy clearly states that an event an contain "caches," much like multicaches. Unless he has changed his mind about this, it seems that you can use use the additional waypoint feature to list coordinates for temporary event caches.

 

As to whether you should log additional attended logs to for each temporary caches, Jeremy has said slightly different things on different occasions. At times he has said he didn't give two hoots if someone wants to log an event cache twice. Other times he call the practice "stupid". He has even indicated that he might see it as an abuse of the site if it gets out of hand. Jeremy seems to take the stance that geocaching is not a competition. Therefore he is not about to make changes to the site to enforce any one log per cache rule. Most cachers have a the ability to determine for themselves (or between the finder and the cache owner) what is a find and when to use a find log or attended log. Geocaching.com is not likely to make the statements that Kit Fox is asking for. One can simple say "My numbers are good because I know what I logged. Everyone else's numbers are suspect, but since there is not a competition it doesn't bother me."

 

Someone will point out that the numbers are used to point out someone as the "#1" cacher or to celebrate someone's milestone. Remember that it is just a game and if you recognize that someone is counting what you personally won't count there number will be higher. You're then free to celebrate your milestones and have have people congratulate you on doing so without logging temporary event caches.

[+StarBrand]

When I bring this up I'm told I'm going to have to change the way I play the game - which is my point.

So other people should change the way they play the game so you won't have to change the way you play?

Can't we on the other side of the debate ask you the same thing???

 

 

edit for spellin

Edited November 8, 2007 by StarBrand

[Mushtang]

When I bring this up I'm told I'm going to have to change the way I play the game - which is my point.

So other people should change the way they play the game so you won't have to change the way you play?

Can't we on the other side of the debate ask you the same thing???

Sure. Go ahead and ask.

[+briansnat]

When I bring this up I'm told I'm going to have to change the way I play the game - which is my point.

So other people should change the way they play the game so you won't have to change the way you play?

 

Did I say that?

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I much prefer putting down the pitchforks and torches, picking up a hiking stick and GPS, and finding a geocache.

And if it's listed on this site, log it!

[+TrailGators]

EDIT: Removed so only previous posters can see temp message.

 

Thanks for the post count.

 

Edit: Removed temp comment. Post count has been pumped up by one.

Edited November 8, 2007 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

When I bring this up I'm told I'm going to have to change the way I play the game - which is my point.

So other people should change the way they play the game so you won't have to change the way you play?

Did I say that?

It seemed that way to me, which is why I asked the question. If I was wrong I'm sorry. Please elaborate so I'll understand.

 

It seemed that you're unhappy with the way the game is currently played, that you're not able to play the way you want to because of the way other people play, and that the only way you'd be able to play the way you wanted to is if those other people went back to the way you enjoyed playing.

 

If that summary is incorrect then I've misunderstood you somewhere.

[+TrailGators]

EDIT: Removed so only previous posters can see temp message.

 

Thanks for the post count.

 

Edit: Removed temp comment. Post count has been pumped up by one.

[+TrailGators]

EDIT: Removed so only previous posters can see temp message.

 

Thanks for the post count.

 

Edit: Removed temp comment. Post count has been pumped up by one.

[+TrailGators]

EDIT: Removed so only previous posters can see temp message.

 

Thanks for the post count.

 

Edit: Removed temp comment. Post count has been pumped up by one.

[+TrailGators]

I hope reading my temp posts don't bother you. Imagine reading hundreds of these when you go back to read everyone's logs at an event.....

[+wimseyguy]

It amazes me how many people are posting in this thread with posts that clearly ignore the fact that this very issue was debated in two spirited threads just a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps someone could just link those very recent threads. That way we won't have to go round and round. The con-side won't have to argue that logging these event caches is 'against the rules' and the pro-side won't have to counter with 'Jeremy said it was OK'.

 

How can people keep getting wound up about issues that were just debated??? Everybody gets your position. You don't like the practice and you think that everyone should follow your lead. Message received (but not agreed with).

 

You are correct this wasn't supposed to be a hot topic until three months after the last go-round. If I'm reading my calendar right we are supposed to debating caches that require an access fee this week, knives and other inappropriate trade items next week, followed Religious tracts left in caches. (those two topic always follow each other) and random personal attacks closer to the end of the month. (Holiday stress related issues and all)

Wow, thanks so much for clarifying that. I thought that my timing was off, and it was time for this debate once again. I was afraid that I wouldn't have time to resupply myself with sweet potato tracts before the next religious tract discussion.

 

I agree that geocaching has changed in the five+ years that I've been around. Many changes are for the better, some are not. Some haven't even happened yet, so I'm not sure if they will be beneficial to my mode of playing. I sure hope they are.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I'm assuming that when the Additional Waypoint feature was implemented, Groundspeak intended to make use of the feature above and beyond it's current primary public use (mechanism for storing parking coordinates and getting them into GPX files, and as a mechansim for storing intermediate waypoints for multicaches in the database). Presumably, over time, as people add additional waypoints for their caches, the database is getting populated with all sorts of useful information that might be of great use to cache owners, reviewers, and Groundspeak in general.

 

Now consider the additional waypoint 'type' selection: some of the types have an obvious purpose (Final Location, Parking Area, Stages of a Multicache, Trailhead). But the purpose of the other two waypoint types are not so clear: Reference Point and Question to Answer. If I'm not mistaken, most of the temporary caches identified on the event cache mentioned in the OP makes use of the Reference Point additional waypoint type (I believe one of the temporary caches is identified using the Question to Answer additional waypoint type).

 

 

I think a legitimate question is whether or not TPTB intended additional waypoints to be used as a place to store and distribute temporary event cache information in general, and more specifically, if Reference Point and Question to Answer are the appropriate waypoint types for temporary caches. If so, perhaps it would make sense to say so, or name the types in a more obvious way (i.e. Event Temporary Cache Location) If this is not the intended use of this feature, or if the wrong waypoint types are being used to describe temporary event caches, is the additional waypoint table in the database going to be slowly filled with the wrong type of information as the use of this feature becomes more common for temporary event caches?

Actually, a "reference point" could be the point on a trail where there is a fork. It isn't necessarily another "trailhead" but it is a point of reference. It could also be the location of some landmark on the side of the trail. An example might be, "Be sure to pass this point before leaving the main trail." This can be extremely useful when there are several bends in the trail and you don't want the seeker to bushwhack until they have to.

 

"Question to answer" is used for virtual stages of a multicache where the cache owner didn't place a clue but used an existing item such as a plaque. Example: "What year did XXXX happen? The third digit is E in your coordinates AB° CD.EFG"

[+ArcherDragoon]

... If he would simply say officially, "temp caches are approved by TPTB," or "there will be no more logging of temp caches on my website." I would be happy with his answer. This would end this silly debate for the most part.

Jeremy posted clearly that he didn't care. Isn't that, combined with the fact that no steps have been taken to curb the practice, close enough?

He also posted that it was silly and abusive.

 

Thus the need for a clear statement.

This may open another can of worms...but I guess so be it...I just want to get all the "facts" straight...

 

Could you provide a link to the thread where he states the practice of logging temps is silly and abusive. I keep finding the same tread and he doesn't say anything about the practice being silly nor abusive...is there another thread I just can't find. No quotes please...I want to read the thread to get the whole picture within its context.

 

I am not "calling anyone out" nor am I "pointing fingers"...i just want to find more information.

 

Thanks,

ArcherDragoon

[+tozainamboku]

It's all part of the morphing of this game from one where the point was to find boxes hidden in the woods, to one where the point is to accumulate smileys. The original sport was geocaching. This new game sometimes doesn't even involve using a GPS to find things. Perhaps we can call the new game Smiley Hunt, but it's no longer the sport it was. It's not geocaching.

 

To me, the pursuit of the almighty smiley has changed the sport for the worse. For example it's the reason for the explosion in mundane micros. This practice of multiple attendeds at events is just numbers pumping and a symptom of the change in the direction of this sport.

 

"Why do you care BrianSnat? How does the way we play the game effect you?"

 

Well the change in this sport has affected me. One of the things that attracted me to this sport in the beginning was the cool places it took me. I was able to load my GPS with waypoints and the vast majority of the time I would be directed to someplace interesting, scenic or offbeat.

 

No longer. Because of the influx of the smiley hunters I can't play the game the way I like to. If I do things the way I used to, I'm treated to a tour of strip malls, dumpster areas, trash strewn lots and Wal-marts. When I bring this up I'm told I'm going to have to change the way I play the game - which is my point.

 

So just as people are free to play the game as they choose and log bogus finds, log dozens of attendeds for attending one event, log bonus found its for standing on their heads at the cache site and whatever else they do to pump their numbers these days, I should be free to come here and say that I think it stinks without people casting aspersions on me and my motives.

I'm not sure exactly why you let these changes effect you. You don't have to log temporary event caches. You don't have to log bonus logs for doing something silly. You don't have to do any additional logging requirements - although if you do want your find stats to be correct you might have to log a find one of your own caches if some owner decides to delete your log. You don't have find "lame" parking lot caches - although you may have to do more work to filter out the caches you might not want to find. There are far more boxes hidden in the woods that take you to cool places than when you began. Yes there is is a change in the sport that requires you to take some time selecting the caches you want to search for. But with a little bit of work you can play the game you enjoy playing. And I suspect that is what you are already doing.

 

Not all of the changes can be blamed on people emphasizing the "score". Many people prefer urban hides to hikes in the woods. They enjoy that caches can be found anywhere and often in convenient places. They may like quick park and grabs that they can get in their busy schedule, just like briansnat prefers long hikes in the woods. The sport has changed because it attracts a more varied group of people. When geocaching began, the people who had handheld GPS receivers were already outdoors types - hikers, hunters, mountain bikers, etc. Now we have people who have GPS enabled cell phones and even people who read about geocaching and got a GPSr just for that. Your going to get a different mix of geocaches that reflects the change in the community. It does seem reasonable for briansnat and others to ask for changes in the website to make it easier to find the caches they like to find and avoid others. It doesn't seem reasonable to accuse the people who like something else of ruining your fun.

[+Cardinal Red]

Here's a couple of links to the threads from just a few weeks ago. Please read them and enjoy the angst.

 

link 1

 

link 2

 

I checked the links you provided. I did not find anything relevant to this topic. Did I miss something? Can you provide a link where there has ever been mention on this Forum of Temporary Caches being listed as additional Waypoints? Can you provide a link where TPTB have ever commented on Temp Caches being listed as additional Waypoints?

 

I wanted to know if this site allowed this event to be published in it's current form, or if they were slipped in post publication. Many have accused TPTB of straddling the fence on the Temp Cache issue. If they allowed this Event to be published in it's current form, that tells ME something.

 

ArcherDragoon is the ONLY person posting to this thread who has actually commented on THIS topic. Thank You AD for at least reading what I wrote. EVERY other response to this thread has been off topic.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Here's a couple of links to the threads from just a few weeks ago. Please read them and enjoy the angst.

 

link 1

 

link 2

 

I checked the links you provided. I did not find anything relevant to this topic. Did I miss something? Can you provide a link where there has ever been mention on this Forum of Temporary Caches being listed as additional Waypoints? Can you provide a link where TPTB have ever commented on Temp Caches being listed as additional Waypoints?

 

I wanted to know if this site allowed this event to be published in it's current form, or if they were slipped in post publication. Many have accused TPTB of straddling the fence on the Temp Cache issue. If they allowed this Event to be published in it's current form, that tells ME something.

 

ArcherDragoon is the ONLY person posting to this thread who has actually commented on THIS topic. Thank You AD for at least reading what I wrote. EVERY other response to this thread has been off topic.

I think what sbell111 was getting at is that there were many posts off the actually topic debating posting finds on temps...and I admit I may have contributed to that as well...

 

So back to the topic at hand (maybe my last couple posts didn't stay where I wanted them to...)

 

Was the way the temps listed on the event in question a violation of gc.com guidelines???

My opinion is clear...my answer was and still is No...but what is you opinion and please explain. I explained my opinion.

 

---

If a cache is to be listed on gc.com, it receives its own/individual cache page. Were any of these temp caches listed on their own/individual cache page…nope. They were listed on the event page as part of the event. As Jeremy’s post in another thread (yep, bringing that up again…sorry) mentioned, it may not have been the original intent for Additional Waypoints, but he sees it as a acceptable use of that feature for Event Caches and their Temporary Caches.

---

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

[+tozainamboku]

ArcherDragoon is the ONLY person posting to this thread who has actually commented on THIS topic. Thank You AD for at least reading what I wrote. EVERY other response to this thread has been off topic.

I'm sorry, I though my first response here addressed the OP. I do agree it has gotten off topic. I just responded to briansnat as to whether an emphasis on numbers has caused the sport to change - clearly an entirely different topic.

 

I think my answer makes it pretty clearly that it is OK to list the coordinates of temporary event caches. Are you implying that having temporary caches at an event is against the guidelines? If no one logged an extra attended at this event, would you have complained that the temporary caches were listed as additional waypoints? If your answer to either of these questions is Yes, then I appeal to TPTB to post their ruling on this. Otherwise there is no need. This is an appropriate use of additional waypoints.

[+Kabuthunk]

Eh, my theory on these temporary event caches is "whatever floats their boat". If they want to log 30 finds for one event, all the more power to 'em. I personally think the find-count is nigh-irrelevant. Heck, if they want to go as far as logging a 'find' for every stage of a multi-cache, if the owner for some reason allows it, I say let 'em. They want a find count of 50k, whatever. God knows if I made a multi, it wouldn't be allowed, but I'm sure there's some cache owners that would run with it.

 

I dunno, if I was to go to that event, I'd just log one entry, and just edit it to list all the temp caches associated with it. One event, one 'find'.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Kabuthunk

[+Rockin Roddy]

those additional waypoints weren't even available at the time Jeremy made his posts (I don't think so at least), so how could he possibly see it as acceptible?

 

Jeremy stated very clearly that he thought this practice was "silly and abusive" (and I believe there was another "S" word used). I doubt seriously that the additional waypoint feature was designed to be used like this (and seems like an abuse IMHO).

 

What I find funny about the whole "I should change" argument is that those who are saying it should be the way it was are the ones being condemned while those saying change is good are saying we should stop trying to change the game to OUR standards. Seems the changes are being made so those in the latter catagory can enjoy this "sport" THEIR way (to their standards) and forget how it was played in the beginning.

[+sbell111]

... If he would simply say officially, "temp caches are approved by TPTB," or "there will be no more logging of temp caches on my website." I would be happy with his answer. This would end this silly debate for the most part.

Jeremy posted clearly that he didn't care. Isn't that, combined with the fact that no steps have been taken to curb the practice, close enough?

He also posted that it was silly and abusive.

 

Thus the need for a clear statement.

Please link to the 'abusive' comment.

[+StarBrand]

.....

ArcherDragoon is the ONLY person posting to this thread who has actually commented on THIS topic. Thank You AD for at least reading what I wrote. EVERY other response to this thread has been off topic.

I apologize for further rants,

but I think you will find that I did directly address your original question in my 2nd post.