Taking the Fun ot of GeoCaching - Groundspeak - Geocaching

[+the hermit crabs]

Virtuals have problems with armchair cachers? Figure out a way to stop 'em and let virtuals live. Kind of like saying too many people litter soda bottles so lets get rid of soda bottles.

Armchair logging had nothing whatsoever to do with Groundspeak's decision to stop listing new virtual caches. What drove virtuals away was an inability to come up with an adequate set of guidelines for what would make an appropriate virtual. Nobody inside or outside of Groundspeak was able to come up with a definition for "wow".

That's quite likely part of the reason. I seem to recall that back when new virtuals were first banned, one of the reasons for it that I read was something like this: when land managers were approached about allowing geocaching, some of them were a little uneasy about it, until they head about virtuals. They would then say "Okay, we will allow geocaching here -- but only virtuals," -- so they weren't being the bad guys and outright banning caching, but they weren't allowing real caches to be placed either. The thought was that this mindset was spreading, and that the only way to keep real caches from being squeezed out was to eliminate virtuals.

 

I don't know if this reasons was given by a Groundspeak person, or was just an opinion or a guess floated by someone in the forums, but it seemed to make sense to me.

[+The Leprechauns]

{snip}

• You seem to be quite unhappy. Indeed, you have taken great pains to make that quite clear. Have you ever considered for even a moment that perhaps your unhappiness has nothing at all to do with Groundspeak nor with geocaching, and rather, that it has everything to do with you and your mental/emotional/spiritual habits, assumptions and attitudes? Could you just let go of all that old junk and allow yourself to be happy, for even a moment?
  
• Lastly, and it would be grossly unfair of me not to say this, in light of the fact that you asked for my opinion and input, although there are some who might wish to take the easy way out and avoid saying this to you, because it is a bit blunt and a bit candid, and frankly, there really is no other way to say it; here goes: Have you ever considered, even for just one day, going to your heart and simply living life from a place of gratitude and appreciation, and of giving love and appreciation to the world and to all that you see instead of whining that no one is doing things the way you want them to?
  

{snip}

 

You know, the OP's post irritatee me a bit. Now that I have finished writing my thoughtful, urbane and sophisticated reply, I plan to go soothe my nerves by having a nice long drink of radioactive water from my Radium Ore Revigator Urn.

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said "A Vinny saved is a Vinny urned." Or something like that.

 

Ben also had these words of wisdom: "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." One could say the same thing of the Cache Listing Guidelines.

[+TexasGringo]

***The point was that just because a group of people like something, doesn't mean it belongs on this site.***

 

The point is that just because a group of people DOES NOT like something, doesn't mean it belongs on ANOTHER-site.

Edited February 23, 2008 by Drooling_Mongoloid

[+Prime Suspect]

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said "A Vinny saved is a Vinny urned." Or something like that.

 

Ben also had these words of wisdom: "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." One could say the same thing of the Cache Listing Guidelines.

I doubt Ben said the latter. He would have known that's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

[+PhxChem]

And even if 100% of the Geocachers agree...and the 1 person from Geocaching.com says no...who do you think wins?

 

Well, have we actually seen a situation like that? I agree that TPTB (ha!) have the ultimate say. But if 100%.....heck, maybe even 60% of cachers have an opinion, I TPTB would want to listen, lest they alienate a HUGE chunk of the community.

[+briansnat]

Going back to the OP

 

Who out there has tried to create an event, cache or other type of geocaching find that was told that it didn't fit within the rules?

 

I had one , an event, got the no go reply and two weeks later the reviewer used it as their event for their locale. No lie, my geocaching friends are still laughing about that. I personally thought it pretty dang funny too.

 

 

Sounds like a pretty good example of the idea that the reviewers can take a little too much latitude.

 

Never believe everything you read on the internet.

 

You mean things you read on the Internet might not be true? Aww g'wan.

[+otazman]

Doesn't anyone ever consider that changes should be made when people complain about things? We know that Jeremy doesn't like virtuals on this site. I don't agree, and neither do many people, but the opinions of the people paying the bills don't seem to matter on everything. Sometimes they do - supposedly archived caches are coming back to GC google maps when they get around to it (It's one thing to agree to change something back to the way it was, completely another to actually do it). Sometimes they don't.

 

I just think we have way too many people on here who feel it necessary every time someone says "Hey - we can make this better by...", they say "Live with the way things are, or leave."

Now that I got everyone’s hackles up I will post my final thoughts.

1. I LOVE geocaching and I am not going to leave, sorry everyone who might be disappointed.

2. I am not the only one who is disappointed about the direction Geocaching has gone. I have received at least 6 responses off list from people who are lurkers and have left Geocaching and gone to alternative sights. I didn't even know alternatives to Geocaching existed and I don't plan to visit them. But this supports my theory that people have gotten upset enough to leave.

3. I completely agree with FireRef check the bold quote above.

4. I do have one proposed solution I think virtual caches should be brought back in the instance when a National Park or Monument specifically disallows caching. There are too many gorgeous wilderness areas that should have a geocache but can't. Don't call them Virtual call them something else? Monument and Park Cache something like an EarthCache??? Check the Virtual Caches around Crater to see all the activity they have received during the summer months obviously people like them! I completely agree that a virtual cache in a McDonalds or in a city is not appropriate for Geocaching. So who do I tell to get my idea looked at?

5. I thought a lot of the responses where appropriate and fine especially the stick up the... responses. But the responses that revolved around this is a for profit sight is just completely ludicrous what does a profit or non-profit have to do with the discussion? I can guarantee that if the first concern is making money then it will quickly doom it to not be profitable.

 

OTazMan

[+cache_test_dummies]

Now that I got everyone’s hackles up I will post my final thoughts.

I didn't realize the purpose of your opening post was to 'get everyone's hackles up'. Now that I understand that, I regret having responded to the issues you raised.

[Mushtang]

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said "A Vinny saved is a Vinny urned." Or something like that.

 

Ben also had these words of wisdom: "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." One could say the same thing of the Cache Listing Guidelines.

I doubt Ben said the latter. He would have known that's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Old Ben also invented a much improved still, and would often confuse the Declaration with the Constitution after having too much moonshine.

 

Then the revenuers came along and took the fun out of DIY corn mash.

[+KBI]

Now that I got everyone’s hackles up I will post my final thoughts.

I didn't realize the purpose of your opening post was to 'get everyone's hackles up'. Now that I understand that, I regret having responded to the issues you raised.

My hackles are down, which is right where they've been all along.

 

What should Geocaching do to resolve these problems:

1. Bring back Virtual Caches and Reverse Caches.

No thanks. Don’t need ‘em.

 

You are welcome to start your own VirtualCachesandReverseCaches.com site any time you like.

 

2. Loosen up how event rules and caches are applied.

You can host any kind of event you like. Just because you’re throwing a party, however, doesn’t give you the right to demand that some other person advertise it on his website.

 

3. Allow creativity and bending of the rules or more flexible rules!!!!!

The rules seem to work just fine. Don’t like ‘em? Start your own listing site.

 

4. Geocache administrators should be NICE and allow creativity.

Geocache administrators have never been anything less than very NICE to me, and I have never seen them impose even the slightest bit of creative control over any geocache or geocacher. They do an awesome job of policing practical issues, but they stay the heck out of creative matters, which is the way it should be. You should be thankful.

 

5. Stop trying to force Waymarking on us Geocachers.

I turn and look, yet I see no gun to my head. How are you being forced?

Edited February 24, 2008 by KBI

[+Renegade Knight]

....The rules seem to work just fine. Don’t like ‘em? Start your own listing site....

 

Your larger post is all well and good, but as a customer you do have every right to make suggestions and requests of your favorite business partner. While the business has the right to do as they will, listening where practical is always a good idea. Not making those suggestions and not listening doesn't do anyone any good. Except that other site you are hoping someone starts as evidenced by your ongoing suggestions to do just that.

[+KBI]

....The rules seem to work just fine. Don’t like ‘em? Start your own listing site....

Your larger post is all well and good, but as a customer you do have every right to make suggestions and requests of your favorite business partner.

Yes, he has a right to make suggestions and requests. I also have a right to give my opinion on his publicly stated suggestions and requests. If he doesn’t want folks to read and respond to his suggestions and requests he should make his suggestions and requests to Groundspeak via a more private channel, such as email, instead of here in the public forums.

 

While the business has the right to do as they will, listening where practical is always a good idea.

Agreed. Groundspeak would be wise to listen carefully to all serious and reasonable suggestions. Groundspeak would also be wise to judge carefully which suggestions appear to be serious and reasonable.

 

Not making those suggestions and not listening doesn't do anyone any good.

You give me too much credit. I do not officially represent Groundspeak, nor do I intend to give the impression that I officially represent Groundspeak. It is up to Groundspeak to decide whether to take otazman’s suggestions seriously and/or give them diligent consideration. Whether I take otazman’s suggestions seriously and/or give them diligent consideration is irrelevant.

Edited February 24, 2008 by KBI

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

...

What should Geocaching do to resolve these problems:

1. Bring back Virtual Caches and Reverse Caches.

No thanks. Don’t need ‘em.

 

You are welcome to start your own VirtualCachesandReverseCaches.com site any time you like.

 

2. Loosen up how event rules and caches are applied.

You can host any kind of event you like. Just because you’re throwing a party, however, doesn’t give you the right to demand that some other person advertise it on his website.

 

3. Allow creativity and bending of the rules or more flexible rules!!!!!

The rules seem to work just fine. Don’t like ‘em? Start your own listing site.

 

4. Geocache administrators should be NICE and allow creativity.

Geocache administrators have never been anything less than very NICE to me, and I have never seen them impose even the slightest bit of creative control over any geocache or geocacher. They do an awesome job of policing practical issues, but they stay the heck out of creative matters, which is the way it should be. You should be thankful.

 

5. Stop trying to force Waymarking on us Geocachers.

I turn and look, yet I see no gun to my head. How are you being forced?

Very well put, KBI. I could not have said it better myself. Strangely, however, both you and I, along with other folks, already gave him much the same advice several pages ago, and yet the OP keeps ranting about the same old/same old issues. In other words, he has chosen neither to leave nor to to start his own listing site and instead, he has chosen to continue to make the same illogical arguments and illogical and unreasonable demands on others. Thus, I must conclude that we have a troll amongst us. I hope that the mods close the thread shortly, as the OPs troll rants are getting very tiring. In fact, I must go have another mug of radioactive water from my radium water jug to soothe my nerves.

Edited February 24, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+briansnat]

I am not the only one who is disappointed about the direction Geocaching has gone.

 

There has been no change in direction since you've joined, so how can you be disappointed in a change in direction that doesn't exist for you?

 

New virtuals were effectively eliminated in early 2003 by the introduction of the "wow factor". I can see someone who has been involved for 5 or 6 years lamenting their move off this site, but for someone who joined recently? It's like me complaining that there are no more horse and buggies or streetcars.

Edited February 24, 2008 by briansnat

[Keystone]

In contrast, the guidelines for event caches have been significantly *relaxed* in favor of encouraging more geocachers to set up more types of events. Five years ago, an event had to be geocaching-related. Now, an event can be held for just about anything, so long as it's organized BY geocachers and FOR geocachers. Events used to be published no more than three months prior to the event date. Now, it's six months if good cause is shown. We now see "flash mob" events, "one minute micro" events, and all sorts of other things which some people find to be fun, but which would have been archived in a heartbeat five years ago.

 

Knowing the history of the listing guidelines and how they have become more favorable to cache hiders in cases like this one, I wanted to laugh when I read the OP. But, when I laugh, the stick pokes me and it hurts.

[+Team Cotati]

I am not the only one who is disappointed about the direction Geocaching has gone.

 

There has been no change in direction since you've joined, so how can you be disappointed in a change in direction that doesn't exist for you?

 

New virtuals were effectively eliminated in early 2003 by the introduction of the "wow factor". I can see someone who has been involved for 5 or 6 years lamenting their move off this site, but for someone who joined recently? It's like me complaining that there are no more horse and buggies or streetcars.

 

Yeah, that was a really creative way to kill virtuals for sure. As for 'modern day' geocachers having an opinion wrt the demise of virtual geocaches, that has zero to do with how long they might have been involved in the activity. Since there are hundreds if not thousands of virtual geocaches listed on the gc.com www site modern day cachers certainly have ample opportunity to find and appreciate virtual caches. In such cases, they might also develop the opinion that they'd like to see more of them. They have a lot of nerve, don't they?

Edited February 24, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+KC8JZK]

Ok,

 

Here's my .02 worth.

 

1) Bring back virtuals only in areas where a physical cache is not allowed.

 

2) DONT bring back locationless caches because some of the logging requirements by the owners is way to restrictive i.e each location may be logged only one.. basically allowing only one finder per area

 

3) keep micros because some cachers may be physically unable to get to other caches, if lifting a lamppost skirt is all they can do then let them enjoy it.

Edited February 25, 2008 by KC8JZK

[Mushtang]

4) Have a way for other cachers to input parking coords for a cache if the owner didnt,

There IS a way. Just put the parking coords in your log when you log your Find. If the owner doesn't want them on the page, be prepared to have your log deleted and to be asked to re-log without the coords.

 

If you mean there should be a way to add parking coords that that the owner can't do anything about I'd ask why you think you should have that power over me on MY cache? It's certainly not as bad as posting a spoiler picture of the cammo job that I can't delete, but it's definitely changing the experience for future cachers. It's more like the folks that tie ribbons to nearby tree limbs as a pointer for future finders. If they were able to find the cache, why do they not think others can?

 

And if YOU were able to find the right parking spot, what makes you think the rest of the cachers can't?

 

Not all caches with tricky parking are placed with the tricky parking in mind, but some definitely are. Don't ruin my cache for other people, thankyouverymuch.

[Clan Riffster]

Don't call them Virtual call them something else?

Brilliant idea! Let's call them something else! I nominate the phrase "Waymarks".

 

what does a profit or non-profit have to do with the discussion?

As anyone who hasn't gone to a 'Gubment' school can attest, the For Profit/Not For Profit angle is critical to this discussion. Also, because this is a for profit site, the owner(s) are the ones who get to decide the direction this site takes. Because this is a for profit business, the owner(s) want to present the best product they can market, as a means to maximize their profits. Judging from the way the other listing services are doing, I'd say GC is doing a great job at marketing itself.

[+briansnat]

3) keep micros because some cachers may be physically unable to get to other caches, if lifting a lamppost skirt is all they can do then let them enjoy it.

 

What makes you think they are getting rid of micros?

Edited February 25, 2008 by briansnat

[+THE_Chris]

Personally, I dont like Virtuals. Theres no box there to find, and you can stick a virtual anywhere. You'd get this almighty flood of virtuals, which would suck.

 

Geocaching is fine the way it is IMO. All we need are more caches and more cachers! (In Ireland anyway )

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Don't call them Virtual call them something else?

Brilliant idea! Let's call them something else! I nominate the phrase "Waymarks".

 

what does a profit or non-profit have to do with the discussion?

As anyone who hasn't gone to a 'Gubment' school can attest, the For Profit/Not For Profit angle is critical to this discussion. Also, because this is a for profit site, the owner(s) are the ones who get to decide the direction this site takes. Because this is a for profit business, the owner(s) want to present the best product they can market, as a means to maximize their profits. Judging from the way the other listing services are doing, I'd say GC is doing a great job at marketing itself.

I agree with your statements, particularly with your point that GC must be doing a good job marketing itself. I have done the math on this one many times, and it always amazes me how much the admins at GC manage to get done on relatively little income, and yet still manage to offer free service to many members, and also manage to come up with guidelines that balance the conflicting demands/needs of very diverse populations and constituencies. I am rather amazed that they manage to pull it off.

 

. . .Further, I remain amazed that the OP continues to argue and demand that other people and organizations (including Groundspeak) conform to his demands, rather than simply doing one of the following:

• start his own geocache listing site, set up the way he would like it.
  
• move his activities to a different cache listing site
  
• quit the sport
  

[+Confucius' Cat]

Ok,

 

Here's my .02 worth.

 

1) Bring back virtuals only in areas where a physical cache is not allowed.

 

Considering someone might get actual verifiable written permission just about anywhere if the right person asks the right person in the right way at the right time, how would GC define "areas where a physical cache is not allowed?"

 

It's kinda like "close the royal patent office, everything that can be invented already has" (which, legend has it, was actually proposed in GB in the 19th century). "No one has ever been allowed a cache here before so we need to open this one up for virtuals."

 

We have even seen recently that the NPS has allowed a few caches. Property managers can change their minds and just because someone cannot get permission doesn't mean no one can.

 

I would also note that I have heard of managers disallowing virtuals also (even though this is totally unenforceable other than convincing the listing site not to list them).

 

Still the "love it or leave it" argument is as valid as ever.

 

If I am dissatisfied with AT&T cellphone service I can cancel it and go to Verizon or Sprint or half a dozen other providers. Then i can get disgruntled with the crappy coverage of the one I moved to and move back. (Been there, done that- a lot of people do.) Or I can beat my head against the wall trying to get AT&T (or any other incredibly huge company) to listen to my complaints and actually improve their service. That too, is my CHOICE.

 

I figure the chances of getting ANY company to listen to a lone voice with no money is pretty slim even if one says, "pretty please with artificial, low cholesterol, non-fat, low CO2, eco-friendly sweetener on it." Imagine how far one gets with "you ***** better change!!!"

 

Perhaps I'll Google "www.trollcaching.com?"

[+WRASTRO]

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1312916

 

Everything that can be quoted has already been quoted, or some such.

[+WRASTRO]

Just to make sure my previous post isn't mis-interpreted. We (mostly George) have a great time enjoying this game and don't plan to be stopping any time soon. The game has evolved since we started playing in late 2003 but we still have a great time playing. We have never expected TPTB to be responsible for our enjoyment of the game. We have always understood that our enjoyment of the game was up to us and how we choose to play the game.

 

We have hidden ammo cans, well cammoed micros and a couple of NRV caches. Some have survived and some have died a natural death. Our first find was a tupperware container wrapped in a black plastic bag and that cache is still active with several hundred finds. Our last find at this point was a gladware container inside a baggie on a branch in a tree. Pretty lame but we enjoyed a walk in a nice park that we have visited many times because of geocaching.

 

Only a cacher can take the fun out of geocaching by deciding it isn't fun the way he/she is playing it or wants to make others play it.

[+eagsc7]

Perhaps I'll Google "www.trollcaching.com?"

 

Or you could just visit www.terracaching.com because if you actually googled the above, you'd get asked if you meant www.terracaching.com. In which Yes... Its the second best(only because this was the first) But Does allow Virtuals AND Locationless.

 

Talking of which...

2) DONT bring back locationless caches because some of the logging requirements by the owners is way to restrictive i.e each location may be logged only one.. basically allowing only one finder per area

 

There are quite a few(20-40) Terracachers in our local area, and unless its something Really Strange, we can usually find it within a 20-30 mile radius. The only one that I can think of that I only know there is one is the 1/4 scale train driving in which I just have to call and arrange a meeting time. I'm sure there are more, but I do still agree about Locationless being a now exclusive of Terracaching.com. It would have been nice if we could log the old ones that were on geocaching.com. I did see a list at one time of most of them, but can't seem to find it now

 

The Steaks

[+Devil Duckies]

Can someone explain the purpose/point of the guideline that reads:

 

"If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a “Power Trail”), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together. A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache."

 

It's listed under Cache Saturation

 

This was one of the best caches we've found, Dusk 'til Dawn, GCNKF3

 

And this guideline is stopping us from placing a daytime version along the same loop trail. This area is far from saturated and there would be no proximity issue with any of the parts of our new caches and the existing caches.

Edited February 27, 2008 by devil duckies,peter&judy

[+briansnat]

Can someone explain the purpose/point of the guideline that reads:

 

"If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a “Power Trail”), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together. A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache."

 

It's listed under Cache Saturation

 

This was one of the best caches we've found, url=http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=bb7a8710-4603-472c-b810-9063830a9410]Dusk 'til Dawn, GCNKF3[/url]

 

And this guideline is stopping us from placing a daytime version along the same loop trail. This area is far from saturated and there would be no proximity issue with any of the parts of our new caches and the existing caches.

 

I'd say the point of that is that TPTB don't want power trails.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Only a cacher can take the fun out of geocaching by deciding it isn't fun the way he/she is playing it or wants to make others play it.

Yeppers, it's all about attitude.

 

Now go away and let him enjoy his pity party!

[+TrailGators]

Can someone explain the purpose/point of the guideline that reads:

 

"If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a "Power Trail"), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together. A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache."

 

It's listed under Cache Saturation

 

This was one of the best caches we've found, url=http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=bb7a8710-4603-472c-b810-9063830a9410]Dusk 'til Dawn, GCNKF3[/url]

 

And this guideline is stopping us from placing a daytime version along the same loop trail. This area is far from saturated and there would be no proximity issue with any of the parts of our new caches and the existing caches.

I'd say the point of that is that TPTB don't want power trails.

Rules like that never make sense to some people until caching gets banned by a park because some people pushed it too far and so the rangers pulled the plug. I actually think the 528' foot guideline is too liberal in many parks, and it's just a matter of time until cachers in those areas add too many straws to the camels back. Hindsight is 20/20. The power trail rule gives reviewers the ability to stop this from happening. So it's a very wise guideline.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Can someone explain the purpose/point of the guideline that reads:

 

"If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a "Power Trail"), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together. A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache."

 

It's listed under Cache Saturation

 

This was one of the best caches we've found, url=http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=bb7a8710-4603-472c-b810-9063830a9410]Dusk 'til Dawn, GCNKF3[/url]

 

And this guideline is stopping us from placing a daytime version along the same loop trail. This area is far from saturated and there would be no proximity issue with any of the parts of our new caches and the existing caches.

I'd say the point of that is that TPTB don't want power trails.

Rules like that never make sense to some people until caching gets banned by a park because some people pushed it too far and so the rangers pulled the plug. I actually think the 528' foot guideline is too liberal in many parks, and it's just a matter of time until cachers in those areas add too many straws to the camels back. Hindsight is 20/20. The power trail rule gives reviewers the ability to stop this from happening. So it's a very wise guideline.

To me it seems there is a fine line between "questioning authority" which is often a good thing and simply assuming that TPTB have a very good reason for what they dictate.

 

I intend to teach a Sunday School class next Sunday on the topic of obedience even when we don't get an answer to "why?" (a common Biblical thread) and perhaps what are the limits to "blind faith" and when is it best to defy authority and do what one knows is right.

 

I think the concept of faithful obedience is sorely lacking in our modern society- especially among the youth- perhaps more especially in America.

 

It is our American heritage to challenge authority, indeed that is how our country came into being. But challenge for the sake of challenge or challenge because of our ignorance of the wisdom of the rules or expectations of TPTB is not conducive either to our own personal best interest nor to that of our society.

 

there is a line between what we are capable of understanding and what we NEED to understand, between the information to which we are privy and the occult (hidden). There is a line between where we should simply obey and where we should resist obedience. There is a line between where we should attempt to change what we don't like and where we should leave it alone for the better good of all. There is a FINE line between faith and stupidity, between confidence and ignorance.

 

These lines are neither smooth nor easy to see at times.

 

It is my contention that in most cases it is fair to assume that rules are made for good reason, even though we rarely get the full details of what those reasons are.

 

I have found that, in life, the one question that is hardest to answer is, "Why?"

[+Team Cotati]

Personally, I dont like Virtuals. Theres no box there to find, and you can stick a virtual anywhere. You'd get this almighty flood of virtuals, which would suck.

 

Geocaching is fine the way it is IMO. All we need are more caches and more cachers! (In Ireland anyway )

 

You can't "stick a virtual anywhere". There is nothing to "stick", it is already there. And you can't get some "almighty flood of virtuals" either since every virtual geocache must be approved by reviewers prior to being listed on the gc.com site. I don't think that the reviewers would have wanted nor let the gc.com site become some sort of dumping ground for caches. If they were to think and act in those terms, they would be relieved of their duties.

 

It always puzzles me when people post about virtual caches as if they operate(d) outside the same system as any other cache. The average urban micro that gets approved is, in my opinion, worse for the game than the crummiest virtual that I've ever seen.

 

Virtual caches are really great.

[+TrailGators]

Can someone explain the purpose/point of the guideline that reads:

 

"If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a "Power Trail"), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together. A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache."

 

It's listed under Cache Saturation

 

This was one of the best caches we've found, url=http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=bb7a8710-4603-472c-b810-9063830a9410]Dusk 'til Dawn, GCNKF3[/url]

 

And this guideline is stopping us from placing a daytime version along the same loop trail. This area is far from saturated and there would be no proximity issue with any of the parts of our new caches and the existing caches.

I'd say the point of that is that TPTB don't want power trails.

Rules like that never make sense to some people until caching gets banned by a park because some people pushed it too far and so the rangers pulled the plug. I actually think the 528' foot guideline is too liberal in many parks, and it's just a matter of time until cachers in those areas add too many straws to the camels back. Hindsight is 20/20. The power trail rule gives reviewers the ability to stop this from happening. So it's a very wise guideline.

To me it seems there is a fine line between "questioning authority" which is often a good thing and simply assuming that TPTB have a very good reason for what they dictate.

 

I intend to teach a Sunday School class next Sunday on the topic of obedience even when we don't get an answer to "why?" (a common Biblical thread) and perhaps what are the limits to "blind faith" and when is it best to defy authority and do what one knows is right.

 

I think the concept of faithful obedience is sorely lacking in our modern society- especially among the youth- perhaps more especially in America.

 

It is our American heritage to challenge authority, indeed that is how our country came into being. But challenge for the sake of challenge or challenge because of our ignorance of the wisdom of the rules or expectations of TPTB is not conducive either to our own personal best interest nor to that of our society.

 

there is a line between what we are capable of understanding and what we NEED to understand, between the information to which we are privy and the occult (hidden). There is a line between where we should simply obey and where we should resist obedience. There is a line between where we should attempt to change what we don't like and where we should leave it alone for the better good of all. There is a FINE line between faith and stupidity, between confidence and ignorance.

 

These lines are neither smooth nor easy to see at times.

 

It is my contention that in most cases it is fair to assume that rules are made for good reason, even though we rarely get the full details of what those reasons are.

 

I have found that, in life, the one question that is hardest to answer is, "Why?"

This is true. What many people don't do is try to see both sides of the coin. In this case, this person seems to only see the positives of getting rid of a guideline and doesn't seem to understand the negatives. The best part about these forums is that you'll get both sides of the coin! Perhaps now they will understand that the negative effects of allowing power trails outweigh the positive effects. Edited February 27, 2008 by TrailGators

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

To me it seems there is a fine line between "questioning authority" which is often a good thing and simply assuming that TPTB have a very good reason for what they dictate.

 

I intend to teach a Sunday School class next Sunday on the topic of obedience even when we don't get an answer to "why?" (a common Biblical thread) and perhaps what are the limits to "blind faith" and when is it best to defy authority and do what one knows is right.

 

I think the concept of faithful obedience is sorely lacking in our modern society- especially among the youth- perhaps more especially in America.

 

It is our American heritage to challenge authority, indeed that is how our country came into being. But challenge for the sake of challenge or challenge because of our ignorance of the wisdom of the rules or expectations of TPTB is not conducive either to our own personal best interest nor to that of our society.

 

there is a line between what we are capable of understanding and what we NEED to understand, between the information to which we are privy and the occult (hidden). There is a line between where we should simply obey and where we should resist obedience. There is a line between where we should attempt to change what we don't like and where we should leave it alone for the better good of all. There is a FINE line between faith and stupidity, between confidence and ignorance.

 

These lines are neither smooth nor easy to see at times.

 

It is my contention that in most cases it is fair to assume that rules are made for good reason, even though we rarely get the full details of what those reasons are.

 

I have found that, in life, the one question that is hardest to answer is, "Why?"

 

Authority should always be questioned!

 

I wonder if in your lesson on faith and obedience the question will come up "Who wrote the bible, when and why?"

 

It's a legitimate question, but one rarely tolerated in church! Few Sunday Schools teach from this kind of investigative viewpoint.

 

I have strong Christian beliefs yet can question the churches proposal in the Bible being the inspired word.

 

Same with geocaching... as to Groundspeak's authority, it is unquestioned on this site, but still we can question the decisions made (or not) as to whether they are good for the overall game.

 

Are the rules made for good reason, or are they made because a few in power want to do things their way? We won't know unless we ask!

[+Devil Duckies]

We're talking about 4 caches along a 3 mile loop trail that have to be done durning the day. Added to the three caches that have to be done at night I hardly think constitutes saturation. Also any part of any of the caches, ie part 1, 2 or final of a multi, was more then .1 from any other part so there would be room for future caches according to the current guidelines. We're also talking about an area that hasn't had a new cache placed in it since 2005 so it's not like everyone is running out there to place a cache.

Locally were seeing too many micros in piles of garbage at road side pull offs and not enough quality caches in the woods. If this is the direction Groundspeak wants the game to go then their succeeding.

 

What would most of you rather do, spend 2 hours doing a series of challenging multis along a 3 mile loop trail in the woods netting you 4 smilies or spend the same time driving from guardrail to dumpster to fence post finding micros?

 

I understand the saturation problem fully but it doesn't apply to this case or particular area.

Edited February 27, 2008 by devil duckies,peter&judy

[+sbell111]

We're talking about 4 caches along a 3 mile loop trail that have to be done durning the day. Added to the three caches that have to be done at night I hardly think constitutes saturation. Also any part of any of the caches, ie part 1, 2 or final of a multi, was more then .1 from any other part so there would be room for future caches according to the current guidelines. We're also talking about an area that hasn't had a new cache placed in it since 2005 so it's not like everyone is running out there to place a cache.

Locally were seeing too many micros in piles of garbage at road side pull offs and not enough quality caches in the woods. If this is the direction Groundspeak wants the game to go then their succeeding.

Have you contacted Groundspeak, explained the situation, and asked for their blessing?

What would most of you rather do, spend 2 hours doing a series of challenging multis along a 3 mile loop trail in the woods netting you 4 smilies or spend the same time driving from guardrail to dumpster to fence post finding micros?

Sometimes one, sometimes the other.

I understand the saturation problem fully but it doesn't apply to this case or particular area.

I don't imagine that lamenting in the forums is going to get these caches approved. Perhaps you should email TPTB.

[+TrailGators]

We're talking about 4 caches along a 3 mile loop trail that have to be done durning the day. Added to the three caches that have to be done at night I hardly think constitutes saturation. Also any part of any of the caches, ie part 1, 2 or final of a multi, was more then .1 from any other part so there would be room for future caches according to the current guidelines. We're also talking about an area that hasn't had a new cache placed in it since 2005 so it's not like everyone is running out there to place a cache.

Locally were seeing too many micros in piles of garbage at road side pull offs and not enough quality caches in the woods. If this is the direction Groundspeak wants the game to go then their succeeding.

 

What would most of you rather do, spend 2 hours doing a series of challenging multis along a 3 mile loop trail in the woods netting you 4 smilies or spend the same time driving from guardrail to dumpster to fence post finding micros?

 

I understand the saturation problem fully but it doesn't apply to this case or particular area.

It's going to be difficult for us to fully understand both sides of the situation. Why don't you just ask your reviewer?

[Luckless]

Can someone explain the purpose/point of the guideline that reads:

 

"If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a "Power Trail"), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together. A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache."

 

It's listed under Cache Saturation

 

This was one of the best caches we've found, url=http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=bb7a8710-4603-472c-b810-9063830a9410]Dusk 'til Dawn, GCNKF3[/url]

 

And this guideline is stopping us from placing a daytime version along the same loop trail. This area is far from saturated and there would be no proximity issue with any of the parts of our new caches and the existing caches.

I'd say the point of that is that TPTB don't want power trails.

Rules like that never make sense to some people until caching gets banned by a park because some people pushed it too far and so the rangers pulled the plug. I actually think the 528' foot guideline is too liberal in many parks, and it's just a matter of time until cachers in those areas add too many straws to the camels back. Hindsight is 20/20. The power trail rule gives reviewers the ability to stop this from happening. So it's a very wise guideline.

 

The state parks here have their own rules. Caches must be a quarter mile apart.

[+TrailGators]

Can someone explain the purpose/point of the guideline that reads:

 

"If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a "Power Trail"), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together. A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache."

 

It's listed under Cache Saturation

 

This was one of the best caches we've found, url=http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=bb7a8710-4603-472c-b810-9063830a9410]Dusk 'til Dawn, GCNKF3[/url]

 

And this guideline is stopping us from placing a daytime version along the same loop trail. This area is far from saturated and there would be no proximity issue with any of the parts of our new caches and the existing caches.

I'd say the point of that is that TPTB don't want power trails.

Rules like that never make sense to some people until caching gets banned by a park because some people pushed it too far and so the rangers pulled the plug. I actually think the 528' foot guideline is too liberal in many parks, and it's just a matter of time until cachers in those areas add too many straws to the camels back. Hindsight is 20/20. The power trail rule gives reviewers the ability to stop this from happening. So it's a very wise guideline.

 

The state parks here have their own rules. Caches must be a quarter mile apart.

The parks that have set rules aren't the ones I was talking about...

[Luckless]

Virtuals have problems with armchair cachers? Figure out a way to stop 'em and let virtuals live. Kind of like saying too many people litter soda bottles so lets get rid of soda bottles.

Armchair logging had nothing whatsoever to do with Groundspeak's decision to stop listing new virtual caches. What drove virtuals away was an inability to come up with an adequate set of guidelines for what would make an appropriate virtual. Nobody inside or outside of Groundspeak was able to come up with a definition for "wow".

That's quite likely part of the reason. I seem to recall that back when new virtuals were first banned, one of the reasons for it that I read was something like this: when land managers were approached about allowing geocaching, some of them were a little uneasy about it, until they head about virtuals. They would then say "Okay, we will allow geocaching here -- but only virtuals," -- so they weren't being the bad guys and outright banning caching, but they weren't allowing real caches to be placed either. The thought was that this mindset was spreading, and that the only way to keep real caches from being squeezed out was to eliminate virtuals.

 

I don't know if this reasons was given by a Groundspeak person, or was just an opinion or a guess floated by someone in the forums, but it seemed to make sense to me.

 

Very intresting reasoning. True or not it does seem that if you give a choice between virtuals or hidden cache containers the land managers might be more inclined to choose the virtuals because there's no physical cache to worry about.

 

(Spelling correction)

Edited February 27, 2008 by Luckless

[+Devil Duckies]

Did that, they don't get it, both NYAdmin and Michael. And I can't get a straight answer out of them either. So a series of 4 challenging quality caches will be turned into a couple of challenging multis and a couple boring plain old caches if they ever approve them.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Did that, they don't get it, both NYAdmin and Michael. And I can't get a straight answer out of them either. So a series of 4 challenging quality caches will be turned into a couple of challenging multis and a couple boring plain old caches if they ever approve them.

I don't understand. Why couldn't a series of 4 challenging quality caches be turned into a couple of challenging quality multis and a couple of quality caches? What is it about not being able to list them as separate caches that forces a conversion from 'quality' to 'boring'?

[+Confucius' Cat]

 

Authority should always be questioned!

 

I wonder if in your lesson on faith and obedience the question will come up "Who wrote the bible, when and why?"

 

It's a legitimate question, but one rarely tolerated in church! Few Sunday Schools teach from this kind of investigative viewpoint.

 

I have strong Christian beliefs yet can question the churches proposal in the Bible being the inspired word.

 

Same with geocaching... as to Groundspeak's authority, it is unquestioned on this site, but still we can question the decisions made (or not) as to whether they are good for the overall game.

 

Are the rules made for good reason, or are they made because a few in power want to do things their way? We won't know unless we ask!

Perhaps authority SHOULD always be questioned, but my point is that you should not be disappointed if you get:

1. No answer

2. Not the answer you wanted or expected

3. an answer that you don't understand

 

The questions you raise are all valid questions and i always encourage my students to ask them. However, I do not have "good" answers for them... these questions are the subject of intense in-house debate and have been so over the centuries.

 

The Bible itself tells us to "prove all things, hold fast that which is good." This is a fundamental verse in my teaching. The acceptable standard of that "proof" will vary from person to person.

 

In any argument, some premises must be accepted. The more fundamental the premises critically examined, the more solid the foundation of "truth" that one will establish based upon it.

 

Quite frankly, obedience to rules whose reasoning one doesn't understand and the acceptance of other peoples' (hopefully learned peoples') judgment of subjects that one either cannot comprehend oneself or does not have the time or interest to pursue, is virtually the essence of "faith."

 

You show this faith by the opinions you express and the links you post. In your personal research, you have accepted many things that you cannot, of and by yourself, "prove," so you refer to others' work. The conclusions you reach are "faith" because they are ultimately founded on the work and beliefs of others.

 

my point relevant to this thread is that:

 

In questioning authority, we must be careful to avoid the arrogance of thinking that somehow TPTB have some kind of "obligation" to explain things to our satisfaction.

 

If we had an ownership interest in GC.com, then we would have a "right" to know why things are done as they are. There will ALWAYS be some things that TPTB will NOT change because of "questioning" or protest or petitioning or whatever by "the powers that do NOT be." This will be MUCH more evident when the griping is done in a disrespectful manner as illustrated by the OP.

 

If we do not have an ownership interest, we must ultimately accept that some things will be done in a way we don't agree with and the only alternative we will have is to "hit the door."

 

Does the clay have a right to tell the potter what to make of it- or even demand an explanation? NO. Spiritual and life lesson.

[+WRASTRO]

My apologies if this thought has been put forth in this thread already. Sometimes the answer is no just because Mom said. The rationale used may or may not be undarstandable and it may or may not be explained. It is usually not explained in this case since the statement "because Mom said" simply can't be argued. Revolution is always an option if "Mom" is simply too overbearing.

[+FireRef]

My apologies if this thought has been put forth in this thread already. Sometimes the answer is no just because Mom said. The rationale used may or may not be undarstandable and it may or may not be explained. It is usually not explained in this case since the statement "because Mom said" simply can't be argued. Revolution is always an option if "Mom" is simply too overbearing.

 

I have always said I would not use this excuse (and no, I don't have children, but I am a teacher) - and have generally stuck to this. Simply because someone says so is not a reason to do something. If it has a basis in law, or a legitimate reason (and I leave the concept of "legitimate" up for debate), that's fine - then give it. And we're not 2 year olds - simply saying "Mom said so" doesn't cut it. Ever.

[+NotThePainter]

man, maybe I shouldn't join it but here goes...

 

Until recently, my wife and I hosted an event that was very popular. We had between 50 and 80 people show up on a "school" night at a local restaurant pub and talk geocaching. Tons of fun.

 

We got a corporate sponsor, it was a lot of working getting one to sign on but we did.

 

We started giving away stuff, good stuff. $80 backpacks, $50 gift certificates. At the hey-day we were probably giving out $200, maybe $250 worth of stuff to local cachers.

 

But the sponsor needed a link to their website. The big vinyl sign we hung up at the event wasn't good enough. That was all they asked.

 

Eventually we were asked to take the link down, and obviously, we lost the sponsor.

 

So yes, I have tried to host an event and run afoul of the guidelines. I can understand Groundspeak's position, they certainly don't my my sponsor's link appearing on a cache page that has an ad from a competitor to the sponsor. Right?

 

But, the fact remains, there are cachers in my area who don't get free stuff anymore from my sponsor.

 

Oh well...

[+CYBret]

 

But, the fact remains, there are cachers in my area who don't get free stuff anymore from my sponsor.

 

Oh well...

 

Did they quit coming to your events when you stopped giving away free stuff?

[+FireRef]

 

But, the fact remains, there are cachers in my area who don't get free stuff anymore from my sponsor.

 

Oh well...

 

Did they quit coming to your events when you stopped giving away free stuff?

 

I don't think that's the point - I think the point was that there was a very nice addition to the events which benefited those coming at no expense to themselves, and it was stopped because of an overly-restrictive rule.

 

Same could be said for advertising on GC.com - it lessens the site. Did it slow down people coming to it because now they have to deal with all these ads? Probably not. Did it benefit the people involved to have them - probably (by making more money available for the site). Should it be there? Most would say no.

[+CYBret]

 

But, the fact remains, there are cachers in my area who don't get free stuff anymore from my sponsor.

 

Oh well...

 

Did they quit coming to your events when you stopped giving away free stuff?

 

I don't think that's the point - I think the point was that there was a very nice addition to the events which benefited those coming at no expense to themselves, and it was stopped because of an overly-restrictive rule.

 

Same could be said for advertising on GC.com - it lessens the site. Did it slow down people coming to it because now they have to deal with all these ads? Probably not. Did it benefit the people involved to have them - probably (by making more money available for the site). Should it be there? Most would say no.

 

If it's not slowing people down from coming to the site and if it benefits us to have them, how do you figure it lessens the site?

 

As for the event question, I host (with the help of a couple other geocachers) about two events a year. We give out a lot of prizes, most of them either handmade or donated by area cachers, though once or twice we've asked for donations from businesses (including Groundspeak). The vast majority of the prizes come out of our own pockets.

 

No one has ever complained because we don't give out enough prizes and I really doubt they ever will.

[+FireRef]

 

But, the fact remains, there are cachers in my area who don't get free stuff anymore from my sponsor.

 

Oh well...

 

Did they quit coming to your events when you stopped giving away free stuff?

 

I don't think that's the point - I think the point was that there was a very nice addition to the events which benefited those coming at no expense to themselves, and it was stopped because of an overly-restrictive rule.

 

Same could be said for advertising on GC.com - it lessens the site. Did it slow down people coming to it because now they have to deal with all these ads? Probably not. Did it benefit the people involved to have them - probably (by making more money available for the site). Should it be there? Most would say no.

 

If it's not slowing people down from coming to the site and if it benefits us to have them, how do you figure it lessens the site?

 

As for the event question, I host (with the help of a couple other geocachers) about two events a year. We give out a lot of prizes, most of them either handmade or donated by area cachers, though once or twice we've asked for donations from businesses (including Groundspeak). The vast majority of the prizes come out of our own pockets.

 

No one has ever complained because we don't give out enough prizes and I really doubt they ever will.

 

Again, that's not the point. No one said you have to have prizes to make an event occur. However, having them makes the event better, and if a little free exchange of advertising allows this to happen, what is the problem.

 

Isn't this the point behind the site advertising? It doesn't hurt the people to have ads there, and sometimes people click on them, but it benefits the site.

 

How does it lessen the game of geocaching when cachers or groups do the EXACT same thing as the site? They have someone who is willing to give something (and not even them - just the people who come to the event) to make the event better in trade for some free advertising. I could see if it wasn't family appropriate stuff, but why should the site be allowed to do it, because its a good thing, but players aren't allowed to do it, because... ? Same reason, same result should occur.