Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13
Thoto

CHANGES TO SUBMITTAL PROCESS

Recommended Posts

These changes aren't going to make developing an earthcache easier. If that was part of the goal, it's failed. I'd gladly keep the current submittal process, difficult as it is, in exchange for not having to jump through more hoops. As near as I can tell, the process is now going to be:

 

1) Find a neat geological feature / cache site.

2) Check if there are any caches within 528 feet. If you are just out for a stroll in an unfamiliar area, and not out caching, this could be a problem result in multiple trips being required. (New Step)

3) Find the name of the contact responsible for the site, contact them, and obtain permission.

4) If you are anywhere outside your local area, figure out a local cacher from the area, and convince them to keep an eye on your cache site. Because evidently, the contact you got permission from in the first place is not good enough, if you need a question answered about status of the site. (new step)

5) Submit the cache. Go through the usual back and forth.

 

Is this correct? I'm used to doing 1, 2, and 5 for traditional caches (because vacation caches are usually outright denied, so I've never tried to place one), and 1, 3, and 5 for earthcaches. I'm much less inclined to jump through extra hoops, and since my local area is pretty well played out, I probably won't bother, past achieving platinum level. While this might make some people happy, to know that this decision might result in fewer earthcaches being published... well.

 

I know I'm just spitting into the wind here, nothing I say will make any difference, but I've got nothing better to do with my spit today.

Thanks.

 

Vacation caches require a maintenance plan, it does not require another cacher... if your maintenance plan is that you have contact with the land manager and he will inform you of any changes in access, permission etc, that may be acceptable (depends on what is needed in a maintenance plan). Geocachers face your proximity issue all the time and often have to go back and retrieve a cache when it is too close to another and they didn't know it, in your case you collected coordinates and information and so you had a good visit to a neat geological feature.

Share this post


Link to post

The naturalist then asked me how many of the traditional caches was in the park. I gave him the number geocaches and he seemed upset... To make a long story short the COs of the caches never did have permission and most ofthe caches where of of the trails.

Another related point is on a few occasions when we used to have to get permission of the nearby traditional cache owner, we didn't hear NO, even after repeated emails, we simply didn't hear anything

 

I have always contacted the owners if there was a nearby traditional or virtual cache. In each case, I have gotten complete support. Its good for everyone. Some earthcache developers have placed traditional caches nearby, in areas where that is permitted, as a way of encouraging interest in both parts of the game.

 

My "vacation" earthcaches are in a place where there are existing virtuals, some near to places that offered specific geological information or interesting formations. The first question the NPS had for me was the relationship between earthcaches and virtuals, would there be a problem? I explained that the virtual caches took me to some very nice areas and were a great part of our trip to the park, but that earthcaches focused specifically on the geology and added an educational component. I was worried for a moment about whether my proposal would affect the virtuals, but there has been no issue with that.

 

There is a local area where I had thought about placing an earthcache, but there are many traditional caches nearby that were placed on open space land, mostly under the "if it is not prohibited it must be permitted" theory. A strict reading of the agency's rules might indicate that caching would not be permitted, and some other land agencies have taken the opposite approach (if its not permitted its prohibited), which took local cachers a long time to work out. I decided that it was best not to stir up the waters, although somebody else ended up placing an earthcache at that location without any dire consequences.

 

While I do not see the need to develop "power trails" of earthcaches, I think the earthcache rules themselves would keep that from happening. And restoring the rule requiring earthcache owners to obtain approval if there is a traditional cache nearby would alleviate any concern about earthcaches "moving in" on a specific area.

Edited by Erickson

Share this post


Link to post

Placing an EarthCache on (or in close proximity) to another cache of any type could result in offending the original cache owner. Before Earthcaches, cache owners could take a certain assurance that another cache couldn't be placed within 528 ft of theirs. With the introduction of EarthCaches the rules have been changed.

 

Your claim is wrong. An Earthcache does not have a container and thus it plays the same role as if someone takes the location where you have hidden your cache as a question to answer type stage of his multi cache.

I understand that this situation is not making every one happy - personally, I rather experience the problem in the other way round. New cachers place cheap traditionals at or close to locations that play an important rule in some of my caches with multiple stages.

 

An additional practical concern is that the earthcache icon on the Geocaching.com Google Map "hides" the real geocache whose icon lurks beneath.

 

The very same issues arises for mystery caches and (recently also) for multi caches where the starting point is of the type question to answer. This is not a problem unique to Earthcaches, but simply arises for all types of virtual waypoints. In areas with many multi and mystery caches like most urban areas in Germany and Austria, for example, these issues are not exceptions. They occur very frequently quite independently from the existence of Earthcaches.

 

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post
...And restoring the rule requiring earthcache owners to obtain approval if there is a traditional cache nearby would alleviate any concern about earthcaches "moving in" on a specific area.

I do not feel the need to ask permission from a Traditional cache owner to place text on a website and nothing physical anywhere on the planet....unless they own the very land their cache sits on they should have zero say in the matter.

Share this post


Link to post

Commercial Caches

 

In my opinion, this is another geocaching guideline which the new and expanded earthcaching review team ought to be enforcing consistent with its application to other geocaches. An earthcache ought not be permitted to be placed inside a for-profit facility that charges an admission.

 

It depends on how you define for-profit. If an Earthcache devoted to an exceptional cave which can only be visited during a guided tour only amounts in driving to the entrance, taking a picture there and reading something off a sign, but does not involve the visit of the interior of the cave, I regard it as a very lame Earthcache. I am aware of the fact that already with the old submission system for Earthcaches it was easier to get thorugh lame Earthcaches with no entrance fees than those where one can really learn something, but where an entrance fee is required. I agree that every single case needs to be checked - of course geocaching.com should not be a site used be owners of a business for promotion.

 

I am neither pro nor contra Earthcaching in general. For me it always depends on the cache quality.

I encountered miserably done and lame physical caches at or very near to locations that are of great geological interest where the geology aspect is not even mentioned in the cache description and many visitors of the cache miss it. Typically Earthcaches which are established at such great locations, do have a higher quality.

 

On the other hand, I need to admit that there do exist Earthcaches which create the impression of either having set up because Earthcaches are cheaper to maintain (no container) or motivated by the hunt for some Earthcache Masters pin. In my personal opinion, the Earthcache Master Program was the main cause for the degradation in the average quality when taken over all Earthcaches. There certainly exist some very nice traditional or multi-caches which teach the visitor a lot about geology, but their number is quite low. Moreover, with traditionals one disadvantage is that one cannot force the visitors of the site to read the cache description. So it is not possible to place a cache outside of a sensible area, but close to the borders of the sensible area, as one needs always fear that some cachers will not read the warnings. With Earthcaches this danger is much smaller as in order to fulfill all logging requirements it is fundamental to read the description. I have seen so much destruction caused by cachers over the time just because they did not behave as requested in the cache description that I feel that for many areas Earthcaches are a better solution even if there exist feasible hideouts in the area.

 

By the way, my original hope with Earthcaches was always that in contrast to the normal caches at gc.com

a quality criterion could be used to reject weak caches or to require a change of the cache set up. For normal caches at gc.com this is not possible (the site is even too large to allow for such a process).

Personally, I am rather concerned that the quality of Earthcaches might degrade and not improve with the new system. I do not care whether a weak Earthcaches has been set up by a local cacher or someone from abroad and the same is true for a magnificent one. What counts for me is only the quality of the product in the end.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

In my personal opinion, the Earthcache Master Program was the main cause for the degradation in the average quality when taken over all Earthcaches.

 

Amen. Just as there are no longer Challenge Caches allowed for placing caches, there should be no reward for placing EC. I've done some pretty bad earthcaches and a block of wikipedia copied text does not mask that. I am also glad that they finally disallowing vacation EC...accessibility changes, the feature may become dangerous..needs a local presence for that. Proximity...sure. Makes sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post

Vacation caches require a maintenance plan, it does not require another cacher... if your maintenance plan is that you have contact with the land manager and he will inform you of any changes in access, permission etc, that may be acceptable (depends on what is needed in a maintenance plan).

 

I think the cache logs inform a CO of most of those kind of issues. I was notified that a traditional cache was burned out by a fire through a log; I was notified that a trail closed to one of my traditional caches through a log; I was notified that the information I used for a multi (a plaque quoting Crazy Horse placed on a steep, somewhat isolated trail on a nearby mountain) had been changed trough a log; and of course I have been notified that a traditonal cache or two has gone missing through a log. ALthough each of these caches are only a few miles from my house, I was not aware of them at the time I got the logs or emails from visitors. I archived the burned out cache and made changes in the cache description for the others, without having to revisit the site immediately. (I did of course go back to the burned out area to make sure there was no geolitter, but that is not a problem with earthcaches.)

 

I assume that any changes in permission (if the parks decided that earthcaches weren't working out for some reason) could be easily solved in the same way. These issues are easier with earthcaches because we have obtained express permission and have established contacts with the park officials. If a trail is closed or the area blocked after a fire or natural disaster, I can contact the park and determine if the closure is temporarily or would require archiving the cache.

 

So I guess the present concern (and what we are waiting to find out) is what is "what is needed in a maintenance plan." My hope is that the there will be enough detail so that we are not left to wonder what might happen if the super-volcano underneath Yellowstone should erupt (to use an exaggerated example).

 

I placed my earthcaches in areas where public access is well-established and not likely to change, where the cache description and logging requirements could easily be adjusted if the geological information provided by the park at the site itself should change at some point in the future. They were designed with the idea that I only visit the area on periodic occasions. If that is an acceptable maintenance plan, then it is simply another way of assuring that the cache was developed with some thought. I am at a loss as to what a local cacher, who at best might live 110 miles away, could do to help me with my vacation earthcaches. But if something did occur, I would certainly ask for help - from park officials, from those who own nearby virtuals, or cachers who may be visiting the area. Would that type of maintenance plan be acceptable for future caches? Again, time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

 

So I guess the present concern (and what we are waiting to find out) is what is "what is needed in a maintenance plan." My hope is that the there will be enough detail so that we are not left to wonder what might happen if the super-volcano underneath Yellowstone should erupt (to use an exaggerated example).

 

I placed my earthcaches in areas where public access is well-established and not likely to change, where the cache description and logging requirements could easily be adjusted if the geological information provided by the park at the site itself should change at some point in the future. They were designed with the idea that I only visit the area on periodic occasions. If that is an acceptable maintenance plan, then it is simply another way of assuring that the cache was developed with some thought. I am at a loss as to what a local cacher, who at best might live 110 miles away, could do to help me with my vacation earthcaches. But if something did occur, I would certainly ask for help - from park officials, from those who own nearby virtuals, or cachers who may be visiting the area. Would that type of maintenance plan be acceptable for future caches? Again, time will tell.

 

This is one of the major points I was trying to make.. I just didn't phrase it as well! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post

However, when you zoom in you will see all the nearby caches :huh: .

 

Placing an EarthCache on (or in close proximity) to another cache of any type could result in offending the original cache owner. Before Earthcaches, cache owners could take a certain assurance that another cache couldn't be placed within 528 ft of theirs. With the introduction of EarthCaches the rules have been changed. To call that fair in the name of education could be considered unjust by those adversely affected.

This is the complaint I've heard most often in the past, although you've summarized the point far more eloquently.

 

An additional practical concern is that the earthcache icon on the Geocaching.com Google Map "hides" the real geocache whose icon lurks beneath.

Share this post


Link to post

So let me recap in one place the issues which I saw addressed on this subject:

 

Talk of proximity (the 528 rule):

Multi-cache and mystery cache waypoints are not bound by the 528 rule so long as the stages are of the “question to answer” variety and there is no physical marker left by the cache owner. All ECs are of the “question to answer” variety and so they should be handled the same way as other virtual waypoints. This treats the cache types in a consistent fashion.

 

Applying vacation rules:

Seems odd to me that one would need to apply this rule to a geological feature. There is no container to remove or confirm the existence of. Like any cache issue the owner is normally notified by those visiting the location. All it takes is a simple check on the cache page to disable the cache if the need arises. We already have on site contacts built into the permission process should we need to make direct inquiries about the location. I have had a site that was destroyed in a flood. I saw it on the news and was notified the very next day. The site was disabled for a full year while the area was made safe for public visits. Did I need to be there? No. Would my actions be different if it happened 2 miles from my home or 200? Nope. And lets face it if there is an event of such magnitude that it changes the face of the Earth, chances are you’ll hear about it even before someone emails you about it....it’s not like an ammocan wandered off somewhere in the woods.

 

That said I can see a reasonable limit set for one to place an EC if only to allow for development by local folks. In that respect most of the 30 caches I had a part in publishing were ultimately given to local folks to watch over. Also developing an EC in an area without them tends to spur the local cachers to gain interest in ECs and to place some of their own locally.

 

Getting permission from nearby physical cache owners prior to an EC placement:

Unless they own the land, getting their blessing is unnecessary as the EC is again virtual in nature and does not interfere with the other cache owners listing (aside from a possible stacking of icons on the map....which I do see as problematic but that happens all the time with puzzles locally). If anything adding a EC to the same basic spot as a physical cache attracts more folks. If you are worried about the extra traffic then perhaps neither listing should have been published in the first place. At least the EC will be known to have gotten permission from someone who feels the area was safe and could take the traffic.

 

My hope is that the new guidelines will be reasonable and well considered...time will tell.

 

Thanks for listening.

 

-LB7

Share this post


Link to post

Amen. Just as there are no longer Challenge Caches allowed for placing caches, there should be no reward for placing EC.

 

Actually, challenge caches are allowed under Groundspeak's guidelines, which is one more reason why specific guidelines (and awareness of them) is important.

 

I have certainly seen some "bad" or disappointing earthcaches. Without going into details, these were all placed by cachers who would be considered local. The vacation caches I have done have uniformly been very good, and some have been listed as being among the best earthcaches. While the effect of the reward program is a different topic, many people who have placed vacation caches have long ago surpassed the platinum level. But I have seen others place earthcaches seemingly to get the icon on their home page.

Edited by Erickson

Share this post


Link to post

This is all very interesting. I have done a few earthcaches, never placed one and never visited this earthcache forum. Recently someone upcountry placed an earthcache right on top of mine and I was a little perturbed. I asked him to move his earthcache a bit away from my traditional mentioning proximity and he did (also because he could without compromising the earthcache). Little did I know until I came to this forum that the feelings I had were the subject of a hot debate. The aspects that occurred to me (and I'm not saying they are right or justified - they were just the thoughts of a novice but it is interesting to note that people who have had much more exposure have thought the same thoughts) were 1) people from far away placing caches could offend locals 2) the earthcache icon covers the traditional icon 3) people can get confused (and someone did).

 

One aspect that also comes to mind is that traditional caches have a natural attrition rate, so in time many are archived which gives someone the opportunity to excercise their creativity on something they might be interested in. Earthcaches by their nature have a long lifespan. In other words that spot is virtually held for good by the first placer. These are early days so there are still many opportunities to place earthcaches. But soon it will follow the footsteps of ordinary geocaches and the good spots will become less and less. The pins and awards programme that is much part of earthcaches puts pressure and encourages people to place earthcaches. What invariably stands out to me in any cache is when a person has turned it into something special: the creativity, effort or passion that went into cache means a lot to me. I am a little concerned that that people end up placing earthcaches because they have the academic knowledge and interest, but somehow lack the personal touch.

 

I can see the proximity and local maintenance thing being more of a courtesy than anything else. That is good for relationship building.

Share this post


Link to post

Amen. Just as there are no longer Challenge Caches allowed for placing caches, there should be no reward for placing EC.

 

Actually, challenge caches are allowed under Groundspeak's guidelines, which is one more reason why specific guidelines (and awareness of them) is important.

Actually, it is Maingray who demonstrates superior knowledge of the guidelines on this point. While it's true that challenge caches are generally allowed, a cache won't be published if it requires or encourages the placement of another cache. Thus, there is a valid analogy to the incentives created by the eartcache program to hide more eathcaches. I think that's the point Maingray was making.

Share this post


Link to post

I am confused by proximity. Eartcaches do not seem to be physical caches, at least not ones as defined in the guidelines as "a physical element placed by the geocache owner, such as a tag... or a countainer."

 

Then, there's an exemption which reads "non-physical caches or stages including reference points, trailhead/parking coordinates and question to answer waypoints are exempt from this guideline."

 

So, what am I missing? The debate in this thread has completely unearthed (hehehe) my understanding of the guidelines.

 

 

What you are missing is you are applying guidelines which were modified once virtual caches could not be submitted any long except as waypoints in multis etc. When virtual caches could be submitted proximity rules did apply.

 

If I am misisng how we applied old guidelines (and note I've established caches under the original set of guidelines, so I am aware of them and understood them) and subsequently how those old guidelines should be applied over how the current guidelines read.... then I'm glad I'm missing it. Thank you for making it clear that I do not appear to be missing something in the current guidelines; only that I'm idiotic enough to disregard defunct and replaced guidelines... :huh:

 

Lets take this to the extreme, lets say there is a power trail (which are now allowed) with physical caches every .1 miles for a few miles following a geologic feature, should there now be a earthcache power trail at the same locations thus for every .1 miles there are now two caches. Is this good for Geocaching?

[/qoute]

 

Nice extreme. No, it is not good for geocaching. I think the "please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can" example in the guidelines is applicable to any cache, regardless of the type.

 

I would be very suprpised if the earthcache crew would allow multiple earthcaches on the same geologic feature. If asked for a recommendation, I would suggest to them that perhaps there should be a guideline of one cache per feature to prevent someone(s) from trying. Now, find an unique place where a power trail would facilitate an earthcache so close and covering different features, and there most likely will be educators from miles around flocking to the place with students in tow.

 

Finally, when it comes to "proximity" (saturation), I think it important in keeping the intent in mind of the "ultimate goals" of saturation guidelines which "are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider." There's a distinct difference in the purpose of a physical cache and an earthcache. It seems to me the intent to encourage physical caches to expand to new places; an earthcache's purpose is different, and "new places" and "new discoveries" can very well coincide with a physical cache.

 

So, no, I do not buy the "saturation applied when there were virtuals, ergo they apply now." Clearly, the guidelines state otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post

Earthcaches by their nature have a long lifespan. In other words that spot is virtually held for good by the first placer. These are early days so there are still many opportunities to place earthcaches. But soon it will follow the footsteps of ordinary geocaches and the good spots will become less and less.

 

Such a place would not be "locked," since under the current guidelines someone could place a physical cache in proximity to an earthcache.

 

As an earthcache owner, I would care a less. In fact, I would gladly work with the physical cache owner to obtain appropriate permission and to work on the park-friendly "leave no trace" aspect as it applies to both caches with both the other cache owner and the land manager.

 

I would not attempt to place a physical and earthcache, both owned by me, at the same location since the saturation guideline specifically mentioned avoiding saturation by the same person...

Share this post


Link to post

catnfish's question still stands unanswered...

 

So now you want Earthcaches to be like events. So does that mean you want them to be archived 30 days or so after their dates? :huh: When virtual caches were allowed to be posted to the site, vacation and proximity rules applied to them. It was only after they were grandfathered that the proximity rules were relaxed for physical caches to be placed near them.

The point I made is that events have different rules because they are a different type of cache. Had my opinion been they should be treated the same I would have stated that.

 

I knew what you were referring to thus my smiley at the end of my suggestion of treating like events. They are most like the other virtual cache types which used to be accepted on the site thus it should make sense that the rules that apply to them should be similar to the rules that applied when other virtual cache types were accepted on the site. It is agreed that there are different guidelines for different cache types including for earthcaches however we are talking about amount of difference. Should not throw out all guidelines which apply to other caches just for this different type, certain parts of the guidelines should apply including proximity, vacation rules, commercialism and agendas (not sure how anyone would work an agenda into an earthcache but I am sure some will try eventually).

 

I understand the use of a smiley :( in some cases it is used like making an objectionable remark in a courtroom, you know it will be removed from the record but you can’t change that the jury heard the remark. By the way, I did take your smiley to imply a lighthearted sarcasm, I used the opportunity to simplify and repeat the point I made earlier while feigning indignation. ;) So we have agreed there are different guidelines for different type caches. As to the degree of difference I will agree virtuals are the closest comparison in that there is no container and that logging requirements are fulfilled usually by an email to the owner of the cache page. Virtuals were initially intended to allow cachers to share locations where containers would not be allowed. The cache type was becoming abused as a way to increase a hide count, to place a cache on “the old sod”, to not spend money on containers etc. The wow factor was introduced as a way to limit the abuse. That didn’t help enough so no new virtuals are allowed. EarthCaches are reviewed by geoaware and soon, by the team, to ensure that a much more defined set of requirements are met. The specific purpose to educate about earth processes is a much easier parameter to apply than an undefined wow factor and it is applied to all EC’s by a small group of reviewers rather than a large group where each member has room for interpretation as to what wow means.

Proximity rules for a virtual, I could understand the need for them. Imagine a town square with 15 statues surrounding a fountain, with no physical containers to be confused, you could place 16 virtuals. One virtual would take you to the general location where all of the statues are located and it would be the proper way to do it. EarthCaches locations can and some do, have many possible lessons that can come from a visit. Combining several lessons onto one page would probably not be able to do justice to any of the lessons unless the page was yards long. The reviewer in the past has made the decisions if the separate EC’s are viable. In most cases EC’s will not be that close to each other but the possibility exists, to make blanket proximity guidelines would take the decision away from those most capable of making it. Under those same guidelines a nano could be placed on the informational sign but having nothing to do with the site or geology and would prevent a developer from listing an EC they have spent a good deal of time and effort on, sometimes taking months to get approval from the land managers. How long does it take to prepare a nano and write up a page?

I’ve said my piece on vacation rules, but I would like to address the commercialism and agendas. There are many traditional caches located in parks that have a use fee, or a parking fee, just as many EC’s do. Most EC’s I have looked at where a pay for tour or other cost associated either have an optional logging requirement or the logging requirement doesn’t make a visitor take the tour or pay the cost to log the EC. Most of these have been caves and with my level of spelunking experience a guided tour is the way to go. If I could not or chose not to pay at the time of my visit, I have the option to log without fee or to pass it by entirely. For the most part, I do agree that all caches should not be of a commercial nature beyond entrance or parking fees in state parks or like areas.

Agendas are certainly possible with EC’s just as with traditionals. I would much rather my visit and lesson not hammer me with “Live Green” or “mankind has destroyed this.”

I don’t believe you will find many EarthCachers that would demand commercialism and agendas be allowed on EC’s.

We are not asking guidelines to be changed to suit our EC needs, we are asking that existing guidelines for EC’s be kept as there are enough differences to warrant them.

It is my opinion that changing the current guidelines would be detrimental to EarthCaching and I see no gain for geocaching to change the rules except to appease some very vocal opposition to them. Does anyone truly believe that making these changes will be the direct cause of a great increase in visitors to EC’s and the quality of them as well? Will these changes be the “magic pill” that causes previously off limit areas to welcome containers? Please tell me what measurable improvement will be made by limiting a developer to a specific radius or not allowing traditionals and EC’s to exist side by side.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, it is Maingray who demonstrates superior knowledge of the guidelines on this point. While it's true that challenge caches are generally allowed, a cache won't be published if it requires or encourages the placement of another cache. Thus, there is a valid analogy to the incentives created by the eartcache program to hide more eathcaches. I think that's the point Maingray was making.

 

That I will grant since I notice on the second read that he mentioned challenges requiring placement of caches. One more reason why its dangerous to read logs and respond while on hold to the repair guys, after dealing fine print for most of the morning. The benefits or problems with rewards would be an interesting thread if it has not already been done.

Edited by Erickson

Share this post


Link to post

catnfish's question still stands unanswered...

 

So now you want Earthcaches to be like events. So does that mean you want them to be archived 30 days or so after their dates? :) When virtual caches were allowed to be posted to the site, vacation and proximity rules applied to them. It was only after they were grandfathered that the proximity rules were relaxed for physical caches to be placed near them.

The point I made is that events have different rules because they are a different type of cache. Had my opinion been they should be treated the same I would have stated that.

 

I knew what you were referring to thus my smiley at the end of my suggestion of treating like events. They are most like the other virtual cache types which used to be accepted on the site thus it should make sense that the rules that apply to them should be similar to the rules that applied when other virtual cache types were accepted on the site. It is agreed that there are different guidelines for different cache types including for earthcaches however we are talking about amount of difference. Should not throw out all guidelines which apply to other caches just for this different type, certain parts of the guidelines should apply including proximity, vacation rules, commercialism and agendas (not sure how anyone would work an agenda into an earthcache but I am sure some will try eventually).

 

I understand the use of a smiley :D in some cases it is used like making an objectionable remark in a courtroom, you know it will be removed from the record but you can’t change that the jury heard the remark. By the way, I did take your smiley to imply a lighthearted sarcasm, I used the opportunity to simplify and repeat the point I made earlier while feigning indignation. :D So we have agreed there are different guidelines for different type caches. As to the degree of difference I will agree virtuals are the closest comparison in that there is no container and that logging requirements are fulfilled usually by an email to the owner of the cache page. Virtuals were initially intended to allow cachers to share locations where containers would not be allowed. The cache type was becoming abused as a way to increase a hide count, to place a cache on “the old sod”, to not spend money on containers etc. The wow factor was introduced as a way to limit the abuse. That didn’t help enough so no new virtuals are allowed. EarthCaches are reviewed by geoaware and soon, by the team, to ensure that a much more defined set of requirements are met. The specific purpose to educate about earth processes is a much easier parameter to apply than an undefined wow factor and it is applied to all EC’s by a small group of reviewers rather than a large group where each member has room for interpretation as to what wow means.

Proximity rules for a virtual, I could understand the need for them. Imagine a town square with 15 statues surrounding a fountain, with no physical containers to be confused, you could place 16 virtuals. One virtual would take you to the general location where all of the statues are located and it would be the proper way to do it. EarthCaches locations can and some do, have many possible lessons that can come from a visit. Combining several lessons onto one page would probably not be able to do justice to any of the lessons unless the page was yards long. The reviewer in the past has made the decisions if the separate EC’s are viable. In most cases EC’s will not be that close to each other but the possibility exists, to make blanket proximity guidelines would take the decision away from those most capable of making it. Under those same guidelines a nano could be placed on the informational sign but having nothing to do with the site or geology and would prevent a developer from listing an EC they have spent a good deal of time and effort on, sometimes taking months to get approval from the land managers. How long does it take to prepare a nano and write up a page?

I’ve said my piece on vacation rules, but I would like to address the commercialism and agendas. There are many traditional caches located in parks that have a use fee, or a parking fee, just as many EC’s do. Most EC’s I have looked at where a pay for tour or other cost associated either have an optional logging requirement or the logging requirement doesn’t make a visitor take the tour or pay the cost to log the EC. Most of these have been caves and with my level of spelunking experience a guided tour is the way to go. If I could not or chose not to pay at the time of my visit, I have the option to log without fee or to pass it by entirely. For the most part, I do agree that all caches should not be of a commercial nature beyond entrance or parking fees in state parks or like areas.

Agendas are certainly possible with EC’s just as with traditionals. I would much rather my visit and lesson not hammer me with “Live Green” or “mankind has destroyed this.”

I don’t believe you will find many EarthCachers that would demand commercialism and agendas be allowed on EC’s.

We are not asking guidelines to be changed to suit our EC needs, we are asking that existing guidelines for EC’s be kept as there are enough differences to warrant them.

It is my opinion that changing the current guidelines would be detrimental to EarthCaching and I see no gain for geocaching to change the rules except to appease some very vocal opposition to them. Does anyone truly believe that making these changes will be the direct cause of a great increase in visitors to EC’s and the quality of them as well? Will these changes be the “magic pill” that causes previously off limit areas to welcome containers? Please tell me what measurable improvement will be made by limiting a developer to a specific radius or not allowing traditionals and EC’s to exist side by side.

 

I certainly hope your voice of reason is heard. At this point, I doubt it, but at least we can hope! Thanks so much for your contributions. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I have been away for a few days AND just look at all the fun I missed!

 

Well I must say that there a lot of really valid points made here - and some that may have regional applicability.

 

I must say that i am really looking forward to the new system as we were up in the mountains of Oman this last weekend -there are some amazing EC sites out there - and I am working on 2 - possibly 4 new cache sites out there. So champing at the bit to get the new submittal process up and give it a test run.

 

I must say that although I am concerned about the vacation rule - i do feel that if we can justify a cache away from home - we will propbably still be able to submit it.

 

I possibly have a bigger concern than most as I travel to many countries with very few caches (and arguably zero cachers). So finding a local cacher to assist in "maintenance" is an issue. However, I always do my best to find spots that are likely to remain for a pretty long time.

 

Regarding proximity - I am possibly a little different here to most in that we should probably be fine with the rule - as most of our cache subjects are pretty large (a mountain / a waterfall etc.). Howver in places with high cache density I know this would be a problem (for features such as a cave entrance / a fossil / a crystal exposure etc.) - and perhaps just like the vacation rule - rather than being a "free" rule (i.e. having no or a different proximity rule for ECs) we could apply or justify the reason for having a closer distance.

 

i know i have one traditional in Johannesburg that the reviewer allowed a closer proximity when I could show that there was a HUGE big fence between the 2 caches and there was a justification in 2 completely seperate reasons (2 different parks with different aspects) for the 2 caches. So I am sure a similar rule could apply.

 

But I do believe that the GC.com guidelines are pretty good as applied to traditional caches. We can also use waypoints to point out salient features (as is done in a multi - with different proximity application) and bring one back to a spot away from a traditional cache.

 

I also feel it is just good form to notify a traditional cache owner about a nearby planned EC (even if it meets the proximity guidelines but is in a remote area). It is my take that this is just good manners, but not required.

 

I look forward to the new process adn reserve my comments until it is up and running. I think it will surprise us and we will be glad for the change. I am particularly looking forward to applying html code and adding photos prior to publishing.

 

Have a great weekend all.

Share this post


Link to post

Regarding the proximity rule, here are three very nice ECs that are within 50 yards of each other. All are geologically unique and with the proposed change, only one would be allowed.

:) That would be a shame because all three are worth the effort! By the way, all three have a high quotient of the WOW factor! :)

 

Sand Cave

 

The Waterfall

 

The White Pearls

Share this post


Link to post

I created three in the same spot as well. All three have different topics:

 

Roche-A-Cri: Grotesque Towers GC1NGD2

Roche-A-Cri: Petroglyphs and pictographs GC1NGCD

Roche-A-Cri: Glacial Lake Wisconsin GC1NGCX

 

When I placed them I was able to move the actual placement a little bit away from each other so that they would appear as three EC listings, but they all fall within 528 of other existing caches. What a loss it would have been not to be able to list these ECs as I feel they really help to explaine these wonderful formations.

Edited by Lostby7

Share this post


Link to post

Regarding the proximity rule, here are three very nice ECs that are within 50 yards of each other. All are geologically unique and with the proposed change, only one would be allowed.

:) That would be a shame because all three are worth the effort! By the way, all three have a high quotient of the WOW factor! :D

 

Sand Cave

 

The Waterfall

 

The White Pearls

 

There is a problem with all three earthcaches you have listed.

 

They're all over 700 miles from me! :) Now I want to make the hike and visit Sand Cave! Curse you, Red Baron!

Share this post


Link to post

For anyonme who wants to visit any of my ECs in KY, I will meet up with you or group and hike with you to the locations. Sand Cave EC's are nice to see :) . There's several more great ECs in and around KY created by dedicated EarthCachers that you can visit :D .

 

Regarding the proximity rule, here are three very nice ECs that are within 50 yards of each other. All are geologically unique and with the proposed change, only one would be allowed.

:) That would be a shame because all three are worth the effort! By the way, all three have a high quotient of the WOW factor! :)

 

Sand Cave

 

The Waterfall

 

The White Pearls

 

There is a problem with all three earthcaches you have listed.

 

They're all over 700 miles from me! :D Now I want to make the hike and visit Sand Cave! Curse you, Red Baron!

Share this post


Link to post

I created three in the same spot as well. All three have different topics:

 

Roche-A-Cri: Grotesque Towers GC1NGD2

Roche-A-Cri: Petroglyphs and pictographs GC1NGCD

Roche-A-Cri: Glacial Lake Wisconsin GC1NGCX

 

When I placed them I was able to move the actual placement a little bit away from each other so that they would appear as three EC listings, but they all fall within 528 of other existing caches. What a loss it would have been not to be able to list these ECs as I feel they really help to explaine these wonderful formations.

I just finished reading all three of your EC pages. They look good and it would have been a shame to only allow one be developed. It's none of my business (send email, if you like) but why did you adopt them out? Thanks. :)

Share this post


Link to post

For anyonme who wants to visit any of my ECs in KY, I will meet up with you or group and hike with you to the locations. Sand Cave EC's are nice to see :) . There's several more great ECs in and around KY created by dedicated EarthCachers that you can visit :) .

 

Regarding the proximity rule, here are three very nice ECs that are within 50 yards of each other. All are geologically unique and with the proposed change, only one would be allowed.

:) That would be a shame because all three are worth the effort! By the way, all three have a high quotient of the WOW factor! :)

 

Sand Cave

 

The Waterfall

 

The White Pearls

 

There is a problem with all three earthcaches you have listed.

 

They're all over 700 miles from me! :D Now I want to make the hike and visit Sand Cave! Curse you, Red Baron!

 

Warning, warning, warning! Papafuz and I have been to the above referenced ECs and they are wonderful, but we did it alone. Half of all ECers who hiked with CS did not return!

Near a newly listed EC of his (The Pit Cave) , there have actually been bodies found! Absolutely true, but that is another story. You will just have to track it down on Facebook. lol :D

Share this post


Link to post

I created three in the same spot as well. All three have different topics:

 

Roche-A-Cri: Grotesque Towers GC1NGD2

Roche-A-Cri: Petroglyphs and pictographs GC1NGCD

Roche-A-Cri: Glacial Lake Wisconsin GC1NGCX

 

When I placed them I was able to move the actual placement a little bit away from each other so that they would appear as three EC listings, but they all fall within 528 of other existing caches. What a loss it would have been not to be able to list these ECs as I feel they really help to explaine these wonderful formations.

I just finished reading all three of your EC pages. They look good and it would have been a shame to only allow one be developed. It's none of my business (send email, if you like) but why did you adopt them out? Thanks. :)

PM sent.

Share this post


Link to post

I created three in the same spot as well. All three have different topics:

 

Roche-A-Cri: Grotesque Towers GC1NGD2

Roche-A-Cri: Petroglyphs and pictographs GC1NGCD

Roche-A-Cri: Glacial Lake Wisconsin GC1NGCX

 

When I placed them I was able to move the actual placement a little bit away from each other so that they would appear as three EC listings, but they all fall within 528 of other existing caches. What a loss it would have been not to be able to list these ECs as I feel they really help to explaine these wonderful formations.

I just finished reading all three of your EC pages. They look good and it would have been a shame to only allow one be developed. It's none of my business (send email, if you like) but why did you adopt them out? Thanks. :)

PM sent.

 

Thanks. Well done! :)

Share this post


Link to post

On more occasions than I can count, while seeking permission from the proper authorities I have been told they will not grant permission for the placement of a traditional geocache. I will not argue their points here, such as destroying ecologically sensitive areas, but the fact remains the problem was caused by traditional cachers who felt it necessary to place a cache, without permission, in an off-trail area that was best left alone. Don't blame EarthCachers because we opened up some areas for caching which otherwise would be 'off limits' i.e. National Parks!

 

After reading through this entire thread, I wanted to add a side-comment here. As a Board Member for our local geocaching group, I recently met with Park Managers to discuss guidelines for placing caches in our provincial parks. They were leaning towards only allowing virtual caches in the parks. This seems to be common among land owners. A virtual cache is low impact, so why not allow those and reject traditional caches. Now I am a big fan of EarthCaches, but I would really hate to see traditional caches get phased out by public lands in favour of only virtual(Earth) caches. Fortunately we were able to convince them that there is a place for traditional caches in provincial parks as well. I'd just be careful about extolling the virtues of EarthCaches too much when you are speaking to land owners or that might be the only type of cache you'll have left to find.

 

As for the guideline changes - I am happy to hear that we will be able to submit EarthCaches on the GC site now. For the other issues - I'll wait to see what the final changes are before commenting on them.

Share this post


Link to post

On more occasions than I can count, while seeking permission from the proper authorities I have been told they will not grant permission for the placement of a traditional geocache. I will not argue their points here, such as destroying ecologically sensitive areas, but the fact remains the problem was caused by traditional cachers who felt it necessary to place a cache, without permission, in an off-trail area that was best left alone. Don't blame EarthCachers because we opened up some areas for caching which otherwise would be 'off limits' i.e. National Parks!

 

After reading through this entire thread, I wanted to add a side-comment here. As a Board Member for our local geocaching group, I recently met with Park Managers to discuss guidelines for placing caches in our provincial parks. They were leaning towards only allowing virtual caches in the parks. This seems to be common among land owners. A virtual cache is low impact, so why not allow those and reject traditional caches. Now I am a big fan of EarthCaches, but I would really hate to see traditional caches get phased out by public lands in favour of only virtual(Earth) caches. Fortunately we were able to convince them that there is a place for traditional caches in provincial parks as well. I'd just be careful about extolling the virtues of EarthCaches too much when you are speaking to land owners or that might be the only type of cache you'll have left to find.

 

As for the guideline changes - I am happy to hear that we will be able to submit EarthCaches on the GC site now. For the other issues - I'll wait to see what the final changes are before commenting on them.

Excellent - that's the way to go - get landowners to allow ALL cache types - but when they will not - then hopefully they allow earthcaches. But the ideal will always be to have all cache types on the land.

Share this post


Link to post

Granted this is pretty off topic but in Wisconsin State Natural Areas geocaches are not allowed...EarthCaches are allowed on a case by case basis....

 

To clarify: geocaches were all kicked out of SNAs but after talks with the DNR EarthCaches were allowed back in on a case by case basis. Today there are several ECs located in Wisconsin's SNAs.

Edited by Lostby7

Share this post


Link to post

 

After reading through this entire thread, I wanted to add a side-comment here. As a Board Member for our local geocaching group, I recently met with Park Managers to discuss guidelines for placing caches in our provincial parks. They were leaning towards only allowing virtual caches in the parks. This seems to be common among land owners. A virtual cache is low impact, so why not allow those and reject traditional caches. Now I am a big fan of EarthCaches, but I would really hate to see traditional caches get phased out by public lands in favour of only virtual(Earth) caches. Fortunately we were able to convince them that there is a place for traditional caches in provincial parks as well. I'd just be careful about extolling the virtues of EarthCaches too much when you are speaking to land owners or that might be the only type of cache you'll have left to find.

 

As for the guideline changes - I am happy to hear that we will be able to submit EarthCaches on the GC site now. For the other issues - I'll wait to see what the final changes are before commenting on them.

Excellent - that's the way to go - get landowners to allow ALL cache types - but when they will not - then hopefully they allow earthcaches. But the ideal will always be to have all cache types on the land.

 

I agree with both of you folks, but what are you going to do when the landowner and/or land manager has already been 'had' by a misguided geocacher? Oops, there's that word again (misguided). I think I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread (it's too long to go back to look) but when seeking permission from a couple of National Forest Chief Rangers I was told they would not grant permission for traditional geocaches. Please believe me, we tried. I have nothing against traditional caches. Check it out, we have a bunch of 'em!

Anyway, my long winded point is while I totally agree with junglehgair and Carbon Hunter, sooner or later you may run into the same situation that we did. Yes, try to convince the owner/manager to allow any cache but don't do it at the expence of being told NO on ECs! Even though there are those who have posted contrary opinions on this thread, EarthCaches are geocaches too and an EarthCache placed is better than no geocache placed!

 

Hey, maybe that ought to be out motto, "An EarthCache Placed Is Better Than No Cache Placed!"

 

P.S. Like junglehair, while I have commented on them before it is too late, like you I will wait to see what the final changes will be. There is no reason on the planet of ours why EarthCaching cannot co-exist with other types of geocaching. All types (geocaches) are different and should have some common rules, but there is room for variation because of the uniqueness of the cache. Thanks. :blink:

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge

Share this post


Link to post

I recently developed my first earthcache and got it approved by the MN Dept. of Natural Resources. (I live in Florida.) The approval process took well-over a month. I just received the approval in the mail this past week. However, when I went to geocaching.com to submit it for final approval, I was surprised to find the system is not currently accepting new earthcaches pending implementation of a new system. Given the time I spent on development and obtaining land management approval, I was outraged!

 

I am a parttime RVer who spends 3-4 months out of each year traveling around North America. I know that there are other full- and parttime RVers who also enjoy geocaching during their travels, because I have met some of them. I maintain geocaches near my permanent residence, but am not always around when problems arise. Fortunately, the local geocaching community is good about letting me know of problems with my caches and sometimes even takes care of fixing them. If a serious problem arises with a cache, then I have to decide whether to temporarily disable or even archive it. I do have internet access on the road and can take these actions from afar.

 

It seems to me that by putting in place new distance rules, you are, in effect, marginalizing the RVing geocaching community. I have read through the previous posts on this subject, but have not seen any that present the point of view of us “gypsies.” I hope you will take this viewpoint into consideration when you institute the new earthcache system.

Share this post


Link to post

I recently developed my first earthcache and got it approved by the MN Dept. of Natural Resources. (I live in Florida.) The approval process took well-over a month. I just received the approval in the mail this past week. However, when I went to geocaching.com to submit it for final approval, I was surprised to find the system is not currently accepting new earthcaches pending implementation of a new system. Given the time I spent on development and obtaining land management approval, I was outraged!

 

I am a parttime RVer who spends 3-4 months out of each year traveling around North America. I know that there are other full- and parttime RVers who also enjoy geocaching during their travels, because I have met some of them. I maintain geocaches near my permanent residence, but am not always around when problems arise. Fortunately, the local geocaching community is good about letting me know of problems with my caches and sometimes even takes care of fixing them. If a serious problem arises with a cache, then I have to decide whether to temporarily disable or even archive it. I do have internet access on the road and can take these actions from afar.

 

It seems to me that by putting in place new distance rules, you are, in effect, marginalizing the RVing geocaching community. I have read through the previous posts on this subject, but have not seen any that present the point of view of us “gypsies.” I hope you will take this viewpoint into consideration when you institute the new earthcache system.

As a fellow gypsy (camper) we're with you. Don't worry because it is just a short delay to switch over to the new submittal system and the vacation rule hasn't changed. Hold on, you can submit sometime after the 15th.

Share this post


Link to post

I think December 15th is not gonna happen now :)

 

I recently developed my first earthcache and got it approved by the MN Dept. of Natural Resources. (I live in Florida.) The approval process took well-over a month. I just received the approval in the mail this past week. However, when I went to geocaching.com to submit it for final approval, I was surprised to find the system is not currently accepting new earthcaches pending implementation of a new system. Given the time I spent on development and obtaining land management approval, I was outraged!

 

I am a parttime RVer who spends 3-4 months out of each year traveling around North America. I know that there are other full- and parttime RVers who also enjoy geocaching during their travels, because I have met some of them. I maintain geocaches near my permanent residence, but am not always around when problems arise. Fortunately, the local geocaching community is good about letting me know of problems with my caches and sometimes even takes care of fixing them. If a serious problem arises with a cache, then I have to decide whether to temporarily disable or even archive it. I do have internet access on the road and can take these actions from afar.

 

It seems to me that by putting in place new distance rules, you are, in effect, marginalizing the RVing geocaching community. I have read through the previous posts on this subject, but have not seen any that present the point of view of us “gypsies.” I hope you will take this viewpoint into consideration when you institute the new earthcache system.

As a fellow gypsy (camper) we're with you. Don't worry because it is just a short delay to switch over to the new submittal system and the vacation rule hasn't changed. Hold on, you can submit sometime after the 15th.

Share this post


Link to post

I think December 15th is not gonna happen now :laughing:

 

 

Shame. We just got approval for two more. Oh well, gives us time to do some more improvements :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

And they thought they were overloaded before...

Now with all your pent-up developer work just waiting for the release, there'll be more than 1000 new ones in January! :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

how do we submit the new earth cache's thru GC.com

 

i have just gone on there to do one and EC is not in the cache type listings??

 

ive been sat with all the details since the day they stopped taking them the old way?

Share this post


Link to post

how do we submit the new earth cache's thru GC.com

 

i have just gone on there to do one and EC is not in the cache type listings??

 

ive been sat with all the details since the day they stopped taking them the old way?

They are not taking them at this point....check back after the 1st of the year.

Share this post


Link to post

I've just returned from 5 weeks of fieldwork in the forests of Sarawak where I had the opportunity to visit "The Pinnacles" Earthcache (the CO is from Australia). As a biologist I have had the opportunity to travel to some amazing places throughout the world and have just started developing EC's. So far I only have 3, 1 in Palau and 2 in Guyana, but there are many more that I would like to develop in countries such as Vietnam and Costa Rica where I have worked. Requiring that the vacation rule be applied to these EC's is problematic and the idea of having a local cacher adopt or maintain these EC's is not feasible as there are no local cachers in many of these areas. Living in southern Ontario means two things for me: 1) it is unlikely that I will be able to develop any EC's here as there are already so many of them here and I don't want to, nor can I, duplicate the same information for an existing Earthcache but in a different locale, and 2) in all likelihood the EC's that I would like to develop in other countries will in fact not see the light of day as these are in very remote areas where local cachers do not reside.

 

Just my 2 cents worth.

Share this post


Link to post

I've just returned from 5 weeks of fieldwork in the forests of Sarawak where I had the opportunity to visit "The Pinnacles" Earthcache (the CO is from Australia). As a biologist I have had the opportunity to travel to some amazing places throughout the world and have just started developing EC's. So far I only have 3, 1 in Palau and 2 in Guyana, but there are many more that I would like to develop in countries such as Vietnam and Costa Rica where I have worked. Requiring that the vacation rule be applied to these EC's is problematic and the idea of having a local cacher adopt or maintain these EC's is not feasible as there are no local cachers in many of these areas. Living in southern Ontario means two things for me: 1) it is unlikely that I will be able to develop any EC's here as there are already so many of them here and I don't want to, nor can I, duplicate the same information for an existing Earthcache but in a different locale, and 2) in all likelihood the EC's that I would like to develop in other countries will in fact not see the light of day as these are in very remote areas where local cachers do not reside.

 

Just my 2 cents worth.

 

You are OK. :)

 

Here is geoaware's post on another thread regarding the proximity and vacation rules as they apply to the new process.

 

"Thank you all for your feedback in these forums and emails.

 

The EarthCache team has decided to make an important change to the current guideline regarding proximity to other EarthCaches: The expectation of the soon-to-be-implemented proximity guideline for EarthCaches is to respect the space around an existing EarthCache and to recognize the unique lesson already being presented.

 

Going forward, we are reserving the right to refrain from publishing EarthCaches that present the same or substantially similar content regarding a particular geological feature. Conversely, we reserve the right to publish an EarthCache in close proximity to another EarthCache if we believe that it presents a distinct geological lesson.

 

The current guidelines regarding vacation EarthCaches will remain as is for the moment. The EarthCache team has decided not to make any further changes at this time.

 

We believe that these decisions are best for the long-term health of the program.

 

An updated set of guidelines will be released prior to the start of the new system.

 

The EarthCache Team"

 

This post has been edited by geoaware: Dec 7 2009, 07:22 PM

 

P.S. As you can see, all I did was to cut and paste the original post. Thanks again to geoaware.

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge

Share this post


Link to post

My question with the new guidelines is number 6

 

6. Logging of an EarthCache must involve visitors undertaking some educational task that relates to the Earth science at the site. This could involve measuring or estimating the size of some feature or aspect of the site, collecting and recording data (such as time of a tidal bore), or sending an e-mail to the cache owner with the answer to Earth science related questions they obtained by reading an information display. While photographs may be requested, they do not take the place of other logging requirements. Taking a photograph alone or asking people to do internet research does NOT meet these logging guidelines. Requests for specific content in the photograph (must include the visitor's face, for example) will be considered an additional logging requirement and must be optional. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

Does this affect the older ECs?

 

The picture concept is the same as a signature in a log book. Why change something that actually proves the visit. The questions can be passed around from previous cachers who visited the sites and ECs will be logged from the comfort of your home without ever visiting the site.

 

Good for some bad for others...

 

Maybe I'm reading this wrong.

 

I just saw that the updated version of the guidelines can be found now on earthcache.org :grin:

 

http://www.geosociety.org/earthcache/guidelines.htm

Share this post


Link to post

My question with the new guidelines is number 6

 

6. Logging of an EarthCache must involve visitors undertaking some educational task that relates to the Earth science at the site. This could involve measuring or estimating the size of some feature or aspect of the site, collecting and recording data (such as time of a tidal bore), or sending an e-mail to the cache owner with the answer to Earth science related questions they obtained by reading an information display. While photographs may be requested, they do not take the place of other logging requirements. Taking a photograph alone or asking people to do internet research does NOT meet these logging guidelines. Requests for specific content in the photograph (must include the visitor's face, for example) will be considered an additional logging requirement and must be optional. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

Does this affect the older ECs?

 

The picture concept is the same as a signature in a log book. Why change something that actually proves the visit. The questions can be passed around from previous cachers who visited the sites and ECs will be logged from the comfort of your home without ever visiting the site.

 

Good for some bad for others...

 

Maybe I'm reading this wrong.

 

I just saw that the updated version of the guidelines can be found now on earthcache.org <_<

 

http://www.geosociety.org/earthcache/guidelines.htm

 

I can tell you what it means as we just got an Earthcache published, within 2 hours of submitting :P

W were asked to change the number one logging requirement 'post photo' to the last requirement and make it optional. That's all.

Share this post


Link to post

did you say MAKE the photo req optional.....I thought that was still to be an allowed req...just not requiring a face in the photo?

Share this post


Link to post

did you say MAKE the photo req optional.....I thought that was still to be an allowed req...just not requiring a face in the photo?

 

Yep, here's a quote from the reviewer message: "However I am concerned that your first logging requirement places TOO much emphasis on a photograph. Please make this your final logging task and remove the requirement that one must be sent. It should be optional only." Not a bad thing if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post

did you say MAKE the photo req optional.....I thought that was still to be an allowed req...just not requiring a face in the photo?

 

Yep, here's a quote from the reviewer message: "However I am concerned that your first logging requirement places TOO much emphasis on a photograph. Please make this your final logging task and remove the requirement that one must be sent. It should be optional only." Not a bad thing if you ask me.

Oh joy bring on the armchair loggers....

Share this post


Link to post

did you say MAKE the photo req optional.....I thought that was still to be an allowed req...just not requiring a face in the photo?

 

Yep, here's a quote from the reviewer message: "However I am concerned that your first logging requirement places TOO much emphasis on a photograph. Please make this your final logging task and remove the requirement that one must be sent. It should be optional only." Not a bad thing if you ask me.

Oh joy bring on the armchair loggers....

 

Why? make sure one of your questions can only be answered by actually being there, and if you are uncertain ask for further proof. An honest cacher will hopefully provide it. Only problem I see is an incraese in email traffic. What's the percentage of such guys anyway?

Share this post


Link to post

I just added my first 3 to test the water.

 

Was a pleasure doing it via GC.com - will see how the review process goes now.

 

Glad the new system is up and running.

Share this post


Link to post
Why? make sure one of your questions can only be answered by actually being there, and if you are uncertain ask for further proof. An honest cacher will hopefully provide it. Only problem I see is an incraese in email traffic. What's the percentage of such guys anyway?

 

Here's where I see there being a problem with an individual just answering a question without their having to post a photo. They can get the answer from someone else who visited the EC and just submit that in an email and one would never now if they visited the EC in person. Compare this to a Mystery cache - sure some folks just get the answers from someone else instead of solving the puzzle themselves - BUT the CO can still review the log in the cache to ensure that the individual found the cache and signed the log book. No signature - then no smiley. To me, this decision means open season on Earthcaches and can lead to some unethical logging of them. The whole point of the EC is to ensure that someone visits it and learns something and a photograph of them at the site verifies their visit to it.

 

Now if someone wants to photoshop themselves into a picture, well then...

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13

×
×
  • Create New...