Taking the Fun ot of GeoCaching - Groundspeak - Geocaching

[+infiniteMPG]

I had a Multi-Cache not approved because it was 15' feet closer to RailRoad tracks than what was allowed. It took some time to move that stage to a new location and then change the hints in the previous stage to match the new coordinates...etc. For 15' feet I was pissed to...but at who? I guess myself for not placing that stage far enough away and double checking the distance. The reviewers were only doing their job...and caught me.

Been there, done that... same scenario. And had one shot down too close to an airport. But after a while you hone in on what is expected in a hide and how the reviewer will perceive it so you tweak your hiding technique.

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

Well I have had them denied.

I have had them say no.

 

Then I learned how to play exactly by the "RULES".

 

The process should make you a better geocacher and have quality geocaches and events.

When I started way back when I was a tadpole I had lots of things denied.

But I had lots of them approved too.

I still have most of them as well.

 

When the Virtual talks were going on I was like most because we travel alot and the virtuals were always a sure bet on long trips and this was ging to spoil everything I thought.

Once they were no longer permitted I joined Waymarking as well.

I have so many places I would love to showcase but do not have the funds to maintain a geocache at 1000's of places.

 

This is where Waymarking comes in great.

 

If I would not have had the guidence of the GS approvers I probably wouldn't have had the great opportunity to do the Lewis and Clark Signature Events along with the NGS.

 

If you have ever been to college part of working things through is the critiques.

Look at the GS Approver as a teacher,professor or someone who has a good idea of what GS wants.

They then critique your cache.

 

If you made the best effort you could and are not happy with the grade you have to either work harder at it or quit.

 

Your choice.

[+Mopar]

The way I see it, you join an organization knowing full well what the rules are before joining. Since the OP joined July, '07, the "rules" are the same now as when he/she enrolled. Perhaps the OP never read the fine print earlier and is now getting caught in the misconception that the masses rule the owners?

 

There have been changes made since I first signed up, and I got caught listing caches that were now disallowed. However it is just a matter of going with the flow and adjusting to change, or quitting. I'm not quitting, I enjoy this pastime too much.

 

We all check the boxes if we hide a cache, but it's obvious that many people don't actually read them. The OP is a prime example. He complains that his caches were turned down because they violated rules that he claimed he understood and agreed to when he submitted the caches.

 

What they said.

[+TexasGringo]

I have had my reviewer go out of their way to help me get the cache going. He / She converted Word docs into PDF's for me...they were used as part of the puzzle print offs.

[+FireRef]

I find it interesting, having started and been involved in many threads like this one, that people seem to fall into two categories.

 

1. I don't like the way things are, and want to see them changed, and

2. The rules are there and I'm going to follow them just because they're there (wether I agree with them, which some do, or I don't, which some don't) and you should too, or just leave.

 

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."

 

I am, honestly, surprised this thread wasn't shut down originally.

[+Renegade Knight]

I had a Multi-Cache not approved because it was 15' feet closer to RailRoad tracks than what was allowed....

 

The rule about distance from RR is a rule of thumb. It comes about because of problems early on. There is no RR company on the planet that's going to allow a cache within their ROW*. This site had to pick a number for 'distance from RR" to cover most variations of ROW.

 

The Real Rule is "Outside the RR Right of Way" but that varies. So you have the rule of thumb. Long story short, if your cache was outside the ROW it should have been approvable.

 

* Not all RR Right of way has tracks so there is room for exceptions. Sun Valley for example was all UPRR property at one time.

[+Stargazer22]

What should Geocaching do to resolve these problems:

1. Bring back Virtual Caches and Reverse Caches.

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

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

4. Geocache administrators should be NICE and allow creativity.

5. Stop trying to force Waymarking on us Geocachers.

 

What happens if something is not done to resolve these issues? Simple more people will stop geocaching which is a bad thing.

 

OTazMan

 

1. I don't think virtuals need to come back to geocaching. I think they belong where they are.

 

2. I believe the event rules are good as they are. There are plenty of creative ways to think up an event that fits within the current guidelines. Events are events. Caches are caches. It's not necessary to have caches for an event.

 

3. Creativity has nothing to do with bending rules. The MOST creative people find a way to get things done with flair WITHIN the guidelines. That's real creativity!

 

4. Geocache administrators are already NICE. I haven't seen a rude comment from one yet. I believe they are picked based on (at least in part) their tolerance level and ability to respond under fire in a courteous manner.

 

5. No one has tried to force Waymarking on me. Maybe your experience is different.

Having someone offer Waymarking as an alternative is in no way 'forciing' it on me. It's my choice to accept or pass as I want.

 

I don't see a need to change the guidelines based on these premises.

There will be times when the guidelines need to change. For that, I will pick my battles.

For now, I think these particular guidelines are fine just like they are.

I haven't seen any evidence that more people will stop geocaching because of these issues.

In fact, I believe the number of cachers is growing every day.

[quahogs5]

You do realize the rules are part of this and any game. I'll admit that rules can take alot of fun out of it but they are neccasary to remain order. Before you complain again about rules think, try playing football or hockey without rules and tell me how easy it is. All rules are important to making the geocaching experience fun for all it's users.

 

Pip-pip da-doodle-dee-doo

[+Renegade Knight]

....3. Creativity has nothing to do with bending rules. The MOST creative people find a way to get things done with flair WITHIN the guidelines. That's real creativity! ...

 

Real creativity is all about creating good caches, or at least trying out things that may or may not work. The rules may or may not actually serve a purpose on any one cache. Creativity isn't just "thinking out side the box" it's "there is no box". When you have your idea fleshed out, then you can compare it to the rules and see what's what.

 

The ability to force fit a cache inside the box doesnt make it better or more creative. It just makes it fit inside the box.

 

A couple of years ago I started work on a cache concept and laid out the groundwork. Life changed and I slowed down all caching related things. Virtually the only cache work I did was laying out more of this cache. This summer I hope to list it. During that time the rules changed. The cache didn't stop being a good cache or a creative cache. It did stop being a listable cache without an exception to the rules as they have evolved. When I'm done I'm going to list it anyway. Odds are it won't be approved. Some things can be changed some things can't if it's gong to be the same cache experience that I intended.

[+ar_kayaker]

There are two parts of the OP's rant that I almost, sort-of agree with:

 

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

 

I've had this go both ways with two different reviewers. I have two caches where the first stage of a multi/offset is within 300' of the other which is a traditional. The reviewer allowed it because there was also 300' of vertical seperation and the first stage of the multi had no container to get the two confused.

 

On another I had a cache that was 498' away from another, both traditionals. One was on an island, the other on a cliff overlooking the island. That reviewer made me move one just to meet the 528' guidline despite the fact that there was no way to confuse the two, no exceptions. The place I had to move it to was just outside the limit, but wasn't nearly as nice of a hiding spot because it was back from the cliff edge with no view of the river. Couldn't very well move the island.

 

A little flexabilty would have made the experience for the seekers better. Not to mention the extra day I spent redesigning the camo and replacing the cache for the sake of 30'.

 

5. Stop trying to force Waymarking on us Geocachers.

 

Although I don't really see Groundspeak ever being able to force Waymarking on anybody, repeatedly rehashing the "we don't do that here because we have Waymarking for that" argument is just a way of selling their other product and is fundamentally flawed. Waymarking is not the same experience at all. It was created as a place to dump off all the lame virtuals and keep reviewers from having to worry about defining the "wow" factor and it is what it is made off....geocaching.com's leftover trash. It also goes against the popular "one-stop-shopping" concept that most people (or at least Americans) are acustomed to.

 

It isn't all bad. There are random categories that are as good as many of the grandfathered virtuals I've found, but the user is left to sort through the trash to find them, without even PQ's the help in the task.

 

AK

[+infiniteMPG]

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."

I think you'll find a lot of people are of the opinion "Yeah, it would be nice to have this change or that change but until we figure out how to change it we're going to live within the current rules". Maybe a better way to submit suggestions would help. But until the changes are made, we have to live within the current rules, in GC and in life.

 

I am, honestly, surprised this thread wasn't shut down originally.

I think the GC folks know that the same freedom that grants them the right to run GC also gives us the right to knock it around. I think the GC folks are secure enough in the stability of the game to let people chat about anything that we feel a need to chat about. Just like geocaching itself, you have just enough guidance to keep between the ditches while retaining enough freedom to put your own personal touch on things.

[+Walts Hunting]

I'm sorry your meds didn't arrive but if this hobby is that much trouble and you are that angry your departure will be best for you and the hobby.

[+Confucius' Cat]

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 know there are a lot of you out there because the logs, caches and events are filled with complaints where the administrators have a stick up their *** . Go look at this GC18TXJ for a great example. I was also trying to create a cache where fellow geocachers could come see my Christmas display between Thanksgiving and New Years do a hunt, log a find and say hello in the process. (An extended event or limited Geocache.) Do you think this is allowed no! I also know of a geocacher who finally got fed up with the rules and pulled all of her Caches in Vancouver, WA. She had something like 30 hides and she pulled them all and deactivated them because she was tired with the restrictive rules.

 

Why is Waymarking taking over what used to be Geocaching's domain? Why do I want to start another account and do things that used to be allowed on Geocaching? I refuse to do Waymarking after I figured out that most of the features of Waymarking used to be a part of geocaching. Virtual, webcam and Locationless caches all used to be a part of geocaching. It is now impossible to do a new Geocache in a lot of the major national parks. For example Crater Lake doesn't allow actual caches so instead the park is full off virtual caches before the rules where put in place. Now if you want to create a geocache it is not allowed and you have to create a earthcache which are very difficult to make and a lot of people don't like doing them or Waymarking. The Waymarking has 75,000 entries and I would dare say that 70,000 of them are places that a geocacher is not going to care about. Example - http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM68H

 

What should Geocaching do to resolve these problems:

1. Bring back Virtual Caches and Reverse Caches.

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

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

4. Geocache administrators should be NICE and allow creativity.

5. Stop trying to force Waymarking on us Geocachers.

 

What happens if something is not done to resolve these issues? Simple more people will stop geocaching which is a bad thing.

 

OTazMan

And now for a COMPLETELY different perspective:

I am a church person and I am often asked (usually by someone who is "trolling") "why are there so many different churches?" and "Why are church people so critical of each other?... Isn't it horrible when a church splits up over some such silliness as whether the piano is on the right or left of the pulpit?"

 

My response is: There are many churches because all people are different and they like to group together with people who are different in similar ways to themselves. And when a church splits, it is not necessarily a bad thing... unless the people who "split" decide to give up on church entirely. This is not often the case though. Usually they split off and form or join another congregation. The new congregation and the old one they split off of continue to grow as each attracts additional like-minded members. thus we have MORE church people over-all.

 

So apply this to geocaching.

 

If you don't like the rules at GC.com, SPLIT!

 

It is really a win-win situation... GC loses a complainer, another organisation gains an enthusiastic member (or perhaps founder) who will fight to make the organisation all the really cool things GC is not (in the splitter's opinion).

Edited February 22, 2008 by Confucius' Cat

[+uminski]

No trespassing without permission

[+FireRef]

And again with the "If you don't like it, leave..." - if we did that with our country, we'd be empty by now, and everyone would be playing a different national anthem somewhere else.

 

Doesn't it make more sense for people who don't like way things go to voice their opinion (hmm...free country and all) and see if they can get it improved?

[+Team GPSaxophone]

And again with the "If you don't like it, leave..." - if we did that with our country, we'd be empty by now, and everyone would be playing a different national anthem somewhere else.

 

Doesn't it make more sense for people who don't like way things go to voice their opinion (hmm...free country and all) and see if they can get it improved?

But that's just it...people did complain, and virtuals were given their own site. It's a vast improvement over having to fight for some "WOW" factor. Everyone's virtuals get approved these days because that's what all the complaining was about 3-4 years ago.

[+Confucius' Cat]

And again with the "If you don't like it, leave..." - if we did that with our country, we'd be empty by now, and everyone would be playing a different national anthem somewhere else.

 

Doesn't it make more sense for people who don't like way things go to voice their opinion (hmm...free country and all) and see if they can get it improved?

Certainly...If they can do so in a civil manner.

If they can't, it is best for all concerned that they disassociate with those they can't get along with and associate with those with whom they can.

[+infiniteMPG]

And again with the "If you don't like it, leave..." - if we did that with our country, we'd be empty by now, and everyone would be playing a different national anthem somewhere else.

Doubt it. We offer people the right and freedom to live their life in their own personal way as long as they live within the boundaries of our society. Won't hardly find that anywhere else, kind of why we have a higher influx of people then any other country. Opportunities. Kind of like geocaching, if there was a better game out there, we'd all be over there yakking.

 

Doesn't it make more sense for people who don't like way things go to voice their opinion (hmm...free country and all) and see if they can get it improved?

DEFINITELY!!! But as I've said in other threads, when you come to the table with a complaint, be sure you're placing a suggested solution right along with it. Complaining for the sake of complaining doesn't accomplish much.

[+PhxChem]

Although I don't really see Groundspeak ever being able to force Waymarking on anybody, repeatedly rehashing the "we don't do that here because we have Waymarking for that" argument is just a way of selling their other product

 

But bringing back virtuals would also be selling their product, no?

 

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."

 

Well that's just it, the OP did not say, "hey, we can make it better this way......" The tone of that post was much more confrontational and seemed to be more about complaining about known rules (and the BIG BAD reviewers). It seemed more about blowing off steam than anything.

 

That's different than wanting to find a way to change the rules for the betterment of geocaching.

 

And the title of the thread "Taking the Fun ot of GeoCaching" Just a bit of hyperbole, maybe?

Edited February 22, 2008 by PhxChem

[+TexasGringo]

***But bringing back virtuals would also be selling their product, no?***

 

It would...but at least everything is in one location.

[+briansnat]

The guidelines are there for the protection of Groundspeak & the individual cache owners ...

...and the future viability of the sport.

 

But bringing back virtuals would also be selling their product, no?

 

1. Bring back Virtual Caches and Reverse Caches.

 

People who like virtuals seem assume that everybody agrees with them. In fact there are a lot of people who didn't care for virtuals or reverse caches and were glad to see them move to another site. They ain't geocaches and they don't belong on a geocaching website.

Edited February 22, 2008 by briansnat

[+ThirstyMick]

There are a lot of very good virtuals, in spots that cannot have physical caches, like national parks. I've enjoyed a great many of the Virtuals that I've done. However, from my understanding, there were a whole lot more that were not.

 

If someone wants to make a virtual cache for every McDonalds location, I'm much happier having those on Waymarking where they're easier to ignore. I'm sure the reviewers are relieved to have them over there too.

 

I went to Waymarking once, and did a quick search and there were so many things that came up that I had 0 interest in. Clearly someone does, but if the reviewers were being bombarded by all that, and then catching the wrath of angsty folk when they weren't approved, I can definitely see the need for Waymarking. The guy that wants a virtual for every mcdonalds can have a field day over there.

 

Create an offset multi instead if you want it listed on geocaching.com

 

As for the event. I don't know. Take a deep breath. Chill. Have a beer. Re-read the guidelines and try to understand where Groundspeak is coming from when they set the rules. The guidelines have been developed over time through tons of experience and input from many different people. They exist to protect the future of the sport. If everybody did exactly what they wanted to, geocaching would be banned from parks very quickly. THAT would make me pretty angsty.

[+tozainamboku]

1. Bring back Virtual Caches and Reverse Caches.

 

People who like virtuals seem assume that everybody agrees with them. In fact there are a lot of people who didn't care for virtuals or reverse caches and were glad to see them move to another site. They ain't geocaches and they don't belong on a geocaching website.

But the OP asks that geocaching "Allow creativity and bending of the rules". At one point the site did this. They encouraged new ideas like locationless and virtuals caches, as well as multis, letterbox hybrids, codeword caches, puzzles and other mystery caches. The game grew around these new ideas; some didn't work as well as others and there were always some purist that insisted that only the traditional 5 gallon bucket was a geocache. In looking at some of the alternatives people were proposing for geocaches, Jeremy made a strategic descision. He narrowed the definition of geocache to something that could be easily defined - a hidden container with at a minimum some kind of physical log that can be signed, and he developed another website that is much more generic to allow people to share the coordinates for everything else. He based it on the locationless cache concept. Users suggest categories and the players find examples of the things in the categories and list the coordinates. In many categories, people who are interested in visiting locations in the category could load the coordinates into their GPS and "find" the location. Jeremy saw this part as being similar to "finding" a virtual cache. Waymarking is designed from the outset to avoid the issues that plagued locationless and virtuals when they were listed on Geocaching.com. Instead of "Wow", each category can define the requirements for listing waymarks. Hopefully, the requirements aren't as subjective as for listing a virtual cache. The group management concept of Waymarking, allows each group to choose its reviewers who decide which waymarks to publish. Categories are organized in a hierarchy and can be searched, unlike locationless caches which you had to get a list of and go thru one by one to see it there were any you could find where your example wasn't already listed.

 

Nobody is forcing Waymarking on geocachers, but if you want to do some of the creative things that you used to be able to do on Geocaching.com you can't anymore. The Waymarking site was developed as the place where these kinds of things now live. It can be frustrating for someone who likes one-stop shopping for their GPS activities. Perhaps with v2 of Geocaching we will see better integration between these sites.

[+FireRef]

The guidelines are there for the protection of Groundspeak & the individual cache owners ...

...and the future viability of the sport.

 

But bringing back virtuals would also be selling their product, no?

 

1. Bring back Virtual Caches and Reverse Caches.

 

People who like virtuals seem assume that everybody agrees with them. In fact there are a lot of people who didn't care for virtuals or reverse caches and were glad to see them move to another site. They ain't geocaches and they don't belong on a geocaching website.

 

People assume that everyone who likes LPC's agrees with them. People assume that everyone who likes Nano caches agrees with them.

 

So I guess we should move these away from the site as well? Nanocaching.com and LPCashing.com? Come on now...

[+Renegade Knight]

...But that's just it...people did complain, and virtuals were given their own site. It's a vast improvement over having to fight for some "WOW" factor. Everyone's virtuals get approved these days because that's what all the complaining was about 3-4 years ago.

 

I'm going to have to call you on that. WOW was it's own problem. Nobody should have had to fight for WOW. A WOW rating system would work better to sort out virtuals rather than the present solution. Which is no virtuals at all.

 

Since you didn't ever claim to like virtuals the removal of them and the creation of something else (Waymarking isn't caching, it's something else again that happens to be location based) then I would have to say that for you it is a vast improvment. For those who actually liked virtuals, it's not.

[+Prime Suspect]

The guidelines are there for the protection of Groundspeak & the individual cache owners ...

...and the future viability of the sport.

 

But bringing back virtuals would also be selling their product, no?

 

1. Bring back Virtual Caches and Reverse Caches.

 

People who like virtuals seem assume that everybody agrees with them. In fact there are a lot of people who didn't care for virtuals or reverse caches and were glad to see them move to another site. They ain't geocaches and they don't belong on a geocaching website.

 

People assume that everyone who likes LPC's agrees with them. People assume that everyone who likes Nano caches agrees with them.

 

So I guess we should move these away from the site as well? Nanocaching.com and LPCashing.com? Come on now...

Not quite the same thing (but you knew that, right?). LPCs and nanos are geocaches - hidden containers with log books. Virtuals and locationless are not. The point was that just because a group of people like something, doesn't mean it belongs on this site. If that were the way things worked, every site would feature porn and kittens. Maybe even porn with kittens.

[+FireRef]

Not true - if we keep to the original concept of a cache, it needed to have some place to leave something and some stuff in there to take. Remember the original rules? It was added that they just needed to have a log when the containers got small enough to not fit stuff in.

 

LogCaching.com now?

[+infiniteMPG]

People assume that everyone who likes LPC's agrees with them. People assume that everyone who likes Nano caches agrees with them. So I guess we should move these away from the site as well? Nanocaching.com and LPCashing.com? Come on now...

Now you'd have to define what geocaching actually is.... according to Wikipedia :

Geocaching is an outdoor treasure-hunting game in which the participants use a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver or other navigational techniques to hide and seek containers (called "geocaches" or "caches") anywhere in the world. A typical cache is a small waterproof container containing a logbook and "treasure," usually toys or trinkets of little value. Today, well over 540,000 geocaches are registered on various websites devoted to the sport. Geocaches are currently placed in over 100 countries around the world and on all seven continents, including Antarctica.

 

You might notice the use of the word "container". So at it's basics, if there's no container, it's not geocaching. And by the same basic definition, if there is a container (regarless of size), it is geocaching.

Edited February 22, 2008 by infiniteMPG

[+Packanack]

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.

 

Much of what the OP had to say I find myself agreeing with. But in the total scheme of things I really rather enjoy the positive aspects, for instance on Sunday we will have a group hike following the snowfall, it should be a good time for all. To OP , try to look at the positives and stick to those parts you enjoy.

[+FireRef]

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.

[+Renegade Knight]

...You might notice the use of the word "container". So at it's basics, if there's no container, it's not geocaching. And by the same basic definition, if there is a container (regarless of size), it is geocaching.

 

It's worth clarifying that the above is per this site, and that this site had many kinds of non container caches listed here. Plus they still have Earthcaches currently, all while using that defintion.

 

You can't have people saying 'it's the trip' and then say 'but it's not caching if not a box because the trip is different'. Ok I guess you can, but it's not exactly logical.

 

All you need for a cache is that people enjoy them much the same as a cache. Waymarks are not caches. Virtuals were. You can hang your hat on whatever defintion you want. However it won't change that a lot of true blue cachers enjoyed the containerless caches and that they were a success.

[+infiniteMPG]

It's worth clarifying that the above is per this site, and that this site had many kinds of non container caches listed here. Plus they still have Earthcaches currently, all while using that defintion.

I'm all for every kind of cache, my point was that there is an easier case for removing virtual and container-less caches then there is for trying the same with micros and nanos just because some people don't like them (don't like 'em, don't do 'em!). As far as I'm concerned let 'em all in and let people seek what they want. 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.

 

Or like some people abuse visiting websites at work like Ebay and YouTube so rather then dealing with the problem people, block the sites... ::sigh::

[+TexasGringo]

***But that's just it...people did complain, and virtuals were given their own site. ***

 

People complain about MICROS...how come they don't get their own site?

[+Renegade Knight]

***But that's just it...people did complain, and virtuals were given their own site. ***

 

People complain about MICROS...how come they don't get their own site?

 

I think a special Micro Catagory instead of just being a size would be a handy compromise.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Virtuals have problems with armchair cachers? Figure out a way to stop 'em and let virtuals live....

 

Two solutions. "Google Caches". aka Armchair Hunts.

and/or Armchair Logs. Not a real find but an armchair find of an existing virtual cache. Insteadof a smilie you get an Armchair Icon.

[+ReadyOrNot]

***But that's just it...people did complain, and virtuals were given their own site. ***

 

People complain about MICROS...how come they don't get their own site?

 

You can argue that at least a MICRO is still a geocache. Its a stretch to call a virtual a geocache.

[+TexasGringo]

***You can argue that at least a MICRO is still a geocache. Its a stretch to call a virtual a geocache.***

 

Ok, I'll agree there....

[+cache_test_dummies]

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".

[+cache_test_dummies]

I think that attempts to define geocaching in terms of whether or not a container is an essential component are missing the point. The point (relative to the OP, anyway) is that Geocaching.com is not geocaching - it is a listing site owned and operated by Groundspeak. The people that own this site get to decide what types of things get listed, and what types of things don't. And they get to change their mind as they see fit.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I think that attempts to define geocaching in terms of whether or not a container is an essential component are missing the point. The point (relative to the OP, anyway) is that Geocaching.com is not geocaching - it is a listing site owned and operated by Groundspeak. The people that own this site get to decide what types of things get listed, and what types of things don't. And they get to change their mind as they see fit.

 

I suppose the real question is "What is Geocaching?" Is it finding a box with your GPS? Is it finding a location with your GPS? Does it have to be something your finding, or can it just be a location?

[+PhxChem]

I think a special Micro Catagory instead of just being a size would be a handy compromise.

 

Well, the size is a category. Now, if we could choose to see certain sizes on the maps. Ah, a dream for another time.

 

What really gets my goat....is that sometimes Altoids tins are micros, sometimes they're small.......even if it is the same container.....I think the micros definitions need to be better defined......but who wants to waste their time on that battle?

[Clan Riffster]

I think a geocache is whatever Jeremy says it is. If this time next week he decides that an azelea bush at Burger King is a geocache, then perhaps virtuals will come back into favor. If not, then I suspect they won't. If he should ever decide that dinky little containers holding naught but a scrap of paper are not geocaches, then micros could fall by the wayside.

 

This is his sandbox. He lets us play here.

[+PhxChem]

I think a geocache is whatever Jeremy says it is.

 

I'm going to say no to that one. While he certainly has shaped the sport through this specific listing site, I think it's the geocachers who ultimately define what it is.

 

If he discontinued a type of geocaching (listen say, for instance, micros) and "enough people" spoke out, he would probably have to revert it to keep the natives happy...and to stay in business. So, why aren't virtuals on the site? "Enough people" apparently don't agree.

[+TexasGringo]

***So, why aren't virtuals on the site? "Enough people" apparently don't agree.***

 

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

[+BlueDeuce]

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.

[Clan Riffster]

If he discontinued micros and enough people spoke out, he would probably have to revert it

You may be right. I'll say right up front that I'm not a marketing expert. My only solid knowledge on this subject is my own feelings, and the feelings of the gobs of cachers I talk to at events. Without exception, every cacher I've spoken with about the hypothetical banning of micros say they would continue to cache with as much enthusiasm as they did prior to the ban. (some with even more enthusiasm)

 

I imagine someone up at the Lily Pad has the data showing the growth of the game when it was announced that virts would no longer be approved. I'd be willing to bet that the growth curve never skipped a beat, and judging from some posts in these forums, virts were wildly popular. I'll go even farther and speculate that, if Jeremy suddenly announced that no more caches would be approved unless the container was a bright pink Gladware, the game would continue to grow.

 

It's my belief, (entirely unconfirmed), that the exponential growth of this game is due in great part to the leadership and vision of Jeremy and his crew. There are two other cache listing services that I am aware of, and neither one is anywhere near as popular as this one. Since they all offer essentially the same thing, why is this site so much more popular? I say it's the marketing. How the total experience is presented to the customers. It's possible that the hordes of micro lovers would drift over to one of those other sites if micros were banned here, but I doubt it.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

There are two other cache listing services that I am aware of, and neither one is anywhere near as popular as this one.

They allow virtuals "over there". More proof that virts don't belong on a real geocaching site.

[+Team Cotati]

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 because there can be no such definition. But I can for sure tell you that it does not require an Einstein to be capable of discerning wheather a given virtual cache is worthy of listing on gc.com. What it does require however, is the desire and interest in doing so.

[+cache_test_dummies]

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 because there can be no such definition.

Just because a definition wasn't found doesn't mean there can't be one. But from a practical perspective, I'd say you are probably correct.

 

But I can for sure tell you that it does not require an Einstein to be capable of discerning wheather a given virtual cache is worthy of listing on gc.com.

It should be relatively easy for any given person to determine whether or not a location meets their own definition of 'worthy'. But that doesn't help a listing service site like Groundspeak, which (short of allowing anything submitted by anyone who thinks their location is 'worthy' to be listed) must rely on a set of listing guidelines that can be applied as evenly and fairly as possible against every submittal.

 

What it does require however, is the desire and interest in doing so.

Are you saying that Groundspeak has (or had) no desire and intent to make virtuals work, and that is why they were removed from Geocaching. com? If so, I disagree. I would say that a better description of what transpired was that despite Groundspeak's obvious desire and interest in doing so, they were ultimately unable to find a suitable solution within the Geocaching.com site. But their desire and interest in providing a suitable solution did result in a new site, one which is arguable better suited for serving the needs of this type of cacheless, location-based GPS game.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

There's too much angst and perceived wrongs lumped all together in your post for me to address all your concerns. But I would like to correct what I view are a couple of inaccuracies, and offer a couple of thoughts with regard to your Waymarking and Virtual comments and questions.

 

Why is Waymarking taking over what used to be Geocaching's domain?

There are many, many existing topics that discuss the history behind Groundspeak's decision to no longer allow the listing of new virtual caches on this site. If you are truly interested in how this all came about, I suggest that you take a look at a few of them.

 

Why do I want to start another account and do things that used to be allowed on Geocaching?

You don't need to start another account to make use of the Waymarking site - the account you use to access Geocaching.com will work on Waymarking.com.

 

I refuse to do Waymarking after I figured out that most of the features of Waymarking used to be a part of geocaching.

There are a number of what I consider to be valid reasons why someone would not want to make use of the Waymarking site. But I can't understand why someone would refuse to 'do Waymarking' simply because some of the offerings on that site are similar to what use to be available on GC.com.

 

Virtual, webcam and Locationless caches all used to be a part of geocaching.

Couple of thoughts:

Virtuals: many would (and have) argued that there are no Virtuals on the Waymarking site. Others would argue that the only difference between a Waymark and a Virtual is the lack of a smilie. My view falls somewhere in between those two perspectives. But as I mentioned above, the real reason they are no longer listed on GC.com can be found in many other topics. Hint: it has to do with the lack of a workable definition for "wow".

Webcams: It is true that there is a Webcam category on the Waymarking site (it is one of the nearly 700 different categories). In my opinion, webcam waymarks are quite similar to Webcams as they used to exist on GC.com.

Locationless caches: In my opinion, the Waymarking site functions extremely well as a replacement for the Locationless cache concept. You may not know this, but for several reasons, locationless caches were essentially non-functional by the time they were removed from GC.com. It was a serious issue, and the source of much angst.

 

It is now impossible to do a new Geocache in a lot of the major national parks. For example Crater Lake doesn't allow actual caches so instead the park is full off virtual caches before the rules where put in place. Now if you want to create a geocache it is not allowed and you have to create a earthcache which are very difficult to make and a lot of people don't like doing them or Waymarking. The Waymarking has 75,000 entries and I would dare say that 70,000 of them are places that a geocacher is not going to care about.

Both virtual caches and waymarks, at their core, are intended to bring you to a place that at least someone (and probably others with similar tastes) would find interesting. Why would the exact same place be any less interesting simply because its coordinates are listed on WM.com rather than GC.com?

 

What should Geocaching do to resolve these problems:

1. Bring back Virtual Caches and Reverse Caches.

This has been discussed many, many times. And Jeremy has been very clear that there are no plans to do this.

 

5. Stop trying to force Waymarking on us Geocachers.

Since this item is carried under your heading of "What should Geocaching do to resolve these problems" (I take it you are referring to Groundspeak when you say "Geocaching" in that heading), I assume you perceive that Groundspeak is trying to force something on you that you don't want to do. How and where are they (or anyone else for that matter) trying to "force" anything on you? I don't see that removing a feature from the site forces you to seek an alternative. You have the choice of not participating if the new offering is not appealing to you.

First, I must say that I agree almost 100% with every point made by cache_test_ dummies, in their above post. Personally, I am quite fine with the rules just as they are and I realize that the vast majority of them them evolved for very good reasons. I am also very happy that virtuals and reverse caches are no longer allowed on this site.

 

Next, and I am speaking here to the OP, even when I put aside for the moment your obvious hostility and sense of entitlement (oh, and BTW, congratulations on your membership in the Entitlement League!), I find your attitude rather confusing, and here are a just a few points of illustration:

• you whine a lot about the rules being too restrictive. You seem to fail to realize that the vast majority of those guidelines were formulated to help protect the sport, that is, to ensure that it has a future and to ensure that at least a majority of land managers will continue to allow geocaches to be placed on their properties, and also to help to ensure that cachers will not be arrested or shot by irate landowners.
  
• you seem to confuse the sport of geocaching with Groundspeak/geocaching.com quite a bit. Let's talk about the facts: Geocaching is a sport. There are several online cache listing services around the world; there are at least three major international-scope listing services, of which Groundspeak is by far the largest, and there exist also a number of regional listing services (i.e, in Ireland, Australia, etc.) You also seem to forget that Groundspeak is a for-profit company that has managed, only through quality of service and features offered, to become by far the largest cache listing service. You seem to consistently forget to express gratitude for their having crafted such a workable and effective/efficient service which offers you so many features (and so many caches) for almost nothing (and indeed, many features are offered ENTIRELY for free), and you concomitantly seem to make the assumption that Groundspeak, despite the fact that is a commercial enterprise -- along with its hundreds of thousands of users worldwide -- should, for some reason, play the game by your rules. Strange.
  
• You also seem to entirely fail to realize that if you REALLY do not like the way Groundspeak is not doing their version of geocaching, you are entirely welcome to leave and go elsewhere. And, if you do not like the features, rules and options offered by the other two major/international cache listing sites, then you still have a number of options, including starting your own cache listing site/service to do it the way you want it done, or to leave the entire sport.
  
• 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?
  

In closing, I must note that today (Saturday 2/23/2008) is a somewhat notable day, because I have, since 3 AM this morning -- and it is now only barely noontime -- already seen several posts and threads from members of the Entitlement League. I wonder if today is some kind of organized "public activism" or community outreach day for members of the League?

 

You know, the OP's post irritated 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.

 

[late edit by author to remove scandalous, horrid and libelous allegations about Briansnat and Signal the Frog.]

Edited February 23, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team