Earthcache Masters

[+Taoiseach]

The guidelines for the programme say that each level is X number of caches in X number of states/countries

 

I was wondering if different Canadian provinces (i.e. Ontario & Quebec) count as different entities

 

Does anyone know?

[+hydnsek]

The guidelines for the programme say that each level is X number of caches in X number of states/countries

 

I was wondering if different Canadian provinces (i.e. Ontario & Quebec) count as different entities

 

Does anyone know?

I'm pretty sure it's "yes." British Columbia counted for me, but I've only done one Canadian province in addition to my US states. But surely the provinces would be counted separately, like states.

Edited May 2, 2008 by hydnsek

[+Kiwi Nomad]

The guidelines for the programme say that each level is X number of caches in X number of states/countries

 

I was wondering if different Canadian provinces (i.e. Ontario & Quebec) count as different entities

 

Does anyone know?

 

I really wanted to give you a definite answer but unfortunately I just can't get on site to check the information out.

 

When I do a 'state' search for New Zealand, I choose NZ for country and then I have two state options, North Island and South Island.

So to find out the answer go to the search page, select state/country, then choose Canada. You should then get a drop down menu where you can select which state in Canada you want. That way you'll know how many states gc recognises.

 

You WILL have separate states (hey we have two!) the only question will be how many.

[+plumbrokeacres]

Yes it is x states/Provinces I have 2 in British Columbia and one in Manitoba making me a Bronze Master hoping to get my silver this Summer.

[+gvsu4msu]

The guidelines for the programme say that each level is X number of caches in X number of states/countries

 

I was wondering if different Canadian provinces (i.e. Ontario & Quebec) count as different entities

 

Does anyone know?

 

The answer to your question is YES - different provinces count as different entities.

 

(working on my Gold masters)

[+Taoiseach]

Beautiful

 

That's going to make bronze and possibly silver a gimme

 

Thanks!

[+vw_k]

How does it work here in England? Do different counties apply as states/regions?

[+geobswescout]

How does it work here in England? Do different counties apply as states/regions?

 

I asked almost the same question about 2 months ago by email.

This is the answer I got:

 

In Europe, it must be different countries.

States/provinces count only in the US, Canada, and Australia.

 

Does this answer your question?

 

Geoaware

 

I think that was a straight and clear answer.

 

GeoBSWEScout

[+TheWonderStuff]

How does it work here in England? Do different counties apply as states/regions?

 

I asked almost the same question about 2 months ago by email.

This is the answer I got:

 

In Europe, it must be different countries.

States/provinces count only in the US, Canada, and Australia.

 

Does this answer your question?

 

Geoaware

 

I think that was a straight and clear answer.

 

GeoBSWEScout

 

Sweet, I was made to feel I had cheated in my country on recieving my Gold Pin. Music to my ears here

[Neos2]

Sweet, I was made to feel I had cheated in my country on recieving my Gold Pin. Music to my ears here

I think the division is fair--just glancing at a map of the world makes it obvious that there had to be some kind of attention paid to the sheer size of the country when deciding how to divvy up the requirements:

Gold Earthcache Master

Visit and log twelve (12) or more Earthcaches in four (4) or more states/countries and have developed two (2) or more Earthcaches.

 

The US, Canada, and Australia are rather larger than the European countries. All of Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) is about the same size as the US states of Kansas and Minnesota. It makes sense to have people travel roughly the same amount of distance. Australia is about the same size as all of Europe.

 

There are really cool maps here that compare the size of Australia to some other nations.

[+TerryDad2]

The East Coast of the US has it relatively easy as thier states can be the same size as some counties on the West Coast of the US .

Edited July 1, 2008 by TerryDad2

[+Maple Leaf]

How does it work here in England? Do different counties apply as states/regions?

 

I asked almost the same question about 2 months ago by email.

This is the answer I got:

 

In Europe, it must be different countries.

States/provinces count only in the US, Canada, and Australia.

 

Does this answer your question?

 

Geoaware

 

I think that was a straight and clear answer.

 

GeoBSWEScout

 

I presume then that Earth Caches logged in England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland count as 4 countries (although small in comparison to US states) rather than the UK as a whole.

[Neos2]

How does it work here in England? Do different counties apply as states/regions?

 

I asked almost the same question about 2 months ago by email.

This is the answer I got:

 

In Europe, it must be different countries.

States/provinces count only in the US, Canada, and Australia.

 

Does this answer your question?

 

Geoaware

 

I think that was a straight and clear answer.

 

GeoBSWEScout

 

I presume then that Earth Caches logged in England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland count as 4 countries (although small in comparison to US states) rather than the UK as a whole.

It appears they are listed as "United Kingdom" or "Ireland" (from looking at the list of countries in the advanced search).

Edited July 2, 2008 by Neos2

[+Maple Leaf]

It appears they are listed as "United Kingdom" or "Ireland" (from looking at the list of countries in the advanced search).

 

That's a shame .... it will take slightly longer to get a masters then !

[+geoaware]

We accept the different countries in the UK, north and south islands of New Zealand, different islands in the island nations of the pacific and different provinces within countries in Europe.

 

Our definition of state/territories/provinces and countries is not the same as the pull down lists in geocaching.com.

 

However, please make sure you list the names of the provinces etc in the submission - not just the country or just the waypoint code. Not doing so will mean that it is not approved.

 

Cheers

 

Geoaware

[+Maple Leaf]

We accept the different countries in the UK, north and south islands of New Zealand, different islands in the island nations of the pacific and different provinces within countries in Europe.

 

Our definition of state/territories/provinces and countries is not the same as the pull down lists in geocaching.com.

 

However, please make sure you list the names of the provinces etc in the submission - not just the country or just the waypoint code. Not doing so will mean that it is not approved.

 

Cheers

 

Geoaware

 

Thankyou for the clarification.

[Neos2]

We accept the different countries in the UK, north and south islands of New Zealand, different islands in the island nations of the pacific and different provinces within countries in Europe.

 

Our definition of state/territories/provinces and countries is not the same as the pull down lists in geocaching.com.

 

However, please make sure you list the names of the provinces etc in the submission - not just the country or just the waypoint code. Not doing so will mean that it is not approved.

 

Cheers

 

Geoaware

I just went and looked again. I was looking on the advanced search page at earthcache.org--but I was only looking for countries (nations). I found The UK and Ireland--but couldn't find Wales, Scotland, or Northen Ireland.

 

Now that you've posted, I went back and looked again --this time I pulled up the entire list of earthcaches in the UK and I see there are various listings under the "state/province" option too -- voilà, there they were: Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and all the counties of the UK (Cheshire, Devon, Dulcet-- and some 'dependencies' like Isle of Man etc).

 

Do people there use the "state/province" category to determine when they qualify for the various master levels? Is that the easiest way to tell anyone how to figure it out for their county?

Edited July 2, 2008 by Neos2

[+Harry Dolphin]

I assume that the earthcaches visited are cumulative? I have visited sixteen earthcaches in three states. That would qualify me for a Bronze pin. If I develop one Earthcache, I would qualify for Silver also? Develop a second earthcache, and visit one more state, and I can qualify for gold? All on the same sixteen earthcaches visited?

Edited July 3, 2008 by Harry Dolphin

[+geoaware]

Yes...that is correct!

 

[+Harry Dolphin]

Okay. You're on, dude! There's a unique spot that I love, with interesting geology. I shall have to work on an earthcache there. Meanwhile, my bronze status has been submitted.

[+Carbon Hunter]

I'm so happy. Managed to do a 6th Earthcache this past week.

 

So now: Found 6 - Hidden 24 (2 more coming)

 

And I finally qualify fior Silver. Yippiiee

 

Not many EC's my side of the world.

Edited July 11, 2008 by Carbon Hunter

[South Surrey Scavengers]

My beef with Earthcache Masters is that it puts too much emphasis on finding and not enough on creating EC's. If you reversed the requirement for Gold from Visit 12 and develop 2 to Develop 12 and visit 2 I would be Gold right now. I think it should be something like: Visit and Develop a total of 14 Earthcaches. At least 2 of which must be Developed by the cacher and at least 2 must be visited by the cacher.

[+Juicepig]

My beef with Earthcache Masters is that it puts too much emphasis on finding and not enough on creating EC's. If you reversed the requirement for Gold from Visit 12 and develop 2 to Develop 12 and visit 2 I would be Gold right now. I think it should be something like: Visit and Develop a total of 14 Earthcaches. At least 2 of which must be Developed by the cacher and at least 2 must be visited by the cacher.

 

I think they do that so that you dont get LAME earthcaches. As it is, there isn't a geologic feature within 250km of my place worth creating a new earthcache for, but I bet you someone will!

[Neos2]

My beef with Earthcache Masters is that it puts too much emphasis on finding and not enough on creating EC's. If you reversed the requirement for Gold from Visit 12 and develop 2 to Develop 12 and visit 2 I would be Gold right now. I think it should be something like: Visit and Develop a total of 14 Earthcaches. At least 2 of which must be Developed by the cacher and at least 2 must be visited by the cacher.

 

I think they do that so that you dont get LAME earthcaches. As it is, there isn't a geologic feature within 250km of my place worth creating a new earthcache for, but I bet you someone will!

I think any additional focus should be on finding. Having an emphasis on developing earthcaches can lead to clusters of redundant caches because everyone wants to be an earthcache master. I know one area of the country that has a lot of good caches. They all tend to be on the same topic though, so it's almost a matter of going 2 miles and doing an "x" earthcache, then driving another 2 miles to do the next "X" earthache, and so on and so forth. They happen to have a lot of that kind of feature and not much else.

 

You can't control what natural features exist near you, but you can choose where to visit. That's why I think the focus should be on different types of earthcaches visited. That way the quality will stay high and we'll all learn more.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Neos2

[South Surrey Scavengers]

My beef with Earthcache Masters is that it puts too much emphasis on finding and not enough on creating EC's. If you reversed the requirement for Gold from Visit 12 and develop 2 to Develop 12 and visit 2 I would be Gold right now. I think it should be something like: Visit and Develop a total of 14 Earthcaches. At least 2 of which must be Developed by the cacher and at least 2 must be visited by the cacher.

 

I think they do that so that you dont get LAME earthcaches. As it is, there isn't a geologic feature within 250km of my place worth creating a new earthcache for, but I bet you someone will!

We won't get LAME earthcaches because Geoaware won't be approving any.

[South Surrey Scavengers]

My beef with Earthcache Masters is that it puts too much emphasis on finding and not enough on creating EC's. If you reversed the requirement for Gold from Visit 12 and develop 2 to Develop 12 and visit 2 I would be Gold right now. I think it should be something like: Visit and Develop a total of 14 Earthcaches. At least 2 of which must be Developed by the cacher and at least 2 must be visited by the cacher.

 

I think they do that so that you dont get LAME earthcaches. As it is, there isn't a geologic feature within 250km of my place worth creating a new earthcache for, but I bet you someone will!

I think any additional focus should be on finding. Having an emphasis on developing earthcaches can lead to clusters of redundant caches because everyone wants to be an earthcache master. I know one area of the country that has a lot of good caches. They all tend to be on the same topic though, so it's almost a matter of going 2 miles and doing an "x" earthcache, then driving another 2 miles to do the next "X" earthache, and so on and so forth. They happen to have a lot of that kind of feature and not much else.

 

You can't control what natural features exist near you, but you can choose where to visit. That's why I think the focus should be on different types of earthcaches visited. That way the quality will stay high and we'll all learn more.

You're kidding right?

 

Clusters of redundant caches? Geologic features occur where .. simply put where they occur. I would definitely expect clusters as some parts of the earth are rich in natural features. Like Yellowstone Park. There should be a hundred Earthcaches in the park while only 1 might occur in the same size area located in a featureless terrain. Any redundancy issues I'm sure would be prevented by Geoaware during the approval process.

 

"You can't control what natural features exist near you, but you can choose where to visit." You can only choose places where Earthcaches exist. And Earthcaches exist (once again where nature put them). Earthcaches should exists wherever significant geologic or geographic features exist. We don't get to pick and choose where they are. They are where they are.

 

Plus if Earthcaches are about educating the public about our natural world then we need to have more of them and in more accessible places so that they can be visited by larger numbers of people. That way we have the ability to educate people about them. If you want to restrict the numbers of Earthcaches you are restricting the learning opportunities.

[+Carbon Hunter]

My beef with Earthcache Masters is that it puts too much emphasis on finding and not enough on creating EC's. If you reversed the requirement for Gold from Visit 12 and develop 2 to Develop 12 and visit 2 I would be Gold right now. I think it should be something like: Visit and Develop a total of 14 Earthcaches. At least 2 of which must be Developed by the cacher and at least 2 must be visited by the cacher.

 

One needs to consider all geographic locations when setting up a program such as the Earthcache Masters.

 

It may be fine in Europe or USA where there is a fair density of EC's within a 500 - 1000 km radius (i.e. a road trip away).

 

In certain parts of the world - Earthcaches are far less numerous. In South Africa - up until a month or so ago - there were only 3 Earthcaches in the entire country. I have since placed about 20 odd caches - and have encouraged a few new cachers to place some more - so we are starting to see some momentum here.

 

But I see that there are other areas (Southern Europe; Asia; Middle East) where EC's are really lacking. So it is difficult to meet a requirement to find x EC's when there are so few about.

 

But then again - my Silver (3 EC's where not even in Africa - I'm in the firtunate position that I do travel) - was REALLY SWEET!!!!

 

So I am happy with the current grading - It would be good to recognise (additionally) EC hides.

[+AndrewRJ]

My beef with Earthcache Masters is that it puts too much emphasis on finding and not enough on creating EC's. If you reversed the requirement for Gold from Visit 12 and develop 2 to Develop 12 and visit 2 I would be Gold right now. I think it should be something like: Visit and Develop a total of 14 Earthcaches. At least 2 of which must be Developed by the cacher and at least 2 must be visited by the cacher.

 

I think they do that so that you dont get LAME earthcaches. As it is, there isn't a geologic feature within 250km of my place worth creating a new earthcache for, but I bet you someone will!

I think any additional focus should be on finding. Having an emphasis on developing earthcaches can lead to clusters of redundant caches because everyone wants to be an earthcache master. I know one area of the country that has a lot of good caches. They all tend to be on the same topic though, so it's almost a matter of going 2 miles and doing an "x" earthcache, then driving another 2 miles to do the next "X" earthache, and so on and so forth. They happen to have a lot of that kind of feature and not much else.

 

You can't control what natural features exist near you, but you can choose where to visit. That's why I think the focus should be on different types of earthcaches visited. That way the quality will stay high and we'll all learn more.

You're kidding right?

 

Clusters of redundant caches? Geologic features occur where .. simply put where they occur. I would definitely expect clusters as some parts of the earth are rich in natural features. Like Yellowstone Park. There should be a hundred Earthcaches in the park while only 1 might occur in the same size area located in a featureless terrain. Any redundancy issues I'm sure would be prevented by Geoaware during the approval process.

 

"You can't control what natural features exist near you, but you can choose where to visit." You can only choose places where Earthcaches exist. And Earthcaches exist (once again where nature put them). Earthcaches should exists wherever significant geologic or geographic features exist. We don't get to pick and choose where they are. They are where they are.

 

Plus if Earthcaches are about educating the public about our natural world then we need to have more of them and in more accessible places so that they can be visited by larger numbers of people. That way we have the ability to educate people about them. If you want to restrict the numbers of Earthcaches you are restricting the learning opportunities.

Not sure I totally agree with you.

 

While I do agree that some areas have a much higher concentration of obvious geologic interest in the greater seattle area, the major geologic features are all glacial. A lot, not all, but a lot are Glacial erratics. There are only so many times that I can see an erratic and get excited about it. And I am a geologist!

 

Yes I know that I havn't improved the situation by placing some other types, hopefully I will fix that soon. Point being, out here it very much is drive to one big rock, then drive to another big rock. I am very glad that the caches have been developed but they are all very similar.

[+TerryDad2]

 

While I do agree that some areas have a much higher concentration of obvious geologic interest in the greater seattle area, the major geologic features are all glacial. A lot, not all, but a lot are Glacial erratics. There are only so many times that I can see an erratic and get excited about it. And I am a geologist!

 

Yes I know that I havn't improved the situation by placing some other types, hopefully I will fix that soon. Point being, out here it very much is drive to one big rock, then drive to another big rock. I am very glad that the caches have been developed but they are all very similar.

I remeber this kind of issue coming up in another thread before the EC form started. It was related to the number river confluences in the KY area. Same argument, how can one get excited about seeing yet another river confluence after seeing 10 others. To the geocacher, I would agree. Seen 5, don't need to see 5 more.

 

However the point was made that the EC program is also directed toward teachers and educational programs. These groups have limited resources in time and ability to transport large numbers of people. These groups need the seemingly redundant ECs so they can pick the EC that is closest to them. The redundant EC are for access not variety.

[South Surrey Scavengers]

My beef with Earthcache Masters is that it puts too much emphasis on finding and not enough on creating EC's. If you reversed the requirement for Gold from Visit 12 and develop 2 to Develop 12 and visit 2 I would be Gold right now. I think it should be something like: Visit and Develop a total of 14 Earthcaches. At least 2 of which must be Developed by the cacher and at least 2 must be visited by the cacher.

 

One needs to consider all geographic locations when setting up a program such as the Earthcache Masters.

 

It may be fine in Europe or USA where there is a fair density of EC's within a 500 - 1000 km radius (i.e. a road trip away).

 

In certain parts of the world - Earthcaches are far less numerous. In South Africa - up until a month or so ago - there were only 3 Earthcaches in the entire country. I have since placed about 20 odd caches - and have encouraged a few new cachers to place some more - so we are starting to see some momentum here.

 

But I see that there are other areas (Southern Europe; Asia; Middle East) where EC's are really lacking. So it is difficult to meet a requirement to find x EC's when there are so few about.

 

But then again - my Silver (3 EC's where not even in Africa - I'm in the firtunate position that I do travel) - was REALLY SWEET!!!!

 

So I am happy with the current grading - It would be good to recognise (additionally) EC hides.

Sounds like we need some Earthcachers in Southern Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. I'm pretty sure there are good sites there! Just not enough enthusiasts.

[+AndrewRJ]

However the point was made that the EC program is also directed toward teachers and educational programs. These groups have limited resources in time and ability to transport large numbers of people. These groups need the seemingly redundant ECs so they can pick the EC that is closest to them. The redundant EC are for access not variety.

 

Terry

 

Thanks for bringing up that point. Sometimes it is difficult to pull away from the Geocaching addict that I obviously am and look at the big picture. That is an excelent point. I will caviot my statement then... "From the perspective of interesting Geocaches"

Edited July 18, 2008 by AndrewRJ

[Neos2]

 

While I do agree that some areas have a much higher concentration of obvious geologic interest in the greater seattle area, the major geologic features are all glacial. A lot, not all, but a lot are Glacial erratics. There are only so many times that I can see an erratic and get excited about it. And I am a geologist!

 

Yes I know that I havn't improved the situation by placing some other types, hopefully I will fix that soon. Point being, out here it very much is drive to one big rock, then drive to another big rock. I am very glad that the caches have been developed but they are all very similar.

I remeber this kind of issue coming up in another thread before the EC form started. It was related to the number river confluences in the KY area. Same argument, how can one get excited about seeing yet another river confluence after seeing 10 others. To the geocacher, I would agree. Seen 5, don't need to see 5 more.

 

However the point was made that the EC program is also directed toward teachers and educational programs. These groups have limited resources in time and ability to transport large numbers of people. These groups need the seemingly redundant ECs so they can pick the EC that is closest to them. The redundant EC are for access not variety.

Ooopsy, now that you mention it, I think *I* was the person who suggested that proximity to a particular school might be a good thing. So I herby modify my thoughts that too much redundancy is a bad thing as far as the earthcaches that are out there.

 

...but I still say that any increase in recognition ought not hinge just on sheer numbers of earthcaches created.

 

I say that for a lot of reasons.

 

If we really want to promote earthcaching, we'll want to encourage others to make earthcaches. It's nice for everyone to get the chance to develop an earthcache or three once they become interested. And it's discouraging when one person has already done 50 in a small area. Most people don't know a lot about geology and if all the obvious possibilities are alread taken, it can cause some resentment and disappointment. If you have a bit of special knowledge, why not go for the more creative ones, and leave something for others?

 

Various perspectives. Two people can look at the same topic in two very different ways. I was in one area where most of the earthcaches were looooooong and involving--and created by one person. They required visiting a dozen places each, and tried to cover everything related to the topic. It would have been nice to see some of them broken up into smaller, more focused topics. If they were, more people could enjoy them. As they are, some people aren't physically able to visit some parts of the earthcache, or can't devote several days to it because they don't live in the area. But I don't imagine anyone else will try to do a more focused ones in that area "it's already covered" in the mega earthcache.

 

It's nice for all of us to try to learn more; even the developers. I know a lot about some aspects of geology and very little about other topics. It would do me good to be challenged to try to work a little outside my area of comfort. As an added bonus, it would help to avoid some of the redundancy if we approached development from a different angle. Many earthcaches could be worked from several angles--why not challenge ourselves not to make another earthcache just like the other three we made, even if they are all about sinkholes, or caves, or hot springs, or artesian wells?

 

We already have recognition for just sheer numbers. It's time to think about something different.