The new UK Earthcache Rules

[Neath Worthies]

Written permission is ony needed "when applicable". To be honest, the only circumstances where I can think that might occur would be if an EC were to be located in an area covered by a GAGB Landowner Agreement that required written proof.

 

geoawareUK

Thanks for coming to this thread in the UK forum

 

To take this point of yours one step further, surely the GAGB agreements only cover the situation where a PHYSICAL object is hidden. As Groundspeak stopped virtual caches some years ago the GAGB agreements do not cover people just visiting a site and taking photos/reading signs/etc.

 

So nowhere in the GAGB agreements is written proof for anything "Virtual" needed.

[+Happy Humphrey]

...

Written permission is ony needed "when applicable". To be honest, the only circumstances where I can think that might occur would be if an EC were to be located in an area covered by a GAGB Landowner Agreement that required written proof.

That's a bit confusing, bearing in mind the text quoted by Martlakes above;

 

The effect of this within the United Kingdom is that;

 

If an EarthCache is being placed on a public road, no permission is required. However, if an EarthCache is being placed on a road in a national, county or local park, then permission is required. If an EarthCache is "off-road" in any sort of park, forest or private land, permission is required and the submitter is required to provide the name, position and phone number of the person to whom they spoke.

..which seems a bit contradictory? Perhaps an example would clarify. If someone submitted an earthcache to highlight Wastwater and the famous screes in the Lake District National Park, and the activity consisted of parking in the parking area and looking up at the screes from across the lake (which is the only decent view), I don't think that there is any landowner / SSSI problem with that parking spot. A nearby physical geocache (and there is one) probably wouldn't need landowner permission. Would the earthcache?

[+Moote]

So, you may not need written permission to place a physical cache, but if you want to place a virtual EC in the same location you must provide written permission.

 

No. As with ay other cache in the UK where permission is required (such as a traditional in an SSSI) you need to confirm in a 'note to reviewer' that you have obtained permission and give the contact details of the individual who gave that permission. If you wish to add the text of the email or letter that's great.

 

Written permission is ony needed "when applicable". To be honest, the only circumstances where I can think that might occur would be if an EC were to be located in an area covered by a GAGB Landowner Agreement that required written proof.

 

geoawareUK

Not all Earthcaches are in a recognised SSSI, National Park, AOONB, etc All UK National Parks, AOONB and SSSI are accessible to all without question. Yes there might be some rules on visiting, fenced in areas of flora and fauna etc. but that is not an issue in my eyes.

 

This is all bureaucracy gone mad; also if a landowner can prove that his land is not used for RTR, then it could give him cause to have the status removed from their land. As most Landowners in the UK are against the principle of RTR we are giving these people bullets for their guns. We have a protected right to visit many of these areas, to photograph them and to learn about them, so why does Geocaching.com or the GSA want to prevent this happening, it's all a joke and the people who conceived this idea are entangled in their own misleading's.

 

Let the UK Govern itself by UK standards and not the standards of the US.

[+geoawareUK]

Written permission is ony needed "when applicable". To be honest, the only circumstances where I can think that might occur would be if an EC were to be located in an area covered by a GAGB Landowner Agreement that required written proof.

 

geoawareUK

Thanks for coming to this thread in the UK forum

 

To take this point of yours one step further, surely the GAGB agreements only cover the situation where a PHYSICAL object is hidden. As Groundspeak stopped virtual caches some years ago the GAGB agreements do not cover people just visiting a site and taking photos/reading signs/etc.

 

So nowhere in the GAGB agreements is written proof for anything "Virtual" needed.

 

Possibly, but in reality many Landowners/managers tend to be more concerned about erosion and other damage caused by the 'footfall' of visitors to a location than the act of hiding of a box full of McDonald's kids toy and a soogy note book.

 

Please see this post in the GAGB Landowner forums for a recent example of a ban being imposed by a landowner in Dartmoor NP and please see in particualar the reasons why the landowner was concerned - reasons that would apply as much to an EarthCache as a 'proper' one.

 

Hope this clarifes things a bit.

 

geoawareUK

Edited January 28, 2010 by geoawareUK

[+Moote]

Public roads have a known landowner, it's either the Local, County or the Government Authority, so what is the difference with that and, The Forestry Commission, or English Nature, or one of the several National Park Authorities, or even a private land owner covered by CRoW?

[+Moote]

Written permission is ony needed "when applicable". To be honest, the only circumstances where I can think that might occur would be if an EC were to be located in an area covered by a GAGB Landowner Agreement that required written proof.

 

geoawareUK

Thanks for coming to this thread in the UK forum

 

To take this point of yours one step further, surely the GAGB agreements only cover the situation where a PHYSICAL object is hidden. As Groundspeak stopped virtual caches some years ago the GAGB agreements do not cover people just visiting a site and taking photos/reading signs/etc.

 

So nowhere in the GAGB agreements is written proof for anything "Virtual" needed.

 

Possibly, but in reality many Landowners/managers tend to be more concerned about erosion and other damage caused by the 'footfall' of visitors to a location than the act of hiding of a box full of McDonald's kids toy and a soogy note book.

 

Please see this post in the GAGB Landowner forums for a recent example of a ban being imposed by a landowner in Dartmoor NP and please see in particualar the reasons why the landowner was concerned - reasons that would apply as much to an EarthCache as a 'proper' one.

 

Hope this clarifes things a bit.

 

geoawareUK

I think you are failing to see the difference, Letterbox, Multies, Puzzle etc, often involve some kind of hunt, all the Earthcaches I have done do not, they involve the walk on defined footpaths to a viewing area, where you then gather the information required to complete the task. Also from what I can see Devon Wildlife Trust land is within a defined area of RTR so he has the erosion issue by the many more walkers who access that land. It looks like a landowner trying to remove RTR to me, and that needs to be reported.

[+uktim]

 

Not all Earthcaches are in a recognised SSSI, National Park, AOONB, etc All UK National Parks, AOONB and SSSI are accessible to all without question. Yes there might be some rules on visiting, fenced in areas of flora and fauna etc. but that is not an issue in my eyes.

 

This is all bureaucracy gone mad; also if a landowner can prove that his land is not used for RTR, then it could give him cause to have the status removed from their land. As most Landowners in the UK are against the principle of RTR we are giving these people bullets for their guns. We have a protected right to visit many of these areas, to photograph them and to learn about them, so why does Geocaching.com or the GSA want to prevent this happening, it's all a joke and the people who conceived this idea are entangled in their own misleading's.

 

Let the UK Govern itself by UK standards and not the standards of the US.

 

Firstly the existance of an SSSI, National Parks or AONB doesn't mean that an area is open for access, I'd suggest checking on your facts before spouting such inaccurate drivel.

 

Secondly no-one is stopping you visitng any area, believe it or not you can visit places without caching

[+uktim]

Public roads have a known landowner, it's either the Local, County or the Government Authority, so what is the difference with that and, The Forestry Commission, or English Nature, or one of the several National Park Authorities, or even a private land owner covered by CRoW?

 

The difference is that National Park Authorities and Natural England ( I assume you mean Natural England rather than English Nature?) aren't landowners. You seem pretty ill-informed for someone with so many opinions ;(

[+uktim]

 

Not all Earthcaches are in a recognised SSSI, National Park, AOONB, etc All UK National Parks, AOONB and SSSI are accessible to all without question. Yes there might be some rules on visiting, fenced in areas of flora and fauna etc. but that is not an issue in my eyes.

 

This is all bureaucracy gone mad; also if a landowner can prove that his land is not used for RTR, then it could give him cause to have the status removed from their land. As most Landowners in the UK are against the principle of RTR we are giving these people bullets for their guns. We have a protected right to visit many of these areas, to photograph them and to learn about them, so why does Geocaching.com or the GSA want to prevent this happening, it's all a joke and the people who conceived this idea are entangled in their own misleading's.

 

Let the UK Govern itself by UK standards and not the standards of the US.

 

Firstly the existance of an SSSI, National Parks or AONB doesn't mean that an area is open for access, I'd suggest checking on your facts before spouting such inaccurate drivel.

 

Secondly no-one is stopping you visitng any area, believe it or not you can visit places without caching

[+Happy Humphrey]

Possibly, but in reality many Landowners/managers tend to be more concerned about erosion and other damage caused by the 'footfall' of visitors to a location than the act of hiding of a box full of McDonald's kids toy and a soogy note book.

 

Please see this post in the GAGB Landowner forums for a recent example of a ban being imposed by a landowner in Dartmoor NP and please see in particualar the reasons why the landowner was concerned - reasons that would apply as much to an EarthCache as a 'proper' one.

Sorry if this comes across as some sort of attack, it's not meant that way, but unfortunately I don't think that much has been clarified.

The example you give is a poor one, as you will be aware from the doubts that I posted in the GAGB forum. I suspect that the landowner in question has little understanding of the numbers involved with caching, and of the fact that a cache can easily be relocated to a site nearby where any fears of erosion would be clearly unfounded. Or possibly, he's just not interested in encouraging a pastime he's not interested in and which seems to be merely offering the chance for his name and address to be stored on some database then used to bother him further.

 

Also, does my Lake District example above appear to be obey the rules or not?

If not, it would confirm the suspicions about physical caches having more leeway than virtual caches. If so, it would contradict the quote at the top of the thread, that an EC in a National Park needs permission.

[+Moote]

Public roads have a known landowner, it's either the Local, County or the Government Authority, so what is the difference with that and, The Forestry Commission, or English Nature, or one of the several National Park Authorities, or even a private land owner covered by CRoW?

 

The difference is that National Park Authorities and Natural England ( I assume you mean Natural England rather than English Nature?) aren't landowners. You seem pretty ill-informed for someone with so many opinions ;(

Oh I am so sorry and I bow to you supercilious superiority, as I never knew English Nature had changed it's name! My reference to National Parks was made as the National Park Authorites, and Natural England are negotiating bodies for land access,

 

 

Not all Earthcaches are in a recognised SSSI, National Park, AOONB, etc All UK National Parks, AOONB and SSSI are accessible to all without question. Yes there might be some rules on visiting, fenced in areas of flora and fauna etc. but that is not an issue in my eyes.

 

This is all bureaucracy gone mad; also if a landowner can prove that his land is not used for RTR, then it could give him cause to have the status removed from their land. As most Landowners in the UK are against the principle of RTR we are giving these people bullets for their guns. We have a protected right to visit many of these areas, to photograph them and to learn about them, so why does Geocaching.com or the GSA want to prevent this happening, it's all a joke and the people who conceived this idea are entangled in their own misleading's.

 

Let the UK Govern itself by UK standards and not the standards of the US.

 

Firstly the existance of an SSSI, National Parks or AONB doesn't mean that an area is open for access, I'd suggest checking on your facts before spouting such inaccurate drivel.

 

Secondly no-one is stopping you visitng any area, believe it or not you can visit places without caching

I'd check your facts, what National Park, SSSI or AOONB am I not entitled to visit, I might not have complete access bit I can visit any of them; some require prior permission but there is not an access ban.

[+geoawareUK]

If someone submitted an earthcache to highlight Wastwater and the famous screes in the Lake District National Park, and the activity consisted of parking in the parking area and looking up at the screes from across the lake...would the earthcache [need permission]?

 

Yes. The road is presumably in the National Park.

 

As stated in the first post in this topic, the reason you are required to confirm landowner permission is not necessarily one of access, but one of use. T

 

The idea is for you to confirm with the owner/manager of a piece of property that they have no objections to your using their property (in this case Wastwater and the famous screes and not the car park itself) to teach an Earth science lesson.

 

Yes, I know that if the road is outside the NP (but the piece fo rock is inside) then permission is not required. And yes, I realise that is an inconsistency....

 

Personally (and this is only the opinion of your local EC reviewer and is not a statement of policy!), I think of it as the Geological society of America being an organisation that is made up of nice people that like people who want to be involved in their program to be courteous towards landowners and (hopefully) work with them and not risk treading on toes or the like.

 

....and the activity consisted of parking in the parking area and looking up at the screes from across the lake...

 

The other thing to consider is that the logging tasks for an EarthCache must relate to what people will see, experience and hopefully learn at the site and must be answerable only by visiting the site (and not using Google, wikipedia or the like). EarthCaches located on roads (and which do not require the visitor leaving the car/tarmac) are likely to have a hard time achieving this.

 

See here for details

 

The logging requirements have been tightened up under the new system so as to avoid (or more likely move away from) EarthCaches merely being old-style virtuals, and to attempt to make them more educational (as was the original intent).

 

"looking at the screes" might have a hard time meeting these requirements unless the logging task involved in doing so was flickr/googleimage proof....as would many ECs published under the old system which have been grandfathered in.

 

geoawareUK

[+Happy Humphrey]

Yes. The road is presumably in the National Park.

 

As stated in the first post in this topic, the reason you are required to confirm landowner permission is not necessarily one of access, but one of use. T

 

The idea is for you to confirm with the owner/manager of a piece of property that they have no objections to your using their property (in this case Wastwater and the famous screes and not the car park itself) to teach an Earth science lesson.

 

Yes, I know that if the road is outside the NP (but the piece fo rock is inside) then permission is not required. And yes, I realise that is an inconsistency....

Thanks for the answer. The road would also be inside the NP. Last time I was there (October) I'd say that there were about 10 visits per hour to the parking area. Some were taking photos, some wandering about, some admiring the geology, some eating lunch (etc). Perhaps some taking an Earth Science lesson from their guide book - I don't know. You wouldn't be able to tell. The scenery there is of great geological interest and much is written about it, but in this case there's no need to venture farther than the parking area as the geological features are very big.

 

I'm sure that many have been to similar places, and would also consider it rather odd if a National Park ranger suddenly came across and challenged a couple of people, accusing them of teaching Earth Science without permission!

 

Be that as it may, perhaps it would be a bit of an effort to get a Google-proof question for this particular example - but that's not relevant to the discussion here.

 

As for wear and tear, and the notion of having to work with landowners when setting up earthcaches, it's strange that Waymarking doesn't seem to suffer from such elaborate requirements. Some waymarks are quite trivial roadside items, fair enough. But there are thousands that are similar to earthcaches in that they are an encouragement to get out of the car and go tramping up to some obscure location, take photos and look around. Trig Points, for instance - 3000 now featured in the UK and Ireland but still plenty more to find. Or, more relevant to this discussion, Places of Geologic (sic) Significance. Note that the latter does have unusually strict guidelines (for a Waymarking subcategory), but they look commonsense.

 

I understand that you're merely given the rules and told to apply them, so I don't want to make this seem a big issue. Personally, I was just after a bit of explanation of the background to the rules. If I still think they aren't proportionate and sensible then I don't have to submit any earthcache listing.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Happy Humphrey

[+sTeamTraen]

Possibly, but in reality many Landowners/managers tend to be more concerned about erosion and other damage caused by the 'footfall' of visitors to a location than the act of hiding of a box full of McDonald's kids toy and a soogy note book.

I think you are failing to see the difference, Letterbox, Multies, Puzzle etc, often involve some kind of hunt, all the Earthcaches I have done do not, they involve the walk on defined footpaths to a viewing area, where you then gather the information required to complete the task.

So, if I've understood correctly, what you're saying is that Earthcaches don't pose a footfall problem because all the ECs you've done have been on defined footpaths in a controlled environment.

 

Isn't that like saying that Heinz don't need quality control because you've never had a bad can of beans?

[+Moote]

Possibly, but in reality many Landowners/managers tend to be more concerned about erosion and other damage caused by the 'footfall' of visitors to a location than the act of hiding of a box full of McDonald's kids toy and a soogy note book.

I think you are failing to see the difference, Letterbox, Multies, Puzzle etc, often involve some kind of hunt, all the Earthcaches I have done do not, they involve the walk on defined footpaths to a viewing area, where you then gather the information required to complete the task.

So, if I've understood correctly, what you're saying is that Earthcaches don't pose a footfall problem because all the ECs you've done have been on defined footpaths in a controlled environment.

 

Isn't that like saying that Heinz don't need quality control because you've never had a bad can of beans?

I get your point, but it's semantics really, a few cachers over many other walker climbers and other daytripers is going to make little difference, and to allow some group to start closing down the country side for to a walk with a quiz involved is just marginalising a group, and a small group at that.

[+uktim]

 

I'd check your facts, what National Park, SSSI or AOONB am I not entitled to visit, I might not have complete access bit I can visit any of them; some require prior permission but there is not an access ban.

 

It only takes a few minutes on MAGIC to find plenty of SSSIs that have no access, AONBs often include large areas of enclosed land where there is no access and the same applies to every National Park I've visited recently. You can visit the Brecon Beacons National Park or Shropshire Hills AONB but you don't have the right to wander wherever you please. It is impossible to state that an Earthcache is on land that has access rights just because it is on land within one of these areas and it does no-one any favours if you are posting misleading information on the matter.

[+sTeamTraen]

I get your point, but it's semantics really, a few cachers over many other walker climbers and other daytripers is going to make little difference, and to allow some group to start closing down the country side for to a walk with a quiz involved is just marginalising a group, and a small group at that.

I agree. But a lot of land managers are busy people (and some others are lazy bureaucrats). They hear a scary new word like "geocaching" or "earthcache" and they hear "extreme sport crash bash smash" and they've made up their minds in the first few seconds. (I suggest "nice country stroll treasure hunting" as an alternative marketing name for geocaching, for the benefit of certain audiences.) Hence, guidelines which err - possibly way too far - on the side of caution.

 

As geocaching goes mainstream, it's always best to have a public position which is as unassailable as possible. Otherwise a lot more stuff like this will probably happen.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I agree. But a lot of land managers are busy people (and some others are lazy bureaucrats). They hear a scary new word like "geocaching" or "earthcache" and they hear "extreme sport crash bash smash" and they've made up their minds in the first few seconds. (I suggest "nice country stroll treasure hunting" as an alternative marketing name for geocaching, for the benefit of certain audiences.) Hence, guidelines which err - possibly way too far - on the side of caution.

 

As geocaching goes mainstream, it's always best to have a public position which is as unassailable as possible. Otherwise a lot more stuff like this will probably happen.

Yes, but it's crucial to keep it in proportion. We have to be careful how it's presented. Erring on the side of caution can be destructive if it gives the impression that it's a big deal.

 

Earthcache (I suggest) is having a quick look at a geological feature and learning a bit about it. Anything that gives the impression that there's more to it than that is going to be counter-productive.

 

Asking permission;

"Is it OK if I invite a few more people to come and have a look at this geological feature, which is (after all) visible from a public place? They may have a bit of information about it with them, which I've written as a short guide. Here's a print, if you're interested. No need for any fuss, it will just be a handful of ordinary people each year and they'll only be there for a quick visit.".

 

Scaring officials into believing that it's something to get concerned about;

"Can I set up an Earth Cache, which is a bit like a high-tech Treasure Trail across the geology. It's called a "cache" but there's nothing left at the location. The Treasure is "Virtual". It'll be published on the Internet, and people will need special electronic equipment to find it using GPS. The Geological Society have rules that we must follow, and they'll decide whether it's worthy. I'll need your name and position for their consideration, and a written letter to present in case of police queries or such like".

 

TBH, if I was a land manager I'd have nothing to do with written permission for geocaches or earthcaches. Why would I want the hassle? There could be comeback if something went wrong.

[+Mad H@ter]

Rumour has it that the permissions are never checked, so you just put down your own telephone number and a made up name just in case.

 

So what's all the fuss about

[+MBFace]

..which seems a bit contradictory? Perhaps an example would clarify. If someone submitted an earthcache to highlight Wastwater and the famous screes in the Lake District National Park, and the activity consisted of parking in the parking area and looking up at the screes from across the lake (which is the only decent view), I don't think that there is any landowner / SSSI problem with that parking spot. A nearby physical geocache (and there is one) probably wouldn't need landowner permission. Would the earthcache?

 

You must be psychic HH! I emailed geoawareUK concerning this very example last night.

[Neath Worthies]

No, sorry, I still don't understand. Maybe it's me but this blanket EC permission issue looks more and more like "Computer says no" syndrome.

 

I'm still to be convinced of a good reason for needing to get written permission to suggest to someone they go somewhere they're normally allowed to go to and look at something without having any lasting impact over and above that caused by them visiting normally.

 

I might be convinced of the need for occasional permission in certain circumstances but NOT an unbending blanket requirement. I guess that maybe I'm too thick to understand. Sigh!

[+geoawareUK]

I'm still to be convinced of a good reason for needing to get written permission to suggest to someone they go somewhere they're normally allowed to go to and look at something without having any lasting impact over and above that caused by them visiting normally.

 

Two things here.

 

1. Written permission is rarely needed - indeed it would only be required to conform to an existing GAGB landowner agreement (as already stated).

 

2. Sometimes, publicity is felt by the 'custodians' of scientifically important sites to be a bad thing. Earth science sites are often surprisingly vulnerable and landowners and managers have a responsibility to minimise the potential for damage and/or theft.

 

The Jurasic coast (see here) is a prime area for overly enthusiastic visitors to accidentally cause damage, and it is important that this unique resource be properly managed.

 

An example of such theft from your part of the UK is here with similar examples here and here.

 

 

geoawareUK

Edited January 30, 2010 by geoawareUK

[Neath Worthies]

1. Written permission is rarely needed - indeed it would only be required to conform to an existing GAGB landowner agreement (as already stated).

That is reassuring, thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding of the "new rules".

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

<snip>

 

2. Sometimes, publicity is felt by the 'custodians' of scientifically important sites to be a bad thing. Earth science sites are often surprisingly vulnerable and landowners and managers have a responsibility to minimise the potential for damage and/or theft.

 

The Jurasic coast (see here) is a prime area for overly enthusiastic visitors to accidentally cause damage, and it is important that this unique resource be properly managed.

 

</snip>

 

Based on the logic employed to the publishing of ECs, your post here in this forum linking to information about the Jurassic Coast could be interpreted as being irresponsible - since you are attracting attention and publicity of people who may originally have been unaware of its existence -- namely me -- but I'm sure there are others.

 

In fact the owners of www.jurassiccoast.com are being very irresponsible in putting all this information on a globally accessible website.

 

ETA: [speculation] I wonder what percentage of visitors who have caused damage and erosion to the Jurassic Coast, found out about it online and specifically via sources citing www.jurassiccoast.com or through the website itself?

 

Just sayin'

Edited January 30, 2010 by _TeamFitz_

[+Happy Humphrey]

I think the point is about proportionality. Although an earthcache is on a website, established ones have not been drawing many people at all.

 

The Earthcache at Charmouth (the classic fossil-collector's beach) has an average of just under 1 visit per week (247 in 5 years). Pathetic!

Last time I visited Charmouth (very recently: nice hotel there!), I saw at least 50 people on the beach looking for fossils. This despite it being October. I was only on the beach for a couple of hours (didn't find any myself and didn't bother with the Earthcache).

 

Although you might argue that ANY extra visitors could cause damage (just like the tide does when driven in by the wind just there), this earthcache is probably one of the most sensitive in the UK, has logging requirements that are probably inadvisable, and yet damage from this number of geocaching visitors is going to be trivial in the extreme compared to the overall numbers. To require permission for people to visit such a beach puts the whole permission system into disrepute, and the argument that an earthcache has to be 'managed' in such a spot is pretty weak.

[+GAZ]

I've been following this thread with interest, and have come to a conclusion. Because I am enjoying hiding caches, rather than finding them these days, with all the malarkey and paraphernalia that is required to set up an Earth Cache...........I don't think I'll bother..........even though I had one in mind. I'll just stick with the usual trads, multis etc!

[+Simply Paul]

That's a shame Gaz. I was in the position of having an earthcache refused -twice- on various grounds but with geoawareUK's pointers and some creative thoughts about the educational aspect, I was able to comply; my point being it's not as tricky as you might think, and you'll never have to visit the cache because someone left the lid half-open and the box is damp

[+Jaz666]

I've been pondering whether GSA have toughened up the review process to try to up the "wow factor".

i.e make the whole submission system so off-putting to all but the most dedicated Cachers, thus reducing any possible influx of "here's a rock, now where's my earthcache icon" ECs.

After all, the increase in lame virtuals led to Groundspeak phasing that cache type out.....

 

This post in the NW forum is interesting.

The new Reviewer certainly seems a lot tougher than the old one was and asked for a lot more geological questions than you see on most existing Earthcaches. I personally don't think that's a bad thing though as it makes them a little more challenging and certainly more in keeping with the aims of Earthcaches.

That was one of the reasons for the change in the EarthCache submittal process. The old system was totally overloaded and many ECs were published that were no more than rather poor vituals. Hopefully, the new system will improve the quality of ECs in the UK both in terms of the listings and of the 'science'.

 

Personally an increase in quality of Earthcaches is a good thing, but I think they've gone a step too far.

[+Happy Humphrey]

That's very interesting, and I sympathise with the efforts to make the earthcaches more of an experience.

 

Perhaps (as so often happens), the PR machine broke down in an attempt to avoid arguments over the real reasoning behind the changes. If this is true, it illustrates how trying to keep us in the dark about the actual reasons becomes harder than just letting us know exactly what it's all about.

 

Although I agree that we don't just want lame virtuals, I hope that we also don't go over the top and make earthcaches some sort of dry educational exercise, or "fun" only for geology enthusiasts. Most geocachers will take an interest in an earthcache as long as it's quite entertaining, doesn't take too long and doesn't involve any serious admin. Once it becomes an "earth science lesson" where you need to take notes, it would be better on a different website.