Alternative Geocaching websites

[Deceangi]

~

 

@the family bu: I can promise you that the people who keep Groundspeak going are not volunteers!!

 

~

 

funkybro

 

Maybe you need to research the details of your subject a little bit more thoroughly, that is unless your going to List any cache submitted. Otherwise your going to be extremely busy dealing with irate Landowners who have found the caches you've listed which have been placed without their permission. Some where they've physically removed the container, others where they want the cache removed from the site.

 

Oh and add in Local County Councils The 2 Governments and the Assemblies different departments for Heritage & Nature and that's just in the UK. How about the Landowner who holds you responsible because a Dry Stone Wall on his/her property is damaged due to a Geocache you have listed on your site.

 

All caches listed on GC are Reviewed by Unpaid Volunteers! Who put in many hours per week reviewing the New Cache Submissions that come in. Oh and we also deal with Landowner complaints about caches they have found on their Land Without Their Permission. If we were paid to Review caches, you'd be paying to List a cache on GC, at a guess anything from £20 upwards per cache. Without the unpaid Volunteers GC would not be able to operate. So I'd say that a large No of People who keep Groundspeak going are Volunteers

 

In the UK that's Alba15, Graculus and myself, in Ireland we have Croghan, you've had a reply off mtn-man who is a Volunteer Moderator/Reviewer. And a reply of another Volunteer Reviewer under his player account. That's only mentioning a very small No of the unpaid site Volunteers.

 

And just to make it very clear, Groundspeak does not pay me to review caches. I am my Spouses full time carer, I review caches to give back to the community which gives me so much pleasure and friendship!

 

Deceangi

[+funkybro]

~

 

@the family bu: I can promise you that the people who keep Groundspeak going are not volunteers!!

 

~

 

funkybro

 

Maybe you need to research the details of your subject a little bit more thoroughly, that is unless your going to List any cache submitted. Otherwise your going to be extremely busy dealing with irate Landowners who have found the caches you've listed which have been placed without their permission. Some where they've physically removed the container, others where they want the cache removed from the site.

 

Oh and add in Local County Councils The 2 Governments and the Assemblies different departments for Heritage & Nature and that's just in the UK. How about the Landowner who holds you responsible because a Dry Stone Wall on his/her property is damaged due to a Geocache you have listed on your site.

 

All caches listed on GC are Reviewed by Unpaid Volunteers! Who put in many hours per week reviewing the New Cache Submissions that come in. Oh and we also deal with Landowner complaints about caches they have found on their Land Without Their Permission. If we were paid to Review caches, you'd be paying to List a cache on GC, at a guess anything from £20 upwards per cache. Without the unpaid Volunteers GC would not be able to operate. So I'd say that a large No of People who keep Groundspeak going are Volunteers

 

In the UK that's Alba15, Graculus and myself, in Ireland we have Croghan, you've had a reply off mtn-man who is a Volunteer Moderator/Reviewer. And a reply of another Volunteer Reviewer under his player account. That's only mentioning a very small No of the unpaid site Volunteers.

 

And just to make it very clear, Groundspeak does not pay me to review caches. I am my Spouses full time carer, I review caches to give back to the community which gives me so much pleasure and friendship!

 

Deceangi

 

I'm very happy that you derive so much pleasure from contributing. The community aspect of GC is fantastic, everybody seems very friendly (mtn-man aside, obviously). But I repeat: these volunteers all offer their time for the greater good of the game, and absolutely don't mind that their hard unpaid work directly puts money in the pockets of GS? Why does "community minded" work for some and not others?

 

It doesn't have to be this way!

Edited June 13, 2009 by funkybro

[+sTeamTraen]

Interesting. So these volunteers all offer their time for the greater good of the game, and absolutely don't mind that their hard unpaid work directly puts money in the pockets of GS?

Short answer: yes. The cache reviewers are unpaid and the forum mods are unpaid. If it doesn't say "Lackey" on their profile page, you're not dealing with someone who gets a salary from Groundspeak. If you didn't know that, then there is probably a ton of other stuff you need to learn before starting your own site.

 

Long answer: the volunteers all have other things to do in their lives. Some are retired, some are dedicated full-time carers, most have regular salaried jobs. They get a lot out of geocaching and like to put something back. They are aware that Groundspeak could not exist without them, and vice versa (and the Groundspeak guys know exactly how lucky they are to have this community). They choose to do the job anyway. Of course, if Groundspeak goes chest-up tomorrow, the volunteers walk away unscathed, whereas some people in Seattle are probably going to lose their houses.

 

Incidentally, plenty of other Internet-based companies use volunteers. A colleague of mine is a volunteer forum moderator for an evil capitalist anti-virus software company. Volunteering is a big, big thing in the US, and not just for charitable causes.

 

Conclusion: not everybody has the same model of how the world should work. Understanding that, at the highest level possible, is a good start in your attempt to build a community of one million members.

Edited June 13, 2009 by sTeamTraen

[+Haggis Hunter]

Yep and if you cast your eyes about two inches downwards it should list a couple of one-line updates which I've made so far?

 

I've just signed out and it still lets me view the update so I'd have thought you would be OK to see it.

Just looked again and the last message displayed is this -

 

Let us know if you have any ideas or suggestions for what YOU'D like to see in an Open Geocaching framework. Idea gathering has begun!

 

Which was updated 3 hours before.

 

Even if I could see your last updates, if it only shows one or two, it's not a very good way for me to keep up to date if I haven't been on for a day or two.

 

I do wish you luck, but even in your initial stages I can see stumbling blocks and I am not even computer savvy.

[+Geotrotters]

 

No you don't NEED to sign-up in order to read my updates.

 

I'm afraid you are going to have to give me an idiots guide on how to read your updates without signing up. I have just taken another look and at the top of the page it says this -

 

Hey there! opengeocaching is using Twitter.

Twitter is a free service that lets you keep in touch with people through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing? Join today to start receiving opengeocaching's updates.

 

Yep and if you cast your eyes about two inches downwards it should list a couple of one-line updates which I've made so far?

 

I've just signed out and it still lets me view the update so I'd have thought you would be OK to see it.

 

I've just taken a look and the last update says "Let us know if you have any ideas or suggestions for what YOU'D like to see in an Open Geocaching framework. Idea gathering has begun!"

 

As I haven't got a Twitter account how would I let you know my idea's/suggestions? I'm not trying to be facetious but I think an actual web page or blog would be a better idea, one where you don't need to sign up to add responses.

 

Personally, I still think you'd be better off following the suggestion of Lakeuk re geocaching.co.uk as I feel that, following the path you plan on taking, you will end up putting a lot of time & effort into a project that will not gain as big a following as a UK stats & resources type website.

 

Just my opinion but good luck either way..

[+Happy Humphrey]

I haven't been able to find any information about the Twitter updates.

Sorry if you clarify this earlier in the thread, but is this related to Opengeocaching.net? Or Geocaching Australia?

[+sTeamTraen]

is this related to Opengeocaching.net?

Wow, that's quite a site:

Some of the features of our flavour of geocaching include:

Google Maps

Forums

Yessss! I've been waiting for those for years now. Their flavour of geocaching sounds revolutionary!

 

This new, exciting site will leverage the data and knowledge base of our old site, whilst accelerating the growth of geocaching globally by shifting the philosophical paradigm to the next level!

Even better, it's a multilingual site. I know that, because whatever language that sentence is written in, I don't understand it!

 

And then the (literally) small print:

(Fee Schedules will be posted late April for our 'Executive Membership' packages, allowing more options and a dedicated members-only server to ensure YOU get YOUR data in an instant!)

Hmm. Which April was that? I've got my credit card here and it's burning a hole in my desk. I really want that "Executive Membership" package. Does it come with a chrome-tube swivel chair and a Newton's Cradle, and a clock showing the time in New York and London?

[Wilting]

Who said "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit"? Hardly appropriate for a representative of a supposedly mature company.

 

Mind you, the language on that site (Opencaching) looks like it was cooked up at a middle managers' brainstorming weekend.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Otherwise your going to be extremely busy dealing with irate Landowners who have found the caches you've listed which have been placed without their permission.

I might be wrong, but I think that Groundspeak are the only geocaching listing site which also accepts responsibility (rather unwisely, in my opinion) for the physical caches it lists. The others seem to be keen to distance themselves from any element of cache ownership.

 

If you're keen to follow the GC.com model of accepting part ownership of actual caches, then I agree with Deceangi that you'll have huge problems internationally with various access limitations, laws and regulations that vary from country to country. However, I'd advise keeping out of that area altogether and making sure you have sufficient disclaimers, checked out with your legal team.

[+sTeamTraen]

Who said "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit"? Hardly appropriate for a representative of a supposedly mature company.

If you mean me: I wasn't posting as a representative of anyone apart from myself. And if you mean anyone who's posting with their Groundspeak volunteer hat on: have you seen some of the stuff which the President of the company has posted in the forums over the years?

 

Mind you, the language on that site (Opencaching) looks like it was cooked up at a middle managers' brainstorming weekend.

Yep; given the choice, I'll take the sarcasm every time.

 

I might be wrong, but I think that Groundspeak are the only geocaching listing site which also accepts responsibility (rather unwisely, in my opinion) for the physical caches it lists. The others seem to be keen to distance themselves from any element of cache ownership.

I think you're wrong. AFAIK Groundspeak accepts no responsibility for the physical containers. This leads to situations which can appear rather Kafkaesque (such as the inability to adopt a cache which is "clearly" no longer being maintained because Groundspeak can't say anything about ownership of the box), but it's what enables the site - which is, at bottom, just a listing service - to function at all.

 

What is certainly true is that if a landowner contacts Groundspeak or a reviewer about an unwanted cache placement, things will swing into action pretty quickly to remove the cache listing from the site - usually via an archive, sometimes via the little-used "retraction" ("unpublish") mechanism. Sometimes Groundspeak has to spend quite a lot of time explaining to irate law enforcement officials that the Terracache placed under a major road bridge isn't anything to do with them, although it says "geocache" on it. Guess what?Terracaching aren't in the phone book. (With "No restrictive guidelines" and "Self approval of geocaches (no more waiting!!)", opengeocaching.net will need to devise a way to avoid becoming home to a large number of "who decided that this was a sensible place for a cache??" listings.)

Edited June 15, 2009 by sTeamTraen

[+Happy Humphrey]

I think you're wrong. AFAIK Groundspeak accepts no responsibility for the physical containers.

That's what the disclaimer says. But our esteemed local reviewer points out that, as a Groundspeak volunteer, when access issues arise he has been instructed to negotiate directly with various land managers, officials, government and non-government organisations; making the reviewer's work much more onerous than people realise.

 

In my opinion, this infers that Groundspeak is taking a measure of responsibility for the physical cache placement.

 

Otherwise, why not just list anything (as long as the cache placer assures you that they've operated within the guidelines), and go no further than that? Any complaints would be made (via the website contact details) to the cache owner, and if the listing needs to be archived then the owner would take responsibility for doing it. On another listing site, negotiating with officials would naturally be down to the individual cache placer, I would have thought, and if a cache has to be removed then it's a matter between the actual cache owner and the land manager.

[+Primitive Person]

What is certainly true is that if a landowner contacts Groundspeak or a reviewer about an unwanted cache placement, things will swing into action pretty quickly to remove the cache listing from the site - usually via an archive, sometimes via the little-used "retraction" ("unpublish") mechanism. Sometimes Groundspeak has to spend quite a lot of time explaining to irate law enforcement officials that the Terracache placed under a major road bridge isn't anything to do with them, although it says "geocache" on it. Guess what?Terracaching aren't in the phone book. (With "No restrictive guidelines" and "Self approval of geocaches (no more waiting!!)", opengeocaching.net will need to devise a way to avoid becoming home to a large number of "who decided that this was a sensible place for a cache??" listings.)

 

You've hit the nail on the head here. Guidelines and rules evolve because they have to - situations arise that could not have been foreseen in the past. On a (non-caching) website I use (which shall remain nameless) a lot of longtime users have gone crazy about new guidelines, but they've been introduced because, without them, the site would be open to legal challenges that would threaten its entire existence. A lot of these disgruntled users have gone to another site without such guidelines, but as that site grows, it will have to change - it's inevitable. As geocaching is a game which can potentially get on the wrong side of security authorities, it's important to have standards all parties can sign up to, and as soon as you get *too* open, you lose that completely. Fragmentation of the hobby is not good news - it's far better that everything can be found in one place.

 

Like it or not - and I have no issue with this at all - GC.com has ended up becoming the default home of the game, and it's got there for a reason. The rules and guidelines are really not very restrictive at all - you only have to look at the variety of caches out there to work that one out - and in my experience the volunteers, reviewers and moderators are fair and decent people who do their best to keep a very diverse range of people happy.

 

In terms of site features, do we seriously need any more? Given that this is a game that's meant to get you outside hunting for things, I personally don't need anything else that's going to shackle me to a PC! I've got enough software to run on my phone to enable me to find and log on the fly, and that'll do for now.

 

If you don't like it here, no-one says you have to like it, but really, the idea of attempting to start another site from scratch to include a few bells and whistles is a complete non-starter.

 

Lee

[+sTeamTraen]

Otherwise, why not just list anything (as long as the cache placer assures you that they've operated within the guidelines), and go no further than that? Any complaints would be made (via the website contact details) to the cache owner, and if the listing needs to be archived then the owner would take responsibility for doing it. On another listing site, negotiating with officials would naturally be down to the individual cache placer, I would have thought, and if a cache has to be removed then it's a matter between the actual cache owner and the land manager.

Presumably because, although this attitude might be just about defensible in law, it would lead over time to geocaching being seen by many influential landowners as some kind of extreme sport/anarchist activity. Groundspeak already has a job on its hands getting the US National Park Service to accept geocaching, for example.

 

If you're running a listing site which is essentially free and anonymous, you can pretty much do what you like. It's harder when you want to be associated with billion-dollar companies such as Fox or Jeep or Garmin.

[+funkybro]

 

In terms of site features, do we seriously need any more? Given that this is a game that's meant to get you outside hunting for things, I personally don't need anything else that's going to shackle me to a PC! I've got enough software to run on my phone to enable me to find and log on the fly, and that'll do for now.

 

If you don't like it here, no-one says you have to like it, but really, the idea of attempting to start another site from scratch to include a few bells and whistles is a complete non-starter.

 

"Primitive Person" indeed! I and many other programmers, developers and hackers who are all itching to produce innovative Geocaching apps and mash-ups, think you're in the minority with that opinion, hence the project. What phone software do you use to log on the fly, out of interest?

[+Happy Humphrey]

Presumably because, although this attitude might be just about defensible in law, it would lead over time to geocaching being seen by many influential landowners as some kind of extreme sport/anarchist activity. Groundspeak already has a job on its hands getting the US National Park Service to accept geocaching, for example.

 

If you're running a listing site which is essentially free and anonymous, you can pretty much do what you like. It's harder when you want to be associated with billion-dollar companies such as Fox or Jeep or Garmin.

The relevance to the topic of this thread is that it might not be necessary for a new listing site to take on the same "part ownership" role, nullifying Deceangi's concerns that funkybro will be plagued with red tape, access difficulties and landowner agreement hassle.

[+sTeamTraen]

The relevance to the topic of this thread is that it might not be necessary for a new listing site to take on the same "part ownership" role, nullifying Deceangi's concerns that funkybro will be plagued with red tape, access difficulties and landowner agreement hassle.

Well, that's just possible, to the extent that a cache is also listed on Geocaching.com, and that Groundspeak accepts that when the Metropolitan Police phone to ask for a listing to be taken down, that it's their job to tell all of the other listing sites (a bit like BT in the early days after privatisation). But as I said above, I don't think Groundspeak considers that it has a "part ownership" role in the first place.

 

I find it difficult to imagine that a site which hosts only caches which are also listed here will be a major success; after all, most of the current alternative sites have been started with the express aim of allowing some degree of "freedom" from Groundspeak's Evil Hegemony, whether it be Navicache ("We don't need no stinking proximity rules, Groundspeak is too picky"), Terracaching ("It's all about quality, Groundspeak is not picky enough"), or Opencaching ("Groundspeak is evil because their software runs on a Microsoft platform").

 

At present, understanding of the subtleties of the exact role of a listing service is clouded because of Groundspeak's near-monopoly. If three listing services each had 1/3 of the "market" then the issues would be more clearly visible. For example, if a forest manager says "OK, maximum 100 geocaches in our forest", who should keep track of the number? At the moment the UK reviewers for Geocaching.com can do it, and if one or two Terracaches take that number to 102, it's not a huge deal. Maybe someone would have to set up Geocaching Publisher's Association (and if they couldn't agree, the government could impose a quango called OfCache).

Edited June 15, 2009 by sTeamTraen

[Chudley Cannons]

 

If you mean me: I wasn't posting as a representative of anyone apart from myself. And if you mean anyone who's posting with their Groundspeak volunteer hat on: have you seen some of the stuff which the President of the company has posted in the forums over the years?

 

But whereas both mtn-man and Deceangi are open in their connections with Groundspeak and state that connection on their profile page, you do not declare your interest when you post using your caching account.

 

You should come clean and reveal the true state of your relationship with Groundspeak.

[+sTeamTraen]

But whereas both mtn-man and Deceangi are open in their connections with Groundspeak and state that connection on their profile page, you do not declare your interest when you post using your caching account.

Correct, because my posts made with this account do not necessarily reflect Groundspeak's views, nor those of the volunteer community. When I post with my volunteer account, I try to set myself higher standards.

[+Happy Humphrey]

What phone software do you use to log on the fly, out of interest?

If you're interested in general; I imagine that most people use one of the geocaching.com official apps, don't they? See forum section for iphone caching.

I don't have an iphone so I tend to use the WAP site, or simply the main site via 3G.

[+Primitive Person]

What phone software do you use to log on the fly, out of interest?

If you're interested in general; I imagine that most people use one of the geocaching.com official apps, don't they? See forum section for iphone caching.

I don't have an iphone so I tend to use the WAP site, or simply the main site via 3G.

 

I don't use an iPhone either. I use an HTC TyTN II, running Windows Mobile 6.1, and for caching I use BeeLine and Memory Map, which both take Pocket Queries and do wonderful things with them. Both programs let you find the nearest caches and can display all the relevant details, and offer links to the online cache page - I just go into this to log my finds, and it's very easy.

 

I've recently started using (*deleted by moderator, as using this application violates the Terms of Use for the site) for caching on the fly - it goes online to find your nearest caches, and seems pretty good, but not as good as those already mentioned.

 

I really have no need for anything else, and I think a hell of a lot of cachers feel the same. The whole point for me is to get me outside having fun, and I've got all I need for that.

 

Lee

Edited June 16, 2009 by mtn-man

[+funkybro]

I really have no need for anything else, and I think a hell of a lot of cachers feel the same. The whole point for me is to get me outside having fun, and I've got all I need for that.

 

Oh really? How odd then that in the thread about live.geocaching.com you said the following about their service:

 

I'd like it to work though, as it's the sort of thing I've wanted for ages.

 

Funny how people's opinions change depending on who they think is listening...

[+Stuey]

"Primitive Person" indeed! I and many other programmers, developers and hackers who are all itching to produce innovative Geocaching apps and mash-ups, think you're in the minority with that opinion

 

With just 6 followers for your Twitter account so far, I think you are wrong with that opinion.

[Deceangi]

Presumably because, although this attitude might be just about defensible in law, it would lead over time to geocaching being seen by many influential landowners as some kind of extreme sport/anarchist activity. Groundspeak already has a job on its hands getting the US National Park Service to accept geocaching, for example.

 

If you're running a listing site which is essentially free and anonymous, you can pretty much do what you like. It's harder when you want to be associated with billion-dollar companies such as Fox or Jeep or Garmin.

The relevance to the topic of this thread is that it might not be necessary for a new listing site to take on the same "part ownership" role, nullifying Deceangi's concerns that funkybro will be plagued with red tape, access difficulties and landowner agreement hassle.

 

Sorry but that is where you are wrong, Groundspeak does not have part Ownership of caches they List. As that would make them legally responsible for the containers. What they and the Volunteer Reviewers do, is to work closely with Land Owners/County Councils/The Regulatory Bodies & and Authorities. Without their cooperation there would not be geocaches to find. You only have to look at the GAGB GLAD to see the list of of Landowners who have banned Geocaching. Plus you only have to look at the past history with the New Forest, who uplifted a No of caches, placed without their permission.

 

I'm fully aware that there are some who believe that there is a Right to Place a cache anywhere they wish. Unfortunately Landowners and the Law of the Land tends to disagree with that here in the UK and the US. I believe that France and Germany have less Landowner issues, due to different laws.

 

Deci

[+mtn-man]

I've been out all weekend at an event (Geo Olympics, was awesome) and working in the yard.

@mtn-man: I'm not sure whether you read my initial posts before flaming me. I CAN'T currently write an iPhone app which does everything I want! That is, in essence, the point I'm making. And finally: this is a hobby whose participants are, in general, very friendly and welcoming. As forum moderator here, are you not supposed to be a representative of this hobby? Surely then, part of that should be to reflect the warm nature of your fellow cachers? Quite frankly, I think your attitude absolutely stinks.

Sorry if you took honest opinion the wrong way. I never meant to flame you and think you took my posts wrong. I've offered suggestions and critique. Others have said they don't understand or like Twitter, but you still are going down that road. You are free to make that choice. I am just saying it probably isn't the best one. You need to be ready to accept constructive criticism and not just say "your attitude absolutely stinks" just because someone doesn't agree with you. I think my opinions are representative of what some people think that geocache and are relevant.

 

As a fellow geocacher, yes I do tend to be helpful. As a forum moderator from time to time, like it or not, someone has to be the "bad cop". We don't let anarchy rule. It is tough to keep things reined in and some will not like me for that. If you knew me in an overall sense, you would know that I am a nice guy and smile almost all the time. I am direct though and don't beat around the bush, even as a helpful geocacher.

 

On logging on the fly... I don't think many people do that for at least two reasons. One is the tiny keyboards on most mobile devices. Younger people text a lot, yes. Again, considering the demographic for this game, most are going to wait until they get home because they want a full keyboard. The second reason is because most people want to go find another cache, not stand in the heat or the cold or the rain banging out a log on their mobile device. I think most want to make quick notes and keep on caching and wait until they get home to write cache logs.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Sorry but that is where you are wrong, Groundspeak does not have part Ownership of caches they List.

If we restrict this point to Groundspeak's role, it really belongs in a separate thread, so apologies to funkybro.

What I meant was that Groundspeak has taken responsibility for the placement of caches to some extent, so seen from that viewpoint it infers some ownership of, or at least control over, the physical cache. Although they might not want to admit as much in writing, the fact remains that you can go to Groundspeak and complain about one of "their" caches and as long as you claim to be acting in some sort of official capacity the cache will most likely disappear quite quickly.

 

But as I said, this belongs in a separate thread so it's probably best to leave it at that.

 

My (relevant) point was simply that there's nothing to stop a new site listing caches and they don't have to go down the route of trying to take control over cache placement. Whether you approve of that approach or not is another matter.

[+keehotee]

What I meant was that Groundspeak has taken responsibility for the placement of caches to some extent, so seen from that viewpoint it infers some ownership of, or at least control over, the physical cache.

 

I disagree - and yes, this subject probably does warrant a thread of it's own...

 

Groundspeak will only list caches that meet certain criteria that they have developed over the past few years. If a hider doesn't agree with their conditions there is nothing to stop them listing their cache on whatever site will accept it - even setting up their own listing site.

 

Saying that this means that Groundspeak have taken responsibility for the placement of caches would be like saying that the National Association of Licensed Doormen had taken responsibility for the sales of training shoes...... coz you aint coming in this club wearing them

[+Icenians]

[ Guess what?Terracaching aren't in the phone book. (With "No restrictive guidelines" and "Self approval of geocaches (no more waiting!!)",

 

Nope. Can't find geocaching in the phone book either.

 

More disinformation about TC I see. I see you quoted "Self approval of Caches" Pray tell me where it says that?

 

There are at least 4 TC's in the UK that have been in dispute with the reviewers for months now. Doesn't quite fit the picture you paint.

[+sTeamTraen]

Nope. Can't find geocaching in the phone book either.

Google is your friend (Yes, it's an international call.)

 

[ Guess what?Terracaching aren't in the phone book. (With "No restrictive guidelines" and "Self approval of geocaches (no more waiting!!)",

More disinformation about TC I see. I see you quoted "Self approval of Caches" Pray tell me where it says that?

Had you dragged your cursor round the corner when you hit the comma, rather than taking the previous sentence and running past the full stop at the end, you would have seen that what I actually said was

(With "No restrictive guidelines" and "Self approval of geocaches (no more waiting!!)", opengeocaching.net will need to devise a way to avoid becoming home to a large number of "who decided that this was a sensible place for a cache??" listings.)

I would have hoped that it was reasonably clear that this meant that the sentence as a whole applied to opengeocaching.net and not TC (the full stop at the end of the sentence about TC being the clue). But I apologise for not starting a new paragraph. And perhaps I should have re-quoted the link to Opencaching.net.

Edited June 15, 2009 by sTeamTraen

[+Icenians]

Nope. Can't find geocaching in the phone book either.

Google is your friend (Yes, it's an international call.)

 

[ Guess what?Terracaching aren't in the phone book. (With "No restrictive guidelines" and "Self approval of geocaches (no more waiting!!)",

More disinformation about TC I see. I see you quoted "Self approval of Caches" Pray tell me where it says that?

Had you dragged your cursor round the corner when you hit the comma, rather than taking the previous sentence and running past the full stop at the end, you would have seen that what I actually said was

(With "No restrictive guidelines" and "Self approval of geocaches (no more waiting!!)", opengeocaching.net will need to devise a way to avoid becoming home to a large number of "who decided that this was a sensible place for a cache??" listings.)

I would have hoped that it was reasonably clear that this meant that the sentence as a whole applied to opengeocaching.net and not TC (the full stop at the end of the sentence about TC being the clue). But I apologise for not starting a new paragraph. And perhaps I should have re-quoted the link to Opencaching.net.

 

I stand corrected. Of course you're whole point was that only GC do it right therefore the rest of us are law breaking mavericks. But in fairness this is hardly the place to expect support for the oppostion

[Chudley Cannons]

I've been out all weekend at an event (Geo Olympics, was awesome) and working in the yard.

Don't you have volunteers to do that?

Edited June 15, 2009 by Chudley Cannons

[+mtn-man]

I stand corrected. Of course you're whole point was that only GC do it right therefore the rest of us are law breaking mavericks. But in fairness this is hardly the place to expect support for the oppostion

Not law breaking mavericks, just possibly uninformed for a multitude of reasons.

 

Let's take stone walls for example. GC.com reviewers know that they are off limits in the UK. UK reviewers know this since there is communication with each other. They are perfectly fine in the US. Say a person visits family in the US and the US family takes them geocaching. They go find a cache in a stone wall. The UK person thinks this is fun and goes back home and hides a similar cache in a stone wall. In their write up, the talk about how cool this stone wall is and how to find the cache within the wall. A GC.com reviewer would catch that and tell them they cannot do that. A site that allows you to list with no review would just have that go live. They are doing something that may not be acceptable on purpose, but rather because they just don't know it isn't proper.

 

That is one nice thing about the checks and balances the GC.com site offers.

Edited June 15, 2009 by mtn-man

[+Haggis Hunter]

Of course you're whole point was that only GC do it right therefore the rest of us are law breaking mavericks.

I'm not sure if GC are getting everything right, but from what I see they are certainly ahead of the game on trying to keep landowners onside. For me this is extremely important and is something I haven't seen any of the competition promote.

[+Icenians]

Not law breaking mavericks, just possibly uninformed for a multitude of reasons.

 

Let's take stone walls for example. GC.com reviewers know that they are off limits in the UK. UK reviewers know this since there is communication with each other. They are perfectly fine in the US. Say a person visits family in the US and the US family takes them geocaching. They go find a cache in a stone wall. The UK person thinks this is fun and goes back home and hides a similar cache in a stone wall. In their write up, the talk about how cool this stone wall is and how to find the cache within the wall. A GC.com reviewer would catch that and tell them they cannot do that. A site that allows you to list with no review would just have that go live. They are doing something that may not be acceptable on purpose, but rather because they just don't know it isn't proper.

 

That is one nice thing about the checks and balances the GC.com site offers.

 

Hang on. Each cache on TC is reviewed TWICE before going live! If any of my sponsorees tried to list such a cache it wouldn't go live.

 

As I said earlier, the opinion of GC is they do it right therefore any body else does it wrong. I would politly suggest that perhaps it's yourself that is uninformed in this instance.

 

We have mechanisms to stop caches such as these being posted and mechanisims to have them archived by the cachers themselves should they not think they are appropriate. It is very much a checks and balances system, it's just a different system from yours.

 

Oh, and the only cache I've ever come across in a stone wall is a Geocache!

Edited June 16, 2009 by Icenians

[+Matrix]

Oh, and the only cache I've ever come across in a stone wall is a Geocache!

 

Same here ...

Edited June 16, 2009 by Matrix

[+Haggis Hunter]

Oh, and the only cache I've ever come across in a stone wall is a Geocache!

 

Same here ...

Let's keep things in proportion chaps! According to TC it only has 175 caches in the UK, GC has over 45,000. I bet if TC had that many there would be plenty in stone walls??

 

As for the policing of TC caches, this is only as good as the two individuals (which could be family members, good friends or even yourself with sock puppet accounts) that are monitoring it. At least with GC you have written guidelines, and I know that in the UK the 3 reviewers always consult each other if they are going to take action that may cause friction.

[+keehotee]

At least with GC you have written guidelines

In fairness to TC (which I don't use) GC.com uses the GAGB guidelines in this country, which apply as much to Terra and Navi caching as they do to this site.

The difference is in the enforcement.

Edited June 16, 2009 by keehotee

[+Icenians]

Oh, and the only cache I've ever come across in a stone wall is a Geocache!

 

Same here ...

Let's keep things in proportion chaps! According to TC it only has 175 caches in the UK, GC has over 45,000. I bet if TC had that many there would be plenty in stone walls??

 

As for the policing of TC caches, this is only as good as the two individuals (which could be family members, good friends or even yourself with sock puppet accounts) that are monitoring it. At least with GC you have written guidelines, and I know that in the UK the 3 reviewers always consult each other if they are going to take action that may cause friction.

 

Policing of TC caches is also as good s the entire worldwide TC community if required. It's an approach that has been used before.

 

I find it amusing that the only cache found so far that was in a stone wall was from the site with all the written guidelines. This suggests that those don't work so well either. Oh, and I found it a number of years ago when there were far fewer GC's

 

I'm not saying any system is perfect, just saying that there is more than one way of doing things and that they can both work.

 

Most of the active TC cachers in he UK are active GC cachers as well. We all know what should and shouldn't be done and cache with that in mind. Just because guidelines are not written down, we do actually have guidelines just not 150 pages of them, doesn't mean we caches without any scruples.

[+Primitive Person]

I really have no need for anything else, and I think a hell of a lot of cachers feel the same. The whole point for me is to get me outside having fun, and I've got all I need for that.

 

Oh really? How odd then that in the thread about live.geocaching.com you said the following about their service:

 

I'd like it to work though, as it's the sort of thing I've wanted for ages.

 

Funny how people's opinions change depending on who they think is listening...

 

God, I can't believe how rude you are.

 

I wrote that before I found and installed (*deleted by moderator, as using this application violates the Terms of Use for the site) , which does everything I need it to do. I shouldn't have to justify myself to you, anyway.

Edited June 16, 2009 by mtn-man

[+mtn-man]

Not law breaking mavericks, just possibly uninformed for a multitude of reasons.

 

Let's take stone walls for example. GC.com reviewers know that they are off limits in the UK. UK reviewers know this since there is communication with each other. They are perfectly fine in the US. Say a person visits family in the US and the US family takes them geocaching. They go find a cache in a stone wall. The UK person thinks this is fun and goes back home and hides a similar cache in a stone wall. In their write up, the talk about how cool this stone wall is and how to find the cache within the wall. A GC.com reviewer would catch that and tell them they cannot do that. A site that allows you to list with no review would just have that go live. They are not doing something that may not be acceptable on purpose, but rather because they just don't know it isn't proper.

 

That is one nice thing about the checks and balances the GC.com site offers.

 

Hang on. Each cache on TC is reviewed TWICE before going live! If any of my sponsorees tried to list such a cache it wouldn't go live.

 

As I said earlier, the opinion of GC is they do it right therefore any body else does it wrong. I would politly suggest that perhaps it's yourself that is uninformed in this instance.

 

We have mechanisms to stop caches such as these being posted and mechanisims to have them archived by the cachers themselves should they not think they are appropriate. It is very much a checks and balances system, it's just a different system from yours.

 

Oh, and the only cache I've ever come across in a stone wall is a Geocache!

I'm not talking about TC. See the part I highlighted in my original post above. TC isn't the topic. An open caching site is. As MissJenn mentions, lets get back to his original discussion.

 

By the way, re-reading that, I see I left the word *not* out after the red highlighted sentence. I just added that back in. I hope that helps my meaning there.

Edited June 16, 2009 by mtn-man

[+Primitive Person]

I really have no need for anything else, and I think a hell of a lot of cachers feel the same. The whole point for me is to get me outside having fun, and I've got all I need for that.

 

Oh really? How odd then that in the thread about live.geocaching.com you said the following about their service:

 

I'd like it to work though, as it's the sort of thing I've wanted for ages.

 

Funny how people's opinions change depending on who they think is listening...

 

God, I can't believe how rude you are.

 

I wrote that before I found and installed (*deleted by moderator, as using this application violates the Terms of Use for the site) , which does everything I need it to do. I shouldn't have to justify myself to you, anyway.

 

Apologies, I wasn't aware there was an issue with this software. I installed it after a reference was made somewhere else on here. Could you explain what the issue is? I'm happy to stop using it if there's a problem, although I'd like to know why, and if there's any possible solutions, as I do like the functionality.

 

Lee

[+funkybro]

I really have no need for anything else, and I think a hell of a lot of cachers feel the same. The whole point for me is to get me outside having fun, and I've got all I need for that.

 

Oh really? How odd then that in the thread about live.geocaching.com you said the following about their service:

 

I'd like it to work though, as it's the sort of thing I've wanted for ages.

 

Funny how people's opinions change depending on who they think is listening...

 

God, I can't believe how rude you are.

 

I wrote that before I found and installed (*deleted by moderator, as using this application violates the Terms of Use for the site) , which does everything I need it to do. I shouldn't have to justify myself to you, anyway.

 

Apologies, I wasn't aware there was an issue with this software. I installed it after a reference was made somewhere else on here. Could you explain what the issue is? I'm happy to stop using it if there's a problem, although I'd like to know why, and if there's any possible solutions, as I do like the functionality.

 

Lee

 

Classic!

 

I'm afraid you have just completely concurred with me. Sorry to say, the answer is that the functionality provided by that app WOULD be freely available and above-board were an opengeocaching framework like the one I'm proposing in operation. And you have just highlighted the need and general desire amongst geocachers for it.

 

I assume you're going to not only cease and desist all use of that application from henceforth, but also sign up to my Twitter feed for information on when that framework will become available?

 

Hard lines, mate.

[Deceangi]

 

I'm afraid you have just completely concurred with me. Sorry to say, the answer is that the functionality provided by that app WOULD be freely available and above-board were an opengeocaching framework like the one I'm proposing in operation. And you have just highlighted the need and general desire amongst geocachers for it.

 

 

How about being above board with the reason behind your wish to create your own Listing site, and which created the angst against Geocaching.com?

 

And I'm fully aware it was not functionality that was the kicker, to start this off.

 

I would have posted this under my Player Account, but have no wish to be accused of hiding behind that account. Even though it is well known what that is. So I'm being fully above board.

 

Unless you would care to give me permission to do so [that is reveal the reason behind all this]?

 

Deci

 

[edited to make one point clearer]

Edited June 17, 2009 by Deceangi

[GeoStig]

Are we there yet ?

 

[+Primitive Person]

Classic!

 

I'm afraid you have just completely concurred with me. Sorry to say, the answer is that the functionality provided by that app WOULD be freely available and above-board were an opengeocaching framework like the one I'm proposing in operation. And you have just highlighted the need and general desire amongst geocachers for it.

 

I assume you're going to not only cease and desist all use of that application from henceforth, but also sign up to my Twitter feed for information on when that framework will become available?

 

Hard lines, mate.

 

Yes, I am going to stop using the application, because I don't wish to cause any trouble. No, I'm not going to sign up to your Twitter feed, because you've proven yourself to be extremely unpleasant, and I'd rather not interact with you.

 

I can live without previously mentioned application, if it's not meant to be used. And I can live without your attitude as well.

[+funkybro]

 

I'm afraid you have just completely concurred with me. Sorry to say, the answer is that the functionality provided by that app WOULD be freely available and above-board were an opengeocaching framework like the one I'm proposing in operation. And you have just highlighted the need and general desire amongst geocachers for it.

 

 

How about being above board with the reason behind your wish to create your own Listing site, and which created the angst against Geocaching.com?

 

And I'm fully aware it was not functionality that was the kicker, to start this off.

 

I would have posted this under my Player Account, but have no wish to be accused of hiding behind that account. Even though it is well known what that is. So I'm being fully above board.

 

Unless you would care to give me permission to do so [that is reveal the reason behind all this]?

 

Deci

 

[edited to make one point clearer]

 

Hi Deci!

 

Sorry to steal your thunder, but I should have thought it was common knowledge that I've recently had a pair of caches disallowed, because mtn-man said so upthread. These were caches that were left by me in good faith, but without having read the rules thoroughly enough. That was my fault, I completely respect the reviewer's decision on these caches and am sorting out relocation and alternative care where relevant.

 

Timing unfortunate, yes, but not the reason for my desire of open geocaching. Evidence of my lamenting the lack of open APIs, dated prior to the rejection of these caches, can be found on a public forum to which I can direct you should you so desire.

 

My aim here is to maintain the reviewing, the moderating and the volunteering that makes Geocaching what it is, and simply to permit and encourage the development of third-party apps which would enhance the caching experience, and which people such as Primitive Person would clearly find quite useful.

 

Unless you are referring to something else?

 

funkybro

[+funkybro]

I've been out all weekend at an event (Geo Olympics, was awesome) and working in the yard.

@mtn-man: I'm not sure whether you read my initial posts before flaming me. I CAN'T currently write an iPhone app which does everything I want! That is, in essence, the point I'm making. And finally: this is a hobby whose participants are, in general, very friendly and welcoming. As forum moderator here, are you not supposed to be a representative of this hobby? Surely then, part of that should be to reflect the warm nature of your fellow cachers? Quite frankly, I think your attitude absolutely stinks.

Sorry if you took honest opinion the wrong way. I never meant to flame you and think you took my posts wrong. I've offered suggestions and critique. Others have said they don't understand or like Twitter, but you still are going down that road. You are free to make that choice. I am just saying it probably isn't the best one. You need to be ready to accept constructive criticism and not just say "your attitude absolutely stinks" just because someone doesn't agree with you. I think my opinions are representative of what some people think that geocache and are relevant.

 

As a fellow geocacher, yes I do tend to be helpful. As a forum moderator from time to time, like it or not, someone has to be the "bad cop". We don't let anarchy rule. It is tough to keep things reined in and some will not like me for that. If you knew me in an overall sense, you would know that I am a nice guy and smile almost all the time. I am direct though and don't beat around the bush, even as a helpful geocacher.

 

On logging on the fly... I don't think many people do that for at least two reasons. One is the tiny keyboards on most mobile devices. Younger people text a lot, yes. Again, considering the demographic for this game, most are going to wait until they get home because they want a full keyboard. The second reason is because most people want to go find another cache, not stand in the heat or the cold or the rain banging out a log on their mobile device. I think most want to make quick notes and keep on caching and wait until they get home to write cache logs.

 

Hi, sorry I didn't reply to you before...

 

And sorry to you also for being quite defensive. I have just felt that people have been a little too harsh and hostile towards me, simply for suggesting something new.

 

I do like this site and have its best interests at heart, you know. Otherwise, I would have just given the finger to its terms of use, and written my own screenscraping app anyway, which I haven't (whereas many others have, and it would seem there's not much that can be done to stop them).

 

I suggested the use case of logging on the fly in particular because if I'm doing many caches in a row before I have access to a PC again, sometimes I might forget one or two. I think one of the official apps has a feature where a log can be stubbed from your phone, and then completed when you return to your PC.

[+maxkim]

Classic!

 

I'm afraid you have just completely concurred with me. Sorry to say, the answer is that the functionality provided by that app WOULD be freely available and above-board were an opengeocaching framework like the one I'm proposing in operation. And you have just highlighted the need and general desire amongst geocachers for it.

 

I assume you're going to not only cease and desist all use of that application from henceforth, but also sign up to my Twitter feed for information on when that framework will become available?

 

Hard lines, mate.

 

Yes, I am going to stop using the application, because I don't wish to cause any trouble. No, I'm not going to sign up to your Twitter feed, because you've proven yourself to be extremely unpleasant, and I'd rather not interact with you.

 

I can live without previously mentioned application, if it's not meant to be used. And I can live without your attitude as well.

Not sure if I've missed it but how do you find out which application you shouldn't use if it can't be named... I may be using it and I don't know? Yours confused MaxKim.

[+Primitive Person]

I suggested the use case of logging on the fly in particular because if I'm doing many caches in a row before I have access to a PC again, sometimes I might forget one or two. I think one of the official apps has a feature where a log can be stubbed from your phone, and then completed when you return to your PC.

 

I log on the fly from both Beeline and Memory Map, which are PQ-powered and therefore not breaking any rules - a click in the right place on my phone's screen opens up the website, and I type my logs in there. Since owning my current phone (HTC TyTN II) I log probably about 90% of my finds as soon as I've found them.

 

Easy, really, and it doesn't need any apps that aren't out there already (and are legal!)

[+funkybro]

I suggested the use case of logging on the fly in particular because if I'm doing many caches in a row before I have access to a PC again, sometimes I might forget one or two. I think one of the official apps has a feature where a log can be stubbed from your phone, and then completed when you return to your PC.

 

I log on the fly from both Beeline and Memory Map, which are PQ-powered and therefore not breaking any rules - a click in the right place on my phone's screen opens up the website, and I type my logs in there. Since owning my current phone (HTC TyTN II) I log probably about 90% of my finds as soon as I've found them.

 

Easy, really, and it doesn't need any apps that aren't out there already (and are legal!)

 

Yeah maybe... I just can't stand pocket queries! They're really cumbersome, out of date quickly, hardly anything can render the text inside them nicely, and you have to load them before you go (limiting you in terms of spontaneous caching somewhere new).

 

The only redeeming feature of a PQ-powered app on a phone IMO is that it will still work if you go caching somewhere without any mobile reception.

[+ITCHYthirdEYE]

I haven't got a clue what your all talking about but WOW did that open a can of worms!!!