New Cache Type

[+mc3cats]

With the death of virt caches which appears to be dead, burried, and turning to dust, I would like to take the community's temperature on a new type of cache called an "Historical Cache" (HC for short). HCs could be represented as a scroll or small monument icon and would bring the cache seekers to areas throughout the world that has some historical value represented by a monument or a plaque. In virt cache fashion, would require the cache seeker go to the site and actually learn something of about the historical site via answers to site specific questions. This would be similar to a virt cache, but the guidelines for this cache would be strict on caches of historical value only. The cache placer/owner would be required to submit a photo of the monument or plaque to validate the historical value of the HC site prior to it being published on the GC web site.

 

We have Earth Caches, why not "Historical Caches"? Who knows, may be the National Parks System could be pursuaded to allow HCs within their boundaries since the historical caches would be environmentally friendly. Lord knows the NPS could use the extra money from cachers coming in to National Parks to log HCs, camp in the camp grounds, spend money at the gift shops, etc.

[+bittsen]

With the death of virt caches which appears to be dead, burried, and turning to dust, I would like to take the community's temperature on a new type of cache called an "Historical Cache" (HC for short). HCs could be represented as a scroll or small monument icon and would bring the cache seekers to areas throughout the world that has some historical value represented by a monument or a plaque. In virt cache fashion, would require the cache seeker go to the site and actually learn something of about the historical site via answers to site specific questions. This would be similar to a virt cache, but the guidelines for this cache would be strict on caches of historical value only. The cache placer/owner would be required to submit a photo of the monument or plaque to validate the historical value of the HC site prior to it being published on the GC web site.

 

We have Earth Caches, why not "Historical Caches"? Who knows, may be the National Parks System could be pursuaded to allow HCs within their boundaries since the historical caches would be environmentally friendly. Lord knows the NPS could use the extra money from cachers coming in to National Parks to log HCs, camp in the camp grounds, spend money at the gift shops, etc.

 

Where would the creativity be? Why should one person be able to claim a historical cache as their own?

I can see the rush for people trying to log all the historical caches as their own.

 

BTW, that would just be another name for virtual caches.

[jholly]

We already have "Historical Caches". They are listed on Waymarking.com. I can see a whole big can of worms when you say they are for historical value. As has been said before "Geocaching is about going some place and finding something." Your "Historical Cache" is only about going some place. Where and how do you draw a line for historical value? I could argue the first KFC in town is obviously of historical value and should be listed. You limit it to monuments and plaques. So the dedication plaque on the library downtown is now a "Historical Cache"? I'm sure the reviewers would be really ticked that they now have to sit in judgement of a picture to list a cache.

 

Groundspeak does not approve Earthcaches, they merely list them. Of course the page has to pass the smell test. To have an Earthcache listed it must first pass muster on Earthcache.org. I do not see the existence of Earthcaches as a means or reason why "Historical Caches" should be brought into existence.

 

Now for some

 

Jim

[Clan Riffster]

A rose virtual by any other name is still a rose virtual.

But then, I'm biased, as I have never been fond of virts.

[+eigengott]

I would like to take the community's temperature on a new type of cache called an "Historical Cache" (HC for short). HCs could be represented as a scroll or small monument icon and would bring the cache seekers to areas throughout the world that has some historical value represented by a monument or a plaque.

 

There you go: http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx...c1c1b8&tp=3

[+mrbort]

A rose virtual by any other name is still a rose virtual.

But then, I'm biased, as I have never been fond of virts.

 

You mean:

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose virtual

By any other name would smell as sweet."

 

(just teasing )

 

However, point taken on you not liking virtuals and this idea essentially being that. However, it's a bit refined and would probably have to have the professional equivalent of the organization that drives the earthcaches to make it successful. I'm not a historian so I have no idea if any body fits into that mold.

 

Regardless, I believe that interesting stories have their place (and Waymarking just isn't cutting it; i've spent considerable time in the last few days perusing the entries for some areas in which I know there should be more than a few benchmarks). Would be neat if there were such a thing as a historical VC (because lets not mess around, it would be a virtual) but I don't see a way of standardizing it -- and as i understand it, that is one of the big reasons that virtuals were discontinued. On the other hand, It would be awesome to see Waymarking more integrated with GC so that on a PQ along a route we could DL caches and, for instance, historical sites. Or Puzzle Caches and Benchmarks (worst possibility I could think of). Regardless it would be an awesome addition to the functionality of PQs and ultimately making life more interesting for everyone.

Edited June 9, 2009 by mrbort

[+Isonzo Karst]

One of the key features of Earthcaches is that they are submitted to and reviewed by Geological Society of America. You do not submit them to Geocaching.com.

 

Who is going to control/review your Historic Caches?

 

I can guarantee you that a new virtual will NOT be listed unless some OTHER established organization sponsors it (hosts the cache submit form, defines the type, reviews and publishes the cache) as GSA does Earthcaches.

 

I doubt that any category of caches that already exists as a Waymarking category will be listed on GC.com - but that's just my opinion.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

We already have "Historical Caches". They are listed on Waymarking.com. I can see a whole big can of worms when you say they are for historical value. As has been said before "Geocaching is about going some place and finding something." Your "Historical Cache" is only about going some place. Where and how do you draw a line for historical value? I could argue the first KFC in town is obviously of historical value and should be listed. You limit it to monuments and plaques. So the dedication plaque on the library downtown is now a "Historical Cache"? I'm sure the reviewers would be really ticked that they now have to sit in judgement of a picture to list a cache.

 

Groundspeak does not approve Earthcaches, they merely list them. Of course the page has to pass the smell test. To have an Earthcache listed it must first pass muster on Earthcache.org. I do not see the existence of Earthcaches as a means or reason why "Historical Caches" should be brought into existence.

 

Now for some

 

Jim

 

The fact that Groundspeaks lists Earthcaches, and not waymarks, is IMHO an important distinction. Because, Earthcaches are listed they can be discovered with Pocket Queries, including using the caches along a route feature. Most importantly, for many, they result in a smiley and add to the ones find count.

 

Granted, it's probably never going to happen, but if a "Historical Caches" were listed on Groundspeak, one could create a route using Google Earth, then produce a list of historical caches to visit while on a family vacation. For some, I would imagine that would be a more attractive option than a PQ that contained a bunch of caches stuck to guard rails along the highway.

 

Of course, if Waymarking.com had a "waymarks along a route" feature it would be a big improvement to that site it would probably get more use.

[+Allanon]

The fact that Groundspeaks lists Earthcaches, and not waymarks, is IMHO an important distinction...snip.

Sorry, but the 'fact' is that Groundspeak DOES list Waymarks...Geocaching.com does not.

 

Groundspeak owns the websites for Geocaching, Waymarking, and Wherigo.

[+StarBrand]

If you want to include a historical marker - make some kind of offset cache where you use information on the marker to locate the actual cache located nearby. That way - a cacher get to learn something and gets to find and log a cache. A historical attribute could be applied to such caches.

[GOF and Bacall]

If you want to include a historical marker - make some kind of offset cache where you use information on the marker to locate the actual cache located nearby. That way - a cacher get to learn something and gets to find and log a cache. A historical attribute could be applied to such caches.

 

Sounds like the best suggestion.

[+Renegade Knight]

...We have Earth Caches, why not "Historical Caches"?...

 

I think there is a lot of potential here. If done right. I could care less about yet another roadside sign. However the spot 3 miles away hidden behind the hill that the sign is actually talking about where you can see the ruins of the cabin of Jeremiah Johnson, or walk in the battlefields of Little Big Horn, now that's something.

 

As for all the arguments against them. They apply to Earth Caches as well and yet we have them and they work.

[+EvanMinn]

 

... I could care less about yet another roadside sign. ...

 

 

(Sorry. Pet peeve.)

[knowschad]

 

... I could care less about yet another roadside sign. ...

 

(Sorry. Pet peeve.)

 

I could not care less about your graphic.

 

(Sorry, Just Kidding)

Edited June 9, 2009 by knowschad

[+tozainamboku]

A little historical background on why virtuals are no longer listed on Geocaching.com to which I will add what I know about EarthCaches and why they are listed (and may not be the "official" explanation).

 

A number of years ago, the Geological Society of America was looking for a program to promote geology education. They saw geocaching as a good way to present this. At the time virtual caches were still being listed on Geocaching.com. The GSA proposed the concept of EarthCache as special kind of cache that would take the cacher to a site of geologic significance where they could learn a little geology. These cache would be reviewed by the GSA rather than the volunteer reviewers. The GSA also lined up several sponsor for the EarthCache program and even presented this idea to the National Park Service and got them on board with the idea.

 

EarthCaches were launched just about the time that Geocaching.com was limiting the number of new virtuals via the "wow" requirement. I heard a lot of complaints from reviewers and others that many EarthCaches seemed to lack any "wow".

 

When Waymarking was rolled out, EarthCaches seemed to be an obvious fit for a Waymarking Category. At first, EarthCache.org moved in this direction. An EarthCache category was created on Waymarking and new EarthCaches were put in this category. Plans were made to begin to transition existing EarthCaches to Waymarking.

 

What happened next was a rebellion of sorts by the people who owned EarthCaches on Geocaching.com. They complained that nobody was visiting the new EarthCaches on Waymarking, while the EarthCaches on Geocaching were being visited. The lack of Pocket Queries on Waymarking (or even the ability at that time to download coordinates) certainly meant that geocachers were missing the EarthCaches on Waymarking. There was also some discussion as to whether geocachers were doing EarthCaches simply to get a "easy smiley" - Waymarks don't count toward your Geocaching finds.

 

EarthCache.org reversed their initial position and now insisted that EarthCaches remain on Geocaching.com. My guess is that they had a signed agreement for listing EarthCaches that they were able to wave in Groundspeak's face - though I don't know this. EarthCaches were allowed to remain on Geocaching.com. However, Groundspeak was able to get EarthCache.org to tighten up the requirements for listing EarthCaches. There isn't a "Wow" requirement, but there is a requirement that "Logging of EarthCache sites must involve visitors undertaking some educational task that relates to the Earth science at the site." Many existing EarthCaches were archived because they failed this requirement. Many people who were not EarthCachers pointed out that allowing EarthCache to remain would cause all kinds of confusion in the long run.

 

An historic cache type is extremely unlikely. Waymarking already provides a number of historic categories so there is a way to share these places (and for people who like to visit them to find them). While it may be possible that an organization, outside of geocaching could propose an Historic Cache program similar to EarthCaching, my guess is that Groundspeak would move this in the direction of Waymarking where it would be more appropriate.

[knowschad]

A little historical background on why virtuals are no longer listed on Geocaching.com to which I will add what I know about EarthCaches and why they are listed (and may not be the "official" explanation).

 

A number of years ago, the Geological Society of America was looking for a program to promote geology education. They saw geocaching as a good way to present this. At the time virtual caches were still being listed on Geocaching.com. The GSA proposed the concept of EarthCache as special kind of cache that would take the cacher to a site of geologic significance where they could learn a little geology. These cache would be reviewed by the GSA rather than the volunteer reviewers. The GSA also lined up several sponsor for the EarthCache program and even presented this idea to the National Park Service and got them on board with the idea.

 

EarthCaches were launched just about the time that Geocaching.com was limiting the number of new virtuals via the "wow" requirement. I heard a lot of complaints from reviewers and others that many EarthCaches seemed to lack any "wow".

 

When Waymarking was rolled out, EarthCaches seemed to be an obvious fit for a Waymarking Category. At first, EarthCache.org moved in this direction. An EarthCache category was created on Waymarking and new EarthCaches were put in this category. Plans were made to begin to transition existing EarthCaches to Waymarking.

 

What happened next was a rebellion of sorts by the people who owned EarthCaches on Geocaching.com. They complained that nobody was visiting the new EarthCaches on Waymarking, while the EarthCaches on Geocaching were being visited. The lack of Pocket Queries on Waymarking (or even the ability at that time to download coordinates) certainly meant that geocachers were missing the EarthCaches on Waymarking. There was also some discussion as to whether geocachers were doing EarthCaches simply to get a "easy smiley" - Waymarks don't count toward your Geocaching finds.

 

EarthCache.org reversed their initial position and now insisted that EarthCaches remain on Geocaching.com. My guess is that they had a signed agreement for listing EarthCaches that they were able to wave in Groundspeak's face - though I don't know this. EarthCaches were allowed to remain on Geocaching.com. However, Groundspeak was able to get EarthCache.org to tighten up the requirements for listing EarthCaches. There isn't a "Wow" requirement, but there is a requirement that "Logging of EarthCache sites must involve visitors undertaking some educational task that relates to the Earth science at the site." Many existing EarthCaches were archived because they failed this requirement. Many people who were not EarthCachers pointed out that allowing EarthCache to remain would cause all kinds of confusion in the long run.

 

An historic cache type is extremely unlikely. Waymarking already provides a number of historic categories so there is a way to share these places (and for people who like to visit them to find them). While it may be possible that an organization, outside of geocaching could propose an Historic Cache program similar to EarthCaching, my guess is that Groundspeak would move this in the direction of Waymarking where it would be more appropriate.

 

Awesome! I just opened this thread with the intention of asking if anyone could fill me (us) in on the history of Earthcaches, and there is was, right in front of my face. Thanks! You did a good job of anticipation LOL!

[+geodarts]

I have often thought that there should be "historical caches" similar to earthcaches. Last weekend, we visited Bandolier National Monument in New Mexico and I thought it was too bad that the historical and cultural richness of such places could not be incorporated into geocaching -- although perhaps an earthcache could show how the geology of the area contributed to the site.

 

As I understand it, Groundspeak originally approved earthcaches as part of its commitment to education. That same commitment might apply to historical sites, particularly if they are in locations where traditional caches are not permitted. But even if a historical society wanted to undertake such a project, similar to the way that the geologists have done, it would raise some tricky issues.

 

I love history and always stop at historical markers and sites. But I think one of the biggest challenges would be to separate places that are of regional or national importance from the routine type of marker -- the "wow" factor that once applied to virtuals. And others might be in areas where you could easily incorporate information from a site into an multi-stage traditional cache. Still, there are some special areas where a historical cache might be appropriate if it had the necessary backing.

 

Many parks that do not permit traditional caches will approve "virtual" type of caches -- virtuals and earthcaches are among my favorites so I would welcome a historical cache in such areas. While the lack of a cache would not stop me from visiting an area, virtuals have brought me to places that I otherwise would have missed. (I realize that Waymarking has historical categories, but I have never been able to develop much of an interest (or any interest) in that site.)

[+Renegade Knight]

 

... I could care less about yet another roadside sign. ...

 

 

(Sorry. Pet peeve.)

A nice graphic to illistrate I should have said that other version as intended. But I have to ask. Why limit your lack of caring to a mere zero? I would think active avoidance is actally a form of negative caring.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+Castle Mischief]

But even if a historical society wanted to undertake such a project, similar to the way that the geologists have done, it would raise some tricky issues.

 

Among which would be getting everybody to agree on which version of history would be accepted as factual.

[knowschad]

But even if a historical society wanted to undertake such a project, similar to the way that the geologists have done, it would raise some tricky issues.

 

Among which would be getting everybody to agree on which version of history would be accepted as factual.

 

Ummm... that would be my version, naturally.

 

[+EvanMinn]

 

A nice graphic to illistrate I should have said that other version as intended. But I have to ask. Why limit your lack of caring to a mere zero? I would think active avoidance is actally a form of negative caring.

 

The graphic is a joke but I'll use this Elie Wiesel quote to address your point:

 

“The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference."

 

Whether one's feelings about something are strongly positive or strongly negative is irrelevant. They are still strong feelings and indicate caring about the issue MORE than someone that doesn't care one way or the other.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

There's nothing unique about a cache at a historical site.

 

One of my missions (and I would hope it is that of all of us) as a cache hider is to introduce people to interesting sites, be they historical, geophysical, beautiful, whatever.

 

A historical site is just another good place to hide a cache.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

But even if a historical society wanted to undertake such a project, similar to the way that the geologists have done, it would raise some tricky issues.

 

Among which would be getting everybody to agree on which version of history would be accepted as factual.

Surely you don't mean to imply that our history books are full of agenda and malarky! Say it ain't so!

 

Check out this book at your local library... Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong by James Loewen.

 

Also his book Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong will give you a real eye-opener on history gone wrong!

 

Actually, incorrect historical sites might make a great series!

Edited June 10, 2009 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+briansnat]

I'd be happy with an historic site attribute.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Just plain wrong is one issue, but much much more common is just plain insignificant.

 

East of me is a county with a very active Historical Society; they're busy placing markers all over the county. Determined to tell the story of area in great detail, and taking about as much time to tell it as the events originally took.

 

And they like the markers to be seen, so they're often placed only roughly near the events they describe.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The fact that Groundspeaks lists Earthcaches, and not waymarks, is IMHO an important distinction...snip.

Sorry, but the 'fact' is that Groundspeak DOES list Waymarks...Geocaching.com does not.

 

Groundspeak owns the websites for Geocaching, Waymarking, and Wherigo.

 

Okay, I stand correctly. I still think it's too bad that they don't support some of the features available on the geocaching.com site on the Waymarking .com site.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I'd be happy with an historic site attribute.

 

I've seen a lot of suggestions here for new geocaching icons or attributes but this one really makes sense, especially because it provides a mechanism to filter for caches of this type.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I'd be happy with an historic site attribute.

 

Me too.

But what do I know, I think EarthCaches are the best. Without ECs, there would be no geocaches in National Parks.

Several Park Rangers that I have talked to have said that the National Park Service is totally turned off from traditional geocaches because too often the "box" was placed off trail in ecologically sensitive areas and harm is done. By the way, this attitude is growing among Rangers within National Forests for the very same reasons. I mentioned this is because if we have a category of Historical geocaches, we hope consideration would be given to the environment and not to just having a clever hiding spot!

I don't think a 'governing' body like GSA is needed. Groundspeak reviewers can do the job.

[+Renegade Knight]

 

A nice graphic to illistrate I should have said that other version as intended. But I have to ask. Why limit your lack of caring to a mere zero? I would think active avoidance is actally a form of negative caring.

 

The graphic is a joke but I'll use this Elie Wiesel quote to address your point:

 

“The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference."

 

Whether one's feelings about something are strongly positive or strongly negative is irrelevant. They are still strong feelings and indicate caring about the issue MORE than someone that doesn't care one way or the other.

 

Well said.

[+Katydid & Miles Stone]

Here is a bookmark I've put together for historical Connecticut caches.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.a...e9-33aaaa86e7e2

 

You are awarded a medal for finding 20 caches from the CT History Cache bookmark list at

 

http://forums.ctcachers.com/medals.php

[+Breaktrack]

Just for the sake of accuracy, NEW Virtual caches are not allowed to be listed on Geocaching.com. However, grandfathered Virtual caches are still listed.

 

I have several that are still listed, still active and still visited. 100% of them I consider of historical value and have a great "Wow" factor. If more cache creators had maintained such a standard we would STILL have the ability to create virtual caches today.

 

Mac

[+JacobBarlow]

There's nothing unique about a cache at a historical site.

 

One of my missions (and I would hope it is that of all of us) as a cache hider is to introduce people to interesting sites, be they historical, geophysical, beautiful, whatever.

 

A historical site is just another good place to hide a cache.

 

Why have Earthcaches then? Why not just have it be another good place to hide a cache?

 

I'm not pushing for allowing "HCs," more complaining that "ECs" are allows to exist.. lol

 

I like them, I just don't see why they are okay when VCs and HCs and Webcams and such are not... seems a little weird. oh well.

Edited June 11, 2009 by AD0OR

[+SunshineGang]

It think it would be a nice idea

 

However I am guessing that GC.com would need a partnership with with a well organized and established group that would volunteer to screen all the cache listing submissions... similar to the way earth caches are being handled.

 

I like virtuals... even though I understand and appreciate why GC.com stopped allowing new virtual listings.

[+briansnat]

I'd be happy with an historic site attribute.

 

I've seen a lot of suggestions here for new geocaching icons or attributes but this one really makes sense, especially because it provides a mechanism to filter for caches of this type.

 

I've suggested it before but it doesn't seem to go anywhere.

[+flask]

i think historical caches analagous to earthcaches would be a dandy idea. while many earthcaches do not "wow" me, they have educated me in ways that finding a container at such a site would not have done.

 

perhaps these things only "wow" geologists, and maybe the historycaches would only "wow" historians, but i think it's worth a category.

 

in light of the way many (most?) people geocache, it wouldn't hurt to forcibly expose them to some historical knowledge in order to gain their smilie. the history of a site need not be undisputed in order to be valuable; there are plenty of places where knowing the different explanations and attitudes about an event is a better education than knowing one version, even if it is the correct version.

 

the better-designed earthcaches do not simply put some information in from of me, but force me to rub two brain celss together and interpret what's there. something like that could make a REALLY cool historycache, and i bet you some professional history group would love to work on such a project.

 

you seen how many earthcaches come with labels regarding educational standard that are being met? well-designed earthcaches are a treasure trove of lesson plans. history caches or even geography caches could be just as useful.

 

here's one example of a properly-framed earthcache.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It think it would be a nice idea

 

However I am guessing that GC.com would need a partnership with with a well organized and established group that would volunteer to screen all the cache listing submissions... similar to the way earth caches are being handled.

 

I like virtuals... even though I understand and appreciate why GC.com stopped allowing new virtual listings.

 

Why would there need to be a partnership with an established group. Although someone else suggested that the current reviewers could review, I'd suggest that if a reasonable set of guidelines were created that a new group of "Historical Cache" reviewers could be established to *only* review Historical Caches.

[+fsafranek]

I just finished a two week geocaching roadtrip (will do it differently for sure next time but the best teacher is experience) and several of the caches I found were historical markers. Usually they were located within a few feet of the physical marker (GC16BX8) but sometimes they were actually hidden as part of the marker (GC19VV6). In either case I stopped to read the plaque. So I got the history lesson and the smiley.

 

If you want it to be recognized as a historical marker cache make that part of the cache name. There is almost always easy parking nearby -- people will visit your cache.

[BlueRajah]

The problem would be .. who is to judge..

 

Here is a historical marker... we list it.

here is my old house.. do we list it?

Who judges them worthy?

 

One of the reasons reviewers hated Virtuals is the judging of the "wow factor" of the site. That upset people. To have someone hundreds or thousands of miles away determine if it should be listed.

 

Yep better off on Waymarking.

[+lacazg]

Everyone knows there are various different types of caches from the LPC to the cache you hiked 20 miles to find. Right now a cacher's stats do not discern between the undeniably different types of traditional caches.

 

What if each traditional cache had a subcategory that it would fit into, for example a "historical" cache would be a traditional cache with a container, log book, etc. The "historical" cache would count towards your traditional cache count, but there would be a breakdown in the stats of the subcategories of traditional caches a cacher has found. Each cache would be assigned one subcategory, the main purpose of the cache, it could be for the hike, to learn about the earth, to learn about the history etc...

 

This way there we can appreciate the various different types of traditional caches, with out making a new cache type for each variation of traditional cache.