Too biologically based...so now what?

[+WVangler]

My earthcache submission was rejected because it was too biologically based. Apparently nature isn't part of the earth. I have obtained permission from the US Fish & Wildlife Service for the earthcache to be placed on their land and they are super excited that I was going to do it. The problem is that these are river islands - which aren't particularly exciting geologically in my opinion. Further, there are dozens of interpretive signs around the refuge, but they all tell the tale of river succession of species, how invasives are problematic and other natural interactions. The most striking thing to the eyes here is how they've set up natural succession vs. human aided succession models for you to see. I thought it would make a fantastic earthcache and so did the USF&WS, but nay.

 

So my question for the panel here is, what would you do? Scrap the whole idea? Is there something I can do to get it through? I've seen other earthcaches that weren't terrifically geology based. I guess as a Biology major I'm a little bitter at this situation. If I had one wish for a guideline change it would be to allow other "natural" science disciplines access to earthcache education.

[+TerryDad2]

That is just my wife says. She is also a biologist. I've also heard calls for a historic oriented set of caches. In this case, the program is sponsored by a geologic organization, so the rules are for geologic oriented locations.

 

To get this one through, it will have to be directed toward geologic processes, erosion, deposition, river formation and the like. The invasives and species succession will have to be secondary.

 

As I'm sure someone might point out, there might be a waymark category that is oriented to the biological aspect of the locaiton.

[+Lostby7]

Not having looked at your text, it's hard to say what the objection was. But I can tell you that you can normally keep all the biological information but the emphasis must be on the geology of the area. What shaped the terrain? How was it created? You can add how the geology influenced the biology but that must be secondary. In a case such as yours you must spin the words a bit but in the end there needs to be a clear geological lesson.

 

I could look at the text if you wish to send it to me via a PM...I could offer suggestions..

[+WVangler]

Not having looked at your text, it's hard to say what the objection was. But I can tell you that you can normally keep all the biological information but the emphasis must be on the geology of the area. What shaped the terrain? How was it created? You can add how the geology influenced the biology but that must be secondary. In a case such as yours you must spin the words a bit but in the end there needs to be a clear geological lesson.

 

I could look at the text if you wish to send it to me via a PM...I could offer suggestions..

 

Thanks for the offer. You could talk about how the river islands were formed, but honestly it would be more exciting to talk about how quickly nose hair grows. Don't get me wrong, I love a well done geological earthcache at an interesting site, but some earthcaches just aren't meant to be. Also not at all interested in Waymarking. I've reviewed a lot of the waymarks around here and even the ones created 4 years ago have yet to have anyone go find them. Nobody does Waymarking here.

 

I also studied Paleobotany in college. There aren't any fossil based earthcaches near me, but I've heard of some. I have collected tons of fossils around here, but am still looking for a specimen large enough to create an earthcache at and to find it on land where some human with authority can be tracked down to grant permission. I'm also wondering if that too will be too biologically based. To turn a fossilized Lepidodendron specimen into a geology lesson would be kind of a crime in my opinion, but I guess I'd do what I have to do.

 

I understand that it is a geological org that sponsors earthcaching. Keep in mind that my bitterness is partly tongue-in-cheek. I appreciate all the sponsors and the idea. I just wish that ecology/paleontology/etc. had an equal chance at this unique and fantastic educational model as I believe they are equally as important.

Edited January 12, 2010 by WVangler

[+trailhound1]

I recently submitted and published the Kincaid Mound EC (GC226X1) in southern Illinois. The cache falls under the "historic site" category at earthcache.org. It talks about the soil used to build the mounds and support the inhabitants. It was very similar to the Cahokia Mounds EC. However, it was dejected originally because it was "too historical" and lacking in an emphasis on the geology of the area.

 

I corrected this by simply discussing the surrounding topography and how the soil was affected by the processes occuring because of the topography. So if you are having problems simply describe geology of the area and how it affects the biotic communities that develop because of the geology.

 

 

Not having looked at your text, it's hard to say what the objection was. But I can tell you that you can normally keep all the biological information but the emphasis must be on the geology of the area. What shaped the terrain? How was it created? You can add how the geology influenced the biology but that must be secondary. In a case such as yours you must spin the words a bit but in the end there needs to be a clear geological lesson.

 

I could look at the text if you wish to send it to me via a PM...I could offer suggestions..

 

Thanks for the offer. You could talk about how the river islands were formed, but honestly it would be more exciting to talk about how quickly nose hair grows. Don't get me wrong, I love a well done geological earthcache at an interesting site, but some earthcaches just aren't meant to be. Also not at all interested in Waymarking. I've reviewed a lot of the waymarks around here and even the ones created 4 years ago have yet to have anyone go find them. Nobody does Waymarking here.

 

I also studied Paleobotany in college. There aren't any fossil based earthcaches near me, but I've heard of some. I have collected tons of fossils around here, but am still looking for a specimen large enough to create an earthcache at and to find it on land where some human with authority can be tracked down to grant permission. I'm also wondering if that too will be too biologically based. To turn a fossilized Lepidodendron specimen into a geology lesson would be kind of a crime in my opinion, but I guess I'd do what I have to do.

 

I understand that it is a geological org that sponsors earthcaching. Keep in mind that my bitterness is partly tongue-in-cheek. I appreciate all the sponsors and the idea. I just wish that ecology/paleontology/etc. had an equal chance at this unique and fantastic educational model as I believe they are equally as important.

[+narcissa]

The problem is that these are river islands - which aren't particularly exciting geologically in my opinion.

 

^Yes, that's the problem. Earthcache.org is pretty clear about its mission and what is required to create an Earthcache.

 

If you think there ought to be some sort of Biology-based geocaching program, then start one.

[+narcissa]

The VERY FIRST guideline for creating an Earthcache is this:

 

EarthCache sites must provide Earth science lessons. They take people to sites that can help explain the formation of landscapes or to sites of interesting phenomena such as folds, faults, intrusions or reveal how scientists understand our Earth (such as fossil sites etc.)

[+WVangler]

The VERY FIRST guideline for creating an Earthcache is this:

 

EarthCache sites must provide Earth science lessons. They take people to sites that can help explain the formation of landscapes or to sites of interesting phenomena such as folds, faults, intrusions or reveal how scientists understand our Earth (such as fossil sites etc.)

 

Yes, and ecologists and biologists are scientists in the field of Earth science who are trying to understand our Earth (such as fossil sites etc.). In my opinion, fossil sites are every bit as biologically based as my forest succession submission. Not enough clarity in that definition.

Edited January 15, 2010 by WVangler

[+WVangler]

The problem is that these are river islands - which aren't particularly exciting geologically in my opinion.

 

^Yes, that's the problem. Earthcache.org is pretty clear about its mission and what is required to create an Earthcache.

 

If you think there ought to be some sort of Biology-based geocaching program, then start one.

 

See my previous post, I didn't think it was very clear. I fully expected my submission to be published because my interpretation of earth science includes ecology.

 

I would start one, but the term "Earthcache" is already taken.

 

I believe that lessons taught about ecological interactions are far more important to conservation than geological ones - generally speaking. There is an earthcache in my state that is nothing more than a house made out of coal. But perhaps conservation isn't the goal at all.

Edited January 15, 2010 by WVangler

[+entogeek]

Being a professional entomologist I can appreciate your frustration. So try to begin with a discussion about river island formation http://users.rowan.edu/~Wyrick/presentatio...0Hydraulics.pdf and then some of your questions can be about community succession. But be sure to have a geology related question in there somewhere.

[+narcissa]

 

See my previous post, I didn't think it was very clear. I fully expected my submission to be published because my interpretation of earth science includes ecology.

 

I would start one, but the term "Earthcache" is already taken.

 

I believe that lessons taught about ecological interactions are far more important to conservation than geological ones - generally speaking. There is an earthcache in my state that is nothing more than a house made out of coal. But perhaps conservation isn't the goal at all.

 

I see your point, but the submission guidelines on Earthcache.org do indicate that, rightly or wrongly, their definition of Earth Science doesn't really include Biology. While general definitions of "Earth Science" often embrace Biology, Earthcache.org's big partner is the Geological Society of America - hence the focus on geology.

 

If you really feel strongly about using geocaching to teach people about ecology, then start something like "ecocaching." Or just put out Multi-caches that require cachers to learn about ecology in order to find the final cache location.

 

Or just buck up and add the requisite information about the island formation to your Earthcache, whether or not you think it's interesting.

[+OHail]

From Earthcache.org's website (under the advanced search for earthcache listings), their classifications of earthcaches are:

 

Cave/Karst Feature

Coastal Feature

Erosional Feature

Fault Feature

Fold Feature

Fossil Feature

Geomorphological Feature

Glacial Feature

Historical Site

Hydrologic Feature

Igneous (Plutonic) Feature

Igneous (Volcanic) Feature

Impact Feature

Metamorphic Feature

Mineral Site

Mining Site

Other Feature (which has the subsets of River Feature, Sedimentary Feature and Structural Feature)

 

Don't know if this helps the OP or not but thought I would pass it along.

[+GEO WALKER]

 

See my previous post, I didn't think it was very clear. I fully expected my submission to be published because my interpretation of earth science includes ecology.

 

I would start one, but the term "Earthcache" is already taken.

 

I believe that lessons taught about ecological interactions are far more important to conservation than geological ones - generally speaking. There is an earthcache in my state that is nothing more than a house made out of coal. But perhaps conservation isn't the goal at all.

 

I see your point, but the submission guidelines on Earthcache.org do indicate that, rightly or wrongly, their definition of Earth Science doesn't really include Biology. While general definitions of "Earth Science" often embrace Biology, Earthcache.org's big partner is the Geological Society of America - hence the focus on geology.

 

If you really feel strongly about using geocaching to teach people about ecology, then start something like "ecocaching." Or just put out Multi-caches that require cachers to learn about ecology in order to find the final cache location.

 

Or just buck up and add the requisite information about the island formation to your Earthcache, whether or not you think it's interesting.

 

"Rightly or Wrongly"

While I had this "go around" a couple of years ago w/GSA. I wonder why the "Teacher's Guideline" EarthCaching — An Educator's Guide doesn't correct the over use of term "Earth Science" and the "restricted application" of only "Geology" to Earthcaches. In essence just what are we teaching furture generations?

Edited January 21, 2010 by GEO WALKER

[+WVangler]

From Earthcache.org's website (under the advanced search for earthcache listings), their classifications of earthcaches are:

 

Cave/Karst Feature

Coastal Feature

Erosional Feature

Fault Feature

Fold Feature

Fossil Feature

Geomorphological Feature

Glacial Feature

Historical Site

Hydrologic Feature

Igneous (Plutonic) Feature

Igneous (Volcanic) Feature

Impact Feature

Metamorphic Feature

Mineral Site

Mining Site

Other Feature (which has the subsets of River Feature, Sedimentary Feature and Structural Feature)

 

Don't know if this helps the OP or not but thought I would pass it along.

 

See, most Fossil Feature earthcaches will likely not focus on how fossils were formed (I'm guessing, there aren't any around here), but rather the life history, taxonomy or other biological information about the flora or fauna the fossil is of. So they've broken their own rule I like playing devil's advocate. Finding faults in systems is one of my gifts...I should've been a six sigma.

 

That does help though. I hadn't seen that list.

Edited January 25, 2010 by WVangler

[+WVangler]

Also, completely off topic in a way, I did get my first earthcache published last week. (hooray) It was at a natural bridge though.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Thanks for the offer. You could talk about how the river islands were formed, but honestly it would be more exciting to talk about how quickly nose hair grows....

 

The Geology drives the biology in this case. That's what you need, if you chose to use it.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Renegade Knight

[+Von-Horst]

I fully expected my submission to be published because my interpretation of earth science includes ecology.

 

No. ecology is a Life Science which is "Any of several branches of science, such as biology, medicine, anthropology, or ecology, that deal with living organisms and their organization, life processes, and relationships to each other and their environment. Also called bioscience."

 

An Earth science is "Any of several essentially geologic sciences that are concerned with the origin, structure, and physical phenomena of the earth."

 

I believe that lessons taught about ecological interactions are far more important to conservation than geological ones...

 

Perhaps, but the EarthCache program is run by the Geologcal Society of America and I guess that they're keener on geology than anything else.....

Edited January 25, 2010 by Von-Horst

[+narcissa]

 

See, most Fossil Feature earthcaches will likely not focus on how fossils were formed (I'm guessing, there aren't any around here), but rather the life history, taxonomy or other biological information about the flora or fauna the fossil is of. So they've broken their own rule I like playing devil's advocate. Finding faults in systems is one of my gifts...I should've been a six sigma.

 

That does help though. I hadn't seen that list.

 

In my experience, your guess is incorrect. All of the fossil Earthcaches I've visited place a great deal of emphasis on the geological aspect of the fossils. They wouldn't be published otherwise.

[cezanne]

...........

that you can normally keep all the biological information but the emphasis must be on the geology of the area. What shaped the terrain? How was it created? You can add how the geology influenced the biology but that must be secondary.

 

I agree with you that it appears that adding geological information can turn almost any cache into an Earth cache. It appears to me, however, that it is already sufficient if geology plays a role and if at least one of the questions is a geological one. Geology does not seem to have be the key topic in all cases.

 

Consider e.g. this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ff-38bb381ac662

 

I would not say that the main emphasis is on geology. It rather creates the impression that some geological information has been added to get it through as Earth cache.

 

Another example

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...4f-f916abc4a560

 

It might, however, be that borderline cases are dealt with differently by different reviewers. I have no experience on that.

 

Cezanne

[+dibug]

If it will not be accepted as a earthcache could you not do it as a regular multi cache. My family of geocacher newbies went on a multicache that involved covering the trails and sites in the area around the falls in a forest area. we needed to read all the informatiion on the life of the area geological, biological and chemical to get to the final cache. The whole family learned a lot and enjoyed the hike through the area more having gained a much better understanding of the falls area.

This cache you have sounds like a great one like this, that I know we would be excited to try.

Don't give up on it.

[+geodarts]

I agree with you that it appears that adding geological information can turn almost any cache into an Earth cache. It appears to me, however, that it is already sufficient if geology plays a role and if at least one of the questions is a geological one. Geology does not seem to have be the key topic in all cases. . . . It rather creates the impression that some geological information has been added to get it through as Earth cache.

 

By the time I found a rather recent earthcache that was nothing more than granite cut into a particular shape and brought to the site to house a plaque, I realized that geology (or at least geology in a natural setting) may not be key to all earthcaches. I did think briefly about making my friend's kitchen countertops into an earthcache but permission was a problem.

 

Fortunately, this seems to be the exception rather than the rule, but there are certainly some caches I have done where geology seemed to be an after-thought to create a earthcache in a great location where a traditional would not have been otherwise permitted. I do not see Groundspeak expanding educational categories to create history caches, biology caches, or other forms of virtuals -- and since it is their site (and the GSA's category), that is how it stands.

 

But rather than an afterthought, perhaps it should be the point of the cache. What geological forces made it into an interesting location -- which gave rise to the biology, history, or other features that we see? It is one thing to say that a particular spot has a great waterfall or interesting environment, but the geological emphasis allows you to see things in yet another light and focus on the interaction that we all have with the earth.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Erickson

[cezanne]

By the time I found a rather recent earthcache that was nothing more than granite cut into a particular shape and brought to the site to house a plaque, I realized that geology (or at least geology in a natural setting) may not be key to all earthcaches. I did think briefly about making my friend's kitchen countertops into an earthcache but permission was a problem.

 

Fortunately, this seems to be the exception rather than the rule, but there are certainly some caches I have done where geology seemed to be an after-thought to create a earthcache in a great location where a traditional would not have been otherwise permitted.

 

In some areas Earth caches of this type are unfortunately not that uncommon (they contribute to the bad opinion many cachers have about Earth caches). I have encountered quite a number of them in German speaking countries. None of them is, however, placed at a location where hiding a cache is forbidden. The Earthcache masters program and the desire of some cachers to visit and/or to create Earth caches in urban areas (where geological objects in their natural environment do not occur that frequently) do, however, play an important role. There are a few cases of interesting urban Earth caches, but most of them are rather results of the Earth cache masters program. When the Earth cache program started, I had the feeling that quality has been more important than it currently seems to be. The reviewer for Earthcaches in German-speaking countries told me that having an eye on the quality of the Earth caches he is reviewing does not belong to his job. I do not know what other Earth cache reviewers are thinking about this aspect.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited February 17, 2010 by cezanne

[+TerryDad2]

The reviewer for Earthcaches in German-speaking countries told me that having an eye on the quality of the Earth caches he is reviewing does not belong to his job.

 

What is a reviewers job then?

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

The Earthcache masters program and the desire of some cachers to visit and/or to create Earth caches in urban areas (where geological objects in their natural environment do not occur that frequently) do, however, play an important role.

 

That is one big assumption on your part!

 

The reviewer for Earthcaches in German-speaking countries told me that having an eye on the quality of the Earth caches he is reviewing does not belong to his job.

 

Funny, we always thought that was the number one job of a reviewer!

[+Renegade Knight]

The Earthcache masters program and the desire of some cachers to visit and/or to create Earth caches in urban areas (where geological objects in their natural environment do not occur that frequently) do, however, play an important role.

 

That is one big assumption on your part!

 

The reviewer for Earthcaches in German-speaking countries told me that having an eye on the quality of the Earth caches he is reviewing does not belong to his job.

 

Funny, we always thought that was the number one job of a reviewer!

 

Geology drives urban development as well as the location of urban centers. That really isn't an assumption so much as simple fact. Then we pave it up and slab it over making it hard to find examples of much of anything. I think cezanne has a good grasp of this.

 

Quality has nothing whatsoever to do with a list of criteria. It's a subjective measure that can't be quantified while the other items can at least be somewhat nailed down to a checklist.

[+geodarts]

Geology drives urban development as well as the location of urban centers. That really isn't an assumption so much as simple fact. Then we pave it up and slab it over making it hard to find examples of much of anything. I think cezanne has a good grasp of this.

 

Quality has nothing whatsoever to do with a list of criteria. It's a subjective measure that can't be quantified while the other items can at least be somewhat nailed down to a checklist.

 

Quality is part of the process in the sense that reviewers are to look at "appropriateness of the site and educational standard of the notes" (as stated in the guidelines.)

 

That is totally distinct from the "wow" factor that some of the earthcaches provide. A road cut, man-made retention pond, or granite that is cut and moved to an area for a plaque is never going to be the same kind of experience as earth caches in Yosemite, Zion, or Bryce. But it is the job of the reviewer to ensure that the site is appropriate and educational in each case. In other words, to ensure that the cache meets certain quality standards.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Erickson

[cezanne]

Geology drives urban development as well as the location of urban centers. That really isn't an assumption so much as simple fact. Then we pave it up and slab it over making it hard to find examples of much of anything. I think cezanne has a good grasp of this.

 

Quality has nothing whatsoever to do with a list of criteria. It's a subjective measure that can't be quantified while the other items can at least be somewhat nailed down to a checklist.

 

Quality is part of the process in the sense that reviewers are to look at "appropriateness of the site and educational standard of the notes" (as stated in the guidelines.)

 

That is totally distinct from the "wow" factor that some of the earthcaches provide.

 

Yes, I am aware of that.

 

A road cut, man-made retention pond, or granite that is cut and moved to an area for a plaque is never going to be the same kind of experience as earth caches in Yosemite, Zion, or Bryce.

 

I agree, but that is matter of fact and no review process ever will change that.

I was not referring to the wow-factor, but to what can be learnt at the site.

 

Take e.g. this Earth cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...d0-9e81d4b624dd

 

The cachers who have already logged the cache mention that they just could see a pile of earth and were not equally impressed by the location than by a nearby Earth cache. The description and the information boards at the site offer, however, interesting background information and therefore I regard this cache as fulfilling the goals of Earth caches reasonably well.

 

The same is true for this very urban Earth cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...43-7c17f0b62804

in my home town or by the Earth cache at the Cathedral in Cologne.

 

There exist, however, quite a number of urban Earth caches with disappointing descriptions and logging tasks that do not teach me anything. I was referring to those.

 

But it is the job of the reviewer to ensure that the site is appropriate and educational in each case.

 

The trouble with this is that it there are of course no standards for that and that reviewers who have to cope with many submissions each week will not be able to spend much time on a single cache.

 

Cezanne

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

"The Earthcache masters program and the desire of some cachers to visit and/or to create Earth caches in urban areas (where geological objects in their natural environment do not occur that frequently) do, however, play an important role."

The highlighted text is what I am referring to when I said, "That is one big assumption on your part!".

There is absolutely no evidence of what you are implying that the Masters Program is driving EarthCaching toward a lessening of quality with the pursuit of quantity. If I am reading your statement incorrectly then I apologize.

By the way folks.....what does all of this have to do with the biological versus geological aspects of an EC? We are way off topic!

[cezanne]

"The Earthcache masters program and the desire of some cachers to visit and/or to create Earth caches in urban areas (where geological objects in their natural environment do not occur that frequently) do, however, play an important role."

The highlighted text is what I am referring to when I said, "That is one big assumption on your part!".

There is absolutely no evidence of what you are implying that the Masters Program is driving EarthCaching toward a lessening of quality with the pursuit of quantity. If I am reading your statement incorrectly then I apologize.

By the way folks.....what does all of this have to do with the biological versus geological aspects of an EC? We are way off topic!

 

Yes, it is becoming somehow off-topic, but let me reply nevertheless. You will have realized that I my sentence contains an "and" - this does not mean that both reasons arise necessarily simultaneously. The evidence I have regarding the driving force of the masters program is quite strong and not an assumption on my part. A lot of creators of Earth caches of the type I mentioned are deliberately admitting this driving force as their major motivation (often along with apologizing that their particular Earth cache does not offer much). None of them, however, comes from the US. (Moreover, I have the feeling that the proportion of Earth caches with a Wow factor is higher in the US than e.g. in Germany, but that again is a different topic.)

 

Cezanne

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

 

Yes, it is becoming somehow off-topic, but let me reply nevertheless. You will have realized that I my sentence contains an "and" - this does not mean that both reasons arise necessarily simultaneously.

 

What does "simultaneously" have to do with anything? Preceding, following or simultaneously, it doesn't matter! You are still suggesting that the Masters program is ONE of the causes of poor quality ECs being developed! That, my friend, is part of your assumption!

 

A lot of creators of Earth caches of the type I mentioned are deliberately admitting this driving force as their major motivation (often along with apologizing that their particular Earth cache does not offer much).

 

Cezanne

 

Now you want us to believe that "a lot" of EC owners are purposefully developing poor ECs to solely gain numbers and are "admitting" this to you? They are purposefully developing these crappy ECs and then they apologize to you for the deed? Pardon my assumption, but that is outlandish! If there were EC developers in Germany who are extremely driven to simply gain numbers at the expense of quality, I pity them!

I remain unconvinced that you have a widespread problem of this nature. The most prolific developer of EarthCaches in the USA has a variety of ECs , but most if not all are worth finding. Perhaps and that is a big PERHAPS, he is driven by numbers, but at the same time he hasn't sacrificed quality!

 

Now, can we please get back to the OP's original topic?

 

Basically, you can have a lot of biological information in an EC, but is has to be secondary to the geological factors of the site. In other words, mention and even post photos of accompanying biological phenomena, but the emphasis has to be on the important geological aspects of an area.

So back to the OP's question, if the islands don't present significant geological aspects, then you have no other choice but to find another site for an EarthCache. I too was a biology major and regret the absence of geology in my education, but the emphasis here is geology!

Edited February 18, 2010 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[cezanne]

Now you want us to believe that "a lot" of EC owners are purposefully developing poor ECs to solely gain numbers and are "admitting" this to you? They are purposefully developing these crappy ECs and then they apologize to you for the deed?

 

I wrote about weak Earth caches, not about crappy ones - that is a huge difference.

There are locations that suggest themselves for developping an Earth cache there and there are locations which are identified by first deciding that one wants to develop an Earth cache and then thinking about which of the locations in the vicinity could be taken.

 

The apologies are of course not specially directed to me - they come up as arguments in frequent discussions when people question the presence of an Earth cache at a certain location. Then answers might come up like "I am aware that the location is not very attractive, but there was no better place in XY"

(note that in case if XY is a small district, an Earthcache in XY can also have a considerable influence on the

ability of other cachers to claim different levels of the Earth cache masters program if XY counts as separate state like it is the case for the city of Vienna). When last year the GSA changed their policy regarding sending out Earth cache pins, one could observe both a relevant uprise in the number of created Earth caches and also one could encounter many postings in local geocaching forums regarding how one could still accomplish a certain level before the change.

 

 

I remain unconvinced that you have a widespread problem of this nature.

 

If you talk about crappy Earth caches, then I agree with you. When we move to ones that I and many others regard as weak, then we do not agree.

 

The most prolific developer of EarthCaches in the USA has a variety of ECs , but most if not all are worth finding. Perhaps and that is a big PERHAPS, he is driven by numbers, but at the same time he hasn't sacrificed quality!

 

I am sure that he is not driven by the Earth cache master program - one does not get a reward for having developped more than 3 Earthcaches. Typically cachers who have developped 10 (maybe even less) and more Earth caches, are fascinated by the concept of Earth caches and are interested into geology. So numbers do not play a relevant role in general. I am talking about a subset of the the large group of Earth cache developpers with 1-3 Earth caches.

 

Now, can we please get back to the OP's original topic?

 

I would not mind - personally I have contributed, however, already all what I can say to the topic.

I feel that it depends a lot on the reviewer which types of caches are approved as Earth caches.

I have encountered some in Germany which are based on a similar concept than the one the OP got denied.

 

Basically, you can have a lot of biological information in an EC, but is has to be secondary to the geological factors of the site.

 

It seems to me that not all reviewers are acting in this way. Have a look for example at this Earth cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...4f-f916abc4a560

 

Do you think that the main focus there is on geology? I don't.

 

Cezanne

Edited February 18, 2010 by cezanne

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

 

Now, can we please get back to the OP's original topic?

 

Basically, you can have a lot of biological information in an EC, but is has to be secondary to the geological factors of the site. In other words, mention and even post photos of accompanying biological phenomena, but the emphasis has to be on the important geological aspects of an area.

So back to the OP's question, if the islands don't present significant geological aspects, then you have no other choice but to find another site for an EarthCache. I too was a biology major and regret the absence of geology in my education, but the emphasis here is geology!

 

My God, I've done it again! I am quoting myself! No I don't keep staring into mirrors admiring myself and Narcissus isn't my favorite from Greek mythology!

[cezanne]

Now, can we please get back to the OP's original topic?

...........

My God, I've done it again! I am quoting myself! No I don't keep staring into mirrors admiring myself and Narcissus isn't my favorite from Greek mythology!

 

But why did you repeat yourself instead of answering to the second part of my posting which dealt with the OP's original topic and provided a counter example to your statement that an Earth cache necessarily must have its main focus on geological aspects.

 

Cezanne

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

 

But why did you repeat yourself instead of answering to the second part of my posting which dealt with the OP's original topic and provided a counter example to your statement that an Earth cache necessarily must have its main focus on geological aspects.

 

Cezanne

Do you really want to know why I didn't respond to the second part of your posting? First of all, you insist on taking the thread off topic.

But, my main reason I avoided a response is .............. you have no right to become personal by citing the specific EC as an example of the negative! Both the cache owner and the reviewer have nothing to do with nor have they participated in this discussion.

I am through with this discussion. Thanks.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[+tzipora]

I'm working on developing an EarthCache that comes very close to running into the problem you've described. There's a very lovely and popular visitors' center about an hour's drive from Anchorage. The whole center used to be dedicated to teaching folks about glaciation and its effects on the surrounding area, both as the glacier reshapes the topography and after it recedes. These days it's more about general ecology, because the glacier it was built to feature has receded past its 2030 expectations and is no longer visible from the observation decks. I want to develop an EarthCache based on a nearby interpretive trail which describes the processes. From the trail, you can see glaciers. You can see a glacially-formed lake. You can see the characteristic U-shaped valley. You walk across a terminal moraine. As you continue on the trail, you see lichen, then small plants, then alders, then deciduous trees, then confiers. What's amazing to me is that the trail is only about a 1/2 mile loop! But I want people to experience how the area goes from icy and essentially lifeless to a complex ecosystem (with birds and bears and moose and squirrel). One of the ways I hope to get this approved and help people to really start thinking about the dramatic changes is to consider how the ground transforms. Ice-bedrock-lichen-shallow soil-deeper soil.

 

I can't give you answers as to whether this will fly or not, because I need to wait until spring to do my final recon mission. I can tell you that I emailed the EarthCache folks for advice, and based on what I understand, this should be a sufficient synthesis between biology, ecology, and geology for approval. The observations will involve all three, but the questions will focus on how the flora and fauna change the geology. I'm pretty excited about it, because to me, the area has always been more about how the geology changes everything.

[+narcissa]

I'm working on developing an EarthCache that comes very close to running into the problem you've described. There's a very lovely and popular visitors' center about an hour's drive from Anchorage. The whole center used to be dedicated to teaching folks about glaciation and its effects on the surrounding area, both as the glacier reshapes the topography and after it recedes. These days it's more about general ecology, because the glacier it was built to feature has receded past its 2030 expectations and is no longer visible from the observation decks. I want to develop an EarthCache based on a nearby interpretive trail which describes the processes. From the trail, you can see glaciers. You can see a glacially-formed lake. You can see the characteristic U-shaped valley. You walk across a terminal moraine. As you continue on the trail, you see lichen, then small plants, then alders, then deciduous trees, then confiers. What's amazing to me is that the trail is only about a 1/2 mile loop! But I want people to experience how the area goes from icy and essentially lifeless to a complex ecosystem (with birds and bears and moose and squirrel). One of the ways I hope to get this approved and help people to really start thinking about the dramatic changes is to consider how the ground transforms. Ice-bedrock-lichen-shallow soil-deeper soil.

 

I can't give you answers as to whether this will fly or not, because I need to wait until spring to do my final recon mission. I can tell you that I emailed the EarthCache folks for advice, and based on what I understand, this should be a sufficient synthesis between biology, ecology, and geology for approval. The observations will involve all three, but the questions will focus on how the flora and fauna change the geology. I'm pretty excited about it, because to me, the area has always been more about how the geology changes everything.

 

It sounds like it has great potential. As long as the geology aspect is in there, the additional biology and ecology information isn't a problem, its a complement to the geology.