Distance Requirement

[+rmayben9]

I just noticed the new way to submit EarthCaches. Does the distance requirement for regular caches apply to EarthCaches now? I know it didn't with the old system. I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I dug through a couple other threads with no definite answer. Thanks in advance for you input!

[+Arby Gee]

I just noticed the new way to submit EarthCaches. Does the distance requirement for regular caches apply to EarthCaches now?

 

I believe I saw somewhere on this forum that it does, but hopefully someone can confirm that.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I just noticed the new way to submit EarthCaches. Does the distance requirement for regular caches apply to EarthCaches now? I know it didn't with the old system. I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I dug through a couple other threads with no definite answer. Thanks in advance for you input!

No it doesn't apply.

Theoretically you could have two EarthCaches within a few feet of each other as long as the geological aspects of each are entirely different. Distance is not a factor between ECs and traditional caches. There used to be an "informal" 30 foot rule, but even that one has been discounted.

I hope this helps.

 

P.S. We like your geocaching philosophy.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[+rmayben9]

Thanks for answering my question. I've been contemplating two or three earthcaches in my area so I wanted to make sure because it one is about 100 feet from one of my current traditional caches.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Thanks for answering my question. I've been contemplating two or three earthcaches in my area so I wanted to make sure because it one is about 100 feet from one of my current traditional caches.

Things change, but you should be alright. Go for it!

[+Tape worm]

I tried to set up an Earthcache, but it was denied due to it was to close to a traditional cache. They didn't say how far away it has to be. I had it about 40 feet away from the established cache.

[+geoaware]

I tried to set up an Earthcache, but it was denied due to it was to close to a traditional cache. They didn't say how far away it has to be. I had it about 40 feet away from the established cache.

 

There is no distance rule for EarthCaches other than they can't be EXACTLY at the same location as a traditional cache as that would equate to the EarthCache having a box (which is not allowed by the guidelines).

 

It is a simple fix...move your EC away from the exact coordinates of the existing traditional!

 

Geoaware

[+Tape worm]

I tried to set up an Earthcache, but it was denied due to it was to close to a traditional cache. They didn't say how far away it has to be. I had it about 40 feet away from the established cache.

 

There is no distance rule for EarthCaches other than they can't be EXACTLY at the same location as a traditional cache as that would equate to the EarthCache having a box (which is not allowed by the guidelines).

 

It is a simple fix...move your EC away from the exact coordinates of the existing traditional!

 

Geoaware

 

Thanks for the information!!! I just moved the cords a little and now am 26 feet away.

[cezanne]

There is no distance rule for EarthCaches other than they can't be EXACTLY at the same location as a traditional cache as that would equate to the EarthCache having a box

 

Does it really make sense to allow two Earthcaches at the same, very small location?

Suppose an urban setting in front of a museum where one can find a rock brought from abroad and some other objects brought from abroad. The first Earthcache deals with the rock, the second one with the other objects. The distance of the header coordinates of the two caches is 20m. Anyone visitor interested into geology visiting one of the Earthcaches will also encounter what can be seen and learnt at the site by visiting the second one.

 

I rather would like to see 10 Earthcaches dealing with volcanism in a region of my home province where this topic plays a big role and where many interesting themed trails exist, than having a situation like the above (which really happened and has not been made up by me).

 

Actually, I do think that there need not be exact rules for saturation for Earthcaches, but I would welcome that the reviewers also have a look at the surroundings and the size of the location. 2 Earthcaches at different sides of a rock with a distance of 100m as the crow flies, but there the route from one location to the other is considerably longer are okl for. I am not happy at all, however, with the above mentioned situation.

 

Cezanne

[+narcissa]

There can be very different naturally-occurring features very close together. There are lots of spots around here where you can find fossils, weathering, and glacial features on the same bare patch of limestone. I'd be inclined to wrap these into one Earthcache, but I think the case for different Earthcaches could be reasonably argued.

[cezanne]

There can be very different naturally-occurring features very close together.

 

Yes, indeed.

 

There are lots of spots around here where you can find fossils, weathering, and glacial features on the same bare patch of limestone. I'd be inclined to wrap these into one Earthcache, but I think the case for different Earthcaches could be reasonably argued.

 

As I understand the current guidelines and the review process, it is not necessary to provide any sort of arguments for such a case (provided that a different feature is covered) and that's what I regard as unfortunate.

 

Cezanne

[+narcissa]

 

As I understand the current guidelines and the review process, it is not necessary to provide any sort of arguments for such a case (provided that a different feature is covered) and that's what I regard as unfortunate.

 

 

It doesn't bother me to see Earthcaches close together, as long as they have good descriptions and decent logging requirements. I do think the reviewers should be setting the bar a *little* higher when it comes to the quality of Earthcache write-ups and logging tasks. Proximity to other Earthcaches should be considered, but I don't think a rigid rule is necessary.

[cezanne]

It doesn't bother me to see Earthcaches close together, as long as they have good descriptions and decent logging requirements. I do think the reviewers should be setting the bar a *little* higher when it comes to the quality of Earthcache write-ups and logging tasks.

 

Oh well, I would appreciate that very much, but realistically I feel that they typically do not have the time for doing so and some of them do not seem to have the appropriate detailed background in geology. The situation has been different before the huge expansion of the reviewer team.

 

Proximity to other Earthcaches should be considered, but I don't think a rigid rule is necessary.

 

I agree. I would not like to see a rigid rule. 2 very special Earthcaches within 20m may be ok, but they should be only listed in special situations.

 

I am not happy with examples like this one (it is just an example - my concern is a general one)

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ed-bb51bfbebd8a

(the older one)

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...d7-70dc6e0010a6

(the new one)

 

Both objects are on display directly outside of the mineralogical museum of the city of Marburg/Lahn in Germany. The tasks are copying something from a sign, taking photos and measuring the size of the trunks.

 

I cannot remember - maybe there are even more objects there on display in the outside area, or additional ones will show up somewhere in the future. Where is the limit? 2, 3, 5, 10 or how many Earthcaches within a very small area (well below the distance requirement for physical caches)?

 

Cezanne

Edited June 15, 2010 by cezanne

[+geoaware]

It doesn't bother me to see Earthcaches close together, as long as they have good descriptions and decent logging requirements. I do think the reviewers should be setting the bar a *little* higher when it comes to the quality of Earthcache write-ups and logging tasks.

 

Oh well, I would appreciate that very much, but realistically I feel that they typically do not have the time for doing so and some of them do not seem to have the appropriate detailed background in geology. The situation has been different before the huge expansion of the reviewer team.

 

Proximity to other Earthcaches should be considered, but I don't think a rigid rule is necessary.

 

I agree. I would not like to see a rigid rule. 2 very special Earthcaches within 20m may be ok, but they should be only listed in special situations.

 

I am not happy with examples like this one (it is just an example - my concern is a general one)

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ed-bb51bfbebd8a

(the older one)

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...d7-70dc6e0010a6

(the new one)

 

Both objects are on display directly outside of the mineralogical museum of the city of Marburg/Lahn in Germany. The tasks are copying something from a sign, taking photos and measuring the size of the trunks.

 

I cannot remember - maybe there are even more objects there on display in the outside area, or additional ones will show up somewhere in the future. Where is the limit? 2, 3, 5, 10 or how many Earthcaches within a very small area (well below the distance requirement for physical caches)?

 

Cezanne

 

Please see the guidelines when it comes to these issues. They are very clear.

 

EarthCaches should highlight a unique feature. EarthCaches that duplicate existing EarthCache information about the site or related sites may be rejected. EarthCaches should be developed to provide a unique experience to the visitor to the region. Multiple EarthCaches on the same feature should be avoided and content rather than proximity will be the guiding principle.

[cezanne]

 

Please see the guidelines when it comes to these issues. They are very clear.

 

EarthCaches should highlight a unique feature. EarthCaches that duplicate existing EarthCache information about the site or related sites may be rejected. EarthCaches should be developed to provide a unique experience to the visitor to the region. Multiple EarthCaches on the same feature should be avoided and content rather than proximity will be the guiding principle.

 

Thank you for your reply. I have already been familiar with the guidelines. This does not imply that I have to be happy with the outcome. Moreover, it is quite subjective what "unique experience" means.

 

I am convinced that the second of the two Earthcaches I mentioned does not provide any visitor with a unique experience if he has already visited the other one. Actually, there are also many Earthcaches

with no Earthcache in immediate neighbourhood where the majority of cachers do not

report to have experienced something unique, consider e.g.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...b4-be68d3175ae3

(I even defended it against a vague of criticism in the local community as it conforms to the guidelines.)

What can be learnt from the cache, can only be learnt by reading the description and doing some research in books and/or the internet.

 

To limit the length of my reponse, let me close with repeating that while I am aware of the fact that the current guidelines do allow 10 Earthcaches at the same location if they deal with different features, I still do not like to encounter 10 separate Earthcaches in this type of setting.

 

Actually, some requirements of the guidelines, e.g. the part about strong logging requirements, informations that are not simply copied from a webpage, questions that can be answered at the location and do not require internet work etc., are nice, but the poor overloaded reviewers are typically not able to enforce them as they do not have the time to do so. They cannot spend 30 minutes with a single cache submission and have to go on quickly to the next - some of the Earthcache reviewers are also reviewers for non-Earthcaches which increases their workload even further.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited June 16, 2010 by cezanne