What is the earthcache that least has to do with earth?

[+Coldgears]

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...0e-7b5f9bf1c18a

 

Obviously you could turn anything into an earthcache if you read into it. An old rusty knife in the middle of a parking lot could be one if you stated all the information about where the metal came from, how metal rusts, why people throw away the rusted knife, ECT. This one doesn't bother me, in fact I almost DIED of laughter when I seen an earthcache that was simply a giant head. I was just curious if there were any other similair ones like this out there...

 

BTW, I love earthcaches!

[+geodarts]

I enjoyed the Colossal Head. You can't go wrong with basalt. And there is a lot of geology in the building so it was fitting to have an earthcache there.

 

I have to admit that when I saw an earthcache that was a cut piece of granite that was brought to the location as a base for a sun dial, I wondered if I could convince my friend to let me develop an earthcache based on his kitchen countertops. But the Head was a colossal cache.

[+narcissa]

There's an Earthcache in Quebec City about the different types of stone used in monuments around the legislature and the Plains of Abraham. We didn't have time to do it, but it appeared to be quite thorough and comprehensive.

[+Chokecherry]

And it totally sucks that anyone who doesn't want to have their picture posted on the website can't log that earthcache. They even make a point to state that the GPS picture is not accepted.

 

I've done an earth cache that was a giant piece of rock on a monument which basically discussed that type of rock.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...0e-7b5f9bf1c18a

 

Obviously you could turn anything into an earthcache if you read into it. An old rusty knife in the middle of a parking lot could be one if you stated all the information about where the metal came from, how metal rusts, why people throw away the rusted knife, ECT. This one doesn't bother me, in fact I almost DIED of laughter when I seen an earthcache that was simply a giant head. I was just curious if there were any other similair ones like this out there...

 

BTW, I love earthcaches!

Your point? Is the cache good or bad? When you say, "Obviously you could turn anything into an earthcache if you read into it." are you implying that the EC was poor?

P.S. From your topic question: "What is the earthcache that least has to do with earth?, are you looking for ECs to be posted that should come under some sort of ridicule? If so, we shouldn't participate and those kind of questions should be taken up with the owner(s). Maybe we are different, but we don't feel that posting someone's cache for public criticism is necessary nor is it right! If our interpretation of your question is incorrect, our apology.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[+Touchstone]

Maybe we are different, but we don't feel that posting someone's cache for public criticism is necessary nor is it right!

 

Hmmm...kind of sensitive?

 

I actually think it's kind of an interesting topic. Here's one on the "Best 10 List" that probably couldn't be more man made

 

The Cologne Cathedral - A Geological Point of View

 

I saw it mentioned in another thread about "Most" type things, and I believe it is also the most Found Earthcache in the world

Edited October 24, 2010 by Touchstone

[+Harry Dolphin]

I found this one to be a bit meaningless:

A 15 ton glacial erratic, which was a favorite resting stop for an old fashioned country doctor, was moved and turned upside down.

Wow!

[+narcissa]

And it totally sucks that anyone who doesn't want to have their picture posted on the website can't log that earthcache. They even make a point to state that the GPS picture is not accepted.

 

I've done an earth cache that was a giant piece of rock on a monument which basically discussed that type of rock.

 

That Earthcache is in clear violation of the new guidelines, likely because Earthcache owners were never directly informed of the change. It's too bad that the Earthcaching PTB would rather see it come down to one-on-one conflicts.

[+Huntleigh]

And it totally sucks that anyone who doesn't want to have their picture posted on the website can't log that earthcache. They even make a point to state that the GPS picture is not accepted.

 

I've done an earth cache that was a giant piece of rock on a monument which basically discussed that type of rock.

 

That Earthcache is in clear violation of the new guidelines, likely because Earthcache owners were never directly informed of the change. It's too bad that the Earthcaching PTB would rather see it come down to one-on-one conflicts.

 

I think the conflict has already happened. The CO (Cav Scout) is banned.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Maybe we are different, but we don't feel that posting someone's cache for public criticism is necessary nor is it right!

 

Hmmm...kind of sensitive?

 

I actually think it's kind of an interesting topic. Here's one on the "Best 10 List" that probably couldn't be more man made

 

The Cologne Cathedral - A Geological Point of View

 

I saw it mentioned in another thread about "Most" type things, and I believe it is also the most Found Earthcache in the world

 

Guilty!

It may be sensitive, but it is being sensitive to others not us! You may find it interesting yet again, so did those who gathered for public hangings! The person on the scaffold didn't find a darn thing interesting.

I can nit-pick anyone's cache and I am sure ours could be nit-picked too!

To those who cite violations or perceived violations, take them up with the reviewers!

Now if someone wants to list excellent caches or those who have a lot of the dreaded WOW factor, that's positive!

Bottom line, arguments arise in this forum and that is OK, but why take a non-participant's cache and set it up for ridicule? It's especially unseemly to do it to someone who cannot respond!

Edited October 25, 2010 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Please allow me to make another small point.

Man-made? Since when this would disqualify it from becoming an EC? If the material from which the object is made has interesting geological implications and the object itself is interesting, it's seems OK to us! It must seem OK to the reviewers too!

[+narcissa]

And it totally sucks that anyone who doesn't want to have their picture posted on the website can't log that earthcache. They even make a point to state that the GPS picture is not accepted.

 

I've done an earth cache that was a giant piece of rock on a monument which basically discussed that type of rock.

 

That Earthcache is in clear violation of the new guidelines, likely because Earthcache owners were never directly informed of the change. It's too bad that the Earthcaching PTB would rather see it come down to one-on-one conflicts.

 

I think the conflict has already happened. The CO (Cav Scout) is banned.

 

I think Cav Scout is banned for something more serious. Probably best not to derail this thread with conjecture on that topic.

[+Manville Possum]

And it totally sucks that anyone who doesn't want to have their picture posted on the website can't log that earthcache. They even make a point to state that the GPS picture is not accepted.

 

I've done an earth cache that was a giant piece of rock on a monument which basically discussed that type of rock.

 

That Earthcache is in clear violation of the new guidelines, likely because Earthcache owners were never directly informed of the change. It's too bad that the Earthcaching PTB would rather see it come down to one-on-one conflicts.

 

I think the conflict has already happened. The CO (Cav Scout) is banned.

 

I think Cav Scout is banned for something more serious. Probably best not to derail this thread with conjecture on that topic.

I have completed many of Cav Scouts EC'c, even attended a Earth Day event that he hosted last year in Cumberland Gap National Park. Not sure why he is currantly banned, but he was still deployed last word that we got. GSA has made many new changes as to what caches they will publish, which is good. Most of the old ones make great waymarks also, and have the answers included so you don't have to email the CO all the demanding info & uploads to claim the find.

 

And I do not think that GSA needs people playing EC geopolice, just looking for caches that do not meet the new guidlines. If you have a log deleted because of an ALR, contact Groundspeak and appeal.

[+narcissa]

It would be better for everybody if the guideline changes were communicated directly to Earthcache owners. There have been far too many bitter conflicts between owners and cachers.

[+Touchstone]

It would be better for everybody if the guideline changes were communicated directly to Earthcache owners. There have been far too many bitter conflicts between owners and cachers.

 

Probably best not to derail this thread ...

 

Truer words were never spoken

 

At the risk of being On Topic

 

Walking On Fossils

 

As far as I'm concerned, it's all good science, and appears to be consistent with the GSA Mission and Groundspeaks support of that goal

Edited October 25, 2010 by Touchstone

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

It would be better for everybody if the guideline changes were communicated directly to Earthcache owners. There have been far too many bitter conflicts between owners and cachers.

 

You will not believe this, but I actually agree with you!

This is a little off topic, but it relates to communicating guidelines.

I recently submitted an EC and it was initially rejected, "because we no longer accept logging requirements using waterfall classifications." The same lame old estimates of how high and how wide the falls were was OK, but not studying a classification scheme and properly assigning one to the falls.

Now tell me, which is more educational, learning about waterfall classifications or taking a SWAG at the measurements of height and width of the falls?

narcissa's point of communicating guideline changes is very well taken, but I am coming from a different perspective.

After countless hours to develop an EC, getting the proper land manager authorization, having the reviewer not take your word for it that you have the permission ("needs to be in writing"), sending the "written" proof of approval only to be told we don't want waterfall classifications questions. Come on, why make it more difficult than necessary?

P.S. Why is it required to include in the reviewer's notes the name, title and phone number of the approving land manager if you then require written proof? Try the phone number. That's why it's there!

Communicate, communicate, communicate!

Back to the original topic: it is simply a fact that man-made objects can and do qualify for earthcache status and there is nothing wrong with that!

Suggestion: following narcissa's lead regarding communicating guideline changes, use the EarthCache.org site to regularly post updates in what is currently acceptable and what is not acceptable. Thanks.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[+Chokecherry]

It's my fault this got so far off topic but I think it's an equally important discussion and there was a glaring example of a problem on that earth cache page right there.

 

I'd love to do a waterfall classification cache versus a "how high is it" cache. I plain old suck at estimating height.

 

And as for man made objects we have a man made open pit mine here as an earth cache. Interesting to be at. But it's certainly not something the earth made.

 

Back to my tangent of notifying cache owners of the change in requirements make much more sense to me than relying on finders to play cache police to me which leads to hurt feelings and ugliness as we all see on the forums. I personally don't want to engage in a match with cache owners about logging requirements and as such skip a good number of earth caches with the photo logging requirement.

 

I know that they can't police all the earth caches but they can certainly be in communication with earth cache owners in order to make this process smoother. Reality is not all finders even know that this photo thing is an ALR. How many finders are like me and just avoid those caches altogether because they don't even know they can argue it?

 

It just seems like after all the work that is demanded for these earth caches the least that could happen is better communication between earth caching folks and earth cache owners so everyone stays on the same page.

[+Manville Possum]

I recently submitted an EC about a spring that asked the maginitude of the flow and the tempreture, but I was told that this type cache would no longer be published. I resubmitted the EC and it was approved after being edited. They were really quick to review and publish the cache listing. I think they are doing a better job with reviewing EC's.

[+narcissa]

It's my fault this got so far off topic but I think it's an equally important discussion and there was a glaring example of a problem on that earth cache page right there.

 

I'd love to do a waterfall classification cache versus a "how high is it" cache. I plain old suck at estimating height.

 

And as for man made objects we have a man made open pit mine here as an earth cache. Interesting to be at. But it's certainly not something the earth made.

 

Back to my tangent of notifying cache owners of the change in requirements make much more sense to me than relying on finders to play cache police to me which leads to hurt feelings and ugliness as we all see on the forums. I personally don't want to engage in a match with cache owners about logging requirements and as such skip a good number of earth caches with the photo logging requirement.

 

I know that they can't police all the earth caches but they can certainly be in communication with earth cache owners in order to make this process smoother. Reality is not all finders even know that this photo thing is an ALR. How many finders are like me and just avoid those caches altogether because they don't even know they can argue it?

 

It just seems like after all the work that is demanded for these earth caches the least that could happen is better communication between earth caching folks and earth cache owners so everyone stays on the same page.

 

With waterfalls, there's usually some underlying geological reason for the elevation change - eg. a fault or graben, some sort of mountain range - so an Earthcache could focus on that.

 

I don't mind posting a picture of myself, so when I come across Earthcaches that still list this as a requirement, I go ahead and do it and then mention the guideline change - in a friendly tone - in my email to the owner. I figure it will be better received if it comes from someone who did post a picture.

[+Touchstone]

Yeesh! you guys, can't you stay On Topic?

 

Here's another...

 

Granite in Red

 

Although, to the Cache Owners great credit, the stone appears to be in a pretty natural state....just relocated from it's original location.

[+geodarts]

Man-made? Since when this would disqualify it from becoming an EC? If the material from which the object is made has interesting geological implications and the object itself is interesting, it's seems OK to us! It must seem OK to the reviewers too!

 

I was reminded of a post by geoaware on the old get satisfaction site:

 

At other times some EarthCache topics have been overruled by Groundspeak as 'not being Earth science' - building stones being one example. I personally believe that building stones are part of Earth science and therefore if a good lesson and logging task is made from them, then they should be allowed to be the basis of an EarthCache. It took considerable time to provide to Groundspeak that this is the case and we now have some wonderful EarthCaches based on building stones. Its the 'fringe' zone in which discussions always takes place - and we always have seemed to come to a good compromise.

 

So the Colossal Head is fine. The Granite just cited in the previous post appears to be fine. As the earthcache site states "The possibilities are limitless, provided they offer some nugget of information about a particular place and the land that lies beneath it." But interpreting that is where the discussion gets interesting.

 

There is a large, colossal piece of granite that was taken from the Sierras and placed near where I work. Perhaps I should reconsider whether to develop it as an earthcache, but right now there are other priorities.

Edited October 26, 2010 by mulvaney

[+narcissa]

Yeesh! you guys, can't you stay On Topic?

 

Here's another...

 

Granite in Red

 

Although, to the Cache Owners great credit, the stone appears to be in a pretty natural state....just relocated from it's original location.

 

My earlier comment about not derailing the thread was based on seeing other threads locked due to discussion of that particular user. I wasn't chiding people for being off-topic. Sorry my earlier comment wasn't more clear. Anyway, I really don't want to fuel more conjecture on that subject. Suffice it to say that the right Google search should satisfy the curious ones.

[Wintertime]

Man-made? Since when this would disqualify it from becoming an EC? If the material from which the object is made has interesting geological implications and the object itself is interesting, it's seems OK to us! It must seem OK to the reviewers too!

In fact, if someone is interested, I think the fossil in the sandstone at Stanford would make an interesting Earthcache. Here's some info about it:

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/travel/ci_15111478

 

The article mentions "occasional fossils," but when I took a geology class there several years ago, the prof said she was only aware of one that had been found--probably the one described in that article.

 

Patty