Terra caching web site

[+WebChimp]

GC definitely needs to provide us a more effective and efficient way to sift through all the caches.

 

I have no problem sifting through caches.

 

There are probably less than a hundred caches in our home county, and all of those have been hunted and found by the local folks. If something new pops up within 50 miles of us, it's road trip time.

 

If hunting in a distant area, especially a target rich area, a combination of a PQ and GSAK, noting DNFs and log entries, gives me a good idea of what I do and don't wish to hunt.

 

The only way I see for GC to improve what they already have is to purchase GSAK and incorporate it into their software, or add a method of doing what GSAK does, i.e., allow for manual manipulation of a PQ resultant file in addition to the filtering tools already there. With GSAK (and similar tools) being prevalent, I don't see any reason for GC to tamper with a tool that already works very well.

 

Happy trails.......................

[CoyoteRed]

The only way I see for GC to improve what they already have is...

There's other ways.

 

Something I'd like to see allow us to manipulate the criteria on our own in a program like GSAK and let it talk to GC.com so we can have a more efficient way of telling GC.com the caches we want.

 

For instance, integrate into the bookmark feature by allowing us to add caches to bookmark lists in bulk. We could use GSAK to filter the caches by whatever criteria we choose and then tell GC.com to ignore caches or put caches in certain lists.

 

The bookmark feature is already there. Just allow us more efficient use of it.

 

Another way to create a bookmark is to go ahead and create the favorites feature. Allow folks to mark caches as a favorite or recommended. Then allow the use to say, "I want the common favorites of this, this, this, and this cacher." Then GC.com can create a bookmarked list of caches common to several cachers of your choice.

[tonymarks]

Terracaching's site has more quality only caches. Not as many quick grab caches like this site. Use them all and have fun.

I prefer the Terracaching site, but caches are limited. It is a growing site.

[+ArtieD]

Terracaching's site has more quality only caches. Not as many quick grab caches like this site. Use them all and have fun.

I prefer the Terracaching site, but caches are limited. It is a growing site.

 

I know this post is just dripping with troll bait...but I'll just nibble a bit:

 

Define "quality" caches...

 

ETA: It seems strange this person has this opinion when (s)he only joined two days ago and has zero finds or hides...I smell the distinct odor of cotton footwear...

Edited May 31, 2008 by Arthur & Trillian

[+russellvt]

Hey all, I just recently started geocaching and love it! Since then I have been doing quite a bit of research and generally finding any information I can about the sport. As a result of this research I found the web site terracaching.com and was wondering if anyone had an opinion about this site. What is the difference between geo and terra caching? The site claims quality caches, what does this mean? thanks!

 

jleing

 

As J-Way pointed out, the major difference between the two sites is that TC's more policed by the community... both with your cache reviewers being the same people that sponsored you to the site (in-theory, other local TC'ers) and with each cache having a MCE rating that's voted on by your peers (ie. MCE: Measure of Cache Excellence).

 

This makes it plausible to help weed out "common" caches and helps discourage "just plain old hides" (or, as you might say, hides for the sake of a hide). I've yet to find a LPC over there, for example... of course, these points can also affect your sponsor, so it pretty much encourages people to archive low rated caches fairly quickly. Sadly (for me), most of the caches tend to be more of the "locationless" type, and the numbers of traditional caches are pretty low, overall (I only have a half dozen or so within 100 miles of home, for example).

 

And has also been pointed out... the site's been pretty slow, but that's supposed to be fixed in "TC 2.0" (which has been vaporware for at least a year or two, now). Groundspeak does a much better job of responding to the community and rolling updates in to the site... but both sites, as has been pointed out, have their own place.

 

Hope that helps...

[+Kriskook]

quality is NOT a bad idea...

[+Confucius' Cat]

quality is NOT a bad idea...

If only it had a definition.

[CoyoteRed]

quality is NOT a bad idea...

If only it had a definition.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[+Confucius' Cat]

quality is NOT a bad idea...

If only it had a definition.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Maybe we should go Here.

[+sbell111]

Frequently, someone will post that if GC.com doesn't do 'X', people will jump ship and go to some other site, causing GC.com's dominance to fade.

 

Then, in threads like this one, we read that these other sites don't offer many caches, but they're 'better' because those sites have whatever benefits that the individuals are campaining for.

 

A few excuses have been given to try to explain why those other sites haven't grown much over the years. One theory was that they can't grow because GC.com has too many caches. Caches aren't listed to the other sites because they would be close to GC.com caches. Personally, I'm not sure why this matters. After all, who looks on those other sites before they list a cache to GC.com?

 

Another theory is that many people would have to leave GC.com around the same time to 'build' the inventory of caches at the other sites. This seems to be a contradiction to all of the people in this thread who have stated that they use both sites. Wouldn't the existance of GC.com be the crutch that the other sites needed as it grew? After all, when GC.com was young, there were no other sites to find caches to look for. Many people gave up the game simply because there were no caches to find.

[+ArtieD]

The only thing I hate in the whole terracaching/geocaching debate is that terracaching proponents constantly espouse the whole idea that their caches are of a better quality than those found on GC.com.

 

The quality of the hide resides in the cache placer. No matter how caches may be voted upon, average caches still reside.

 

To me, quality caches use a unique container, a good location or both. Most of my finds have met some or all of those requirements.

 

I do realize everyone's mileage might vary in this regard, but to say that one site's caches are consistently better than others is hogwash. I have done caches on the terracaching site and they were similar to geocaches that were placed in the area. Many are actually piggybacked with geocaches...in some cases merely feet away. So where's the "quality" in them?

 

The whole method to their madness is something I do not prefer at all...it's bad when a cache you might have worked very hard on to be great could get voted to be and eventually archived just because (and it's entirely feasible) people might not like you well. It can be voted on by those that found it and those that have never found it. Some might call it democratic...I call it dangerous.

 

Some might say a long hike makes a cache a higher quality. I don't think so. One of the best caches I have ever done requires a 100-150 yard walk to one of the best views in my area. It's breathtaking. Is the view there somehow diminished because I didn't hike five miles to get to it?

 

I think a big draw is that some caches that are no longer allowed here are allowed there, like the locationless and the virtual caches. I love virtual caches but that's not enough of a draw for me.

 

So...I'll grant the terracaching website is another place to find caches, but it's in no way better than what we have here.

Edited June 1, 2008 by Arthur & Trillian

[+Miragee]

I think it is interesting to observe the reactions some people have to the Terracaching Site and the caches listed there.

 

One friend won't look for Terracaches because it is for those "uppity" people. I guess as a "Terracacher" I am one of those "uppity" people.

 

Another person who signed the log for an extremely-challenging Terracache never logged it, just because of the slogan on the Terracaching Home Page is "offensive" to him.

 

To me a cache is a cache is a cache. The emotional reactions associated with one Site or another are certainly curious.

[+sbell111]

I think it is interesting to observe the reactions some people have to the Terracaching Site and the caches listed there.

 

One friend won't look for Terracaches because it is for those "uppity" people. I guess as a "Terracacher" I am one of those "uppity" people.

 

Another person who signed the log for an extremely-challenging Terracache never logged it, just because of the slogan on the Terracaching Home Page is "offensive" to him.

 

To me a cache is a cache is a cache. The emotional reactions associated with one Site or another are certainly curious.

That slogan may be one of the reasons that some believe that TC.com is the home of uppity cachers. Some posts in this thread might be another reason.

Edited June 1, 2008 by sbell111

[+uxorious]

Well that was a waste of time. I just spent 20 min. or so trying to see what they have in my area for caches.

 

Apparently you have to request a couple sponsors, then wait until someone decides to bestow the favor on you. Only then can you even see if there are any caches you could go for.

 

I'm glad there was Geocaching.com when I started out. When I was new and just trying to find out what this was all about, it was good to have a site that was user friendly.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Well that was a waste of time. I just spent 20 min. or so trying to see what they have in my area for caches.

 

Apparently you have to request a couple sponsors, then wait until someone decides to bestow the favor on you. Only then can you even see if there are any caches you could go for.

 

I'm glad there was Geocaching.com when I started out. When I was new and just trying to find out what this was all about, it was good to have a site that was user friendly.

I just recently went back to TC and tried to use it just to see if there would be any benefit to it. This makes twice that I have jumped through their hoops and become a member only to pretty quickly determine that they have little to offer.

 

Since I had not been on the site in a year or so, i had to get new sponsors. The sponsors came in very quickly, I'll give 'em that- it is NOT a big hurdle, but i don't get the point in the whole "sponsor" thing if people are going to sponsor people "sight unseen."

 

It took me about 30 minutes AFTER receiving the requisite sponsorships in order just to figure out how to view available caches in my area. NOT USER FRIENDLY

 

Close by there is 1 (one), but there are perhaps 100 or more within my normal domain, most of which are in Indianapolis and I do not care much for big cities or caches therein.

 

I got a notification of a new cache in my area a few weeks ago - 1 (one) in a month or so, and it is about 75 miles away.

 

In order for them to "take over" or be any kind of "threat" to GC, GC is going to have to try a LOT harder to alienate its base... I don't think just dissing our armed forces and archiving caches for dubious reasons and refusing to explain their process is enough to get the job done.

[+themeecer]

They could have been listed here, but I some of the processes here soured my desire.

 

Ain't that the truth.

[+themeecer]

In order for them to "take over" or be any kind of "threat" to GC, GC is going to have to try a LOT harder to alienate its base... I don't think just dissing our armed forces and archiving caches for dubious reasons and refusing to explain their process is enough to get the job done.

 

Oh please explain this one. If this is true I know several people, including myself who will jump ship.

[+russellvt]

Frequently, someone will post that if GC.com doesn't do 'X', people will jump ship and go to some other site, causing GC.com's dominance to fade.

Normal ebb and flow, I'd figure... but I can't imagine even that really impacting GC's overall membership that highly. Myself, I don't see why people can't do both...

 

A few excuses have been given to try to explain why those other sites haven't grown much over the years. One theory was that they can't grow because GC.com has too many caches. Caches aren't listed to the other sites because they would be close to GC.com caches. Personally, I'm not sure why this matters. After all, who looks on those other sites before they list a cache to GC.com?

 

Well, in the TC case, seems the majority of the caches have gone to the "locationless" variety... which, to me, can be kinda silly -- particularly, the mobile variety (like the guys that'll post something like a particular make of automobile).

 

But, given that GC is still the leader, my experience has been that people tend to look at both sites if caching in a particular area... so, new TC caches aren't generally placed on top of GC caches (at least in this area). About the closest I've seen is a few dozen yards... close enough to be convenient, but not close enough to generally be confused (at least in areas of good reception)

 

And TC has a natural attrition, I think, with the cache rating system... as the more caches start to fall in to "poor" category in their area.

[+russellvt]

I think a big draw is that some caches that are no longer allowed here are allowed there, like the locationless and the virtual caches. I love virtual caches but that's not enough of a draw for me.

I think you hit it there, too... but there's always the WP site that GC points at, too, for those. Personally, I don't mind virtual caches persay (at least ones that have "verifiable means" to prove someone's been to a given location), but the "locationless" caches can often bug me... personally, I tend to poorly rate (or recommend archival) for any locationless cache that lists a mobile type of object such as an automobile (I know, there goes that subjectivity again).

[+russellvt]

Since I had not been on the site in a year or so, i had to get new sponsors. The sponsors came in very quickly, I'll give 'em that- it is NOT a big hurdle, but i don't get the point in the whole "sponsor" thing if people are going to sponsor people "sight unseen."

 

Generally, I'll look to see if the username asking for sponsorship "looks" like it's someone on GC (ie. profiles are reasonably close), and if they're active, before I offer sponsorship... the theory being that established folks can sponsor their local buddies without much fuss. As you also kinda pointed out... it's not like people aren't given a chance to come play, but their aforementioned sponsors may also "dump" them at some point, too.

[+uxorious]

I don't think just dissing our armed forces and archiving caches for dubious reasons and refusing to explain their process is enough to get the job done.

 

If I really thought they were "dissing" our armed forces, I would jump ship in a sec. There is a whole other thread on that subject so I won't go into it here, except to say I do not believe the rule on caches with an agenda is "dissing" any caches disallowed by it.

 

I've had a while to think about what does bother me, and more then anything it is the sponsorship thing. If I decided to join their website, and use it, I guess it wouldn't bother me to have to get a sponsor. However, asking someone to sponsor you, just so you can check it out to see if you even want to join feels uncomfortable. (and maybe even a little elitist.)

[O-Mega]

I don't think just dissing our armed forces and archiving caches for dubious reasons and refusing to explain their process is enough to get the job done.

 

If I really thought they were "dissing" our armed forces, I would jump ship in a sec. There is a whole other thread on that subject so I won't go into it here, except to say I do not believe the rule on caches with an agenda is "dissing" any caches disallowed by it.

 

I've had a while to think about what does bother me, and more then anything it is the sponsorship thing. If I decided to join their website, and use it, I guess it wouldn't bother me to have to get a sponsor. However, asking someone to sponsor you, just so you can check it out to see if you even want to join feels uncomfortable. (and maybe even a little elitist.)

Sorry but I must disagree with your assessment. I take it as "dissing" when a specific organization is singled out. If they would of just said that promoting "troop support" was against guidelines just like any other agenda I may of followed your thinking but when they are told to specifically flag any cache that mentions "Support the Troops" I take that as MAJOR dissing.

[+sbell111]

I don't think just dissing our armed forces and archiving caches for dubious reasons and refusing to explain their process is enough to get the job done.

 

If I really thought they were "dissing" our armed forces, I would jump ship in a sec. There is a whole other thread on that subject so I won't go into it here, except to say I do not believe the rule on caches with an agenda is "dissing" any caches disallowed by it.

 

I've had a while to think about what does bother me, and more then anything it is the sponsorship thing. If I decided to join their website, and use it, I guess it wouldn't bother me to have to get a sponsor. However, asking someone to sponsor you, just so you can check it out to see if you even want to join feels uncomfortable. (and maybe even a little elitist.)

Sorry but I must disagree with your assessment. I take it as "dissing" when a specific organization is singled out. If they would of just said that promoting "troop support" was against guidelines just like any other agenda I may of followed your thinking but when they are told to specifically flag any cache that mentions "Support the Troops" I take that as MAJOR dissing.

This is a great topic and one that I wouldn't mind discussing, but not in this thread.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I've had a while to think about what does bother me, and more then anything it is the sponsorship thing. If I decided to join their website, and use it, I guess it wouldn't bother me to have to get a sponsor. However, asking someone to sponsor you, just so you can check it out to see if you even want to join feels uncomfortable. (and maybe even a little elitist.)

That is pretty much my take on it. Whereas no organisation is OBLIGATED to have a "try before you buy" policy, I think it is a FAIR way to do business. Personally, before I invest a lot of time in the organisation, I would like to have a reasonable estimate of what they have to offer. Spending an hour or so just to find there are only one or two caches you want to look for is not very considerate of one's time.

 

I understand that I probably got my sponsors so quickly because my username (which is my OLD username at GC) was probably recognised by TC users who are also members here.

 

I think that DOES seem elitist because the converse, if true, is that if a person does not have some kind of "track record" they would be looked upon with suspicion, "who the hockey sticks is this guy?"

 

I would assume anyone waiting several days to get sponsored only to find out the site has nothing to offer would not be particularly thrilled.

 

I don't think just dissing our armed forces and archiving caches for dubious reasons and refusing to explain their process is enough to get the job done.

 

If I really thought they were "dissing" our armed forces, I would jump ship in a sec. There is a whole other thread on that subject so I won't go into it here, except to say I do not believe the rule on caches with an agenda is "dissing" any caches disallowed by it.

 

I've had a while to think about what does bother me, and more then anything it is the sponsorship thing. If I decided to join their website, and use it, I guess it wouldn't bother me to have to get a sponsor. However, asking someone to sponsor you, just so you can check it out to see if you even want to join feels uncomfortable. (and maybe even a little elitist.)

Sorry but I must disagree with your assessment. I take it as "dissing" when a specific organization is singled out. If they would of just said that promoting "troop support" was against guidelines just like any other agenda I may of followed your thinking but when they are told to specifically flag any cache that mentions "Support the Troops" I take that as MAJOR dissing.

This is a great topic and one that I wouldn't mind discussing, but not in this thread.

I don't think we are allowed to discuss it.

Edited June 3, 2008 by Confucius' Cat

[+nashuan]

After reading this thread, I signed up for Terracaching.com. It took about a day for two sponsors to step forward, but they were nice enough to do so and I had hoped that they had similar forums (a general topics and a geocoin discussion) to what is seen at this site. Most threads related to caching (couldn't find a coin forum) and yada, yada, yada, but there were a few where it seemed people had some pretty strong feelings about this site. I just don't get it! I don't know if it's a competition thing, or if there is some kind of history between these two sites or if anyone who is disgruntled with this forum for any reason, but still wants a caching "home", will end up there. I just don't know. Any thoughts on this from the old-timers here or am I way out of line and imagining something that actually doesn't exist? I would have thought that the mutual love we have for caching or coins would be bringing communities together, and not trying to identify and ride on differences.

Edited June 5, 2008 by nashuan

[+sbell111]

After reading this thread, I signed up for Terracaching.com. It took about a day for two sponsors to step forward, but they were nice enough to do so and I had hoped that they had similar forums (a general topics and a geocoin discussion) to what is seen at this site. Most threads related to caching (couldn't find a coin forum) and yada, yada, yada, but there were a few where it seemed people had some pretty strong feelings about this site. I just don't get it! I don't know if it's a competition thing, or if there is some kind of history between these two sites or if anyone who is disgruntled with this forum for any reason, but still wants a caching "home", will end up there. I just don't know. Any thoughts on this from the old-timers here or am I way out of line and imagining something that actually doesn't exist? I would have thought that the mutual love we have for caching or coins would be bringing communities together, and not trying to identify and ride on differences.

I think that you are partially correct. Some people that were dissatisfied with GC.com landed over there. Also, some people that have been banned from here likely have landed over there.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I would have thought that the mutual love we have for caching or coins would be bringing communities together, and not trying to identify and ride on differences.

It is human nature to define ourselves by our differences.

 

While it is very true that we share MUCH more in common than we have points upon which we differ, sameness is boring.

 

The trick to humans getting along is not IMO to ignore our differences, but to acknowledge them and resolve to focus on our common goals and get along in spite of our differences. IMO, defining and acknowledging those differences actually enhances the process of getting along because we begin to understand the "sticking points" in our relationships.

 

in short, that there is competition and perhaps animosity should be no surprise and does not need a reason other than two human beings cannot ever fully agree on anything.

 

That people point out their differences, sometimes even quite vehemently, does not mean that they do not desire to live together in peace but perhaps only that they need something to talk about.

 

As in the news business, the commonplace is not reported because it is simply commonplace and therefore not 'news." Whereas the violence, hatred and disagreements in the world, even though MUCH less frequent, is "news" by virtue of the fact that it simply IS NOT commonplace.

 

"Can't we all just get along?" - Rodney King

[+briansnat]

I just don't get it! I don't know if it's a competition thing, or if there is some kind of history between these two sites or if anyone who is disgruntled with this forum for any reason, but still wants a caching "home", will end up there

 

You get a some people over there who left this site for one reason or another. Some were banned from here and some just had issues with the way things are run here. So you will see some animosity, but most of the snot flies this way. The people who are happy here generally don't bear any ill will to the other sites. A lot of us just see them as essentially useless.

Edited June 6, 2008 by briansnat

[+IDLookout]

I just don't get it! I don't know if it's a competition thing, or if there is some kind of history between these two sites or if anyone who is disgruntled with this forum for any reason, but still wants a caching "home", will end up there

 

You get a some people over there who left this site for one reason or another. Some were banned from here and some just had issues with the way things are run here. So you will see some animosity, but most of the snot flies this way. The people who are happy here generally don't bear any ill will to the other sites. A lot of us just see them as essentially useless.

 

I am a premium member of both sites. I disagree with essentially useless comment, as well as the "snot" comment - I've seen just as much going the other way. Terracaches in my area (Apparently NJ is a different story - try some up here in Northern Idaho) tend to be where 99% of the Geocachers will never go. I do both for different reasons - my boy & I geocache because most of them are pretty "easy". I Terracache because most of them are 8-16 mile round trips with 1/4-1/2 mile elevation gain.

[+sbell111]

I just don't get it! I don't know if it's a competition thing, or if there is some kind of history between these two sites or if anyone who is disgruntled with this forum for any reason, but still wants a caching "home", will end up there

 

You get a some people over there who left this site for one reason or another. Some were banned from here and some just had issues with the way things are run here. So you will see some animosity, but most of the snot flies this way. The people who are happy here generally don't bear any ill will to the other sites. A lot of us just see them as essentially useless.

 

I am a premium member of both sites. I disagree with essentially useless comment, as well as the "snot" comment - I've seen just as much going the other way. Terracaches in my area (Apparently NJ is a different story - try some up here in Northern Idaho) tend to be where 99% of the Geocachers will never go. I do both for different reasons - my boy & I geocache because most of them are pretty "easy". I Terracache because most of them are 8-16 mile round trips with 1/4-1/2 mile elevation gain.

I certainly agree.

 

99% of geocachers will NEVER go to northern Idaho.

[+IDLookout]

I just don't get it! I don't know if it's a competition thing, or if there is some kind of history between these two sites or if anyone who is disgruntled with this forum for any reason, but still wants a caching "home", will end up there

 

You get a some people over there who left this site for one reason or another. Some were banned from here and some just had issues with the way things are run here. So you will see some animosity, but most of the snot flies this way. The people who are happy here generally don't bear any ill will to the other sites. A lot of us just see them as essentially useless.

 

I am a premium member of both sites. I disagree with essentially useless comment, as well as the "snot" comment - I've seen just as much going the other way. Terracaches in my area (Apparently NJ is a different story - try some up here in Northern Idaho) tend to be where 99% of the Geocachers will never go. I do both for different reasons - my boy & I geocache because most of them are pretty "easy". I Terracache because most of them are 8-16 mile round trips with 1/4-1/2 mile elevation gain.

I certainly agree.

 

99% of geocachers will NEVER go to northern Idaho.

 

Now that right there was funny.

 

 

Of course you know what I meant though.

[+briansnat]

am a premium member of both sites. I disagree with essentially useless comment, as well as the "snot" comment - I've seen just as much going the other way. Terracaches in my area (Apparently NJ is a different story - try some up here in Northern Idaho) tend to be where 99% of the Geocachers will never go. I do both for different reasons - my boy & I geocache because most of them are pretty "easy". I Terracache because most of them are 8-16 mile round trips with 1/4-1/2 mile elevation gain.

 

I've never seen a post here or heard someone denigrating TC or NC, other than mentioning the dearth of

caches there. I've heard and seen posts from people on the other sites putting down GC, sometimes

with a good bit of vitriol

 

Around here the few active TCers just piggyback their geocaches on the back of an existing GC.Com geocache.

Pointless. The geocache listings on NC are just cross listed caches from this site. Pointless.

[+IDLookout]

I've never seen a post here or heard someone denigrating TC....

 

That's even funnier. You can even find some in this thread... lol

 

Again, I enjoy both and get tired of the bashing from both sides. Lets just cache.

[+J-Way]

Some general thots:

First, a bit of history. Terracaching was born when Jeremy (Groundspeak) refused to allow skydiver (and others) to continue to have programming access to the main geocaching database. I believe skydiver even offered to pay for this access. This refusal completely shut down the locally popular Skydiver Geocaching Point System (instead of 1 find = 1 smiley, you got points based on the rate a cache was found... really isolated mountaintop caches gave lots of points, LPC's gave you 1). So he renamed himself AngryKid and went off to create his own site (took his ball and went home?). The general point system followed the SGPS, and he added the ability to rate caches to create an emphasis on quality caches over quantity.

 

If Terracaching.com is such an awesome site, why hasn't it dominated the field and left Jeremy in the dust?Two reasons: First, a majority of people want easier caches. The popularity of GRC, LPC, and park-n-grabs emphasizes this. These people would never be happy with a point system that rewards finders of caches they would never attempt, and would always stay with Geocaching.com.

 

Second, TC.com was growing rapidly for a long time. Steadily adding new countries and territories and devoted converts. Every day, more members joined and new caches were placed. The Terracaching.com World Community Grid Team has completely dominated the Geocaching.com team. Then, a massive blow was dealt to the Terracaching community: AngryKid left the scene (and left the forums) about a year and a half ago to work on "TC 2.0". While the GC.com site has steadily expanded and improved (some may argue about the "improved" bit), TC.com and its users have languished while all energies were devoted to the next version. After all this time there's still no word on TC 2.0 (except for the occasional tease). Long-time TC fanatics dropped off the site or dropped out of caching completely. Some users archived caches over there to only re-list them here.

 

I personally believe that if AK had kept constantly improving the original site instead of dropping everything to create a new one from scratch, there would be a completely different dynamic. Geocaching.com would probably still dominate the game, but Terracaching.com would be a very close second. GC.com would have all the urban p-n-g's and TC.com would have most of the 16 mile hikes.

[+J-Way]

You'll never find a Geocoin or Travel Bug or Hitchhiker forum on Terracaching.com because TB's are a completely Geocaching.com aspect of the game. There is no way to track a TB placed in a Terracache, so you should never leave one there (unless it's a un-registered one left as a prize or trade item).

[+ArtieD]

am a premium member of both sites. I disagree with essentially useless comment, as well as the "snot" comment - I've seen just as much going the other way. Terracaches in my area (Apparently NJ is a different story - try some up here in Northern Idaho) tend to be where 99% of the Geocachers will never go. I do both for different reasons - my boy & I geocache because most of them are pretty "easy". I Terracache because most of them are 8-16 mile round trips with 1/4-1/2 mile elevation gain.

 

See...that is what I will never get. How is a long, long hike supposed to make a cache better?

[+ArtieD]

personally believe that if AK had kept constantly improving the original site instead of dropping everything to create a new one from scratch, there would be a completely different dynamic. Geocaching.com would probably still dominate the game, but Terracaching.com would be a very close second. GC.com would have all the urban p-n-g's and TC.com would have most of the 16 mile hikes.

 

So...hiking insane distances = good caches and little to no hikes = bad caches?

 

TC.com has PLENTY of "lame" hides that are going strong, much like this site has...so please, don't delude yourself in thinking that there's quality to be had there. As has been said before, TC.com is pretty much pointless because they either have a nasty habit of piggybacking or being of the same quality as geocaches in the area.

[+IDLookout]

am a premium member of both sites. I disagree with essentially useless comment, as well as the "snot" comment - I've seen just as much going the other way. Terracaches in my area (Apparently NJ is a different story - try some up here in Northern Idaho) tend to be where 99% of the Geocachers will never go. I do both for different reasons - my boy & I geocache because most of them are pretty "easy". I Terracache because most of them are 8-16 mile round trips with 1/4-1/2 mile elevation gain.

 

See...that is what I will never get. How is a long, long hike supposed to make a cache better?

 

It's a personal thing. I was a hiker long before Terracaching came about. A long hike to a cache is just a better experience for me. It may be a worse cache for others who don't like the "long" part. Like I said, I enjoy being out with my boy and the look on his face when he finds a cache along a roadway, and I enjoy the "pot at the end of the rainbow", if you will, with Terracaching (in my area at least).

 

JMHO.

[+briansnat]

am a premium member of both sites. I disagree with essentially useless comment, as well as the "snot" comment - I've seen just as much going the other way. Terracaches in my area (Apparently NJ is a different story - try some up here in Northern Idaho) tend to be where 99% of the Geocachers will never go. I do both for different reasons - my boy & I geocache because most of them are pretty "easy". I Terracache because most of them are 8-16 mile round trips with 1/4-1/2 mile elevation gain.

 

See...that is what I will never get. How is a long, long hike supposed to make a cache better?

 

It's a personal thing. I was a hiker long before Terracaching came about. A long hike to a cache is just a better experience for me. It may be a worse cache for others who don't like the "long" part. Like I said, I enjoy being out with my boy and the look on his face when he finds a cache along a roadway, and I enjoy the "pot at the end of the rainbow", if you will, with Terracaching (in my area at least).

 

JMHO.

 

The idea that TC has more geocaches with long hikes than GC is nonsense. These maps show that if it's geocaches with long hikes you're interested in, you're at the wrong website:

 

TC geocaches in part of northern Idaho:

 

GC geocaches in part of northern Idaho:

[+russellvt]

[Terracaching.Com]

The people who are happy here generally don't bear any ill will to the other sites. A lot of us just see them as essentially useless.

With all due respect...

 

Anyone else nearly die laughing in the dripping irony of this statement?

 

Anyway, I think both sites have their own spaces/draws along with their own sets of issues or annoyances. As others have said or insinuated, I think the more dedicated (?) cachers simply try to look beyond the squabbles and enjoy hunting both types of caches (along with possibly even a few other sites). Yeah, there are some improvements I'd love to see over on TC -- and I remember seeing a few growing pains here, too (even within the last year or so). But, myself, I'll continue to use both sites with the hopes that the respective communities grow. But I still find trying to argue that there's no will or superiority complex (in either direction), but casting one off as useless or overly simplistic or whatever is kinda funny...

[+russellvt]

So...hiking insane distances = good caches and little to no hikes = bad caches?

Well, I haven't really noticed anyone saying quite that... It's not nearly that cut and dry by any means. (as you also said, there are some pretty disappointing long hike caches, and there are some great PnGs, too)

 

I know (like others have kinda said), that I think that I'd have a tendency to think better of a cache where a long or rewarding hike was involved and I succeeded in making the "tough/beautiful hike." And yeah, I must say that I've seen caches of all four of the above categories on both sites... though there's a lot fewer PnGs on TC (at least that's been my experience thus far). Then again, there are a lot fewer caches altogether!

[+J-Way]

So...hiking insane distances = good caches and little to no hikes = bad caches?

No, I just used that as an example. For a general idea of what I consider a "quality" cache, here's a copy-n-paste from a post I made over at the TC forums (with a few minor edits):

The standard of a "quality" cache varies depending on where you are and what values your local finders place on caches, but in general a "quality" cache usually has one or more of the following attributes:

 

- Absolutely no commercial parking lot "skirt-lifter" style caches (LPCs).

- A good cache description: Maybe a little personal or general history of the site, a fictional story incorporating the cache locality, and/or decent pictures of the area. If you make the reviewer WANT to go out and find the cache, then you're starting off ahead of the game in your ratings. If your description is just a cut-n-paste of your last five caches, or nothing more than something along the line of "Just a quick cache with easy access from I-75", then you're starting out in the hole. And while not the most important thing, spelling and grammer DO matter.

- A good location: A trail with an awesome view is nice, but not necessary. Look for places that are not already overflowing with GC's, or maybe ARE overflowing with low-quality GC's and put a lot of effort in a TC with a good description and hide. Some people frown on "urban" caches of any kind, but there are plenty of good ones out there... you just have to be more creative. National Parks are wide open and waiting for Virtuals now that GC doesn't allow them any more. If you live in or near Illinois then you have more Virtual options than most. IL State Parks do technically allow geocaches, but the rules and requirements make it impractical to place physical containers.

- A good container: use a sturdy, watertight cache container (ammo can, lock-n-lock, even a small water cooler with a screw-on lid). Don't use cheap disposable Glad-lock style containers. If it's a trading cache, stock with decent swag (no 10 cent toys). Hide it well to prevent muggling, but not the "needle-in-a-haystack" style of hiding. Trying to find a rock-shaped cache in a large field of identical rocks with poor GPS reception is not very fun for most.

 

You don't have to have all of the above qualities, and I'll repeat that not every cache has to be perfect.

And obviously you can't have 10-mile hikes with awesome views for every cache... if that were a requirement then Florida would never get a cache (no hills = no views) .

 

 

TC.com has PLENTY of "lame" hides that are going strong, much like this site has...so please, don't delude yourself in thinking that there's quality to be had there. As has been said before, TC.com is pretty much pointless because they either have a nasty habit of piggybacking or being of the same quality as geocaches in the area.

Yes, there are plenty of "lame" hides listed over there. I can even name caches where there is a TC located physically close to a GC, but I found the GC to be much more enjoyable to find (example: GC was a 2-stage multi with a virtual first stage and well-stocked final near a prominant local landmark; TC was a bison tube in a tree). But IN GENERAL, if you were to pick a random Terracache, and then pick a random Geocache, the odds are good that the Terracache would be someplace interesting and the Geocache would be a LPC. Terracache.com DOES have a reason to exist, not all TC's are piggybacked in the same location as a GC, and if you feel differently then I have no problem with that.

 

And even if they are piggybacked, that's not so bad. One last example. I recently found a GC and a TC. The GC was located directly above an abandoned 19th-century brick lined railroad tunnel through a mountain. I enjoyed finding that one. It was a well stocked ammo can, it was a short walk from parking, and it brought me to an interesting piece of history. To find the nearby TC, however, I had to climb down to the railroad bed and walk through the tunnel (requiring a flashlight), gathering info for the final coordinates along the way. The description set the stage by telling the story of a "Haunted" tunnel. I ABSOLUTELY LOVED finding that one. So TC.com has a reason to exist, even if just for that cache.