Tightening of the EarthCache Submittal Guidelines?

[+DeRock & The Psychic Cacher]

At our local meet and greet tonight I was talking to a fellow geocacher who commented that he had an EarthCache that he submitted returned as not being acceptable for publishing. Seems the jist of the message was that EarthCache submissions should relate more to geology than geography. The EarthCache he submitted was for a gaging station on a river. He said he was told that gaging stations are no longer acceptable subjects for an EarthCache.

 

Anyone else having an experience with a shift in the guidelines? Potential EarthCaches denied that might have been published a few months ago?

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

[+TerryDad2]

Huh. I would expect that hydrology would fit in. I took a hydrogeology class to get my geology degree that involved flow and river hydrology. It might have to do with the slant the write up had taken. If the cacher is still interested I wouldn't mind having a look.

[+ODragon]

I've seen the exact opposite with a couple of the ones near me. There is one that is more about a Maritime Forest with no questions about the geology (although, there is a little about it in the text.)

 

I support GeoAware, I was just surprised by it being published.

[+Renegade Knight]

Huh. I would expect that hydrology would fit in. I took a hydrogeology class to get my geology degree that involved flow and river hydrology. It might have to do with the slant the write up had taken. If the cacher is still interested I wouldn't mind having a look.

 

A gaging stationg is a tool. By itself it really doesn't relate anything interesting about hydraulics or hydrology.

[+geoaware]

We have seen a flurry of submissions for gauging stations. While they can be a useful educational tool and make them good EarthCaches, we find the the majority of submissions have logging requirements that have people getting information from the web and not much more. These do not meet our guidelines and therefore are being rejected.

 

Some have additional logging requirements, but many of those are borderline to meeting the guidelines.

 

Rather than approving many EC with little educational value we have decided that these form of 'caches' would be better suited to a Waymarking. Exceptions will be made only when all the logging requirements are met and they are truly educational and provide a unique experience.

[+DeRock & The Psychic Cacher]

We have seen a flurry of submissions for gauging stations. While they can be a useful educational tool and make them good EarthCaches, we find the the majority of submissions have logging requirements that have people getting information from the web and not much more. These do not meet our guidelines and therefore are being rejected.

 

Some have additional logging requirements, but many of those are borderline to meeting the guidelines.

 

Rather than approving many EC with little educational value we have decided that these form of 'caches' would be better suited to a Waymarking. Exceptions will be made only when all the logging requirements are met and they are truly educational and provide a unique experience.

 

Thanks for the official clarification on the status of gaging stations.

 

Are there any other types of EarthCaches that as a rule of thumb (like the gaging stations) are no longer meeting the guidelines and are being rejected?

 

The reason I ask is that several folks in my area (including me) are mentoring potential EarthCache developers and it would be nice to see all their hard work result in successful EarthCache submissions. It's difficult to help them if the subtle shifts in the guidelines aren't shared. A proactive approach by the EarthCache reviewers would most certainly result in better EarthCache submissions, less work by the reviewers, and a more satisfying experience for the developer. Which, at first blush, would seem to be a good thing for all involved.

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

We have seen a flurry of submissions for gauging stations. While they can be a useful educational tool and make them good EarthCaches, we find the the majority of submissions have logging requirements that have people getting information from the web and not much more. These do not meet our guidelines and therefore are being rejected.

 

Some have additional logging requirements, but many of those are borderline to meeting the guidelines.

 

Rather than approving many EC with little educational value we have decided that these form of 'caches' would be better suited to a Waymarking. Exceptions will be made only when all the logging requirements are met and they are truly educational and provide a unique experience.

 

Thanks for the official clarification on the status of gaging stations.

 

Are there any other types of EarthCaches that as a rule of thumb (like the gaging stations) are no longer meeting the guidelines and are being rejected?

 

The reason I ask is that several folks in my area (including me) are mentoring potential EarthCache developers and it would be nice to see all their hard work result in successful EarthCache submissions. It's difficult to help them if the subtle shifts in the guidelines aren't shared. A proactive approach by the EarthCache reviewers would most certainly result in better EarthCache submissions, less work by the reviewers, and a more satisfying experience for the developer. Which, at first blush, would seem to be a good thing for all involved.

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

 

There couldn't be a "flurry of submissions" regarding mountain balds because there are not that many of them and they are not man made.

So, what about mountain "balds". I submitted one a few weeks ago and it is nearly identical to one that was approved last year. As a matter of fact, that's where I got the idea. It was turned down and when I questioned why I was told yes it is like the other cache (I referred to) but that type would no longer be approved.

I was referred to a third bald cache which is OK but it talks about everything except the "bald". This was a big surprise! I was also told that the bald was not geological enough even though the mystery of balds include geological explanations!

There is plenty of geology there including the fact that the bald rests between two major rylolite outcrops from ancient volcanoes. A lot of work went into finding, photo taking, capturing coordinates and writing the description of the potential cache only to be met with the surprise it was no longer pertinent!

Edited April 18, 2009 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[+geoaware]

There is no easy answer, other than that we follow the guidelines very closely. It is VERY important to us that people learn something about Earth science from visiting the site. Sometimes the difference between approval and rejection is based on our feeling if a site is really providing a lesson for people when they visit, or is it just a pretty place that the developer wants them to visit. We discuss the 'grey area' EC submissions between the developers and come up with a decision.

 

The definition of Earth science is wide...however for our purposes it includes any site in which the underlying lesson is about how the site has been influence by the underlying geology or the Earth science processes that have shaped the landscape or the site. It also includes those sites which have a historic Earth science component, such as mining locations. It does NOT include ecological, biological or archeological sites UNLESS a clear and strong link is given how Earth science has influenced the site and the logging requirement is Earth science linked. Basically, if the submission is about the physical landscape and how it was formed through geological processes, then its a great EC site (if it meets ALL of the guidelines).

 

So, to ensure your EC is approved quickly we suggest the following - follow the guidelines as written, make sure that the logging requirements provide a lesson for people, make sure you have all the correct permissions, make sure you complete the submission form (don't assume that you can leave any part of the form blank - especially your real name), check your coordinates and finally, check your submission against the guidelines again.

 

I hope this helps.

[+Indotguy]

I believe the guidelines for approving Earthcaches should be a little more stringent. I've seen them pop up like parking lot micros in a few areas around here. While this in itself doesn't mean they are unworthy of approval, there is one I am aware of which (with all due respect to the Earthcache reviewers) I feel should never have been approved. I'm speaking of GC19ABT. Without going into detail, I do not believe the geological information for this site is entirely accurate and I also consider the basis of this submission to be superficial and tends to lower the standard for the Earthcache program in general.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I believe the guidelines for approving Earthcaches should be a little more stringent. I've seen them pop up like parking lot micros in a few areas around here. While this in itself doesn't mean they are unworthy of approval, there is one I am aware of which (with all due respect to the Earthcache reviewers) I feel should never have been approved. I'm speaking of GC19ABT. Without going into detail, I do not believe the geological information for this site is entirely accurate and I also consider the basis of this submission to be superficial and tends to lower the standard for the Earthcache program in general.

While your thesis may or may not be correct, I feel that it is getting a little too personal to point to a specific EC for criticism. Because there is a "serge" in ECs doesn't necessarily mean they are without quality! By your own admission, "While this in itself doesn't mean they are unworthy of approval". One cache which you deem unworthy doesn't prove a need for guideline tightening!

Like most of us, enjoy the "serge" which in the final analysis may only prove one thing........the increased popularity of ECs!

[+Indotguy]

I stand by the premise that a lowering of the guidelines for Earthcache approval reduces the quality of the product and an example was given to make a point. I apologize for any offense. Yes, I agree, an easing of the submission guidelines will/would/did result in more Earthcaches for everyone to log, but to reiterate, more does not particularly mean better.

[Neos2]

I stand by the premise that a lowering of the guidelines for Earthcache approval reduces the quality of the product and an example was given to make a point. I apologize for any offense. Yes, I agree, an easing of the submission guidelines will/would/did result in more Earthcaches for everyone to log, but to reiterate, more does not particularly mean better.

I don't think there was any harm in pointing out an example. In fact, a few weeks ago, the owner of that particular cache asked me to give specific examples here in these forums of the type of EarthCache I was talking about.

 

I think I was commenting on caches that have mundane learning activities--You know, the kind that ask you to count something or tell them what some sign says--but I don't have time to find the particular post right now.

 

Not to pick on that EarthCache or anything, but since you mention it, I'll admit it befuddled me too, when I saw it. I thought it was just me, since I teach science and have a gazillion hours of credit in geology, but I wasn't sure what exactly was being "learned" there. It might just be a case of unclear writing. I've seen other EarthCaches where the owner talks about all sorts of possible causes of a formation, shows you examples or links that discuss those sorts of things, and then asks you to determine which type you are seeing, but this one didn't seem to do that.

 

I'd like to see a little more connect between the learning activity and the information on the features, too. I realize that not every EarthCache easily lends itself to a fascinating and creative leearning acitivity--but I dislike seeing so many people resort to the default of "count the stone stairs" or "tell me what the sign says" or other mundane and unrelated and meaningless responses.

 

Anyone can come up with at least something like "Hey, it's either this or it's that. If it's this, you'll see these things and if it's that you'll see those things. Tell me which you see in your note to me, but don't write it in the log"

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I stand by the premise that a lowering of the guidelines for Earthcache approval reduces the quality of the product and an example was given to make a point. I apologize for any offense. Yes, I agree, an easing of the submission guidelines will/would/did result in more Earthcaches for everyone to log, but to reiterate, more does not particularly mean better.

I don't think there was any harm in pointing out an example. In fact, a few weeks ago, the owner of that particular cache asked me to give specific examples here in these forums of the type of EarthCache I was talking about.

 

I think I was commenting on caches that have mundane learning activities--You know, the kind that ask you to count something or tell them what some sign says--but I don't have time to find the particular post right now.

 

Not to pick on that EarthCache or anything, but since you mention it, I'll admit it befuddled me too, when I saw it. I thought it was just me, since I teach science and have a gazillion hours of credit in geology, but I wasn't sure what exactly was being "learned" there. It might just be a case of unclear writing. I've seen other EarthCaches where the owner talks about all sorts of possible causes of a formation, shows you examples or links that discuss those sorts of things, and then asks you to determine which type you are seeing, but this one didn't seem to do that.

 

I'd like to see a little more connect between the learning activity and the information on the features, too. I realize that not every EarthCache easily lends itself to a fascinating and creative leearning acitivity--but I dislike seeing so many people resort to the default of "count the stone stairs" or "tell me what the sign says" or other mundane and unrelated and meaningless responses.

 

Anyone can come up with at least something like "Hey, it's either this or it's that. If it's this, you'll see these things and if it's that you'll see those things. Tell me which you see in your note to me, but don't write it in the log"

 

By saying "Not to pick on that EarthCache or anything" doesn't excuse the fact that is exactly what you and and Idotguy are doing. I don't know who 'owns' the cache in question but it looks like there is some sort of agenda beyond your belief that the guidelines have gone to hell and are to be found among the hot igneous rocks below!

The fact that you were requested to prove your categorical statement about the decline in the quality of ECs by showing examples doesn't excuse retaliation. Maybe you shouldn't have been asked to prove your point but using one cache which happens to belong to the questioner seems seems a bit petty. I am sorry but I do not sit in judgment of other's ECs. Yes, some are more interesting than others but I will never single out another fellow geocachers cache for public ridicule! If I feel strongly about something being amiss about a cache, I take it up with Geoaware and not vent public ally.

You worry about, " more connect between the learning activity and the information on the features" which I interpret to mean that questions asked are mundane and don't meet your geological/educational standards. Most geocachers don't run around with vials of 10% hydrochloric acid, loupes or rock hammers and certainly they don't have PhDs in geology!

Sometimes, a rock formation is a rock formation and without the above referenced tools there are not a lot of really detailed questions that can be asked. Yes, the usual estimates of the height and/or width and maybe the colors of the rock seem lame but absent specific knowledge regarding geology, what do you expect? Educational yes, but what is another and important purpose of having someone visit your EC? I dare say, it is to see and appreciate a geological phenomena of mother nature not complete a dissertation on the creation of the Earth!

[+narcissa]

I believe the guidelines for approving Earthcaches should be a little more stringent. I've seen them pop up like parking lot micros in a few areas around here. While this in itself doesn't mean they are unworthy of approval, there is one I am aware of which (with all due respect to the Earthcache reviewers) I feel should never have been approved. I'm speaking of GC19ABT. Without going into detail, I do not believe the geological information for this site is entirely accurate and I also consider the basis of this submission to be superficial and tends to lower the standard for the Earthcache program in general.

 

Yeah, that is a pretty weak Earthcache, and I'm surprised it was published at all.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I believe the guidelines for approving Earthcaches should be a little more stringent. I've seen them pop up like parking lot micros in a few areas around here. While this in itself doesn't mean they are unworthy of approval, there is one I am aware of which (with all due respect to the Earthcache reviewers) I feel should never have been approved. I'm speaking of GC19ABT. Without going into detail, I do not believe the geological information for this site is entirely accurate and I also consider the basis of this submission to be superficial and tends to lower the standard for the Earthcache program in general.

 

Yeah, that is a pretty weak Earthcache, and I'm surprised it was published at all.

I too am surprised. I am surprised that there is so little respect for fellow geocachers and the reviewers that we need to be so specific/personal with our cache criticism! Yes, and don't forget that while you delight with the criticism of the cache, you are dishing it out to the reviewer.

Remember, someone worked very hard to put the cache together and someone worked equally hard to approve it! It's too bad because I see nothing constructive here. Each and every cache could be criticized by someone. Too hard, too easy, too long, too short, too few questions, too many questions, too little geology, too much geology, too common, etc. and the list goes on so take your pick.

Can each of us state our ECs are perfect?

Remember the old saying about 'living in glass houses'!

P.S. How about getting back to the original topic which wasn't about indivdual lame (perceived) caches but about a change in guidelines?

Edited April 20, 2009 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[+joranda]

I believe the guidelines for approving Earthcaches should be a little more stringent. I've seen them pop up like parking lot micros in a few areas around here. While this in itself doesn't mean they are unworthy of approval, there is one I am aware of which (with all due respect to the Earthcache reviewers) I feel should never have been approved. I'm speaking of GC19ABT. Without going into detail, I do not believe the geological information for this site is entirely accurate and I also consider the basis of this submission to be superficial and tends to lower the standard for the Earthcache program in general.

 

Yeah, that is a pretty weak Earthcache, and I'm surprised it was published at all.

 

Since you are beating your drums. What is so great about your only earthcache that you have?

[+DeRock & The Psychic Cacher]

There is no easy answer, other than that we follow the guidelines very closely. It is VERY important to us that people learn something about Earth science from visiting the site. Sometimes the difference between approval and rejection is based on our feeling if a site is really providing a lesson for people when they visit, or is it just a pretty place that the developer wants them to visit. We discuss the 'grey area' EC submissions between the developers and come up with a decision.

 

The definition of Earth science is wide...however for our purposes it includes any site in which the underlying lesson is about how the site has been influence by the underlying geology or the Earth science processes that have shaped the landscape or the site. It also includes those sites which have a historic Earth science component, such as mining locations. It does NOT include ecological, biological or archeological sites UNLESS a clear and strong link is given how Earth science has influenced the site and the logging requirement is Earth science linked. Basically, if the submission is about the physical landscape and how it was formed through geological processes, then its a great EC site (if it meets ALL of the guidelines).

 

So, to ensure your EC is approved quickly we suggest the following - follow the guidelines as written, make sure that the logging requirements provide a lesson for people, make sure you have all the correct permissions, make sure you complete the submission form (don't assume that you can leave any part of the form blank - especially your real name), check your coordinates and finally, check your submission against the guidelines again.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Thank you Geoaware for the further clarification. Every little bit helps!

 

Please keep the posts to this thread on topic. I didn't intend it to evolve into a discussion about "bad" EarthCaches.

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

[+Car54]

My experience in submitting our one and only earthcache was a learning experience in itself. While our original write-up was OK, our learning experience wasn't. I found Geoaware to be very supportive - he/she worked with us to explain what was missing and suggested some possible learning activities. I appreciated the help to ensure that our earthcache wouldn't be "lame" due to my own limited knowledge.

 

YMMV

Mrs. Car54

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I stand by the premise that a lowering of the guidelines for Earthcache approval reduces the quality of the product and an example was given to make a point. I apologize for any offense. Yes, I agree, an easing of the submission guidelines will/would/did result in more Earthcaches for everyone to log, but to reiterate, more does not particularly mean better.

I have no problem with your 'premise' but unfortunately there is no proof that the guidelines have been lowered!

I also agree with "more does not particularly mean better" but it remains to be seen that first, the guidelines have been lowered and secondly, the increase shows a major reduction in quality! Once again, it may only mean the increase in popularity of ECs.

Heck, I don't want to beat a dead horse and I accept the explanation but refer to my post no. 7. From our perspective, the guidelines have tightened!

May we hear from some of the Earthcachers out there who have found a significant number of ECs?

Again. folks please keep it on point as the OP requests and not NAME your less than favorite ECs.

Marge and I are approaching 100 ECs found and we can only think of 2 ECs that were rather, shall we say, dull! Naturally, you could never get us to name them! Can we hear from those who have found significant numbers of ECs? What do you think?

Edited April 21, 2009 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[+GEO WALKER]

I don’t want to sound like "The Devil’s Advocate” here…

 

“Quality” has a much different value to someone w/a BS, MS or PhD degree(s) in the Earth Sciences than that of the non-science trained individual a.k.a. your typical “cacher”. I have always thought that the whole purpose of an Earthcache was to spark a persons interest and bring them to a location so that they [not the creator of the EC] walk away w/a much better understanding and knowledge of the area of interest w/out getting too technical.

 

Granted there may be a flood [no pun intended] of Gauging Station ECs, but stop and think just how many walkers, joggers, cyclist, and everyday type of folks go by one of these on a rails-to-trail and not realize just what that structure is or what importance it holds in floodwater control and community water supply management. I would love to do an EC on one of the Lock and Dams here in Pittsburgh but I can see the Army Corp of Engineers having issues w/the public waltzing around. Must be the reason for the No Trespass Signs???

 

Given their dispersal throughout the country and the fact that many “cachers” travel w/in a limited geographical area I feel that they are a useful and educational based on nothing more that an awareness of what they are.

[+bennet]

I have not read this entire thread, so my statements here may be redundant to what someone else has already typed... I just read the first post.

 

Bravo to the GSA and geoaware for getting rid of those dadgum gaging stations. I, myself, hold earthcaches in high regard. Through them, I have developed a strong interest in geology, and they have taught me a lot. I personally like to go into an earthcache, as a finder, with the feeling that I am going to see something cool, and I'm going to learn something, and spend some time. When I create one, I strive for those same things. I do them for the experience and the memory, not for the number, and frankly, the gaging stations don't impress a very strong memory in me. Yes, they measure water level. That is a geological factor, but it really isn't a significant lesson or experience, at least at the level that I expect a published earthcache to be.

 

My opinion is that gaging stations reduce the standard associated with earthcaches, and that they need to go. I am glad they are gone.

 

And lets face it. The flood of gaging station submissions is the result of a numbers game, or a "get the icon" game, just like most of what gc.com has been reducing itself to. Kudos to GSA for not playing into that. This branch of geocaching can do without that attitude.

 

Now if they can only tackle the waterfall problem, we're cooking with gas. Some waterfalls should qualify, like that "Falling Waters" one in Florida. But not the little insignificant manmade concrete weir in a small creek in a park in the middle of a neighborhood, built solely to keep water in the park to beautify it, or to help manage the flooding in the lower lying terrains where houses are located in some cookie-cutter neighborhoods.

[+bennet]

So I really didn't say "dadgum" in the above post. I said something like "dam" which is equally as tame.

Isn't it?

The ole censor got it and changed it. Wow! Wow again.

You have to be kidding me. I can't believe that that is seriously the case.

What a place...

I chose not to edit it and take it out. Golly gee, I guess.

Edited April 21, 2009 by bennet

[+eagsc7]

Now if they can only tackle the waterfall problem...

 

I didn't know there was a Waterfall Problem. Both of mine are, but that is just happenstance. 1)Palouse Falls is AWESOME! 2) What IF I chose a waterfall because its beautiful, and most people just drive by and don't see it. Even if Its right off the road.

 

The Steaks

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Now if they can only tackle the waterfall problem...

 

I didn't know there was a Waterfall Problem. Both of mine are, but that is just happenstance. 1)Palouse Falls is AWESOME! 2) What IF I chose a waterfall because its beautiful, and most people just drive by and don't see it. Even if Its right off the road.

 

The Steaks

Waterfall problem?

What about the cave problem? What about the lookout problem? What about the outcrop problem? What about the sink hole problem? What about the stream convergence problem? What about the desert problem? What about the spring problem? What about the mine problem? What about the pinnacle problem? What about the canyon problem?

There are no problems unless you choose to make them!

As has been said many times...........................just say NO! No to going to the cache.