Historycache

[+Chiefy268]

The reason I am strating this discussion is becuase there is a growing discussion on the Facebook group "Bring Virtual Geocaches Back" and I thought there may be larger group here willing to talk about it.

 

Now please people I am aware there is Waymarking.com but I dont know if you have noticed that is not an overly popular excuse among people who want Virtuals back. So please dont say "Thats why there is Waymarking" this is a discussion about a possible alternative to both arguments.

 

Facebook Discusion

 

The link above is the Facebook discussion, I do believe you have to be members, so below is a run through.

 

First Post:Christopher Philip Reevey Maybe we are all going about this the wrong way. Maybe instead of trying to bring back the dead, get it the virtual icon is a ghost, maybe we should look into brining in a new type of cache. Quite simillar to Earthcaches but oriented around the historical aspects of the world our gameboard!

 

So instead of saying "Bring back the Virtual" lets start saying "Lets work together to bring back the things we liked about Virtuals, while keeping the things that we disliked away, and start something new". So at the same time we get a new icon, and keep the Virtual icon elusive.

 

The only reason I say this is becuase more than 90% of the reasons we here to bring back Virtuals are becuase of the historical values, the other reasons are becuase it is a location that would not be able to house a traditional. Well you would have two options, if there is something with a geoscience there make an Earthcache, and if you dont want to go through the hassel of doing that find something historically important that happened there, or the historical importance of the area.

 

These are just some thoughts that maybe we should consider.

 

Second Post:Vince Witengier This is a good idea. Perhaps just call it History Cache or Historical cache, historia cache, historein, historiology, histoire, antiquity, revisionism, yesteryear, recital cache...

 

Thinking History/Historical cache might be best that way folks don't get confused.

 

If a proposal of name, Icon and guidelines were presented perhaps Ground Speak might find it more acceptable.

 

I can think of a few Icons if I could post pics to this reply..

 

Anyway I do think you are onto something here and it's in the right direction IMHO

 

Third Post:Christopher Philip Reevey One of the icons I thought would be very fitting would be an hour glass, does anyone have any other ideas for icons?

 

Forth Post:Patrick E. Brownspot yes!

 

Fifth Post:Stephanie Enns The Earthcaching project is sponsored by the GSA and Subaru, among others. Something to keep in mind. Is there a major nation historical society who might be interested in joining forces here? A corporate sponsor?

 

Sixth Post:Mike Davison I love the idea of history caches.

 

An icon something like this might work:

http://www.ci.el-cajon.ca.us/dept/redev/images/history1.gif

 

Seventh Post:Christopher Philip Reevey Regarding Stephanie's comment maybe we can get the World History Association to sponsor the idea. I was looking at there website and it looks like they are a group of educators interested in spreading the knowledge of history and what better way through Geocaching. Geocaching is a great way to get information out to lots of people.

 

Im not saying one of these, but these are some ideas:

http://www.resourcesgraphics.com/images/Ho...r-material2.jpg

 

 

So there it is, please add your feedback, becuase I think instead of brining back Virtuals we could all work together to bring a new cache type into being. So it keeps the Virtual elusive and I think that is what some people enjoy about the Virtuals as well.

 

Please as I say again please do not make this into an argument about Waymarking!

[jholly]

 

but if we must,

 

 

and

 

 

and where I think this discussion will go

 

[+Chiefy268]

1.Historycaches sites must provide History lessons. They take people to sites that can help explain the history of an area or to sites of interesting events such as battles, acts of rebellion, sites of regional, national, international significance or reveal how historians understand our people (such as historical settlements etc.)

 

2.Historycache sites must be educational. They provide accurate but simple explanations of what visitors will experience at the site. Cache text must assume no previous knowledge of history of the area. The educational notes must be written to a reading age of an upper middle school (14 year old) student. Avoid direct plagiarism from web sources and quote sources of information where appropriate. Additional technical or scientific notes can be provided for the scientific community at the end of the listing. All notes can be submitted in the local language but must also be in English.

 

3.Historycache sites can be a single site, or a multiple virtual cache. No items, box, or physical cache can be left at the site. You must have visited the site recently (within two months), checked the site is safe and taken multiple GPS readings to ensure accuracy of coordinates. You are responsible for disabling a Historycache if conditions change to access, safety or other issues.

 

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

 

5.Historycache sites follow the geocaching principles and adhere to the principles of Leave No Trace outdoor ethics. Use waypoints to ensure cachers take appropriate pathways. Use established trails only. Do not create new trails to a site in order to concentrate use impacts. Historycache sites will highlight the principle of collect photos - not samples. However, if there is no possible damage to a site which is outside of the public land system and approved by the site owner, small samples may be collected as part of the cache experience.

 

6.Logging of an Historycache must involve visitors undertaking some educational task that relates to the historical signficance at the site. This could involve measuring or estimating the size of some feature or aspect of the site, collecting and recording data (such as casualty count), or sending an e-mail to the cache owner with the answer to historical related questions they obtained by reading an information display. While photographs may be requested, they do not take the place of other logging requirements. Taking a photograph alone or asking people to do internet research does NOT meet these logging guidelines. Requests for specific content in the photograph (must include the visitor's face, for example) will be considered an additional logging requirement and must be optional. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

7.All Historycaches sites developed must have prior approval of the landowners before submission (depending on local country laws and customs). When applicable you must have written approval with the appropriate owner or land-managing agency. The name and contact details of the person from who you received approval MUST be given at time of submission in the “Note to Reviewer”. The developed text should be sent to the landholder/manager for approval*. * Please note that by placing a Historycache on public land, even with approval, does not mean you can use the public land logo in your text.

 

8.All Historycaches sites will be reviewed by the Historycache Team to ensure appropriateness of the site and educational standard of the notes.

 

9.Damage to the site is unacceptable. Please be mindful of fragile ecosystems and historical sites.

 

10.The (enter sponsor here) and the Historycache Team retains the right to edit, modify, reject or archive any Historycache that does not adhere to these guidelines, or for any other purpose that the Team deems as appropriate.

 

I took the Earthcache guide lines, and worked them in to a set of guide lines that could work for a Historycache type. There are a few issues that would need to be looked at such as a sponsoring body, putting together a team of reviewers like the Earthcaches have.

[Keystone]

Have you identified an historical society of worldwide scope, who would be willing to take on this project in the same way that GSA guides the earthcaching program?

 

As a volunteer I have no desire to define and enforce what constitutes a "historycache."

 

In the meantime, I would like to direct you to the more than 40,000 waymarks catalogued in the History Department at Waymarking.com. That is Groundspeak's current home for highlighting historic locations around the world.

[+Chiefy268]

Have you identified an historical society of worldwide scope, who would be willing to take on this project in the same way that GSA guides the earthcaching program?

 

As a volunteer I have no desire to define and enforce what constitutes a "historycache."

 

In the meantime, I would like to direct you to the more than 40,000 waymarks catalogued in the History Department at Waymarking.com. That is Groundspeak's current home for highlighting historic locations around the world.

 

I have been googling some historical groups, and I have come across one that does have a global scope. I am in the process of coming up with a proposition for them. Any help on building said proposition would be greatly appreciated from people interested in this cause. Would anyone happen to know how Groundspeak and the GSA came together?

[+mcwomble]

Not sure about the Americas but over this side of the pond, virtually ever third or 4th cache has some time of historical significance attached to it and most can hide a nano if nothing else.

The obvious exceptions are scheduled monument sites but why not a "puzzle" cache to collect any info?

 

Then again I've seen the "puzzle" caches in cities which are in essence a "virtual".

Do we really need another cache type?

[+Chiefy268]

Not sure about the Americas but over this side of the pond, virtually ever third or 4th cache has some time of historical significance attached to it and most can hide a nano if nothing else.

The obvious exceptions are scheduled monument sites but why not a "puzzle" cache to collect any info?

 

Then again I've seen the "puzzle" caches in cities which are in essence a "virtual".

Do we really need another cache type?

 

The very same could be said about Earthcaches, you could indeed place a small nano.

 

Clearly Earthcaches where invented for some reason, and I love Earthcaches becuase you can learn alot, its not just find a random nano and continue on to the next cache, Earthcache makes you stop and do some work, and there for you will learn something. I find that everyone seems to have an interest in knowing more, and that especially applies to us Geocachers. So why would you want to limit that knowledge by saying "Just place a nano", nanos have there place in this world, and teaching people history I think is not there place.

[+tozainamboku]

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

-- George Santayana

It's amusing that the people who promote history caches fail to study the history of virtual caches and EarthCaches. There are some very important reasons why Groundspeak decided to stop publishing new virtual caches and grandfather those that already existed. There is also history as to why EarthCaches were allowed to remain on Geocaching.com despite early attempts to move them to Waymarking. Go learn some history and perhaps you will understand why it is unlikely that a history cache would be implemented on Geocaching.com.

[+mcwomble]

 

The very same could be said about Earthcaches, you could indeed place a small nano.

 

Clearly Earthcaches where invented for some reason, and I love Earthcaches becuase you can learn alot, its not just find a random nano and continue on to the next cache, Earthcache makes you stop and do some work, and there for you will learn something. I find that everyone seems to have an interest in knowing more, and that especially applies to us Geocachers. So why would you want to limit that knowledge by saying "Just place a nano", nanos have there place in this world, and teaching people history I think is not there place.

 

Is that not the same as going and checking out the info boards for the necessary clues and information for a puzzle nano?

[+OmahaCachers]

I'd love to make a historical cache. I found out that for a few years in the 1930's, big band leader Lawrence Welk lived in here in Omaha Nebraska. I'd like to do a drive by virtual of his house. But then I don't know if the current house owner knows who lived there and might wonder why people started driving by her house and staring at it. So that would be an issue of itself that I'd have to find out about. But I'd like virtuals to come back so I can at least think about how to do it.

[+Semper Questio]

I'd love to make a historical cache. I found out that for a few years in the 1930's, big band leader Lawrence Welk lived in here in Omaha Nebraska. I'd like to do a drive by virtual of his house. But then I don't know if the current house owner knows who lived there and might wonder why people started driving by her house and staring at it. So that would be an issue of itself that I'd have to find out about. But I'd like virtuals to come back so I can at least think about how to do it.

 

Find a nearby location to place a container then use the house street number to do a projection or some simple math to direct folks from the coords for the house to the coords for the final container. You can still put all the historical information on your cache page, give cachers who want it the drive-by history lesson, and provide the mandated container and log. And if it is classified as a puzzle cache (even a simple one) the drive-by traffic will be relatively tiny and the owners will probably never notice. Not a virtual, but a viable alternative.

[+Chiefy268]

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

-- George Santayana

It's amusing that the people who promote history caches fail to study the history of virtual caches and EarthCaches. There are some very important reasons why Groundspeak decided to stop publishing new virtual caches and grandfather those that already existed. There is also history as to why EarthCaches were allowed to remain on Geocaching.com despite early attempts to move them to Waymarking. Go learn some history and perhaps you will understand why it is unlikely that a history cache would be implemented on Geocaching.com.

 

He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery. ~Harold Wilson

 

It's funny how people who try to put down pogress make it seem easy by adding a quote about history, and continue on about reasons why it will never work, but do not cite said reasons with anything applicable to the issue, but continue to ramble on about the same thing to make it into some thing that represents a paragraph.

 

I have looked and I can not find reasosns why this can not be a viable idea, if people keep working and come up with new ideas we will continue to progress. Are you saying that the set standard of Geocache types we have now will be all there ever is? We are only 10 years into our great activity you can not say we are done progressing in any aspect of the activity. Look at baseball it is a sport that continues to progress, they now allow video replay to check if a ball was fair or foul, and they have been playing for hundreds of years, and the technology has been around for quite some time and just until recently they have allowed it.

 

Now I understand we may not have Historycaches tomorrow, or next month, or maybe not even next year but it is worth the time to consider avenues that our great activity can take us down.

 

The key to change... is to let go of fear. ~Rosanne Cash

[cezanne]

 

Find a nearby location to place a container then use the house street number to do a projection or some simple math to direct folks from the coords for the house to the coords for the final container. You can still put all the historical information on your cache page, give cachers who want it the drive-by history lesson, and provide the mandated container and log. And if it is classified as a puzzle cache (even a simple one) the drive-by traffic will be relatively tiny and the owners will probably never notice. Not a virtual, but a viable alternative.

 

While I am convinced that history caches oder other cache types with similar concepts will never become implemented on gc.com, I do not regard what you mention above as a viable alternative.

 

I prefer in many situations the containerless approach, both as a hider and as a searcher. I would never hide a magnetic micro or something of that type in an urban environment and I hate searching for such caches while I appreciate the learning aspect of well-done virtual caches and Earth caches. Waymarks do not fulfill my personal requirements. I do understand that those for whom geocaching is about searching a hidden object, will not share my opinion. For me the search aspect always has been the most boring and less interesting part of geocaching.

 

Personally, I would prefer one data base with much better selection possibilities than they currently exist on gc.co which integrates also cache concepts which are not regarded as geocaching by hardliners (for example, caches where the GPS-r can be used, but is not really an integral part of the hunt). I am interested into several variations of what might make up a geocache and I do not want to use several data bases for what I regard as the same type of activity. (That's another reason why the Waymarking site does not attract me at all apart from the fact that the waymark concept is more or less designed for pointing out single locations and not pointing out interesting routes as already the name suggests. Routes can be set up, but not in an elegant way.)

 

Cezanne

[+Markwell]

Why does every cool place have to have a smilie associated with it?

[cezanne]

Why does every cool place have to have a smilie associated with it?

 

I cannot answer this question as it's not about smilies (total found count or whatever) for me.

 

What I like is learn to know interesting places that have not been known to me before. The key

question is thus how this can be achieved. I find convenient to be able to find interesting places by using just one site and not multiple ones. This does not mean that the same sort of credit (smilie in the case of your example) needs (should) to be offered for different categories offered on the same site.

 

Moreover, the key question for me is rather why it is suggested that often to hide a cache container at a

location which is interesting to visit, but which is not suited/attractive for a cache search. Many of the nano caches I have found are the result of the need to hide a container at a place with no real options.

 

 

Cezanne

[+GeocoinGuy]

Why does every cool place have to have a smilie associated with it?

Haven't you heard? Its all about the numbers!

 

I love this debate. Further, I feel that "Waymarking" has its place in the Groundspeak repertoire. But I also believe that those not interested in Waymarking in conjunction with geocaching should have the ability to seek out these places of historical significance.

 

I am in favor of "History" caches in geocaching.

 

~J

[+StarBrand]

Although I really cannot fully explain Earthcaches.....

 

The simple fact is that:

...a Geocache has been well defined as a container hidden at a specific somewhere.

 

... A waymark (virtual) is just the somewhere.

 

It remains unfortunate that the word virtual was ever used in conjuction with Geocache as it has led to a lot of heartache. But in the end - it did get well defined.

[cezanne]

The simple fact is that:

...a Geocache has been well defined as a container hidden at a specific somewhere.

 

That's wrong. Have a look at geocaching sites like terracaching, opencaching, navicache and also others.

Even gc.com still lists new event caches, citos, Earthcaches and also the granfathered virtual caches appear

when I search for geocaches in my area.

 

... A waymark (virtual) is just the somewhere.

 

At least for me the concept of waymarks (even the name is somehow reminding of waypoint) is a concept about pointing out a location combined with annoying photo requirements. While it is possible to incorporate other things into Waymarking by tricks, this does not mean that the concept is well-suited for doing so.

 

I feel that waymarks are well-suited for example to attract people's attention to a historically interesting building and to put the main stress on sharing the location. I do not feel that waymarks are really well suited for educational purposes. I am in favor of the modified Earthcache guidelines where the creator of an Earthcache cannot require any longer photos of the visitor of the cache - another feature that does not fit well into the waymark concept.

 

It remains unfortunate that the word virtual was ever used in conjuction with Geocache as it has led to a lot of heartache. But in the end - it did get well defined.

 

You seem to use your private definition. I agree that virtual cache is a misleading term and would have preferred something like container-less cache.

 

Cezanne

[+mcwomble]

Why does every cool place have to have a smilie associated with it?

 

I cannot answer this question as it's not about smilies (total found count or whatever) for me.

 

What I like is learn to know interesting places that have not been known to me before. The key

question is thus how this can be achieved. I find convenient to be able to find interesting places by using just one site and not multiple ones. This does not mean that the same sort of credit (smilie in the case of your example) needs (should) to be offered for different categories offered on the same site.

 

Moreover, the key question for me is rather why it is suggested that often to hide a cache container at a

location which is interesting to visit, but which is not suited/attractive for a cache search. Many of the nano caches I have found are the result of the need to hide a container at a place with no real options.

 

Cezanne

 

So let me get this straight, you're really after a guide book then.

 

If searching/finding caches is not for you, why are you geocaching in the first place?

[cezanne]

 

So let me get this straight, you're really after a guide book then.

 

If searching/finding caches is not for you, why are you geocaching in the first place?

 

Both as hiking tours and the visit to interesting not well-known places in urban areas is regarded I have made much better experiences over the years with geocaching than with guidebooks.

 

None of the hiking guides I have at home and none of the ones I know sends me to kind of secret places not known to the big majority (e.g. caves, hunters trails etc). Moreover, the geocaching site allows me to communicate with the creator of the cache and other visitors - I can ask questions about the suitability of the terrain for me, the length of the walk etc. The logs often contain valuable information about the current conditions in the area and I even enjoy reading the logs for caches I never will be able to visit - even learning about the experiences of others at places is something which is attractive for me and not offered in guidebooks. Moreover, guide books get often outdated quite quickly. The internet is better able to cope with the rapid changes in some areas. Another advantage of sites like geocaching.com is that they establish some form of community, with local subcommunities where one can be part of, but in a much more losely coupled way than with becoming a member of a club, an organization etc

 

 

Cezanne

Edited June 11, 2010 by cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

I have looked and I can not find reasosns why this can not be a viable idea, if people keep working and come up with new ideas we will continue to progress. Are you saying that the set standard of Geocache types we have now will be all there ever is? We are only 10 years into our great activity you can not say we are done progressing in any aspect of the activity. Look at baseball it is a sport that continues to progress, they now allow video replay to check if a ball was fair or foul, and they have been playing for hundreds of years, and the technology has been around for quite some time and just until recently they have allowed it.

Start here for some history of what happened with virtual cache, how the concept of geocaching was refined over the years, and why Waymarking was developed as a place for ideas like history caches.

 

I'm not saying that a history cache category on Geocaching.com can never happen. If TPTB saw a benefit to having it they might do another experiment like they did with EarthCaches. However, they now have a website where such ideas are much easier to pursue. You have eliminated discussion of this other site in your original post, so I suppose you have looked there are there are things you don't like about it. Perhaps working to change things on that site to your liking would be a more productive use of your time. But feel free to tilt at windmills if you must.

[cezanne]

However, they now have a website where such ideas are much easier to pursue.

 

Do you really think so? While I see almost zero chances that history caches get implemented at gc.com,

I likewise feel that the analogue concept to Earthcaches as they are currently are (e.g. mandatory English descriptions, log requirements asking for photos of the cacher are forbidden etc) is not fitting at all to the Waymarking site. Earthcaches are a special case at gc.com anyway, allowing special cases at Waymarking would change Waymarking considerably.

 

Cezanne

Edited June 11, 2010 by cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

However, they now have a website where such ideas are much easier to pursue.

 

Do you really think so? While I see almost zero chances that history caches get implemented at gc.com,

I likewise feel that the analogue concept to Earthcaches as they are currently are (e.g. mandatory English descriptions, log requirements asking for photos of the cacher are forbidden etc) is not fitting at all to the Waymarking site. Earthcaches are a special case at gc.com anyway, allowing special cases at Waymarking would change Waymarking considerably.

 

Cezanne

Waymarking is all about special cases. Waymarking premium members suggest new categories. They form groups to manage these categories. The groups write the requirements/guidelines for posting waymarks in these categories. The officers of the groups act as reviewers for waymarks submitted in their category.

 

EarthCaches exactly fit the Waymarking model. EarthCache.org would be the group that manages the EarthCache category. The officers of the group would be the EarthCache reviewers. The guidelines for placing EarchCaches and for logging them would not have to change at all. In fact when Waymarking first came out, the EarthCache category was established exactly this way. New EarthCaches were only accepted in Waymarking and plans were made for moving existing EarthCaches from Geocaching to Waymarking. But then the EarthCache community rebelled. They complained that nobody visited the new Waymaking EarthCaches. EarthCache.org pull out the the agreement they had with Groundspeak to list EarthCaches on Geocaching.com and force Groundspeak to allow EarthCaches to remain on GC.com.

 

The only difficulty in establishing a History Cache category or EarthCache category today is that there are many more specific categories already in existence - Historic Markers (in every state and several countries), Historic buildings, Battlegrounds, Monuments and Memorials, Historic places, Places of Geologic Significance, Volcanoes, Impact Craters, Caves, etc. Creating general categories for History or Geology may be seen as redundant. However, if the category is setup to emphasize education with groups willing to enforce the educational aspect of the listings, I see no reason that you couldn't have new Waymarking categories in these areas. In Waymarking, a location can be listed in multiple categories. You could have the same site listed both as an EarthCache with a geology lesson involved and as a Place of Geologic Significance, with much less required.

[+StarBrand]

That's wrong. Have a look at geocaching sites like terracaching, opencaching, navicache and also others.

Even gc.com still lists new event caches, citos, Earthcaches and also the granfathered virtual caches appear

when I search for geocaches in my area.

 

I note you failed to leave in my statement about Earthcaches from the original post. Can't explain those, some kind of politics.

 

...those other sites - all combined have less than 5% of the caches listed here. The definiton of a geocache from this site clearly is not carried by other sites anyway. So not sure what your point is.

 

It remains a fact that (excepting Earthcaches and events[whole different animal]) - a Geocache IS defined by placing something somewhere. Not just the somewhere. Otherwise the webcam and virtual caches would still be accepted (here on gc.com).

[cezanne]

I note you failed to leave in my statement about Earthcaches from the original post. Can't explain those, some kind of politics.

 

I left it out, but took notice of it. Earthcaches better fit the virtual cache concept, but also Event caches, CITOs do not have necessarily have a container associated with them.

What I tried to say is thus that even within the current guidelines of gc.com and after leaving out Earthcaches it is not true what you claim about how the term geocache is defined.

 

...those other sites - all combined have less than 5% of the caches listed here. The definiton of a geocache from this site clearly is not carried by other sites anyway. So not sure what your point is.

 

Apart from the fact that you did not restrict your statement to the geocaching.com, it is not even true that

gc.com defines a geocache in the way you claimed. Maybe that's what the people there have in mind, but a definition is something very strict and concise.

 

Note that geocaching is nothing owned by Groundspeak or gc.com. So they cannot define what a geocache is. They only can define what they list as on their data base, but in the strict sense they do not even do that. They only explain what they intend to list. The concept they use is far from a definition.

 

It remains a fact that (excepting Earthcaches and events[whole different animal]) - a Geocache IS defined by placing something somewhere. Not just the somewhere. Otherwise the webcam and virtual caches would still be accepted (here on gc.com).

 

Your way of reasoning might apply to everyday reasoning of many people who have problems with correct logic reasoning - it does not to me. A common practice of doing something and certains guidelines are not definitions. It was you who came up with the term definition, not me.

 

Cezanne

Edited June 11, 2010 by cezanne

[+StarBrand]

...Your way of reasoning might apply to everyday reasoning of many people who have problems with correct logic reasoning - it does not to me. A common practice of doing something and certains guidelines are not definitions. It was you who came up with the term definition, not me.

 

Cezanne

....nice - classic even - attack the messenger when you cannot attack the message. Best of luck with your campaign - count me in as a 'NO' vote.

[cezanne]

In Waymarking, a location can be listed in multiple categories. You could have the same site listed both as an EarthCache with a geology lesson involved and as a Place of Geologic Significance, with much less required.

 

I have already been familiar with the way Waymarking is organized. I agree with you that some form of history cache analogue to the Earthcache idea could be established on Waymarking. I do not think, however, that Waymarking is really well suited for such a concept - at least not in the way I would like to see the concept implemented. Actually, already the possibilities for selecting caches at gc.com are quite limited in comparison to what modern data base searches would allow. The way searches are done on Waymarking is even less conforming to my personal expectations which are certainly different from a typical user of gc.com who appears to quite content with what PQs offer in combination with doing all the important work separately at home with GSAK. I'd like to see SQL-like queries and a much more convenient categorization for both caches and waymarks directly available at the site. I do know, however, that a system in the way I would like it to see will never be implemented.

 

Back to the original topic. While I am interested into history, I am not that fanatic about history that I feel that history caches would need their own category (regardless of here). I rather would like to have the possibility to set up educational caches which deal with several subjects at the same time without having them to assign to different groups. In this way, I also do not like at all the approach Waymarking is using.

Instead of categories, I rather would like to see something like attributes.

 

Back in 2003 when virtual caches have not yet been abolished, I have set up a virtual cache that

might be a good example of the type of virtual caches with educational stress I have a preference for.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...cb-b07e5baad7f6

 

The cache has a history background (but not only - other topics like religion and others play a role as well) and is quite different from the typical virtual caches of the early times I know in the US which in most cases lead the visitor to a single location and mainly deal with showing a location. I think that this latter concept of virtual caches much better fits into the Waymarking concept than my preferred concept. I would not search for an object like my virtual cache I mentioned above on a data base like Waymarking and even if such an object existed there, it would be hard to search for such objects there systematically given the way how Waymarking is designed.

 

Cezanne

Edited June 11, 2010 by cezanne

[cezanne]

...Your way of reasoning might apply to everyday reasoning of many people who have problems with correct logic reasoning - it does not to me. A common practice of doing something and certains guidelines are not definitions. It was you who came up with the term definition, not me.

 

Cezanne

....nice - classic even - attack the messenger when you cannot attack the message. Best of luck with your campaign - count me in as a 'NO' vote.

 

I did not attack you and do not have any reason for doing so. If you felt attacked, I am sorry. Maybe my training and work as mathematician makes me react more angrily if someone misuses the term definition.

What I tried to say with my statement that you came up with the term definition and not me, is that I actually was surprised that you used this quite strong term without any need for doing so. As geocaching is not a science, noone requires that the concept of a geocache necessarily needs to be defined. If one talks, however, about a definition, then I feel the need to use the term in a more precise way than you did. Maybe I now managed to explain my message better. English is not my native language and I typed my text while being busy with some other stuff.

 

For the sake of demonstration, suppose that someone sets up a list of numbers and claims that his list is a list of only even numbers. While he certainly can add three to his list for certain reasons, the list will neither be any longer a list of even numbers nor will the concept of a even number be changed by that person's actions.

 

Moreover, I am not part of any campaign. I wrote that I am convinced that Groundspeak will not set up history caches. Likewise I am aware of the fact that Groundspeak will not introduce new classes of containerless caches. That said, I still have my own preferences of which types of caches I would be interested into.

That will be true for you and any other participant of this discussion as well.

 

I hope that this reply cleared out your feeling of being attacked.

 

Cezanne

Edited June 11, 2010 by cezanne

[+Chiefy268]

I have looked and I can not find reasosns why this can not be a viable idea, if people keep working and come up with new ideas we will continue to progress. Are you saying that the set standard of Geocache types we have now will be all there ever is? We are only 10 years into our great activity you can not say we are done progressing in any aspect of the activity. Look at baseball it is a sport that continues to progress, they now allow video replay to check if a ball was fair or foul, and they have been playing for hundreds of years, and the technology has been around for quite some time and just until recently they have allowed it.

Start here for some history of what happened with virtual cache, how the concept of geocaching was refined over the years, and why Waymarking was developed as a place for ideas like history caches.

 

I'm not saying that a history cache category on Geocaching.com can never happen. If TPTB saw a benefit to having it they might do another experiment like they did with EarthCaches. However, they now have a website where such ideas are much easier to pursue. You have eliminated discussion of this other site in your original post, so I suppose you have looked there are there are things you don't like about it. Perhaps working to change things on that site to your liking would be a more productive use of your time. But feel free to tilt at windmills if you must.

 

Just popping back in here...

 

I had created this discussion to avoid the whole "Well that is why there is Waymarking"

 

I created this discussion to come up with a more proactive way of getting rid of the "Bring back Virtuals" fight, becuase clearly the whole Waymarking thing is not on overly popular answer.

 

As to why I do not spend time working on Waymarking.com is becuase I am not a Waymarker I am a Geocacher and I feel my time should be spent on something I enjoy and love.

 

I have also noticed that you gave me a link to another discussion on brining back Virtuals and refrenced one of your posts. Now I looked at your account and it does not appear as though you are a member of the Groundspeak staff, your write up may be accurate, or it may not. Is there any official write up on why Virtuals will never come back from the administrators?

 

Also this thread is designed not to be a "Bring back Virtual" thread, far from.

 

Why can we not discuss possible ways of getting rid of the BBV fight and do something more proactive?

[+BruceS]

 

As to why I do not spend time working on Waymarking.com is becuase I am not a Waymarker I am a Geocacher and I feel my time should be spent on something I enjoy and love.

 

I have also noticed that you gave me a link to another discussion on brining back Virtuals and refrenced one of your posts. Now I looked at your account and it does not appear as though you are a member of the Groundspeak staff, your write up may be accurate, or it may not. Is there any official write up on why Virtuals will never come back from the administrators?

 

 

 

I think this thread will answer your question about them coming back.

[jholly]

 

As to why I do not spend time working on Waymarking.com is becuase I am not a Waymarker I am a Geocacher and I feel my time should be spent on something I enjoy and love.

 

I have also noticed that you gave me a link to another discussion on brining back Virtuals and refrenced one of your posts. Now I looked at your account and it does not appear as though you are a member of the Groundspeak staff, your write up may be accurate, or it may not. Is there any official write up on why Virtuals will never come back from the administrators?

 

 

 

I think this thread will answer your question about them coming back.

 

I especially liked this post. I think that underlines the problem you have on your hands introducing a dressed up virtual called a historycache. But, if you wish, have fun.

[+Chiefy268]

 

As to why I do not spend time working on Waymarking.com is becuase I am not a Waymarker I am a Geocacher and I feel my time should be spent on something I enjoy and love.

 

I have also noticed that you gave me a link to another discussion on brining back Virtuals and refrenced one of your posts. Now I looked at your account and it does not appear as though you are a member of the Groundspeak staff, your write up may be accurate, or it may not. Is there any official write up on why Virtuals will never come back from the administrators?

 

 

 

I think this thread will answer your question about them coming back.

 

So what I can gather is that it was hard to manage Virtuals, and that Virtuals would be a very difficult thing to take care of in the publication process, but in my second or third post I had created a set of guidelines that are based off the Earthcache guidelines that would make it very similar to Earthcaches.

 

The second thing I found with that thread was the last post was

 

There's no plan to return virtual caches to geocaching.com. Thanks for your feedback.

 

Closing this thread.

 

Its like black bagging, getting rid of things you dont want to see, here or recognize. I am fully aware that there is a Waymarking website, but I dont think Groundspeak relizes that a vast majority of cachers do not agree with the whole "Head over to Waymarking.com!" mentality.

 

However that is not the point of this thread, I dont want Virtuals brought back. I like the elusivness of the Virtual, I am here to get a new cache type that will end the BBV fight, and will satisfy the need for a cache type that does not need a container, but does have to go through stingent guidelines so it will not end up being every McDonalds you walk by.

[+BruceS]

 

However that is not the point of this thread, I dont want Virtuals brought back. I like the elusivness of the Virtual, I am here to get a new cache type that will end the BBV fight, and will satisfy the need for a cache type that does not need a container, but does have to go through stingent guidelines so it will not end up being every McDonalds you walk by.

 

Well actually you do want virtuals back... you just want want to call them something else. They are still virtual caches no matter what you might want to disguise the name as. There really is nothing elusive about virtuals, nostalgia maybe but I have been around long enough to remember the virtuals were viewed with the loathing that many view micros now.

 

It appears that you think that Waymarking is all about McDonalds... well there are currently over a quarter million Waymarks and less than 2,400 are McDonalds or less than 1%. Now there are over 50,000 history waymarks and another 35,000+ buildings many of which are also historic. Add to that nearly 23,000 monuments again many of which are related to historical events.

[+tozainamboku]

Its like black bagging, getting rid of things you dont want to see, here or recognize. I am fully aware that there is a Waymarking website, but I dont think Groundspeak relizes that a vast majority of cachers do not agree with the whole "Head over to Waymarking.com!" mentality.

 

I think you miss the point. TPTB determined that a cache is a physical container with a log to sign. If there is not container hidden, it doesn't matter how interesting the place is or how educational the write up. It is not a geocache. The Waymarking site was designed to allow the creation of categories that could handle concepts like "interesting place" or "educational requirement".

 

True many Waymarking categories are mundane. There is in fact a category just to report the coordinates of McDonalds restaurants. But there are also many Historical categories and several of these have requirements that they contain accurate descriptions of the historical events. They can have questions to be answered to confirm you visited the site. When Waymarking was first rolled out there was even an EarthCache category, run by EarthCache.org that had requirements identical to what EarthCaches had at the time on Geocaching.com. The plan was to move all EarthCaches to Waymarking.

 

EarthCaches were not moved and continue to exist on Geocaching.com for reasons that we can only guess at. I have seen some posts from people who would know better than me that perhaps EarthCache.org was able to tell Jeremy that he had promised EarthCaches be listed on Geoaching.com. EarthCaches existed before Waymarking and they were listed on Geocaching as part of an agreement between Grounspeak and EarthCache.org. and this agreement may have stated that EarthCaches would be listed on Geocaching.com

 

I certainly can see that an organization of historians, could propose a History Cache concept to Groundspeak modeled after EarthCaches. And given Groundspeaks record to support educational activities involving GPS usage, they could very well accept such a proposal. However, Groundspeak is likely to want to use Waymarking as the platform for such a project since they have determined that a geocache is a physical container. Other types of caches only exist for historical reasons when these ideas were experimented with at a time when Waymarking did not yet exist. Unlike others, I wouldn't rule out completely that History Caches might be hosted on Geocaching.com. But it is very unlikely.

 

If you are proposing History Caches as new idea to support history education, then by all means work on this proposal (and be prepared to accept it being implemented on Waymarking). If instead this is just a thinly veiled attempt to bring back virtuals on Geocaching.com, don't expect it to get very far.

[cezanne]

However, Groundspeak is likely to want to use Waymarking as the platform for such a project since they have determined that a geocache is a physical container. Other types of caches only exist for historical reasons when these ideas were experimented with at a time when Waymarking did not yet exist.

 

Sorry that I am insisting on something not connected with history caches. Do you really think that event caches and CITOs would have set up on Waymarking if that site has existed already when these two types had set up? I do not think so.

 

By the way, instead of the formulation "has determined that a geocache is a physical container" I rather would like to read "has decided to list new caches only if there is a physical container, except for the known exceptions they could not get rid of for certain reasons". I am not pro the old concept of virtual caches, one of the reasons being that even more lame and boring caches would result than we have know, but I feel that as geocaching is not owned by a certain person or company, no individual can define what geocaching is. Of course, it makes sense to refer to users of Waymarking as geocachers, but users of other caching sites that still list container-less caches according to their concept, are geocachers as well. geocaching is nothing that defines itself via Groundspeak's geocaching site (although it is the largest such site and also the one I use predominantly).

 

I certainly can see that an organization of historians, could propose a History Cache concept to Groundspeak modeled after EarthCaches. And given Groundspeaks record to support educational activities involving GPS usage, they could very well accept such a proposal.

 

That might well be the case, but if placed on Waymarking Groundspeak will most surely not use the name historic cache, and then one cannot talk about historic caches. Moreover, if placed on Waymarking such a concept will reach in most countries considerably less people than by setting up a virtual caches on one of the smaller caching sites. In my country, e.g. Waymarking almost no one cares about Waymarking .

Have a look at this

http://www.Waymarking.com/wm/search.aspx?f....446483&t=6

- this is the result page of a search for all waymarks with the centre of Graz as midd point.

Even on some of the minority caching sites, there is much more to find.

Waymarking may well be an activity of attraction for many people (mainly outside of Europe), but it is certainly not something quite differently structured and organized than all geocaching sites I know.

 

Moreover, I believe that Groundspeak would accept a proposal for an analogue to Earthcaches on the historic side only if the educational effort is directed to the majority. Already the Earthcache guidelines requier (though fortunately this is not checked and not enforced) that the description should be at the level of a 14-year old. I do not appreciate such requirements. There are also no requirements how difficult puzzles may be which are integrated into caches. So I rather would like to decide the audience myself.

 

Cezanne

Edited June 12, 2010 by cezanne

[+BruceS]

 

That might well be the case, but if placed on Waymarking Groundspeak will most surely not use the name historic cache, and then one cannot talk about historic caches. Moreover, if placed on Waymarking such a concept will reach in most countries considerably less people than by setting up a virtual caches on one of the smaller caching sites. In my country, e.g. Waymarking almost no one cares about Waymarking .

Have a look at this

http://www.Waymarking.com/wm/search.aspx?f....446483&t=6

- this is the result page of a search for all waymarks with the centre of Graz as midd point.

Even on some of the minority caching sites, there is much more to find.

Waymarking may well be an activity of attraction for many people (mainly outside of Europe), but it is certainly not something quite differently structured and organized than all geocaching sites I know.

 

 

You seem to think your area is indicative of all of Europe yet I can show you several areas where Waymarking has substantial activity including Prague , Amsterdam, and London. Each of these areas have thousands of waymarks within 100 miles.

 

Yes Waymarking is structured differently than geocaching because a different structure and organization was needed to support the diversity in the types of waymarks.

[+Markwell]

From reading the posts and trying to be objective, what I think I'm hearing is that you'd like something integrated into the Geocaching.com site that shows you neat hidden places posted by others. You're asking for something historical in nature.

 

But if other people want neat places that aren't necessarily historical - say something modern like the glass boxes on the side of the Sears Willis Tower or something architecturally significant like a Frank Lloyd Wright house or something equally helpful to the tourist, then it might be a good to allow those categories too. Take it to the furthest extreme and you might be addicted to Starbucks Venti Caramel Macchiato, wouldn't it be a "helpful" site if they allowed people to give the coordinates of the best Starbucks around? With this line of thinking, I don't know if I want to clutter up Geocaching.com with these sites. It's going to need some separate development like categories and being able to like/dislike categories, etc.

 

Starting to sound familiar?

 

I think the biggest problem is that people aren't going over to Waymarking because of the complexities of the site and the low number of locations as opposed to geocaches, and the lack of some of the features like pocket queries, etc.

 

But I will ask Chiefy268 and cezanne a scenario to consider:

...if there's a Waymarking category of little known historical locations

...if those locations and logs did not display the details of the location

...if your favorite category (little known historical locations) of Waymarking was accessible by a click on the geocaching.com/my page

...if you could get a pocket query of this category of locations with a GPX

...if there were enough locations entered into the list of locations to make it a meaningful search in the area (whatever that means - 20 in a 10 mile radius in a populated area?)

 

Would that fit the bill?

 

 

Since I'm not a moderator in this portion of the forum I will also express one of my own personal opinions: I believe Earthcaches are a huge mistake. People hang their hat on Earthcaches as a possibility that box-less locations might be listed on Geocaching.com. I also believe it's a mistake to increase people's find-counts for Events, Mega Events and CITO Events. While acquiescing to the masses, when they take a hard line stance on virtuals, people get all agnsty because there's really not that much difference.

[cezanne]

Take it to the furthest extreme and you might be addicted to Starbucks Venti Caramel Macchiato, wouldn't it be a "helpful" site if they allowed people to give the coordinates of the best Starbucks around?

With this line of thinking, I don't know if I want to clutter up Geocaching.com with these sites.

 

I fully agree with you. I am already tired of the many physical caches at places of the type you mentioned, and I certainly would not like to see gc.com cluttered up with these sites.

 

Although I am missing well-done virtual caches that are interesting for me, I am glad that gc.com has

abolished virtual caches as there is no reasonable system to keep control of the number and quality of virtual caches (apart from the problem of lacking criteria).

 

I believe Earthcaches are a huge mistake. People hang their hat on Earthcaches as a possibility that box-less locations might be listed on Geocaching.com.

 

Though I enjoy nicely done Earthcaches, I share your opinion. Given the manner how Waymarking is structured and designed, I would, however, have rather liked to see Earthcaches on a separate place.

It need not be the database of gc.com, but I do not feel that they really fit amidst all the crumble at Waymarking. They can somehow squeezed into the concept, but not in a elegant and nice way.

 

I also believe it's a mistake to increase people's find-counts for Events, Mega Events and CITO Events.

 

Again agreed. It would also lead to a much more consistent design.

 

I think the biggest problem is that people aren't going over to Waymarking because of the complexities of the site and the low number of locations as opposed to geocaches, and the lack of some of the features like pocket queries, etc.

 

These reasons certainly belong to some of the key reasons, but they are not the only one.

Two of the main drawbacks of Waymarking in my point of view is that instead of being able to

attach several labels to a waymark designed by myself (e.g. history, architecture, music, less known location and many others - also in combinations no one else wants to use) I need to assign a waymark to a certain category. This does not fit well my way of thinking

and designing "caches" (with or without container).

 

Moreover, I feel that the Waymarking site has been designed with single locations in mind. Of course, there exist categories like nice hiking trails etc, but the waypoint management system is not well suitable for

proposing trails. Caches with several question to answer stages, where the next waypoint is to

be determined via something which can be found at the current waypoint (as in question to answer stages)

do not really fit well the Waymarking concept.

 

 

 

But I will ask Chiefy268 and cezanne a scenario to consider:

...if there's a Waymarking category of little known historical locations

...if those locations and logs did not display the details of the location

...if your favorite category (little known historical locations) of Waymarking was accessible by a click on the geocaching.com/my page

...if you could get a pocket query of this category of locations with a GPX

...if there were enough locations entered into the list of locations to make it a meaningful search in the area (whatever that means - 20 in a 10 mile radius in a populated area?)

 

Would that fit the bill?

 

As a visitor to waymarks this would not be preferred way (for the reasons mentioned above), but one that would most probably motivate me to become active in visiting waymarks. A prerequisite would, however, be that there are more categories with no photo requirements. I find it annoying to carry along a camera on my bicycle trips.

 

As a creator of waymarks, the above would not be sufficient for me to motivate to do the work involved

and I rather would propose my idea as virtual cache on some site where virtual caches still exist (as these sites do not have so many users as gc.com, they do not suffer from the same sort of trouble caused my masses of virtual caches that gc.com suffered from).

 

There is another issue that rather keeps me away from regarding Waymarking as a serious option for me, namely the chaotic way new categories are set up and names (with no central control and coordination).

This leads to categories like cycling routes

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx...8dc411&st=2

which have nothing in common with what I would expend to find there when searching for this term/category.

 

Cezanne

Edited June 14, 2010 by cezanne

[+Chiefy268]

I am going with no, becuase I have had a few attempts at the Waymarking website and I just find it way to cumbersome to use, and the Geocaching website I have become accustomed to and I find it very easy to use.

 

Maybe when it becomes easier I may try Waymarking again, but until then I continue with the suggestion of a Historycache.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Historycache, Lets stop the bring back Virtual fight!

 

I think instead of brining back Virtuals we could all work together to bring a new cache type into being. So it keeps the Virtual elusive and I think that is what some people enjoy about the Virtuals as well.

 

There is no fight. There is discussion from time to time about attaching smileys to more boxless listings.

 

Generally when people address this, the thread veers off into Earthcaches, or Waymarking.

 

You've gone the Earthcaches route, proposing that "we could all work together...." to create another boxless cache, the Historycache.

 

Earthcaches were not the result of the forums, or any group of cachers "working together." They were the brainchild of GSA, who instituted them, and brought the idea to Groundspeak.

 

I suppose it's possible that if a well developed cache type, largely supported, defined and reviewed by another agency were created, that Groundspeak might choose to list them.

 

I suppose it's possible that Virtual caches will come back too.

 

I do think that the number of people with gps enabled devices may start to drive the creation of new more specialized websites. That HistoryCaches.com could be entirely its own site, not attached to any Groundspeak site, and do okay that way too.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Isonzo Karst