New Cache Type?

[+killrb14]

I was sitting on the famous Grassy Knoll Virtual Cache (GC3710) and it hit me, why not make a new cache type, one for Historical Caches.

 

Groundspeak stated Virtuals were taken off the field due Waymarking and to remove caches without a container. At the Grassy Knoll there were at least 4 other waymarks within feet of each other...all going against the common sense of the .1 mile rule. I know the adventures are not all about numbers, but about quality for most, so how about making a cache type for all those places containers cannot go.

 

Groundspeak would have the option to be creative and create a cool icon, like the Liberty Bell, Statue of Liberty, etc. As long as something can be verified of historical significance it would be legit and the numbers will count towards your Cache totals at the same time. An Earthcache, but for remembering history?

 

Your thoughts?

 

Please do not lock this down, let us see what others really think?

 

Keep on Cachin!

[knowschad]

This has been discussed many times, particularily in the now exinct Website forum, and probably has been resurrected on the Get Satisfaction site since that forum has been shut down. I may be wrong, but I believe the most recent status said that they were considering it (or, more likely, an attribute)

Edited September 15, 2010 by knowschad

[GOF and Bacall]

Good luck with this. It has been debated seems like forever with no progress.

[+gorillagal]

How is this off topic?

[GOF and Bacall]

It's not off topic. Which makes it off topic. which...um...makes it on topic which...um...anyone got any aspirin?

[+doc68]

I immediately recognized the menitoning of the Grassy Knoll and had to go look it up both on gc.com and on the Waymarking. After looking there, I looked around my home area too. It is a bit odd to have the exact same place listed multiple times. I personally havent got into the waymarks myself either, and I FULLY support the bringing back of "Virtuals" or to do a new category as you mentioned. Simply Put... I think this is a GREAT IDEA!!!!.

 

I know others may complain saying this may be a dead horse, etc etc... But if it keeps being mentioned, maybe it is time to give it some SERIOUS consideration to bring back the virtuals. Put a poll out on Facebook, send out a survey to all registered users of gc.com, etc. See what the people think and if they would like to see the virtuals come out of hibernation.

 

Just had to drop my 2 cents worth. Maybe, just maybe.. I can start submitting some of my own virtuals in the near future.

[+WhoDis]

Isn't it off topic to ask how it's off topic instead of staying on topic?

[+cowpill]

I am just glad the "N" word wasn't brought up.

[+The Cheeseheads]

Excellent topic. Moving it to the correct forum...

[Pup Patrol]

Groundspeak would have the option to be creative and create a cool icon, like the Liberty Bell, Statue of Liberty, etc. As long as something can be verified of historical significance it would be legit and the numbers will count towards your Cache totals at the same time. An Earthcache, but for remembering history?

 

Your thoughts?

 

I'm thinking that the attributes listings should include something for "historical value".

 

Unique icons for each and every "historical" cache would be a bit much, no?

[+tozainamboku]

First of all, here's a

that explains why virtual caches have been grandfathered on Geocaching.com.

 

In Waymarking, categories are managed by premium members who join together in groups for this purpose. There is a lot of overlap between categories, since one location may be of interests to several groups. So there may be a Texas State Historic Marker category, a John F. Kennedy category, a infamous crime scene category, and a Municipal Parks and Plazas category - all for the Grassy Knoll or Dealy Plaza. In Waymarking there is no concept that a waymark in one category must be .1 miles from a waymark in another category. Two or more waymarks in different categories can be for the same place or object. In fact, the .1 mile separation doesn't even apply anymore to virtual geocaches. I someone wanted to hide a physical cache at the location of the Grassy Knoll virtual (assuming that they had adequate permission and that it is more than .1 from the nearest physical cache), they could do so today.

 

Qualification of an EarthCache is done by EarthCache reviewers following specific guidelines from the Geological Society of America. Deciding on whether something is truely historic is much more difficult then deciding if there is a object that can be used to impart a lesson about geology. Not only is the importance of the historical event subjective, there is also a question of just what there is to see there. Often there is nothing left to commerate the historic event except for a plaque or marker - and sometimes not even that. What needs to be at the location to justify a Historical (virtual) cache be placed there? One problem with virtual caches was the "wow" requirement where reviewers had to make a subjective decision as to whether the location had special historic, community, or geocaching quality that set it apart. The definitions of Historic caches I've seen so far have the same problem.

 

The main issue we have today is distinguishing a virtual cache from a waymark. If a virtual cache is nothing more than something that can be listed as a waymark on Waymarking.com it makes little sense to have them on Geocaching as well. (Despite the argument that Waymarking is harder to use, or that you can't easily get the coordinates for nearby waymarks when you get your PQ with physical geocaches. Those problems should be address by fixing Waymarking.) It may be that a virtual cache is fundamentally different than a waymark and a definition can be created to clearly make a distinction. For now, the best definition I've seen for a virtual cache would be a Waymarking category for "Places where I wanted to hide caches, but couldn't for some reason" But if you can find a good definition of virtual cache or historic cache that distinguishes these from waymarks and you might have an argument for havings these listed on Geocaching.com.

 

I do like the idea of an attribute cache owners can put on their physical caches to indicate the is in or near an historic location. This would be like the Scenic view attribute. It's up to the cache owner to decide if the historical aspect deserves an attribute or not.

[+DLSeeAmerica]

The biggest issue I can see is that the Waymarking site is extremely limited in usability when it comes to finding WayMarks. "Search in Google Maps" is missing, and that's the number one tool I use for finding caches. Being able to browse along a route and bookmark my choices would make me a much more frequent visitor to that site.

[+Chokecherry]

I really like the attribute idea as well.

[+StarBrand]

We should strictly define a geocache as some kind of container that is hidden somewhere.

 

A virtual cache of any kind is only the somewhere and therefore better suited to Waymarking.

[+geodarts]

There are proposals for historical virtual caches as well as virtuals on the feedback site.

 

I disagree with the idea that a virtual cache is best suited for Waymarking. Virtuals have enriched my experience as part of this game in innumerable ways -- particularly being the only way that this game can be played in areas like Bryce, Zion, Yosemite, or the Grand Canyon. I think that a history cache could be set up along the model as earthcaches, with a focused task and educational function.

 

But with that said, earthcaching was established because the Geological Society of America (GSA) came to Groundspeak and worked with them as partners. If a "historical cache" was to be implemented, a similar type of partnership would be needed to review and administer them. At some point, my career path took a turn and I did not end up being an historian, so all I can do now is to think it would be a great idea,

Edited September 15, 2010 by mulvaney

[+DLSeeAmerica]

The History Channel might be a cool partner for this. It would be fun to visit a site I'd seen explored on a show.

[GOF and Bacall]

Excellent topic. Moving it to the correct forum...

 

Thanks. You do good work.

[+narcissa]

Groundspeak would have the option to be creative and create a cool icon, like the Liberty Bell, Statue of Liberty, etc.

 

So, it's an American History cache type?

 

This comes up all the time, but I have yet to see anyone come forward with the backing of a major historical organization. Earthcaches are backed by the GSA.

[+narcissa]

We should strictly define a geocache as some kind of container that is hidden somewhere.

 

Why?

[+secondgunman]

I was sitting on the famous Grassy Knoll Virtual Cache (GC3710) and it hit me, why not make a new cache type, one for Historical Caches.

 

Grassy Knoll? What Grassy Knoll?

[Pup Patrol]

I forgot to mention that that is the reason I like the "historical" attribute...it's an international game.

 

I'm not sure why the discussion about virtuals/Waymarking came into this, I thought the thread was focussed on geocaches that fall under current Guidelines. At least, that's the way I read it, and responded to it.

[+dfx]

We should strictly define a geocache as some kind of container that is hidden somewhere.

Why?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cache

[+Cuddlefish]

I was sitting on the famous Grassy Knoll Virtual Cache (GC3710) and it hit me, why not make a new cache type, one for Historical Caches.

 

Groundspeak stated Virtuals were taken off the field due Waymarking and to remove caches without a container. At the Grassy Knoll there were at least 4 other waymarks within feet of each other...all going against the common sense of the .1 mile rule. I know the adventures are not all about numbers, but about quality for most, so how about making a cache type for all those places containers cannot go.

 

Groundspeak would have the option to be creative and create a cool icon, like the Liberty Bell, Statue of Liberty, etc. As long as something can be verified of historical significance it would be legit and the numbers will count towards your Cache totals at the same time. An Earthcache, but for remembering history?

 

Your thoughts?

 

Please do not lock this down, let us see what others really think?

 

Keep on Cachin!

 

Wow. Even this idea has history.

 

How about a new post icon for historical forum topics?

[+narcissa]

We should strictly define a geocache as some kind of container that is hidden somewhere.

Why?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cache

 

So it is your contention that geocaching needs to stick to a mainstream definition of the word "cache?"

 

Why?

 

Should we stop treating geocaching as a game, and just place actual caches of survival provisions then post them here? That would be more in keeping with the typical dictionary definition of "cache."

Edited September 16, 2010 by narcissa

[+dfx]

So it is your contention that geocaching needs to stick to a mainstream definition of the word "cache?"

 

Why?

seriously? are you suggesting that we make up our own language just so that "cache" can mean somethnig else?

[+narcissa]

So it is your contention that geocaching needs to stick to a mainstream definition of the word "cache?"

 

Why?

seriously? are you suggesting that we make up our own language just so that "cache" can mean somethnig else?

 

Words in English frequently acquire new definitions over time. That's what makes etymology so interesting.

 

The word "geocache" is a relatively new word. "Geocache" clearly has connotations that go well beyond a stash of survival provisions hidden at known GPS coordinates.

 

Should we stop treating geocaching as a game, and just place actual caches of survival provisions then post them here? That would be more in keeping with the dictionary definition of "cache."

 

Is this what you're suggesting?

[+dfx]

The word "geocache" is a relatively new word. "Geocache" clearly has connotations that go well beyond a stash of survival provisions hidden at known GPS coordinates.

 

Should we stop treating geocaching as a game, and just place actual caches of survival provisions then post them here? That would be more in keeping with the dictionary definition of "cache."

 

Is this what you're suggesting?

i don't know where you get the "survival provisions" part from. the word "cache" doesn't imply that meaning at all. as such, any other reply to your post would be pointless.

[+narcissa]

BTW, the purpose of a dictionary is to list current, generally accepted definitions of words. Dictionaries are not static. Words can be added and removed, and definitions are updated from one edition to the next. When a new word or a new definition for an old word is adopted by the mainstream, it gets added to the mainstream dictionaries.

 

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/08/19/chilla...dictionary-day/

[+narcissa]

 

i don't know where you get the "survival provisions" part from. the word "cache" doesn't imply that meaning at all. as such, any other reply to your post would be pointless.

 

In other words, you're unwilling or unable to explain why we should stick with the current definition of "cache" rather than allowing the definition of "geocache" to evolve in accordance with the geocaching community's understanding of the word.

 

I won't inflict the Oxford definition on you, because you likely don't have a membership at an academic library that would allow you to access that page.

 

Merriam-Webster, an adequate, if not highly academic, mainstream dictionary, does specify "provisions" in its definition.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/cache

[+dfx]

BTW, the purpose of a dictionary is to list current, generally accepted definitions of words. Dictionaries are not static. Words can be added and removed, and definitions are updated from one edition to the next. When a new word or a new definition for an old word is adopted by the mainstream, it gets added to the mainstream dictionaries.

ah, so you're acknowledging that "cache" really does mean a hidden store of things, or something physical in any case, but would rather like to have the meaning changed so that it also includes some sorts of non-physical things. well, that hasn't happened yet, and other than your arguing there also really isn't any reason for making it happen, so this is the answer to your "why" question from above.

 

of course now you're gonna say that the meaning has already changed, but that the dictionaries haven't caught up yet. sure, you can try to speak in another language than everybody else, but don't be surprised if people don't understand you then.

[+narcissa]

 

ah, so you're acknowledging that "cache" really does mean a hidden store of things, or something physical in any case, but would rather like to have the meaning changed so that it also includes some sorts of non-physical things. well, that hasn't happened yet, and other than your arguing there also really isn't any reason for making it happen, so this is the answer to your "why" question from above.

 

of course now you're gonna say that the meaning has already changed, but that the dictionaries haven't caught up yet. sure, you can try to speak in another language than everybody else, but don't be surprised if people don't understand you then.

 

We're discussing the meaning of "geocache," which, obviously, has its basis in the word "cache."

 

The definition of "geocache," as defined by Geocaching.com, has applied to specific locations with and without containers for several years. Most members of this community understand that "geocache" encompasses virtual geocaches, webcams, events, and Earthcaches.

 

Why should the community accepted definition of "geocache" be changed to mean ONLY containers, now? Why should the definition of "geocache" strictly adhere to the currently accepted definition of "cache?"

 

You brought up the a wiki definition of "cache," now please explain why you think it's relevant here. Simply posting a link without elucidating any kind of point related to that link isn't a persuasive argument.

 

http://www.oldspaghettifactory.ca/

[+dfx]

You brought up the a wiki definition of "cache," now please explain why you think it's relevant here. Simply posting a link without elucidating any kind of point related to that link isn't a persuasive argument.

so a "geocache" isn't just "geo" + "cache", meaning a "cache" known by a certain "geo"graphical location?

 

this is really getting ridiculous.

[+narcissa]

You brought up the a wiki definition of "cache," now please explain why you think it's relevant here. Simply posting a link without elucidating any kind of point related to that link isn't a persuasive argument.

so a "geocache" isn't just "geo" + "cache", meaning a "cache" known by a certain "geo"graphical location?

 

this is really getting ridiculous.

 

Yes, it's certainly ridiculous that you make regular use of a website that obviously defines it well beyond that, yet you insist otherwise. Bizarre, truly.

[+dfx]

Yes, it's certainly ridiculous that you make regular use of a website that obviously defines it well beyond that, yet you insist otherwise. Bizarre, truly.

really? what part of "virtual cache" doesn't mean "not a real cache"?

[+narcissa]

Yes, it's certainly ridiculous that you make regular use of a website that obviously defines it well beyond that, yet you insist otherwise. Bizarre, truly.

really? what part of "virtual cache" doesn't mean "not a real cache"?

 

So, you're okay with virtual geocaches? The original argument at the root of this discussion was that all geocaches should have containers and everything else is a Waymark.

 

If you don't agree with that, why did you support that argument to begin with?

 

Just a side note: you appear to be using a non-standard definition of the word "virtual." If you don't stick to standard definitions, you're speaking a different language and nobody will understand you.

[+dfx]

The original argument at the root of this discussion was that all geocaches should have containers and everything else is a Waymark.

yes. virtual caches aren't real caches as they aren't a hidden store of things, which has been said a zillion times now. geocaching.com is free to list them anyway if they want to, or anything else for that matter, but that still doesn't make them geocaches.

 

Just a side note: you appear to be using a non-standard definition of the word "virtual." If you don't stick to standard definitions, you're speaking a different language and nobody will understand you.

no i'm not, but nice try, thank you.

[+narcissa]

The original argument at the root of this discussion was that all geocaches should have containers and everything else is a Waymark.

yes. virtual caches aren't real caches as they aren't a hidden store of things, which has been said a zillion times now. geocaching.com is free to list them anyway if they want to, or anything else for that matter, but that still doesn't make them geocaches.

 

Just a side note: you appear to be using a non-standard definition of the word "virtual." If you don't stick to standard definitions, you're speaking a different language and nobody will understand you.

no i'm not, but nice try, thank you.

 

So, your point is that virtual geocaches are not containers. *golf clap*

 

Can you please show me an authoritative source that defines the word "virtual" as meaning "not real?" Thanks.

[+dfx]

So, your point is that virtual geocaches are not containers.

close, but no cigar.

 

Can you please show me an authoritative source that defines the word "virtual" as meaning "not real?" Thanks.

the link you posted yourself for example. you're welcome.

[+narcissa]

So, your point is that virtual geocaches are not containers.

close, but no cigar.

 

Can you please show me an authoritative source that defines the word "virtual" as meaning "not real?" Thanks.

the link you posted yourself for example. you're welcome.

 

I do not see the phrase "not real" or anything approximating that phrase there. Perhaps you are also using non-standard definitions of the words "not" and "real."

 

Really though, what was the point of your original link, as it pertains to the original question I asked? Why do you feel we should we adhere to the original definition of the word cache when defining geocache?

 

If you do not feel we should stick to that definition, then what was the purpose of your wiki link?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber

[+geodarts]

Regardless of whether a historical cache type is a practical option, I am always surprised at the way people want to limit the game. To me, its big enough to encompass a lot of different experiences. I enjoy earthcaches, virtuals, and wherigos. Some people like to use computer programming skills to solve puzzles. The game can be defined in any number of ways.

[+narcissa]

Regardless of whether a historical cache type is a practical option, I am always surprised at the way people want to limit the game. To me, its big enough to encompass a lot of different experiences. I enjoy earthcaches, virtuals, and wherigos. Some people like to use computer programming skills to solve puzzles. The game can be defined in any number of ways.

 

+1000

 

I really don't understand why someone would want to limit the scope of the game because "I don't like it" or "it doesn't meet this dictionary definition." It's easy enough to ignore geocaches that aren't to your taste. Why take them away from everybody else?

[+BlueDeuce]

I was sitting on the famous Grassy Knoll Virtual Cache (GC3710) and it hit me, why not make a new cache type, one for Historical Caches.

 

I think it would be best covered under an attribute. And I think it's about time.

[+cron]

Regardless of whether a historical cache type is a practical option, I am always surprised at the way people want to limit the game. To me, its big enough to encompass a lot of different experiences. I enjoy earthcaches, virtuals, and wherigos. Some people like to use computer programming skills to solve puzzles. The game can be defined in any number of ways.

 

Indeed. To each their own. I prefer challenging multis and puzzles over boring (to me) traditionals, I like Earthcaches but I don't see the point of virtual/locationless caches.

 

And most of all, I can still sleep if I drive by a cache and I'm not stopping to find it. That's the main problem in geocaching. If you introduce a cache type some people don't like, they'll feel forced to also find them (because of the numbers, because it's on the map or for whatever reasons). They still have to learn about the ignore function on geocaching.com (or they need to attend a few geoaholic sessions).

[+roziecakes]

I am also surprised at the limits some want to put on the game. It drives me bats. To me, the more different tastes that caching can appeal to, the better the game is for others. It makes geocaching a more accessible hobby, whether I like the new aspect or not.

 

For example, I hate the latest influx of caching with smartphones. I think it lends to bad coordinates on hides and funky logging practices. But... I don't really like smartphones in general. Would I try to impose this on others? No way! Whatever works best (although I do strongly support hiding caches with a GPS, but that's a topic for another thread). And heck, even my husband caches with his Droid.

 

On topic, I would love to at least see a historical attribute added. Caches with historical significance are honestly probably my favorite, personally.

[+wimseyguy]

Well, it's mostly been an interesting discussion to read except for a minor two party distraction.

I'd like to see it become a separate cache type as well, much as the EC's are. That would allow for the placement of a physical container wherever possible, and a listing as a virtual when it isn't possible to place a container.

 

But it would require a partnership with an official organization. It doesn't need to be limited to American caches, but as Groundspeak is a US based corporation, it's likely that a US based historical group would make a more logical partnership. After all, EC's aren't limited to the States but the partner is the GSA.

[+Mr. Waldo]

I'm 100% for the idea, as well as 100% for bringing back virtual caches in general.

[+tozainamboku]

Regardless of whether a historical cache type is a practical option, I am always surprised at the way people want to limit the game. To me, its big enough to encompass a lot of different experiences. I enjoy earthcaches, virtuals, and wherigos. Some people like to use computer programming skills to solve puzzles. The game can be defined in any number of ways.

 

+1000

 

I really don't understand why someone would want to limit the scope of the game because "I don't like it" or "it doesn't meet this dictionary definition." It's easy enough to ignore geocaches that aren't to your taste. Why take them away from everybody else?

The game has been limited many times. Whenever a certain type of cache or hiding style or location causes enough of a problem the guidelines get changed. Caches can no longer be buried. They can no longer be hidden inside commercial businesses. Owners can't enforce ALRs. The list goes on. Locationless and virtual caches caused problems. In this case it was with reviewers having to deal with making decisions on whether or nor a location was "wow" enough to deserve a virtual and with too many people submitting locations as virtuals where they could've have hidden a physical cache. TPTB came up with a solution. Locations could be listed on the new Waymarking site. Old virtual caches would remain as grandfathered caches on Geoaching.com, but if you found some neat location where you were unable to hide a physical cache, you could share it by listing it as a waymark. Certainly, you are free to argue that the Waymarking site is difficult to use or that listing a location there means fewer people will visit. However, unlike other guidelines changes you are not limited. You can still share your virtual cache location, only now it is called a Waymark. Waymarking is far less limited than when virtuals were. All sorts of interesting locations that were explicitly not allowed as virtual caches can be listed as waymarks. The problem is that while you have good arguments that the solution is far from perfect, you don't have a very strong argument for dumping the solution and go back to the status quo ante where there were all sorts of problems we don't have now.

[Andronicus]

I was sitting on the famous Grassy Knoll Virtual Cache (GC3710) ...

Man, I was at the grassy knoll about 1 month before I started cacheing. Agg...I should have had that one...

[+Castle Mischief]

The game has been limited many times. Whenever a certain type of cache or hiding style or location causes enough of a problem the guidelines get changed...

 

That's as far as I got.

 

Some of you need to worry less about the definition of bla bla bla and the true meaning of yadda yadda and realize why anything has ever changed here, ever.

 

Reviewer fatigue.

 

Things that used to be counted in your finds as a "geocache" are no longer counted as such because of reviewer fatigue.

 

The only reason that Earthcaches are still available for listing is because of an agreement that was made with GSA and Groundspeak.

 

If Groundspeak wants to list a certain type of cache, they will. When they don't want to anymore they won't. These reasons have very little to do with Webster's definition of anything or what any of you feel is the spiritual embodiment of Geocaching with a capitol GEE.

 

 

Sheesh.

[+Ambrosia]

In the case of Virtuals, it wasn't just Reviewer fatigue. There were constant complaints about virtuals in the forums. It was causing a lot of angst.