Earthcaches shouldn't be allowed at places with existing caches

[+Laird McKai]

In our part of Germany there is a problem with earthcaches.

Some Geocachers have placed earthcaches in spots with existing stages of multi-caches or near by a traditional cache.

The owners of the existing caches were not asked if they allow an earthcache near by.

Why is there no distance-rule which applies to earthcaches?

 

The purpose of any cache, including earthcaches is to show interesting places to other geocachers.

 

But if the spot is already shown by a different cache I think an earthcaches should not be allowed!

 

In our case two interesting caches have been archived by the frustrated owners because someone else has placed an earthcache at the same location and very close (<160 m) to the stages without asking them if that is ok.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...95-5770e91adad0

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...f7-216df6babcf6

 

Therefore I would like ask Groundspeak to change the rules for earthcaches and introduce the distance-rule for earthcaches as well.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Cachedoc & Co.

[+Carbon Hunter]

Strange - were they only archived because of EarthCaches?

 

I have had the opposite occur with me in South Africa - a Traditional cache was placed within 160m of my EarthCache without permission - but BOTH caches remain active and operational?

 

ODD that the traditionals were archived?

[+Laird McKai]

The two caches were archived by the owners because they disliked the earthcaches at the same spot closer than < 160 m to their cache or stages.

In case of the multi-cache the geocachers looking for the earthcache had to walk the same route as the people looking for the multi-cache.

In case of the other cache the spot is only open for climbers and geocachers which were going for the "climbing"-cache were tolerated.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Cachedoc & Co.

[+Ninjatummen]

We (I and McB) have an earthcache within a couple of meters from an existing traditional and no one has complained of that. Maybe that is because the earthcache is kinda tricky to find the answers to and the traditional is just to go and grab.

 

But no matter what it is sad when geocachers archive their caches due to a conflict.

[+GEO WALKER]

The educational aspect of an Earthcache separates it form traditional caches. It’s one thing to “show” someone an interesting place it’s another to “educate” them on what they see. As a result, I see no need to place a distance requirement among caches that by their very nature are distinctly different. This all seems very “petty” to me. What is the real reason for the unwillingness to share space?

Edited February 14, 2010 by GEO WALKER

[+Laird McKai]

The educational aspect of an Earthcache separates it form traditional caches. It’s one thing to “show” someone an interesting place it’s another to “educate” them on what they see. As a result, I see no need to place a distance requirement among caches that by their very nature are distinctly different. This all seems very “petty” to me. What is the real reason for the unwillingness to share space?

 

A multi-cache can be just as educational as an earthcache and is in fact more entertaining.

And hand on your heart do you really think earthcaches do educate someone?

I for my part have found only few earthcaches and all I did so far is to copy information which was available at an information sign at the spot and send this info to the owner of the earthcache.

After 5 minutes this information was out of my brian again. In fact most of the info is only interesting for geologists!

 

On the other hand I enjoyed the spot which was shown to me and that was more impressive and I kept the memory.

But do I really need an earthcache to see nice places?

And is an earthcache really necessary at a spot where there is already an cache?

 

I say "No"!

If you are the owner of a real cache at an interesting place would you not get sour if someone placed an virtual / earthcache at the some spot without even asking you?

The owner of the existing caches did get sour and as a consequence archived their caches.

Do you wonder?

 

I don't want to share space. If I place a cache at a certain place I want you to stay out of that area and keep enough distance!!

If you are first and place an earthcache I keep out of your way.

Respect is all I'm asking!!!

Edited February 14, 2010 by Cachedoc & Co.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

The educational aspect of an Earthcache separates it form traditional caches. It’s one thing to “show” someone an interesting place it’s another to “educate” them on what they see. As a result, I see no need to place a distance requirement among caches that by their very nature are distinctly different. This all seems very “petty” to me. What is the real reason for the unwillingness to share space?

I totally agree with GEO WALKER. "Petty" is the operant word!

We can't answer for German ECs or for that matter, other US ECs, but I guarantee that you will learn something at each of our ECs. Now, how long this new information is retained in your brain is an individual consideration! Retention is a factor of interest and ability.

Unless it is your back yard, public space is to be shared. Over here (USA), we don't have that kind of problem. Many, many sites are shared by traditional caches and ECs. Having what we refer to as a "two-fer" (two caches in the same general space) is usually welcomed. One cache helps attract cachers to the other cache.

Actually, several of our ECs share space with traditional caches. As a matter-of-fact, several traditional cache owners know of our interest in EarthCaches and suggested looking at certain locations for possible ECs. Yep, often they own a cache at the same place. How dare them to suggest sharing the same space!

[+Lostby7]

The educational aspect of an Earthcache separates it form traditional caches. It’s one thing to “show” someone an interesting place it’s another to “educate” them on what they see. As a result, I see no need to place a distance requirement among caches that by their very nature are distinctly different. This all seems very “petty” to me. What is the real reason for the unwillingness to share space?

 

A multi-cache can be just as educational as an earthcache and is in fact more entertaining.

And hand on your heart do you really think earthcaches do educate someone?

I for my part have found only few earthcaches and all I did so far is to copy information which was available at an information sign at the spot and send this info to the owner of the earthcache.

After 5 minutes this information was out of my brian again. In fact most of the info is only interesting for geologists!

 

On the other hand I enjoyed the spot which was shown to me and that was more impressive and I kept the memory.

But do I really need an earthcache to see nice places?

And is an earthcache really necessary at a spot where there is already an cache?

 

I say "No"!

If you are the owner of a real cache at an interesting place would you not get sour if someone placed an virtual / earthcache at the some spot without even asking you?

The owner of the existing caches did get sour and as a consequence archived their caches.

Do you wonder?

 

I don't want to share space. If I place a cache at a certain place I want you to stay out of that area and keep enough distance!!

If you are first and place an earthcache I keep out of your way.

Respect is all I'm asking!!!

Many EarthCaches are multi stage.

If you choose not to learn anything that is up to you.

ECs and physical caches are a great match for folks to find a real container and to learn more about a feature.

Unless you own the land there is no reason to inform nor ask the existing cache owner for permission.

[+terratin]

Interesting points. I'd like to place an Earthcache nearby an existing cache but no geological explanation, though pz will be more than 160m away. I will definitely ask the owner if it's ok. If not then I could still chose the same feature a bit further away but then visitors will most likely need a 4x4 while this location might just about be approachable with a normal sedan. Lets see what happens.

Edited February 14, 2010 by terratin

[GermanSailor]

The distance rule doesn't apply because there are no two or more container which can be mixed up. Same principle that applies to QTA stages of a multicache. Those one don't block a 160 meter radius.

 

I like the idea of having two caches close by and wouldn't archive a tradi or multi because an earthcache appears at the some location. Actually I would change my listing to point the other cache out.

 

Sounds a little bit like the towel-sunbed mentality some people have in Germany?

 

GermanSailor

[+GEO WALKER]

Interesting points. I'd like to place an Earthcache nearby an existing cache but no geological explanation, though pz will be more than 160m away. I will definitely ask the owner if it's ok. If not then I could still chose the same feature a bit further away but then visitors will most likely need a 4x4 while this location might just about be approachable with a normal sedan. Lets see what happens.

Based on my experience as well as many others, you’ll find the “coexistence” of physical caches and earthcaches will be welcomed.

[+StealthRT]

There is no way to confuse the “earthcache container” with the traditional cache container when you find it, is there? Since there is no way to get confused, I don’t see what the issue is. Just because I got permission to put a traditional cache somewhere doesn’t mean I now own a radius. The distance rule is only put there to ensure there is no confusion for cache finders who locate containers that happen to be too close to one another. I don’t want to log cache A when I find cache B. The distance rule prevents that problem.

 

Earthcaches have very stringent stipulations and, at least in my experience, are not published willy-nilly. At least they aren’t these days. If a location is worthy of an earthcache, why should it be denied because someone put a traditional there already? Each type of cache offers a different experience (albeit similar in some cases) for the individual cacher. Let them choose to do one or both.

 

I’m not saying an earchcache placed near on top of my prized Multi-cache wouldn’t steal some of the cache’s thunder, but I would never deny someone for putting the energy and effort into constructing a thorough and educational earthcache. Unless the cache planter has put specific instructions in their earthcache detailing under which hiding spot to find my ammo can, I can take no issue. The cacher still has to locate my well-camouflaged cache, even if the earthcache brings them to the same vicinity.

[+Arby Gee]

Under the old system, in the U.S. at least, it was necessary to get permission from a cache owner if you put an Earthcache within 500 feet of any other cache. I haven't published an Earthcache under the new system, but isn't it now that you are just plain not allowed to do it? If so, I think that's sad. I love a good two-fer, and have never had any problem getting permission from other cache owners. Without exception, they've all been happy about it. It's hard for me to understand what the real beef is here, but maybe things are different in other countries.

 

As for Earthcaches being educational, I've learned a world of really interesting information doing Earthcaches, and retained as much as my pointy little head can hold.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Arby Gee

[+StealthRT]

 

A multi-cache can be just as educational as an earthcache and is in fact more entertaining.

And hand on your heart do you really think earthcaches do educate someone?

I for my part have found only few earthcaches and all I did so far is to copy information which was available at an information sign at the spot and send this info to the owner of the earthcache.

After 5 minutes this information was out of my brian again. In fact most of the info is only interesting for geologists!

 

On the other hand I enjoyed the spot which was shown to me and that was more impressive and I kept the memory.

But do I really need an earthcache to see nice places?

And is an earthcache really necessary at a spot where there is already an cache?

I won’t dispute (regardless of truth) that a multi-cache can be just as educational as an earthcache, but I will dispute that it is a FACT that multi-caches ARE more entertaining than earthcaches. Caches aren’t necessarily a substitute for movies and concerts, but if people use them as such, it would be clearly an individual preference as to which is more entertaining. I have done some boring and poorly constructed multi-caches that offered me almost zero entertainment value. I can’t speak for the three earthcaches you have completed, but to judge them all based on your limited experience seems to indicate to me that you just don’t like earthcaches (which is certainly your prerogative) and can’t understand that there are many people who love earthcaches.

 

You ask, "do you really need an earchcache to see a nice place?" Let me ask; do you need a cache of any kind to see a nice place? Obviously the answer is no. Are you more inclined to go see a nice place when a cache is there? As cachers, I think we all are more inclined to go to nice places because caches are there. I think we are more inclined to find nice places because caches are placed there. I have seen many sites I would have never found without caches being there.

 

So, while it may be hard sometimes in a map full of multi-caches to decide where to go and which multi-cache to do, I submit that, for some, a published earthcache may attract additional people to the location to see the site. I know of a site that has a puzzle cache, a letterbox (actual letterbox, not letterbox cache), and an earthcache. The site is spectacular, but far off the beaten trail and not really publicized. Should the letterboxers be left out of being attracted to the site because they do not cache? Should cachers that shy away from puzzles be left out?

 

Is the earthcache really necessary, you ask? Why, of course not. No cache is ever necessary.

 

Could the earthcache listing be beneficial to many cachers? Of course.

[+StealthRT]

If you are the owner of a real cache at an interesting place would you not get sour if someone placed an virtual / earthcache at the some spot without even asking you?

The owner of the existing caches did get sour and as a consequence archived their caches.

Do you wonder?

 

I don't want to share space. If I place a cache at a certain place I want you to stay out of that area and keep enough distance!!

If you are first and place an earthcache I keep out of your way.

Respect is all I'm asking!!!

 

No, I would not get sour.

 

Yes, I do wonder why they would get so sour as to archive their own cache, when they seem to have had a high opinion of it. If it was such a good cache, why would you now prevent others from enjoying it by archiving it? That makes zero sense to me.

 

Feel free to put a traditional, or multi, or whatever near my earthcache any day, Cachedoc.

[+Laird McKai]

"We can't answer for German ECs or for that matter, other US ECs, but I guarantee that you will learn something at each of our ECs. Now, how long this new information is retained in your brain is an individual consideration! Retention is a factor of interest and ability. "

 

That's a bit bellow the belt, don't you think?

I don't know if you can call it German Towel mentality if we dislike an earthcache placed on exactly the same spot your cache is hidden.

If you have a different experience in the US that's great.

 

When I started geocaching ages ago we respected the claims of different geocachers and would have never dreamed of placing a QTA-Stage or an earthcache nearby.

 

That seems to be different today.

[+massafranz]

Hi folks,

 

in my opinion, the only sense and reason for an Earthcache is, that there is no possibility to hide a container this dedicated location.

 

Also, an Earthcache should keep a distance of at least 1 mile (1610m) to any stage (even if they are not blocking by the regulations of Geocaching.com, i.e. QTA) of an existing Cache, except with an explicit permission of whose Owner.

 

Franz

[GermanSailor]

Also, an Earthcache should keep a distance of at least 1 mile (1610m) to any stage (even if they are not blocking by the regulations of Geocaching.com, i.e. QTA) of an existing Cache, except with an explicit permission of whose Owner.

Why? I'm pretty sure you considered the reasons behind this request. Could you please share your thought proecess?

 

GermanSailor

[+narcissa]

If the existing caches don't involve educational activities that relate directly to the geological feature featured by the Earthcache, what is the problem? Earthcaches serve an entirely different purpose than other types of caches. Since there are no containers or tags involved with an Earthcache, I don't see why this would be a problem.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Hi folks,

 

in my opinion, the only sense and reason for an Earthcache is, that there is no possibility to hide a container this dedicated location.

 

Also, an Earthcache should keep a distance of at least 1 mile (1610m) to any stage (even if they are not blocking by the regulations of Geocaching.com, i.e. QTA) of an existing Cache, except with an explicit permission of whose Owner.

 

Franz

What?

You obviously don't understand the "sense and reason" for EarthCaches. Please go to EarthCache.org!

The .1 mile wasn't good enough? You want it to be a whole MILE? How about 1.00 feet?

We don't think you will find much sympathy to your thesis here. Perhaps the Waymarking folks will be more willing to agree? Most folks here have developed or at least found multiple ECs and have been more than willing to share the sites.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[cezanne]

 

A multi-cache can be just as educational as an earthcache and is in fact more entertaining.

 

Of course, there are multi caches with a high educational value, but the majority of multi caches do not concentrate on the educational point of view. I have encountered many extremely boring multi caches (I do know the caching scene in Germany quite well) and I do not agree with you at all though I am big fan of multi caches.

 

And hand on your heart do you really think earthcaches do educate someone?

 

Yes, many Earth caches achieve that goal.

Of course there also exist weak Earth caches and the too fast rate with which Earth caches are put forward in Germany brings along also boring Earth caches.

 

In fact most of the info is only interesting for geologists!

 

I do not want to accuse you of anything, but I have the feeling that you have no idea about at which level science is done. A geologist should be familiar with what is presented at Earth caches.

I am not a geologist and not even close to one, but I am fascinated by any sort of knowledge about the earth, nature, human beings as well as many other subjects as history, art, architecture etc.

 

Certainly there are cachers who prefer the non-intellectual approach to geocaching and just enjoy the physical activity and/or the visual experiences and these cachers are no worse cachers than cachers who enjoy learning new things while caching. It's however not up to you to decide for other geocachers what is interesting for them.

 

 

On the other hand I enjoyed the spot which was shown to me and that was more impressive and I kept the memory.

 

But do I really need an earthcache to see nice places?

And is an earthcache really necessary at a spot where there is already an cache?

 

No cache will ever be necessary. Showing nice places is not the main goal of Earth caches.

If some existing cache at the location provides the visitors with geological knowledge, then a further Earth cache does not make much sense, but that's the same issue as with multi caches that share some question to answer stages - something which is not prohibited by the guidelines and which occurs hundreds of times.

(I remember quite some heavy debates on that issues that have taken place already about five years ago in Vienna - so this is not a new issue at all.)

 

If you are the owner of a real cache at an interesting place would you not get sour if someone placed an virtual / earthcache at the some spot without even asking you?

 

If my cache dealt with geology, I would be angry anyway. It would not make any difference to be asked.

If my cache had no connection to geology, I would not care at all.

 

I don't want to share space. If I place a cache at a certain place I want you to stay out of that area and keep enough distance!!

 

The location is not yours. If someone likes to, he can even hide a cache at exacty the same place than your cache - there are many different data bases for geocaches.

 

If you are first and place an earthcache I keep out of your way.

 

There is however, no reason to do so - you might want to come up with a nice cache with no connection to geology. Why then keep away? Not every cacher is interested into geology or wants to visit Earth caches.

 

Cezanne

[+t4e]

 

But do I really need an earthcache to see nice places?

And is an earthcache really necessary at a spot where there is already an cache?

 

I say "No"!

 

you don't need any cache to see nice places

 

as previously stated earthcache and traditional/multi etc...are not the same

 

just because you chose not to engage your brain and learn something from earthcaches doesn't mean everyone else does the same

 

i certainly learned very interesting facts about the area i live in from earthcaches, things that i had no clue about...and if there was a traditional near by...woohoo bonus....hit two birds with one stone

 

If you are the owner of a real cache at an interesting place would you not get sour if someone placed an virtual / earthcache at the some spot without even asking you?

The owner of the existing caches did get sour and as a consequence archived their caches.

Do you wonder?

 

no offense, but that is seriously very childish attitude lol

 

I don't want to share space. If I place a cache at a certain place I want you to stay out of that area and keep enough distance!!

If you are first and place an earthcache I keep out of your way.

Respect is all I'm asking!!!

 

ooh dear....stay out of the area?...how far?

 

has nothing to do with respect, groundspeek has already set up boundaries and rules, plus unless is in your own property you can't expect people to just "stay out of your area"

 

it amazes me how some people, instead of enjoying the game of geocaching for what it is, chose to make it into a competition

[+geodarts]

I have always contacted cache owners - both virtual and traditional - when I have wanted to develop an earthcache and there has never been any problem. There is no reason why there should be. Earthcaches have brought me to traditionals that I might not otherwise have visited.

[+Laird McKai]

....

 

ooh dear....stay out of the area?...how far?

 

has nothing to do with respect, groundspeek has already set up boundaries and rules, plus unless is in your own property you can't expect people to just "stay out of your area"...

 

 

To explain it again: The owners of a multi cache have archived their cache because someone placed an earthcache on exactelly the same location than their multicache.

The multi cache was an excellent one with well developed stages. A lot of work was invested and many enjoyed this cache at this special place. I was STF.

The earthcache on the other hand could be solved by coping data from information board at the stages.

 

I don't want to critize any earthcaches in the US you have placed. I don't know them. But all I see in Germany which is called EC is either "take a photo at the spot" or "answer silly questions".

It is not that I don't want to learn something and all who thought different have misunderstood me. But the educational standard which is presented at German ECs I know is of very poor quality. If you look at the things asked you don't want to learn, you just want to get over with it and get the ok to log! If their is better EC-Caches in the US - Great!!

 

"How far" you have asked?

0,1 mile would do = 160 m.

I ask for the same distance rule which applies to any other cache!

That's keeping out of my way for me! And that is RESPECT to me!

 

To make it clear again:

You think it is okay if someone places a virtual cache at the same spots without asking the owner of the multicache / traditional cache already existing?

You think it is ok if someone places a QTA-stage at the same spot where the final of one of your multicaches is hidden?

 

Both is legal according to the GC guidelines! But do you really like the idea?

Would it not be better if the other cache kept some distance, let's say 0,1 mile?

 

"it amazes me how some people, instead of enjoying the game of geocaching for what it is, chose to make it into a competition ....."

 

Argueing like that sucks and kills diskussion without getting to the point.

[+tomfuller & Quill]

I'm planning on visiting 2 Earthcaches in Texas next month. I may or may not choose to look for the physical caches within 0.1 mi. I don't really care about the chicken/egg debate as to which was first at a site.

I wouldn't go to either of these places if the Earthcache was not there.

[+narcissa]

 

 

To explain it again: The owners of a multi cache have archived their cache because someone placed an earthcache on exactelly the same location than their multicache.

The multi cache was an excellent one with well developed stages. A lot of work was invested and many enjoyed this cache at this special place. I was STF.

The earthcache on the other hand could be solved by coping data from information board at the stages.

 

 

That was a choice made by the cache owner, and an unfortunate one at that. The owner of the Earthcache certainly didn't force the cache owner to do that. There's no reason why a multi-cache and an Earthcache can't exist in close proximity. Archiving a cache in a snit is an immature and unnecessary reaction to a non-issue, and certainly doesn't warrant a change to the guidelines.

 

If the Earthcache is of questionable quality, that's a separate issue. Don't conflate them.

[+Touchstone]

My apologies if this sounds callous, but everytime I hear of complaints of this nature I can't help but think, "what's next! Are they going to complain when I Waymark something too close to their cache"

[+LewisClan77]

My most recent earthcache is within 20 feet of an existing traditional cache. That cache shows the spot, my EC spotlights the geology of the site. I did not ask the owner of the other cache if they minded because they do not own the spot. I did however send them a note with the GC # to let them knoe that I did it.

[+Carbon Hunter]

I have always contacted cache owners - both virtual and traditional - when I have wanted to develop an earthcache and there has never been any problem. There is no reason why there should be. Earthcaches have brought me to traditionals that I might not otherwise have visited.

 

I had this last week in Africa. Aimed for 5 EC's - and got 3 very nice (an Unexpected traditionals) nearby when I checked on paperless after getting to GZ.

 

Some pre-dated EC others were newer - but all were very enjoyable.

[+Carbon Hunter]

 

To explain it again: The owners of a multi cache have archived their cache because someone placed an earthcache on exactelly the same location than their multicache.

 

 

That is sad - and I agree with you.

 

But - why did they archive their cache = ONLY because of the EarthCache? Why did they feel that there could not be 2 caches in the area? The Reviewers AND GS.com allowed it - so why did the owner feel they needed archiving?

 

That would be interesting.

 

If it was purely because of the EC - because of a pure duplication of info/effort - then I concur and feel that the EC should not have been placed (poor judgement by one EC owner/developer). If not - well then it's poor judgement by Multi cache owner?

[cezanne]

To explain it again: The owners of a multi cache have archived their cache because someone placed an earthcache on exactelly the same location than their multicache.

 

That's not true, and you certainly know that. What's true is that the multi cache includes the location of the Earth cache in its route.

 

What you did not mention in your postings and what is important in judging the situation is that both the header coordinates and the starting stage of the archived multi cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...95-5770e91adad0

are more than 600 m away from the Earth cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...0e-d74b88312305

 

Note that the multi cache is a nice, but apparently challenging multi cache with a Lord of the rings framework. While multi caches are my favourite cache type, I am aware of the fact that not every cacher is able and/or willing to visit caches of that type. The creator of the Earth cache explained in his response to the complaint of the hiders of the multi cache why he does not belong to the audience of the multi cache. As only the coordinates of the first stage of the multi cache have been provided, the creator of the Earth cache could not even know that the route of the multi cache passes by the information board which is used for the Earth cache. so the accusation of missing respect is unfair and wrong. The caching scene has become that diverse that we cannot require any longer any potential hider of a cache to visit all nearby caches.

 

But even if he knew, it would not make that much of a difference as the main argument is a different one: There are many cachers who never would get to visit the multi cache and who might be interested into the location and its geological background as well. Why shouldn't they have the chance to enjoy an Earth cache at the location? What harm will be caused to the multi cache? Fans of multi caches who have not yet visited the location, either will visit both caches or skip the Earth cache. Those who do not like challenging multi caches, will not be kept away by the existence of the Earth cache - some even might have tried to have a look at the multi cache once being there for the Earth cache. The only cachers who might have lost in some sense are those who have already visited the multi cache and would not have liked to visit the location a second time, but those could have ignored the Earth cache.

 

The multi cache was an excellent one with well developed stages. A lot of work was invested and many enjoyed this cache at this special place. I was STF.

The earthcache on the other hand could be solved by coping data from information board at the stages.

 

I agree with you that the Earth cache could indeed be stronger (from the point of the view of the provided information and the type of the logging tasks), but it's not that bad and has the advantage that

it is addressed to a different audience as explained above. Moreover, note that the Earth cache is also amenable to non-German speaking cachers.

 

I don't want to critize any earthcaches in the US you have placed. I don't know them. But all I see in Germany which is called EC is either "take a photo at the spot" or "answer silly questions".

 

You are exxaggerating quite considerably. I have browsed through a great number of Earth cache descriptions in Germany and it is definitely not true that the questions typically are silly. A lot of them are

rather easy to answer, that's true, but that's something different than silly.

Moreover, quite a number of Earth cache descriptions contains a lot of information in the text of the cache description which is not always easily obtainable. The logging tasks are only part of the Earth cache experience. Reading and learning from the cache description is also part of the educational part (not the only part of course as the outdoor experience is an essential part).

 

I agree with you that some Earth caches rather convey the impression that the creator wishes to obtain the next achievement level in the Earthcache masters program and I have adressed my concern in this regard both in this forum and also in mails to people involved in the review process of Earth caches. This matter is, however, not a matter of distance rules.

 

0,1 mile would do = 160 m.

I ask for the same distance rule which applies to any other cache!

 

That's not true and would not have helped in this case. As you will know virtual waypoints do not have to satisfy the 0.1 mile contraint. So someone could have set up a second multi cache along the same route as the first multi cache and have hidden a box at 200m distance to the box of the first cache.

At this point you might realize that the issue you bring up is not an Earth cache issue. Two multi caches at the same place and with the same route would much more easily collide with each other as an Earth cache and a multi cache. (Moreover, it's more realistic to expect that the hider of a multi cache is going to visit all multi caches in the vicinity than it is in the case of cachers who hardly visit any longer multi caches.)

 

While multi caches are my favourite cache type, there are many cachers who do not enjoy multi caches that much and hardly visit any. Look up the profile of the people participating in this discussion and you will realize that you and myself have an untypically high number of found multi caches. The idea of somehow being able to reserve a certain location by including it into a multi cache and then keeping other cachers away from this location is something which will not be well understood outside of the German-speaking cache scene.

 

I can understand to some extent that the hider of multi cache in which he invested a lot of energy and time feels disappointed for a short moment when another cache comes up which shows a location which is a highlight of his own cache, but in the case of a mature person this disappointment should go away after some time. Archiving the multi cache is quite an extreme reaction under the given circumstances. There are still cachers who prefer adventurous multi caches to single stage Earth caches.

Why take away the multi cache from them only because there are also cachers who have different caching preferences and/or caching under different circumstances. (I am quite convinced that the Earth cache is more suitable for a visitor with only a short amount of time than the multi cache.) I guess that this is the gist of what t4e was trying to say with her last statement. Cachers are very different and they enjoy different types of caches. I cannot see any reason why the multi cache and Earth cache could not have coexisted quite well without the need of archival of one of the two.

 

Cezanne

[+LewisClan77]

Under the old system, in the U.S. at least, it was necessary to get permission from a cache owner if you put an Earthcache within 500 feet of any other cache. I haven't published an Earthcache under the new system, but isn't it now that you are just plain not allowed to do it? If so, I think that's sad. I love a good two-fer, and have never had any problem getting permission from other cache owners. Without exception, they've all been happy about it. It's hard for me to understand what the real beef is here, but maybe things are different in other countries.

 

As for Earthcaches being educational, I've learned a world of really interesting information doing Earthcaches, and retained as much as my pointy little head can hold.

 

That is not true. Under the old system and the new system you never did and still don't need to ask an owner of an existing cache.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Under the old system, in the U.S. at least, it was necessary to get permission from a cache owner if you put an Earthcache within 500 feet of any other cache. I haven't published an Earthcache under the new system, but isn't it now that you are just plain not allowed to do it? If so, I think that's sad. I love a good two-fer, and have never had any problem getting permission from other cache owners. Without exception, they've all been happy about it. It's hard for me to understand what the real beef is here, but maybe things are different in other countries.

 

As for Earthcaches being educational, I've learned a world of really interesting information doing Earthcaches, and retained as much as my pointy little head can hold.

 

That is not true. Under the old system and the new system you never did and still don't need to ask an owner of an existing cache.

You both are right. Under the old, old system, you had to get permission from the traditional owner, but that was changed long before we went to the new (current) system. The change occurred about a year or so ago. Personally, as a courtesy, we don't ask permission exactly, but we let the traditional owner know what we are doing. While it's not permission as such, it's seems like the thing to do. We have never had any objections.

P.S. I just took a look at most of our ECs and there are a few where traditional caches came later. I don't remember being asked but so what? The more the merrier!

Edited February 17, 2010 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[cezanne]

Personally, as a courtesy, we don't ask permission exactly, but we let the traditional owner know what we are doing.

 

In the case that arose in Germany the situation is, however, more complicated as the cache that got archived is a multi cache which is unknown to the creator of the Earth cache as it does not fit his caching habits. So he could not even have known that the multi cache's route passes along the information board located at the header coordinated of the Earth cache. Cachers in countries like Germany and Austria have to learn to cope with the problems that result from the high proportion of multi caches and mystery caches. Reserving locations for one's own worked there several years ago, but does not work out any longer. It is not really an Earth cache issue, but there are some cachers who feel that Earth caches are no real caches and for that reason they like to blame Earth caches for many problems.

 

Cezanne

Edited February 17, 2010 by cezanne

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Personally, as a courtesy, we don't ask permission exactly, but we let the traditional owner know what we are doing.

 

In the case that arose in Germany the situation is, however, more complicated as the cache that got archived is a multi cache which is unknown to the creator of the Earth cache as it does not fit his caching habits. So he could not even have known that the multi cache's route passes along the information board located at the header coordinated of the Earth cache. Cachers in countries like Germany and Austria have to learn to cope with the problems that result from the high proportion of multi caches and mystery caches. Reserving locations for one's own worked there several years ago, but does not work out any longer. It is not really an Earth cache issue, but there are some cachers who feel that Earth caches are no real caches and for that reason they like to blame Earth caches for many problems.

 

Cezanne

 

This thread began with the statement, In our part of Germany there is a problem with earthcaches. After reading all of the points of view, which includes that the EarthCache 'owner' didn't know about the steps of a nearby multi-cache, there is only one conclusion to be made..........in your part of Germany, there isn't anything wrong with EarthCaches, but there is definitely something wrong with selfishness and childishness part of some people!

As a kid growing up, there was a phrase...."he picked up his marbles and went home!" This usually applied to some kid who couldn't get his way when playing a game, so he quit and went home. The case in point, "I'll pick up (archive) my geocache and go home". Equally silly and equally selfish! If someone wants a rule change, don't pick up your marbles (geocache) and go home, take it up with Groundspeak!

[+geodarts]

In re-reading this thread I again tried to understand what the problem was all about. I assume it was not that people could find the multi's final and sign the log without going through the necessary steps. As long as there were not arrows at the final location, bearing the Groundspeak logo, pointing to where the cache is located, it would be an impressive bit of "brute force" to find a cache that could be anywhere - without having done the rest of the multi to obtain the final coordinates. I know some people that can do this, but for me, if I knew there was a cache in the area I would do it on my way to the earthcache and see where I ended up.

 

It appears that the cache owner simply wanted to be the only one who brought people into the area. I have placed several traditionals to bring people to particular spots where there have been no other caches. Sometimes people have come along and placed new ones just before or after my location. Now people come to my cache but do not appreciate the uniqueness of it or the effort it took to find the spot in the first place. In so doing, the visitors have gone from one or two a year to three or four a year, increasing the need for cache maintenance down the line (although that number has thankfully settled down again!).

 

Some other people have used characters I developed with traditional caches for unauthorized sequels. So now there are not only caches that bring others into the area, but bring them to find something thematic. A whole caching generation (a one to two year period) is coming of age without knowing that I was the first, unless they pay attention to the GC numbers and actually care.

 

I have to say that I am flattered by all of these things and hope that all the caches work together to increase the number of people who decide to come to some great places. Caching not proprietary. The original saturation rule stated that "the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another."

 

On rare occasion I have been confused when there has been a traditional on top of an earthcache because the icons blend together, and I did not notice the traditional until I punched in to find the next closest cache. But even that is not a factor with a multi since the icon would be at the starting point rather than the earthcache location.

 

If someone put an earthcache near one of my traditionals, I would probably be jealous that I did not think of it, but go up there for the find before anyone else so that I could extol the virtues of the site yet again.

[+Laird McKai]

... Cachers in countries like Germany and Austria have to learn to cope with the problems that result from the high proportion of multi caches and mystery caches. Reserving locations for one's own worked there several years ago, but does not work out any longer. It is not really an Earth cache issue, but there are some cachers who feel that Earth caches are no real caches and for that reason they like to blame Earth caches for many problems.

 

Cezanne

 

I guess there is a lot of truth in that.

Thank you for your comment Cezanne.

[+TheBeanTeam]

Hi folks,

 

in my opinion, the only sense and reason for an Earthcache is, that there is no possibility to hide a container this dedicated location.

 

Also, an Earthcache should keep a distance of at least 1 mile (1610m) to any stage (even if they are not blocking by the regulations of Geocaching.com, i.e. QTA) of an existing Cache, except with an explicit permission of whose Owner.

 

Franz

What?

You obviously don't understand the "sense and reason" for EarthCaches. Please go to EarthCache.org!

The .1 mile wasn't good enough? You want it to be a whole MILE? How about 1.00 feet?

We don't think you will find much sympathy to your thesis here. Perhaps the Waymarking folks will be more willing to agree? Most folks here have developed or at least found multiple ECs and have been more than willing to share the sites.

 

Nope the Waymarking folks won't agree. We have absolutely no proximity guidelines in Waymarking. In Waymarking the only limitation is that it not already be listed in the particular category it is being submitted to. There are many locations that have multiple marks at the same location each featuring and highlighting a different aspect of the location. Proximity for physical caches is fine. An EC is not a physical cache and I think the right choice was made when the limitation was removed.

Edited February 20, 2010 by TheBeanTeam

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

 

Nope the Waymarking folks won't agree. We have absolutely no proximity guidelines in Waymarking. In Waymarking the only limitation is that it not already be listed in the particular category it is being submitted to. There are many locations that have multiple marks at the same location each featuring and highlighting a different aspect of the location. Proximity for physical caches is fine. An EC is not a physical cache and I think the right choice was made when the limitation was removed.

That's great! We didn't know the Waymarking rules, but it makes a lot of sense.

[+TnAMurphy99]

We (I and McB) have an earthcache within a couple of meters from an existing traditional and no one has complained of that. Maybe that is because the earthcache is kinda tricky to find the answers to and the traditional is just to go and grab.

 

But no matter what it is sad when geocachers archive their caches due to a conflict.

 

I completely agree with this. With physical caches, there are many times where people just 'run in', sign the log, and 'run out', never taking the time to really appreaciate the place they've been brought to thanks to Geocaching. Whereas Earthcaches give you an opportunity to do just that. They have you look around, learn something about the place this great game has brought you to. Why is it so wrong to not only have a cache with a log to sign, but also an opportunity to walk around the area and learn something new?

 

There's also a lot of times where the area is so big, that the physical cache is showing you one area, and the Earthcache is teaching you about an entirely different area or aspect of the place it's brought you to.