Logging coins and TBs into EarthCaches

22k · October 16, 2009

There's no guarantee of a formal reply here but I would bet at least one of the programmers as read your proposal. If you want a reply you would have to send an email to contact@ gc.com.
hmmmm

I guess I am not following you. There are no guarantees to anything but what else is this forum for? Groundspeak, on numerous occasions, has replied to other ideas. A single email is from one person, versus several posts voting in the positive, is much better and should elicit a response!

Whenever I've emailed them for suggestions, they reply and ask me to post it on the forums for discussion.

Yes, this is best. The people monitoring the email queue have administrative responsibilities that don't leave room for feature request documentation. That is why I am here.

Okay! I'll update my advice database.

4.2k · October 21, 2009

bump

2.1k · October 21, 2009

bump

Please don't do this. If you have something to add, say it.

1.2k · October 23, 2009

What the heck? Why the bias? Just what is the difference in logging coins/TBs through MICROS versus virtuals and/or EarthCaches? Did you ever try to actually put a coin/TB in a micro? They fit about the same way in a virtual or EC.

If it is too much work, I'll buy that, but just because you forgot to stop logging coins through virtuals and you think you should have stopped it.....why? It's a simple request and maybe you don't care to log coins/TBs in ECs, but a whole lot of us would like to do so.

If you cannot/will not comply with our request, then maybe the "Pitstop" would be OK if it is as easy to use as logging a TB into and out of a cache.

But, for the life of me, I don't see what's the problem since the vast majority of posters on this thread want the requested feature. About the only descent is some one who obviously thinks waymarks are the same as ECs. Not even close! Try to find and get an EC approved!

We will not allow logging of trackables through Earthcaches. In fact, we should have halted the practice of dropping coins and TBs in virtual caches ages ago. However, I'll do you one better.

Let's create a new trackable log type called "Pitstop" (or something) that lets you post a log with a coordinate. We can show these logs as stops on the trackable map.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

15.3k · October 23, 2009

Did you ever try to actually put a coin/TB in a micro?

I've found and dropped travelers in micro-caches. Some geocoins are small enough to fit in a film canister. Some TBs are smaller than the TB tag they're attached to, and can fit into flat micro-caches (e.g., magnetic key holders).

1.2k · October 23, 2009

Point made, point granted, but you site the exception, not the rule. Most regular size coins and TBs will not fit into micros much less a nano!

Our point, just why can't TBs and coins be allowed to log into and out of ECs? After all, we, the members, are Groundspeak's customers and most businesses try to accommodate their customers!

Another reason to consider allowing coins to be logged into and out of EarthCaches is the fact that a joint effort between Groundspeak and GSA (Geological Society of America) created an EarthCache coin. It only seems proper that this kind of coin be allowed to follow the EarthCaches?

Did you ever try to actually put a coin/TB in a micro?
I've found and dropped travelers in micro-caches. Some geocoins are small enough to fit in a film canister. Some TBs are smaller than the TB tag they're attached to, and can fit into flat micro-caches (e.g., magnetic key holders).

Edited October 23, 2009 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

9.1k · October 23, 2009

Point made, point granted, but you site the exception, not the rule. Most regular size coins and TBs will not fit into micros much less a nano!

Our point, just why can't TBs and coins be allowed to log into and out of ECs? After all, we, the members, are Groundspeak's customers and most businesses try to accommodate their customers!

Groundspeak made a HUGE accommodation when it agreed to move this Waymarking category back to geocaching, even though earthcaches aren't geocaches. Doing this has harmed the traditional geocaching game and that is a calculated risk that Groundspeak was willing to take. I'd be happy with what you got, but that's just me.

Another reason to consider allowing coins to be logged into and out of EarthCaches is the fact that a joint effort between Groundspeak and GSA (Geological Society of America) created an EarthCache coin. It only seems proper that this kind of coin be allowed to follow the EarthCaches?

In addition to earthcaching coins, there are also Waymarking coins, benchmarking coins and Wherigo coins. Creating the proposed "pit stop" visit option seems like an elegant compromise to permit travelers to stop by these non-geocache locations. Thumbs up to Nate or whoever else at Groundspeak came up with this idea!

1.2k · October 23, 2009

Groundspeak made a HUGE accommodation when it agreed to move this Waymarking category back to geocaching, even though earthcaches aren't geocaches. Doing this has harmed the traditional geocaching game and that is a calculated risk that Groundspeak was willing to take. I'd be happy with what you got, but that's just me.

In addition to earthcaching coins, there are also Waymarking coins, benchmarking coins and Wherigo coins. Creating the proposed "pit stop" visit option seems like an elegant compromise to permit travelers to stop by these non-geocache locations. Thumbs up to Nate or whoever else at Groundspeak came up with this idea!

"has harmed the traditional geocaching game" You have got to be kidding us! You state this as fact so please produce the evidence of your rather dramatic conclusion. EarthCaching hasn't had any relationship to Waymarking and never will. EarthCaching is a joint effort between Groundspeak and the Geological Society of America.

I agree,"there are also Waymarking coins, benchmarking coins and Wherigo coins" but most if not all were developed by individuals not two different organizations. One would think, they are a little exceptional!

I see you have found very few ECs and that is fine. You have never developed an EC and have no idea what it takes.

"Harmed" geocaching? If anything has the 'potential' (notice the word potential) to harm traditional geocaching is the proliferation of lame micros but as a very wise geocacher once told me there is room for all kinds of geocaches, if you don't like one type or another just don't go to them....but above all, don't belittle them!

" even though earthcaches aren't geocaches." The last time I looked, ECs are listed by Groundspeak as well as multis, mystery, events, letterbox hybrids and grandfathered virtuals, etc. Low-and-behold, all are geocaches!

Back to the original topic. Assuming most folks like ECs and have no bias toward them, we would still like to see the tweak made to allow coins/TBs to be logged into ECs. Thanks. :anicute:

Edited October 23, 2009 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

3.3k · October 23, 2009

:anicute:

Could be an entertaining Friday.

October 23, 2009

I would vote for allowing the "Pit stop" idea! The reason is that I see trackable items listed inside of virtual and Nano caches that obviously don't fit. I really like trackable items. If it is stated as being in a cache, then it should be there. So if we allowed trackable items to only "Pit stop" in certain kinds of caches, then we could eliminate those stragglers that get left in caches that can't physically fit there.

This is how it should work:

Trackables could only be "Pit stop"ed in any caches, virtual, or earth cache if you actually visit the site, (i.e., found log).

When logging the Trackable, you would be given the choice to drop, or "Pit stop" the trackable.

The cache page would be unaffected by a "Pit stop"

The trackable page would show the "Pit stop" similar to a discovery with a link to the cache page and log the miles to that cache under miles traveled.

The user should be automatically taken to the log of the trackable "Pit stop" after posting the find to add comments to the trackables page. (This could prevent the blank entry's of dropping trackables too!)

Trackables would NOT be allowed to be dropped to stay in Nano, Virtual, or Earth Caches!

I have seen trackable caches designed for the purpose of "electronically" housing trackables, (I don't personally get this) but these should clearly be identified for this purpose and not use the virtual or nano cache identifiers.

I think that this is a good compromise and will also help to clean up the site.

:anicute:

15.3k · October 23, 2009

Point made, point granted, but you site the exception, not the rule. Most regular size coins and TBs will not fit into micros much less a nano!

Yeah, I was quibbling over your comment about micro-caches, and not addressing your main point. FWIW, my working definition of a nano-cache is a cache that is only big enough to hold a custom-fit log. In contrast, a micro-cache can hold small trade items and travelers. Sure, a lot of trade items and travelers won't fit in a micro-cache, but small ones might. For that matter, many trade items and travelers won't fit in a small cache, and some won't even fit in a regular cache.

Our point, just why can't TBs and coins be allowed to log into and out of ECs?

I don't really see the point of preventing people from dropping travelers into EarthCaches, virtual caches, webcam caches, etc. either.

But at the same time, I like the idea of adding a "pit stop" function that applies to all caches. Those with personal geocoins they use to track their geo-mileage could use this function to dip their geocoins, rather than dropping them and then grabbing them. Others could use this function to dip travelers in caches that accomplish the travelers' missions, without leaving the travelers in the cache (e.g., because they won't fit, or because they want to protect the traveler from water damage in a leaky container). It's basically a counterpart to the Discovered log.

22k · October 23, 2009

I know one guy in the TB forum telling people they should ask for owner permission before Dipping a TB through a cache. One here saying micros are too small to leave a bug anyway and another wanting to open up Earthcaches to log TBs.

I say stick them in a box, let'em fight it out and then let the rest of us know what should be allowed.

9.1k · October 24, 2009

Could be an entertaining Friday.

Nope, I'll pass. I'm about to sit down to a nice dinner, I've said my piece to effectively rebut the "we're entitled" argument, and I have no desire to derail a good, on-topic discussion of the proposed "pit stop" alternative by taking the thread off topic. As stated, I support the "pit stop" concept as a good compromise. I am interested in hearing others' thoughts on how that ought to work.

22k · October 24, 2009

I am interested in hearing others' thoughts on how that ought to work.

I think travel bugs should stay in caches. I love virtuals caches and I love seeing bugs logged through virtual caches but if we are talking about opening it up so bugs can be logged anywhere, rest stops, gas stations, etc. I just can't get behind it.

Edited October 24, 2009 by BlueDeuce

15.3k · October 24, 2009

I think travel bugs should stay in caches. I love virtuals caches and I love seeing bugs logged through virtual caches but if we are talking about opening it up so bugs can be logged anywhere, rest stops, gas stations, etc. I just can't get behind it.

Part of me agrees with this. Travelers should be in caches, or in the hands of cachers on their way to caches.

But at the same time, if there were a traveler with a goal (for example) to visit the top of the Statue of Liberty, it might be nice to give it a Pit Stop at the coordinates of the Statue of Liberty, even though there is no cache within half a mile of the Statue of Liberty.

22k · October 24, 2009

I think travel bugs should stay in caches. I love virtuals caches and I love seeing bugs logged through virtual caches but if we are talking about opening it up so bugs can be logged anywhere, rest stops, gas stations, etc. I just can't get behind it.
Part of me agrees with this. Travelers should be in caches, or in the hands of cachers on their way to caches.

But at the same time, if there were a traveler with a goal (for example) to visit the top of the Statue of Liberty, it might be nice to give it a Pit Stop at the coordinates of the Statue of Liberty, even though there is no cache within half a mile of the Statue of Liberty.

I hear ya. I'm kind of torn on this too.

8k · October 24, 2009

Travel bugs and coins, like so many of the other ideas introduced by Groundspeak, have developed usage beyond that which TPTB first envisioned for them. The original idea behind travelers is that they would move from cache to cache in accordance with their goals. That meant a cacher would take it out of cache and then leave in another cache. Nobody envision a cacher taking a cache and dipping it in each cache they passed as long as the had possesion. Nobody envision a cacher taking a traveler to an event and leaving on a table in hopes some going in the direction of the travel bugs goal would take it. There was a capability for one cacher to grab a travel bug from another, but such exchanges were expected to be rare or perhaps it was even the case that they geocachers would simply agree to meet as a certain cache and drop/pickup the bug to effect the exchange. Nobody thought of personal travel bugs to track mileage or serve as a bookmark list. (Before bookmarks list this was a common use of travel bugs and may still serve that purpose especially for non-premium members).

But these uses developed and cachers made use of the loophole that allowed bugs and coins to be dropped into virtual caches and later into events. Some of these uses resulted in virtual travel bug logging. The travel bug would visit caches that it was never in. For some reason, TPTB decide this was an abuse of what they wanted travel bugs to be that they banned the practice and locked the pages of travel bugs that were being used in this way. I didn't agree with that decision but it was the decision TPTB made at the time to deal with a use of travel bugs that they didn't approve of.

The pitstop log, as I see it, will look like a Write Note. However it will allow coordinates (and/or perhaps GC code and WM code) to be added to the note. This way "pit stops" can be shown on the travel bug map. If the travel bug wants to go to the Statue of Liberty it now can. Take a picture of the travel bug at the Statue of Liberty and post it with a note that has the coordinates of the Statue of Liberty. The travel bug stays in the cacher's possession. One could use the pitstop for visiting EarthCaches or virtuals as well. Instead of dipping to track your personal mileage, you would pitstop in each cache you visit. My guess is that it will be difficult to get people to use the pit stop instead of the logs they use now. Even if it easier than dipping, people will continue their old ways.

4.2k · October 25, 2009

I must say - I hear the input regarding a compromise having being made in the past by Groundspeak to allow EC's back into the main stream of geocaching.com. And that is great. But for the past 2 1/2 odd years I've been caching - I haven't known anything different - so I take it (and I guess a very large percentage of the active cachers are similar to me that know no different) thyat ECs are "normal" caches - as are all other types that I can place or find.

That being the case - I would love to have travellers pass through caches I visit (many of which are far too small - or remote and are therefore TB jails) to bring joy to the owner.

As a TB and GC owner - I love reading notes, logs, and discovered notes from around the world. I would far rather my TBs are logged with a photo from a remote place that I can learn about the natural environment in that area - than a "discovered" log with no additional info from an event. I also enjoy reading the notes on other caches my TBs visit.

Similarly as a cache owner - it is so sad to get a "TFTCSL" entry on a cache - and I must say - the benefit of ECs is that one tends to get much more interesting logs - and I have not had any one word logs or negative comments.

Earthcaching isn't for everyone; TBs aren't for everyone; dipping travellers are not for everyone; virtual caches are not for everyone - but surely - each cache type (that has been around for a few years now) should be treated in accordance with the spirit of our game and every other cache type. After all - it is but a game for the enjoyment of the people involved.

If there is a valid and fundamental reason why (apart from some seemingly historic perspective) this happened - surely decisions can change over time and are not cast in stone?

As a cacher of only just over 2years - It seems like a storm in a tea cup? But perhaps I am worng?

2.3k · October 25, 2009

Not sure that the Pitstop is such a good idea. Can place TB's anywhere - that really becomes Google earth caching and you can log TBs into any co ord you like? I still prefer the idea of dipping into exisitng caches.

But if that is the official stance - then so be it.

At least a "Pitstop" will be better than nothing at all. I for one would like to "track" my TB's so that might work for me. It all depends on how the pitstops would be managed. <_<

1.6k · October 25, 2009

"has harmed the traditional geocaching game" You have got to be kidding us! You state this as fact so please produce the evidence of your rather dramatic conclusion. EarthCaching hasn't had any relationship to Waymarking and never will. EarthCaching is a joint effort between Groundspeak and the Geological Society of America.

I agree,"there are also Waymarking coins, benchmarking coins and Wherigo coins" but most if not all were developed by individuals not two different organizations. One would think, they are a little exceptional!

I see you have found very few ECs and that is fine. You have never developed an EC and have no idea what it takes.

Actually are incorrect here on both of these.

Earthcaches were waymarks for several months, though the Waymarking community is sure not asking for their return.

The waymark bounty coin was not developed by individuals but as a joint effort between Groundspeak and another organization.

As long as they don't let coins and TB in waymarks I am fine.... I get enough emails from disgruntled coin and TB owners wondering if their coin is in one of my caches (and a few times in my virtual caches)

Edited October 25, 2009 by BruceS

1.2k · October 25, 2009

"has harmed the traditional geocaching game" You have got to be kidding us! You state this as fact so please produce the evidence of your rather dramatic conclusion. EarthCaching hasn't had any relationship to Waymarking and never will. EarthCaching is a joint effort between Groundspeak and the Geological Society of America.

I agree,"there are also Waymarking coins, benchmarking coins and Wherigo coins" but most if not all were developed by individuals not two different organizations. One would think, they are a little exceptional!

I see you have found very few ECs and that is fine. You have never developed an EC and have no idea what it takes.

Actually are incorrect here on both of these.

Earthcaches were waymarks for several months, though the Waymarking community is sure not asking for their return.

The waymark bounty coin was not developed by individuals but as a joint effort between Groundspeak and another organization.

As long as they don't let coins and TB in waymarks I am fine.... I get enough emails from disgruntled coin and TB owners wondering if their coin is in one of my caches (and a few times in my virtual caches)

OK, maybe I stand corrected so why not allow coins/TBs to log into and out of waymarks? I still don't seehow ECs have "harmed" traditional geocaching. Perhaps there is evidence where traditional geocaches are harming the game! <_<

Edited October 25, 2009 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

7.3k · October 25, 2009

While you're standing corrected, here's some more....

Lep, "has harmed the traditional geocaching game"

Konnarock Kid & Marge. "You have got to be kidding us! You state this as fact so please produce the evidence of your rather dramatic conclusion."

The State Forests of Ohio no longer allow the placement of physical geocaches. Earthcaches only.

This is a trend that some predicted. I'm hoping, but not optimistic, that it won't continue elsewhere.

1.2k · October 25, 2009

While you're standing corrected, here's some more....

Lep, "has harmed the traditional geocaching game"

Konnarock Kid & Marge. "You have got to be kidding us! You state this as fact so please produce the evidence of your rather dramatic conclusion."

The State Forests of Ohio no longer allow the placement of physical geocaches. Earthcaches only.

This is a trend that some predicted. I'm hoping, but not optimistic, that it won't continue elsewhere.

Thanks for the input but no correction here.

First, who cares where the coins/TBs come from? I know that ALL EC coins have been created by Groundspeak and GSA or GSA alone, but that doesn't matter, all should be treated alike and allowed to be logged into and out of ECs!

Now for your 'correction'.

It's kind of like the, "which came first the chicken or the egg" argument? In this case, the which came first was the misplaced traditional geocache! Geocachers without regard to sensitive areas have, without permission, rooted up the forest and tromped down plants, overturned logs, rocks and other forest objects best left alone!

I know a few National Forest Chief Rangers and other park managers and they have become negative toward traditional geocaches being placed in their domain. Why? Two reasons, some traditional geocachers don't ask permission and secondly, caches are placed off trail in Eco-sensitive areas.

Try to place a 'legal' traditional cache in a National Park. They don't want them either for the same reasons the National Forest and some State Park folks object. Again, the traditional cache "harmed" the game, not the EC! ECs are rescuing the game, not "harming" it!

By the way, an EarthCache will not be approved without the submission of the name and phone number of the approving land manager! Period!

So much for the ECs "harming" the game. While there is no evidence of ECs harming the game, there is a lot of evidence that some traditional cache placements are the real harm to the game! Because of a few traditional geocachers thinking they can put a box where ever they want, environment protectors have and are becoming turned off to geocaching!

Don't be pessimistic. I know where negative attitudes toward traditional geocache placements have been reversed with a little talking, explaining and self policing. Local groups have approached park authorities and have won them over.

Now back to the original question: please allow coins/TBs to be logged into and out of ECs. Speaking of "harm", what's the harm in that? Groundspeak? <_<

4.2k · October 25, 2009

please allow coins/TBs to be logged into and out of ECs. Speaking of "harm", what's the harm in that? Groundspeak?

Seconded

2.3k · October 26, 2009

please allow coins/TBs to be logged into and out of ECs. Speaking of "harm", what's the harm in that? Groundspeak?

Seconded

I also support that.

1.2k · October 27, 2009

bump

Please don't do this. If you have something to add, say it.

I am not bumping anything but have you given us your "Final answer"? We would really like to have this option. Many thanks.

4.2k · October 28, 2009

[i am not bumping anything but have you given us your "Final answer"? We would really like to have this option. Many thanks.

Agreed - and with no hard feelings (either way) - but just a request on the original topic - to have travellers allowed to be logged in EarthCaches - as they are allowed in most other cache types (including Virtuals, nanos which also can not actually "accept" the traveller physically).

Thank you (from someone who does not know the history - but respects that there are differences of opinion - and ackowledges that it is this vast flexibility and diversity that makes our hobby so appealing to so many. but the main emphasis always being on fun and enjoyment.

1.2k · October 28, 2009

[i am not bumping anything but have you given us your "Final answer"? We would really like to have this option. Many thanks.

Agreed - and with no hard feelings (either way) - but just a request on the original topic - to have travellers allowed to be logged in EarthCaches - as they are allowed in most other cache types (including Virtuals, nanos which also can not actually "accept" the traveller physically).

Thank you (from someone who does not know the history - but respects that there are differences of opinion - and ackowledges that it is this vast flexibility and diversity that makes our hobby so appealing to so many. but the main emphasis always being on fun and enjoyment.

While this is my last post on this subject and want nothing more to do with this topic, I want to thank Carbon Hunter for his diplomatic and very logical approach to the request.

I have been warned by a few folks that some people who have positions of authority can bring the full wrath of TPTB on me for rebutting their attacks on EarchCaching! Disagreements with the original request are fine and even expected, but there was no need to attack an accepted form of geocaching i.e. EarthCaching.

Thanks to all of you who have offered constructive comment.

Mr. Carbon Hunter the 'fight' remains with you! I'm outta here.

4.2k · November 9, 2009

[i am not bumping anything but have you given us your "Final answer"? We would really like to have this option. Many thanks.

Agreed - and with no hard feelings (either way) - but just a request on the original topic - to have travellers allowed to be logged in EarthCaches - as they are allowed in most other cache types (including Virtuals, nanos which also can not actually "accept" the traveller physically).

Thank you (from someone who does not know the history - but respects that there are differences of opinion - and ackowledges that it is this vast flexibility and diversity that makes our hobby so appealing to so many. but the main emphasis always being on fun and enjoyment.

While this is my last post on this subject and want nothing more to do with this topic, I want to thank Carbon Hunter for his diplomatic and very logical approach to the request.

I have been warned by a few folks that some people who have positions of authority can bring the full wrath of TPTB on me for rebutting their attacks on EarchCaching! Disagreements with the original request are fine and even expected, but there was no need to attack an accepted form of geocaching i.e. EarthCaching.

Thanks to all of you who have offered constructive comment.

Mr. Carbon Hunter the 'fight' remains with you! I'm outta here.

Thank you - I really dont see it as a fight but a request.

I certainly do not have any hidden agendas apart from asking for a feature that I thought would be useful and would increase my personal enjopyment of Geocaching - and by what a number of other cachers have mentioned on this thread - also seem to see some use in. That's all.

January 19, 2010

I also agree to the whole idea that Coins/TB should be allowed to log their travels to Earthcaches. No point in having a Earthcache coin if that coin cannot log its travel to Earthcaches.

Leo

January 19, 2010

I like the pitstop idea and I hope it comes to fruition. I think bug owners would appreciate having the little pin in the map for a picture you took with the bug, especially if it's more than a few miles away from the geocache you drop it into.

As for the actual topic of this thread... I don't really care. I don't see how the pitstop idea doesn't solve the issue. For event caches, I think being able to drop bugs there is a useful so people can look through the bugs before the event and see if they can help any of them.

January 19, 2010

OK, I missed the original thread so I'll jump on the exhumation.

People who like moving TBs around would love to have a "dip" log type for a TB. And it makes sense in terms of symmetry -- a cacher can "discover" a TB, so a TB would be able to "discover" a cache. That's essentially what a "dip" is.

Then actually dropping a TB in virts and ECs wouldn't be needed. Allow "dip" for virts and ECs, then eliminate "drop" for virts.

Edward

8.3k · May 6, 2010

So Nate any more thoughts on this idea of a pit stop? I got a coin the owner does not want in a cache, but dipping is fine or handing off between cachers is fine. I also have a coin that the cacher is moving around. I have no problem with this. It would be nice to pit stop (read dip) a traveler in a cache, even a virt or earth.

May 7, 2010

I know that a pitstop/dip option would be great. I see a lot of bugs come through our area and one of our local cachers usually "dips" the bugs into this cache. They get a ton of emails and replies from bug owners thanking them for dipping them in so they could see something from our area.

I totally support this idea!

May 15, 2010

Just to add my vote, I think it would be excellent to be able to log the visit of a TB at an EC. The arguments against it presented here so far aren't terribly convincing. The idea sounds like fun. I have an EC geocoin that I'd like to make this it's mission - something like, "the goal of this geocoin is to visit 1 EC in every state" or something. Obviously the physical transfer of the TB between users would only occur in traditional caches or swapped between users, etc., but then when in the possession of a user, the TB could visit an EC. Great idea!

Edited May 15, 2010 by Narnian Rockhound

Logging coins and TBs into EarthCaches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment