Jump to content

How about an "historical" icon?


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

How about introducing a new icon to geocaching.com – an “historical” icon? This icon would be for history buffs, much like the earth cache icon is for geology buffs. You could use similar parameters and maybe require the “historical” place to be registered as an historical place by the government – federal or state level. I believe this would be a great addition to geocaching.com.

 

One of my favorite things to do is to find caches near historical places. At lots of historical places, placing a physical cache is not feasible.

 

I know there is similar categories on Waymarking.com, but I would prefer this to be on geocaching.com.

Link to comment

How about introducing a new icon to geocaching.com – an “historical” icon? This icon would be for history buffs, much like the earth cache icon is for geology buffs. You could use similar parameters and maybe require the “historical” place to be registered as an historical place by the government – federal or state level. I believe this would be a great addition to geocaching.com.

 

One of my favorite things to do is to find caches near historical places. At lots of historical places, placing a physical cache is not feasible.

 

I know there is similar categories on Waymarking.com, but I would prefer this to be on geocaching.com.

 

This is a great suggestion, and I approve of it 100%, but I fear it will not lead anywhere.

 

We may get better traction getting Waymarking.com better integrated into geocaching.com (at least a unified stats system - come on guys, you are the same company, this should not be hard).

 

Ideally I see Waymarking.com (an improved version, not the horrid mess that is there now) superceding geocaching.com. If it had a much better way to navigate categories and to set preferences it could be a one stop shop for all sorts of GPS related activities and destinations. Want to geocache only, set your prefs to only show the caching categories. Want historical, geological, scientific, pop-culture (etc.) sites to visit without having caches, then set your prefs for that. All the features of PQ's, searching, stats, logs, forumns etc should be easily reusable for all of these. (My volunteer services are available if anyone from Groundspeak wants to talk about these ideas - hint hint).

 

Groundspeak should learn to think bigger, and they will capture a much wider audience, make more casholine, and give users what they want. It could all be awesome. Be awesome Groundspeak. Be awesome.

Link to comment

Adding new icons for new cache types would be a big boost--add maybe a new one each year. People would scramble to get the new icon, and it would spur, perhaps, some new quality hides...

 

 

darn.... they've already added the new icon for this year, now we gotta wait til next year.

 

3653.gif

Link to comment

I'd be all for an attribute, but positively against a new cache type.

+1

 

another +1.

 

I understand the idea that some historical sites would have a placement issue. But I think you could still just place one nearby and leave information in it.

 

Or maybe get a program going with the fed and/or state to place caches within the visitors center at these locations. Make it a puzzle cache where answers about the historical site grant you access to the cache at the front desk/kiosk or something?

Link to comment

I'm a history buff (sort of), so seeing caches with a historical attribute would be a godsend. Waymarking would help but I think I'd like it better if there was a physical cache to hunt for there. There are several multiple cache series in my area for example that commemorate the events of 1776. In order to find the actual cache you have to visit several famous landmarks for clues to the final location. So while you're basically Waymarking in a way, you're also hunting for a cache too. It's awesome, but the only way I knew about these caches was by happenstance after downloading several pocket queries for my area. A historical "attribute" could have really helped.

Link to comment

Reminds me of the virtual Wow factor - how do you define historical?

 

Everything old is not necessarily historical.

 

Who decides?

 

Have a requirement that the site be on some historical recognition list?

 

Who will verify?

 

Great idea, I would love to be able to search by a historical attribute, but I see more angst than value ahead.

Link to comment

I would like to see the attribute, however I don't think they would implement it. There are many non-caching history buffs who do not want caches in historical areas. One reason is due to cachers moving and disturbing everything in a small radius, which is not a good idea around ancient foundations. In fact, I also believe there is a note in the guidelines about historical places.

Link to comment

Reminds me of the virtual Wow factor - how do you define historical?

 

Everything old is not necessarily historical.

 

Who decides?

 

Have a requirement that the site be on some historical recognition list?

 

Who will verify?

 

Great idea, I would love to be able to search by a historical attribute, but I see more angst than value ahead.

 

Agreed on old vs. historical. I guess there'd have to be a list of organizations/programs that are accepted as verification of historical value. Then the hider can include a link in a note to the reviewer that "this location is listed 'here' as a historical landmark" or whatnot. I know probably a pipe dream and would still be angst from those who are upset that this or that would not fit the guideline.

 

I would like to see the attribute, however I don't think they would implement it. There are many non-caching history buffs who do not want caches in historical areas. One reason is due to cachers moving and disturbing everything in a small radius, which is not a good idea around ancient foundations. In fact, I also believe there is a note in the guidelines about historical places.

 

That makes sense, but if it is a "sensitive" area I think one could still hide a cache within sight of the site with the historical information.

Link to comment

I actually really like this idea as long as it comes with some restrictions that have been mentioned already, such as limiting it to places on the National Historic Registery, maybe limit the placement of caches to a couple for a paying members, make sure they arent lumped too close to eachother, etc.

Link to comment

As some others have said, I would say make an attribute for it rather than inventing a whole new cache type. Historically significant caches are actually my favorite type. :unsure: I love it this idea!

 

I think that would be a good starting point... :) But I wouldnt mind seeing even an attribute, I like hiding/finding caches by historical areas too.

Link to comment

If it's an attribute, then it would be up to the cache owner to mark it as historical. The cache would still be subject to the regular guidelines. Seems like it could work.

 

Many cachers use historical sites for caching by using them as stages in a multi or puzzle. That can work out really well in spots where a traditional cache would cause trouble.

Link to comment

I actually really like this idea as long as it comes with some restrictions that have been mentioned already, such as limiting it to places on the National Historic Registery, maybe limit the placement of caches to a couple for a paying members, make sure they arent lumped too close to eachother, etc.

 

As a person that knows a bit about the National Register of Historic Places having submitted nearly 1,600 Waymarks in that category and more than 700 in the contributing building category, I would say many of these locations the average person would not find to be really that historic. Often times they are historic from an architectural sense or a business/commerce sense rather than an event or something in a more traditional historic perspective. Also when dealing with historic districts they can cover substantial area and some buildings/things within a district are considered contributing and some are not, and without documentation the average person would not know which are which.

Link to comment

If it's an attribute, then it would be up to the cache owner to mark it as historical. The cache would still be subject to the regular guidelines. Seems like it could work.

 

Many cachers use historical sites for caching by using them as stages in a multi or puzzle. That can work out really well in spots where a traditional cache would cause trouble.

 

I'm totally on board with an attribute but as mentioned in this tread historical value varies person to person. I was planning a trip the other night weeding through a lot of virtual caches that lacked a whole lot of substance. But I do like a nice historical cache with some serious substance. For me an attribute would screen out those that lack any substance and then I could weed out the rest from there.

 

If it became it's own cache type I would want it to be as rigorous as the earth caches in providing information and justifying the cache just so it doesn't end up like Waymarking and a holy mess. I'm happy on that basis that the two sites are separated, especially after wading through those virtuals without substance the other night.

Link to comment

Reminds me of the virtual Wow factor - how do you define historical?

 

Everything old is not necessarily historical.

 

Who decides?

 

Have a requirement that the site be on some historical recognition list?

 

Who will verify?

 

Great idea, I would love to be able to search by a historical attribute, but I see more angst than value ahead.

 

If it's an attribute, then it would be up to the cache owner to mark it as historical. The cache would still be subject to the regular guidelines. Seems like it could work.

 

Many cachers use historical sites for caching by using them as stages in a multi or puzzle. That can work out really well in spots where a traditional cache would cause trouble.

 

It's no different than the Scenic View attribute - or the Significant Hike or Recommended for Kids. If a cache owner thinks that their cache deserves the Historic Location attibute then they use. If they don't think the place is historic or don't care thene they don't. Premium members could search for caches with the attribute and use it as a filter to help in selecting the caches they want to look for.

 

Of course some cache owners will use the atrribute when there is nothing historic at all about the site. And no doubt many more will not bother adding the attribute even if they write up a nice description of the history on the cache page. But I think enough owners will use it that it may benefit some cachers who are specifically seeking these sort of caches.

 

If there was an attribute you'd be able to tell this cache from this one :)

Link to comment

It's too bad Waymarking isn't integrated with this site. It could have been a great way to identify sites of interest and then locate caches nearby. Oh well.

 

We wish for lots of things. :) You can identify historical waymarks that interest you and then click on the nearest geocaches link on each Waymark page. I realize that is not the best.

Link to comment

It's too bad Waymarking isn't integrated with this site. It could have been a great way to identify sites of interest and then locate caches nearby. Oh well.

 

We wish for lots of things. :laughing: You can identify historical waymarks that interest you and then click on the nearest geocaches link on each Waymark page. I realize that is not the best.

 

Another interesting project. Did the mgmt at geocaching dot com ever consider the proposals you all were

making?

Link to comment

It's too bad Waymarking isn't integrated with this site. It could have been a great way to identify sites of interest and then locate caches nearby. Oh well.

 

I can't figure out why Waymarking doesn't do as well as geocaching. I started Waymarking but notice that

many just have one visitor a year as opposed to the dozen or so you get in one month with a good geocache.

 

-RKO

Link to comment

It's too bad Waymarking isn't integrated with this site. It could have been a great way to identify sites of interest and then locate caches nearby. Oh well.

 

I can't figure out why Waymarking doesn't do as well as geocaching. I started Waymarking but notice that

many just have one visitor a year as opposed to the dozen or so you get in one month with a good geocache.

 

-RKO

Up until recently Waymarking was emphasizing listing new waymarks and visiting was not encouraged much. Recently some new features have been added, including Waymarking Scavenger Hunts and the iPhone Historic Places App. Perhaps we will see more people visiting waymarks.

Link to comment

It's too bad Waymarking isn't integrated with this site. It could have been a great way to identify sites of interest and then locate caches nearby. Oh well.

 

I can't figure out why Waymarking doesn't do as well as geocaching. I started Waymarking but notice that

many just have one visitor a year as opposed to the dozen or so you get in one month with a good geocache.

 

-RKO

 

I find the site confusing to navigate and it doesn't have pocket queries. I wish it was more similar to Geocaching.com in design and function.

Link to comment

It's too bad Waymarking isn't integrated with this site. It could have been a great way to identify sites of interest and then locate caches nearby. Oh well.

 

I can't figure out why Waymarking doesn't do as well as geocaching. I started Waymarking but notice that

many just have one visitor a year as opposed to the dozen or so you get in one month with a good geocache.

 

-RKO

 

Simple. You don't get a smiley for your Waymarking find.

Link to comment

I can't figure out why Waymarking doesn't do as well as geocaching. I started Waymarking but notice that

many just have one visitor a year as opposed to the dozen or so you get in one month with a good geocache.

Simple. You don't get a smiley for your Waymarking find.

 

Perhaps not that simple, except to the extent that Waymarking is not part of this particular game. Keeping up with this game is enough for many of us. That many do not want to multitask on a gpsr, the difference between the web sites, and the difference between the two experiences probably have something to do with it as well. For me, if I wanted to waymark, I would play gowalla or other location-based activities. If I want to geocache, I will stick to this site. So perhaps, in a way, it does come down to the smiley.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

I can't figure out why Waymarking doesn't do as well as geocaching. I started Waymarking but notice that

many just have one visitor a year as opposed to the dozen or so you get in one month with a good geocache.

No pocket queries or a general iPhone app. That's what keeps me from Waymarking on a regular basis.

Link to comment

I can't figure out why Waymarking doesn't do as well as geocaching. I started Waymarking but notice that

many just have one visitor a year as opposed to the dozen or so you get in one month with a good geocache.

No pocket queries or a general iPhone app. That's what keeps me from Waymarking on a regular basis.

 

+1

 

If the Waymarking site supported pocket queries, one could create a user route for a road trip vacation and then create a PQ for caches and one for waymarks that only included the types of waymarks they wanted along the way. Several of my family vacations have involved driving 600-800 miles across several states over a couple of days and it would be real nice to have waypoints for interesting waymarks along the route loaded into my GPS along with any geocaches.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...