Groundspeak Definition of Earth Science is Too Restrictive!

[+DragonflyTotem]

I believe that the current Groundspeak definition of what is or is not Earth Science for the purpose of approving an EC is too restrictive. After discussing this with Geoaware and another EC reviewer, I started a thread in the feedback section related to asking for a change to that definition:

 

Feedback Topic

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I believe that the current Groundspeak definition of what is or is not Earth Science for the purpose of approving an EC is too restrictive. After discussing this with Geoaware and another EC reviewer, I started a thread in the feedback section related to asking for a change to that definition:

 

Feedback Topic

I will not re-post my response here (I answered your feedback post), but I don't think GS pulled the definition of earth science out of the air. All reviewers are/were appointed by Geoaware and answer to him regarding approvals or turn downs of ECs!

I believe the current guidelines or definitions specific to earthcaches didn't originate with Groundspeak.

[+geodarts]

I have read the previous thread and am aware that geoaware stated that Groundspeak uses a more restrictive definition than the GSA, but for the purpose of the feedback section it would help of either you or geoaware could clarify the differences.

 

I realize that you want a definition that would include your proposed earthcache. But as I quoted in the other thread, there is material on the earthcache site that would seemingly permit a wide range of topics as long as they include the underlying geology. Perhaps I am confused because earthcaches in my area have ranged from wind power to human made retention ponds, with some basic geology that was apparently enough to get them approved.

 

So it's hard to give feedback without knowing the specific standard you want included.

Edited August 23, 2010 by mulvaney

[+Touchstone]

Posted my reply

 

Although I'm not supportive of your idea, I think it's an interesting topic worth exploring.

[+DragonflyTotem]

I have read the previous thread and am aware that geoaware stated that Groundspeak uses a more restrictive definition than the GSA, but for the purpose of the feedback section it would help of either you or geoaware could clarify the differences.

 

I realize that you want a definition that would include your proposed earthcache. But as I quoted in the other thread, there is material on the earthcache site that would seemingly permit a wide range of topics as long as they include the underlying geology. Perhaps I am confused because earthcaches in my area have ranged from wind power to human made retention ponds, with some basic geology that was apparently enough to get them approved.

 

So it's hard to give feedback without knowing the specific standard you want included.

 

I understand that...but it's equally difficult to try to discuss the "what" about the proposed cache without trying to make it any more or any less than it is. Compounded of course because we have no easy way to share a cache that hasn't yet been published.

 

The gist of it though is what I'd said in the feedback thread:

"A basic definition that I found for "environmental geology" was: "Environmental geology involves the practical application of the principles of geology in the solving of problems in the environment" including the management of "geological and hydrological resources such as surface water and ground water and land use."

 

As a landform, a salt marsh is directly impacted by both the biology and the ecology. The health of a salt marsh impacts its life span, and this one has been reduced from some 3,000 acres to the last remaining 100 acres. The biology -- the plants are what keep it alive, so you need to discuss how the presence of fresh water plants are a warning sign of the impending geological changes (degradation leading to further reduction in size), and the ecology of it -- because a marsh that is a watershed unto itself, serving as an aquifer is then a significant impactor of the hydrology cycle. And it is all of that which I discuss in the cache description.

 

The big hang-up I believe is because of the fact that although a salt marsh is a landform, it is different from other landforms....the regular changes it does or doesn't go through impact its future geological makeup. But all of that is squarely within the realm of environmental geology, and I've had some long conversations with some folks in that area. But that is a specific part of geology....and I think that those with a background in conventional geology are perhaps unfamiliar with environmental geology, where (as I've been told) the management of "geological and hydrological resources such as surface water and ground water and land use" is very much about biology and ecology.

 

Not sure if any of the above is furthering the discussion or the understanding of the issues though.

[+geodarts]

Perhaps geoaware would be a better person to answer this.

 

I realize that you want to include "environmental geology" as part of earthcaching. But do you know in what ways Groundspeak specifically differs from the GSA's definition for earth sciences. I know that geoaware has stated that it is more restrictive, but I am curious about what the wider definition might entail.

 

The teachers guide at earthcache.org states that earthcache "sites can provide information on a wide range of landforms, vegetation, and rock strata to climate, soil types, population distribution, or human impacts on the landscape. The possibilities are limitless, provided they offer some nugget of information about a particular place and the land that lies beneath it." Some of the earthcaches I have seen certainly take this approach and make geology secondary (although still present).

 

Has this been limited by Groundspeak? Do you have a definition that you propose that earthcaching adopt in place of the one that now is in effect? If you want a less restrictive definition, then what is it that should be applied, what standard should earthcaching use?

 

In other words, the broader question is not whether your particular cache meets the guidelines, but what guidelines should be in place that would encompass your proposed cache.

Edited August 23, 2010 by mulvaney

[+DragonflyTotem]

Perhaps geoaware would be a better person to answer this.

 

I realize that you want to include "environmental geology" as part of earthcaching. But do you know in what ways Groundspeak specifically differs from the GSA's definition for earth sciences. I know that geoaware has stated that it is more restrictive, but I am curious about what the wider definition might entail.

 

The teachers guide at earthcache.org states that earthcache "sites can provide information on a wide range of landforms, vegetation, and rock strata to climate, soil types, population distribution, or human impacts on the landscape. The possibilities are limitless, provided they offer some nugget of information about a particular place and the land that lies beneath it." Some of the earthcaches I have seen certainly take this approach and make geology secondary (although still present).

 

Has this been limited by Groundspeak? Do you have a definition that you propose that earthcaching adopt in place of the one that now is in effect? If you want a less restrictive definition, then what is it that should be applied, what standard should earthcaching use?

 

In other words, the broader question is not whether your particular cache meets the guidelines, but what guidelines should be in place that would encompass your proposed cache.

 

Yes, Geoaware should probably answer most of this...but to me, if the definition is supposed to include "landforms" then you have to include something like a salt marsh because that is one of the examples given when defining a landform. And a salt marsh is impacted by both the biology and the ecology as an estuary (also a landform). The health of the salt marsh as it contributes to an aquifer through infiltration impacts the hydrologic cycle. All of which seem to fit within the teachers guide, but which are for the purpose of an EC too much biology and ecology. The teacher's guide as I understand it, doesn't fit the definition now in use as half of what is there isn't included.

[+Touchstone]

The big hang-up I believe....

 

Actually I'm not sure you do understand the hang up or not I find it very difficult to believe that an Earthcache, as it is currently defined, is geographically restrictive. Seriously! We are surrounded by Geology or evidence of past Geologic forces. Literally surrounded! The only limitation, as I understand it, is the restriction not to duplicate Earth Science Lessons that are covered in nearby Earthcache Listings.

 

When it comes right down to it, it sounds like you submitted a Listing that was not within the spirit of the Guidelines, or if you will, the "definition" of what an Earthcache should be.

 

So instead of working with the EC Reviewer to address their concerns, you've decided to come to the Forums to support a change in what is acceptable material for an Earthcache Listing? That sounds like a serious uphill battle my friend.

 

I could be wrong, but I think the more expeditious route would be to work with the EC Reviewer to bring your submission in compliance with the current Guidelines.

 

Great debate all the same, but I don't think it's going to help get your Listing Published.

[+DragonflyTotem]

The big hang-up I believe....

 

Actually I'm not sure you do understand the hang up or not I find it very difficult to believe that an Earthcache, as it is currently defined, is geographically restrictive. Seriously! We are surrounded by Geology or evidence of past Geologic forces. Literally surrounded! The only limitation, as I understand it, is the restriction not to duplicate Earth Science Lessons that are covered in nearby Earthcache Listings.

 

When it comes right down to it, it sounds like you submitted a Listing that was not within the spirit of the Guidelines, or if you will, the "definition" of what an Earthcache should be.

 

So instead of working with the EC Reviewer to address their concerns, you've decided to come to the Forums to support a change in what is acceptable material for an Earthcache Listing? That sounds like a serious uphill battle my friend.

 

I could be wrong, but I think the more expeditious route would be to work with the EC Reviewer to bring your submission in compliance with the current Guidelines.

 

Great debate all the same, but I don't think it's going to help get your Listing Published.

 

No, you're misunderstanding the situation. I'm certainly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I've come to the forum with a respectful attitude to discuss the very issues that the EC reviewers indicate are worth discussing. Frankly I resent your condescending tone and take what you've decided to sling as a ad hominem attack. I'm shocked that you would do that, especially without even having an adequate understanding of the facts.

 

I submitted a site and one EC reviewer rejected that. I asked questions for further explanation because what I submitted seems to be included in the GSA definition of "earth science" and was told that the environmental geology aspects are not included in the Groundspeak definition of "earth science." When I asked for additional information it got sent to Geoaware. Geoaware stated that based on the Groundspeak definition of earth science that the cache could not be approved AND he stated that the the Groundspeak definition didn't match the GSA definition AND that the GSA definition was less restrictive.

 

It isn't a question of addressing their concerns, they said that it was that the current definition excluded the things that I wanted to address. And just so that you know (since you clearly do not), I also discussed with Gary about going through a formal appeal process but his response was that based on the current Groundspeak definition that he couldn't approve the cache. And it was through that discussion that the thought was discussed about tossing the Groundspeak definition around for discussion. I have exchanged quite a few emails with the EC reviewers about this, and am even continuing to do so now.

 

And for the record, the EC reviewers have actually thanked me for the "courteous manner in which I stated my objections" as we've carried out our dialog.

 

Regardless of what you "find difficult to believe" the fact is that in discussing this cache with the EC reviewers it was stated that other ECs existing in the region which emphasize the same environmental geological aspects should NOT have been approved (even though they have been approved after the guidelines change).

[+Touchstone]

My apologies if I've misread the intent of this topic, but it did seem to start out as a general discussion on the merit of expanding the definition of Earthcaches, but shifted to something more specific to your submission.

 

You are indeed correct that I do not have all the information and I'll graciously concede, that to your specific situation I can only conjecture. However I will stand by the statement that debating the rejection of a submission on the Forums rarely has a positive outcome.

 

I'll defer to the EC Reviewer and to the GSA on points of Policy, as they tend to look at hundreds of submissions, and tend to know what is within the spirit of the Guidelines.

 

I will also defer to Groundspeak on decisions on what they feel is best for Geocaching in general, as they have dealt with literally millions of submissions and after more than ten years, probably have a pretty good idea what is going to work and what is not.

 

Expanding the defintion of Earthcaches? I'm not so keen on. Expanding cache types to include more scientific categories? I can get behind that sort of idea.

[+geoaware]

I am sorry, but at no time have I ever said that Environmental geology is not in the definition.

 

It is biology /ecology based sites do not meet the Earth science guideline. EC submission that are principally about biology/ecology should not be published. If you have a submission rejected because of this, you should go and either beef up the Earth science (physical landforms/geology etc) component, or accept the ruling and move on.

 

The guideline says :

EarthCache sites must provide Earth science lessons. They take people to sites that can help explain the formation of landscapes or to sites of interesting phenomena such as folds, faults, intrusions or reveal how scientists understand our Earth (such as fossil sites etc.)

 

If you submission provides a biology/ecology lesson it will not be published.

 

If you would really like to see a biology based 'earthcache-like' category, I would suggest that you approach a scientific organization who would be willing to fund and administer the program at an international level and have them contact Groundspeak. I, for one, would welcome that move and would be delighted to help a 'fellow society' work through the process.

[+cincol]

..........................>>

If you would really like to see a biology based 'earthcache-like' category, I would suggest that you approach a scientific organization who would be willing to fund and administer the program at an international level and have them contact Groundspeak. I, for one, would welcome that move and would be delighted to help a 'fellow society' work through the process.

 

WOW - I love this! I will be a great supporter of "EcoCaches" or "BioCaches" alongside EarthCaches. Anything that will make our great sport more educational and informative. Come on guys, let's drum up some support for something along these lines!

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

..........................>>

If you would really like to see a biology based 'earthcache-like' category, I would suggest that you approach a scientific organization who would be willing to fund and administer the program at an international level and have them contact Groundspeak. I, for one, would welcome that move and would be delighted to help a 'fellow society' work through the process.

 

WOW - I love this! I will be a great supporter of "EcoCaches" or "BioCaches" alongside EarthCaches. Anything that will make our great sport more educational and informative. Come on guys, let's drum up some support for something along these lines!

 

It seems to me that you led the 'fight' to allow TBs to be recorded in ECs so I will follow your lead a second the motion. Rather than another society, I believe all that would be needed is to redefine what is an earthcache toward a more broad definition of earth science. Maybe ECs should have been called Geologycaches or something similar!

P.S. If it wasn't already taken, the term earthcache would have been good, but what do I know? All I have is a degree in biological sciences!

[+Manville Possum]

I like the idea of the ecocache, and would support it if it were educational. No flames please, I am ignorant to the fact why GSA must approve EarthCaches to be listed on the GC site? Can someone explain in a simple and civil manner so that I may better understand these issues?

[+geodarts]

I like the idea of the ecocache, and would support it if it were educational. No flames please, I am ignorant to the fact why GSA must approve EarthCaches to be listed on the GC site? Can someone explain in a simple and civil manner so that I may better understand these issues?

 

I am always willing to interject speculation into something I have no direct knowledge about. So if I was to hazard a guess (which I guess I am doing), then I think it is because earthcaches have a special educational function. The GSA came to Groundspeak and they worked together as partners to develop earthcaching. At the time, Groundspeak saw earthcaches as part of its commitment to education. Therefore, rather than have the normal reviewers look over listings, it was reasonable that the GSA use its expertise to ensure that the educational component is met, that the geological information is accurate, and that proposed listing is in keeping with the special nature and guidelines that are part of earthcaching. If I were a reviewer, with little knowledge of earth science, without the GSA, every rock (or every granite kitchen countertop) might be an earthcache and the geology might be all over the place.

 

A regular reviewer told me that he was grateful he did not have to approve earthcache listings. So perhaps that is another consideration.

 

Geoaware's suggestion that another organization make a similar arrangement with Groundspeak is a good one. There has been some interest in developing "history caches" and I have wondered if Groundspeak would be more favorable to the idea if a historical association approached them and developed a focused, educational task-based approach (as did the GSA). If my career path had taken a different turn, I might have been able to find out.

 

Perhaps there are cachers associated with other disciplines and organizations that could make Groundspeak an offer. It seems more educational if the people backing the project have particular expertise in an established field (somehow I do not see Groundspeak approving cryptozoology, although one of my best caches is about Bigfoot).

Edited August 24, 2010 by mulvaney

[+BeccaDay]

I think that the rules are restrictive too but that is because they are supposed to teach about geology, not all branches of science. I had misunderstood this until just recently. Considering that this is how the program was set up, you can hardly blame them for being restrictive. I think what we need is another classification, one for life sciences. OK, now who wants to start this adventure? :-)

[+Manville Possum]

I like the idea of the ecocache, and would support it if it were educational. No flames please, I am ignorant to the fact why GSA must approve EarthCaches to be listed on the GC site? Can someone explain in a simple and civil manner so that I may better understand these issues?

 

I am always willing to interject speculation into something I have no direct knowledge about. So if I was to hazard a guess (which I guess I am doing), then I think it is because earthcaches have a special educational function. The GSA came to Groundspeak and they worked together as partners to develop earthcaching. At the time, Groundspeak saw earthcaches as part of its commitment to education. Therefore, rather than have the normal reviewers look over listings, it was reasonable that the GSA use its expertise to ensure that the educational component is met, that the geological information is accurate, and that proposed listing is in keeping with the special nature and guidelines that are part of earthcaching. If I were a reviewer, with little knowledge of earth science, without the GSA, every rock (or every granite kitchen countertop) might be an earthcache and the geology might be all over the place.

 

A regular reviewer told me that he was grateful he did not have to approve earthcache listings. So perhaps that is another consideration.

 

Geoaware's suggestion that another organization make a similar arrangement with Groundspeak is a good one. There has been some interest in developing "history caches" and I have wondered if Groundspeak would be more favorable to the idea if a historical association approached them and developed a focused, educational task-based approach (as did the GSA). If my career path had taken a different turn, I might have been able to find out.

 

Perhaps there are cachers associated with other disciplines and organizations that could make Groundspeak an offer. It seems more educational if the people backing the project have particular expertise in an established field (somehow I do not see Groundspeak approving cryptozoology, although one of my best caches is about Bigfoot).

That makes good sense to me, I can't blame GSA for being strict if they are going to be involved in reviewing EarthCaches. I really like the idea of "History Caches". Those are the kind we enjoy most, I would love to see this happen, and a new Histroy Cache attribute. Geoaware made a great suggestion.