Jump to content

opencaching.com new mascot...


FickFam

Recommended Posts

And some idiot will do it just because they can.

Well, it worked in Nevada. Just sayin'... :ph34r::P

 

saturation distance of .1 mile, get permission first, don't place where not allowed (such as National Parks), no buried caches, etc.

All of which is irrelevant without a reviewer staff. No enforcement = no rules, to some. :D

Link to comment

As for, "how is this going to be a nightmare"... read the whole thread.

 

I did... Like people follow rules now as far as permissions go.

Permissions are not the only rules to be concerned about, Frank. Registering caches with parks that require such registration are currently enforced by the reviewers. Cache proximity is currently enforced by the reviewers, and can be known reasonably well because it is safe to assume that most other caches are in the geocaching.com databases. There are plenty of other complications if you care to give it some thought instead of flippant replies.
Link to comment
Yes, they do have a forum. And, at the very least, discussing the issues over there would be more appropriate than discussing them here, and more likely to see this thread stay open.

 

Yes they do indeed and look at the names of users logged in - a major bug - there are email addresses shown to people not even logged in.... ouch!

Apparently that is the default, but if you look around, not every post is showing with their email address as the username. Somebody said that it is a privacy setting that is probably configured with the wrong default.

 

As for, "how is this going to be a nightmare"... read the whole thread.

 

I registered there, and have that problem. When I log in to the forums, my username is my e-mail address, not my geocaching handle. I couldn't figure out how to change it. I'll check out the privacy settings again. Not the smartest default! :P

Link to comment

Except there doesn't seem to be any mechanism to respect local or state policies or restrictions. I wonder what will happen in states like MN, MI, PA, WA that have land managers who are receptive to geocaching, but require permits?

Closer to home what will happen in the one county park that is also a university research forest, so it prohibits geocaches? I hope the users of other sites do not piss off those land managers to the point where they just prohibit all geocaching activity.

I think that right there is the crux of the matter.

 

It will be an issue and could endanger the long term viability of the sport. Land managers aren't going to distinguish GC.Com geocaches from those listed on other sites. It's all geocaching to them and if local permitting and permission policies are being ignored it will not benefit the sport.

 

Without a review process to check for that stuff, we're back to the wild west days of geocaching. Not a good thing.

Here in CT, there are land managers who are open to caching, but they want to visit and approve every hide. Most hiders talk to the land trusts before hiding anything, but sometimes a new cache will pop up they don't know about. The land trust managers are okay walking out to check it out, but I worry that they would get upset if a bunch of random caches start appearing on their property. If someone is new, they may not even know that "the park down the road" requires each cache to be approved.

Add AL and LA to that list in the US, plus British Columbia has some permitted areas, BC Parks has some special guidelines they want followed and Parks Canada has an even tougher permitting process that requires you meet with the park manager. Somewhere, somehow, this is going to create problems.

 

I don't suppose any mod or lacky is authorized to post Groundspeak's official stance on this? Is the press kit ready yet?

Land manager requirements are the responsibility of the respective manager. Groundspeak respects those wishes and the reviewers takes those into account when publishing or denying a cache. It really isn't up to Groundspeak to inform the new site that they are stepping on a lot of toes here with their lack of actual review and the auto-publish nature of their site. As mentioned, one of these land managers is going to get mad and we are all going to be the short end of the stick.

Link to comment

As for, "how is this going to be a nightmare"... read the whole thread.

 

I did... Like people follow rules now as far as permissions go.

Permissions are not the only rules to be concerned about, Frank. Registering caches with parks that require such registration are currently enforced by the reviewers. Cache proximity is currently enforced by the reviewers, and can be known reasonably well because it is safe to assume that most other caches are in the geocaching.com databases. There are plenty of other complications if you care to give it some thought instead of flippant replies.

 

Are you annoyed? The seriousness of all this is still to be determined. So flippant? - nope. I have always said that geocaching rests on a very slippery slope and is very fragile. When a monopoly runs it - that is a even bigger concern. Attitudes aside, attack mode aside - competition will be good for the game/hobby/ sport/compulsion/"life" for some :P .

Link to comment

I'm switching all of my hides to "Premium Member" caches! I don't want them on at site at all.

 

I wonder if by doing that, it keeps someone from being able to upload them to their site.

 

I also wonder if OC.com having proprietary data on it, like Premium caches and Pocket Query data (information that Groundspeak OWNS) opens them to lawsuits for damages caused to Groundspeak.

Link to comment
saturation distance of .1 mile, get permission first, don't place where not allowed (such as National Parks), no buried caches, etc.

All of which is irrelevant without a reviewer staff. No enforcement = no rules, to some. :P

If you read their terms of use it's pretty clear that they will take action if you submit a cache that doesn't comply with their guidelines.

 

Certainly, since it's free to sign up, there is nothing that prevents someone who gets banned for placing caches without permission from creating a new email account and signing up again. I don't know what their plan is when the get their first troublemaker.

 

Also, since they don't have an SBA log yet, so I don't know how they plan to allow bad caches to be reported. I suspect there will be a way for both cachers and property owners/managers to report caches that don't comply with the guidelines and to get these listings removed. It will be up to the community as a whole to see that guidelines are enforced. We will see if this works any better differently than the geoaching.com method.

Link to comment

As for, "how is this going to be a nightmare"... read the whole thread.

 

I did... Like people follow rules now as far as permissions go.

Permissions are not the only rules to be concerned about, Frank. Registering caches with parks that require such registration are currently enforced by the reviewers. Cache proximity is currently enforced by the reviewers, and can be known reasonably well because it is safe to assume that most other caches are in the geocaching.com databases. There are plenty of other complications if you care to give it some thought instead of flippant replies.

 

Are you annoyed? The seriousness of all this is still to be determined. So flippant? - nope. I have always said that geocaching rests on a very slippery slope and is very fragile. When a monopoly runs it - that is a even bigger concern. Attitudes aside, attack mode aside - competition will be good for the game/hobby/ sport/compulsion/"life" for some :P .

 

If they had a review process similar to ours I'd agree that competition would be welcome. But self publishing on the "honor system" can be disastrous for the sport.

 

Problem caches sometimes get by with the current review process, but at least there is a process that weeds out most of the most of the obvious problem caches before publication and a system that can quickly address problem caches that get past the initial review process.

 

I'm not seeing any of that over there.

Link to comment

I wonder if by doing that, it keeps someone from being able to upload them to their site.

I think you're getting confused between someone uploading a list of their caches found, which may include caches that you own, and actually having your caches hosted on that site. When someone uploads a list of their finds, all it does it to post the cache name and date they found the cache in their profile. It does not list them for others to find.
Link to comment

As for, "how is this going to be a nightmare"... read the whole thread.

 

I did... Like people follow rules now as far as permissions go.

Permissions are not the only rules to be concerned about, Frank. Registering caches with parks that require such registration are currently enforced by the reviewers. Cache proximity is currently enforced by the reviewers, and can be known reasonably well because it is safe to assume that most other caches are in the geocaching.com databases. There are plenty of other complications if you care to give it some thought instead of flippant replies.

 

Are you annoyed? The seriousness of all this is still to be determined. So flippant? - nope. I have always said that geocaching rests on a very slippery slope and is very fragile. When a monopoly runs it - that is a even bigger concern. Attitudes aside, attack mode aside - competition will be good for the game/hobby/ sport/compulsion/"life" for some :P .

 

 

Amen to that. I hear you loud and clear. Competition is good for everything. I just love seeing all the mud flinging when this is only their first day going. Like everything else, the bugs have to be worked out. :ph34r:

Link to comment

I wonder if by doing that, it keeps someone from being able to upload them to their site.

I think you're getting confused between someone uploading a list of their caches found, which may include caches that you own, and actually having your caches hosted on that site. When someone uploads a list of their finds, all it does it to post the cache name and date they found the cache in their profile. It does not list them for others to find.

 

You're correct, that's exactly what I assumed.

Link to comment
2) Uploading your My Finds PQ or any other PQ from geocaching.com to opencaching.com would be in violation of the Waypoint License Agreement. Groundspeak could take action if you use this method to import data to opencaching.com

yeah i was thinking about that too. your own hides are obviously exempt, as it's your own data, just reformatted. your finds are a different story, as the GPX contains other people's data and so technically you aren't allowed to give it to anyone else. apparently oc.com only uses your own logs contained within the GPX and not the waypoint data, but 1) legally that doesn't make a difference and 2) they might still do so secretly.

 

one can only hope that Groundspeak doesn't try to go through the legal department to get a new competitor out of the way, because THAT would really hurt the sport. a collaboration would make much more sense, but somehow i don't see that happening. i have the bad feeling that there's something brewing.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
saturation distance of .1 mile, get permission first, don't place where not allowed (such as National Parks), no buried caches, etc.

All of which is irrelevant without a reviewer staff. No enforcement = no rules, to some. :P

If you read their terms of use it's pretty clear that they will take action if you submit a cache that doesn't comply with their guidelines.

 

Certainly, since it's free to sign up, there is nothing that prevents someone who gets banned for placing caches without permission from creating a new email account and signing up again. I don't know what their plan is when the get their first troublemaker.

 

Also, since they don't have an SBA log yet, so I don't know how they plan to allow bad caches to be reported. I suspect there will be a way for both cachers and property owners/managers to report caches that don't comply with the guidelines and to get these listings removed. It will be up to the community as a whole to see that guidelines are enforced. We will see if this works any better differently than the geoaching.com method.

 

I just notice that there is a link on the cache page to report a violation of geocaching guidelines. For now it just sends email to geocaching@garmin.com

Link to comment

As for, "how is this going to be a nightmare"... read the whole thread.

 

I did... Like people follow rules now as far as permissions go.

Permissions are not the only rules to be concerned about, Frank. Registering caches with parks that require such registration are currently enforced by the reviewers. Cache proximity is currently enforced by the reviewers, and can be known reasonably well because it is safe to assume that most other caches are in the geocaching.com databases. There are plenty of other complications if you care to give it some thought instead of flippant replies.

 

Are you annoyed? The seriousness of all this is still to be determined. So flippant? - nope. I have always said that geocaching rests on a very slippery slope and is very fragile. When a monopoly runs it - that is a even bigger concern. Attitudes aside, attack mode aside - competition will be good for the game/hobby/ sport/compulsion/"life" for some :P .

 

 

Amen to that. I hear you loud and clear. Competition is good for everything. I just love seeing all the mud flinging when this is only their first day going. Like everything else, the bugs have to be worked out. :ph34r:

Competition will be good in some ways, sure, particularly when it comes to features and performance. But it will not be good in this case when it comes to actual caches out in the wild... that is the part I am referring to. It will be a mess if that site really takes off.

 

I don't hear any "mud slinging" at all. I do hear discussion and thought and speculation, but no mud slinging.

Link to comment

As for, "how is this going to be a nightmare"... read the whole thread.

 

I did... Like people follow rules now as far as permissions go.

Permissions are not the only rules to be concerned about, Frank. Registering caches with parks that require such registration are currently enforced by the reviewers. Cache proximity is currently enforced by the reviewers, and can be known reasonably well because it is safe to assume that most other caches are in the geocaching.com databases. There are plenty of other complications if you care to give it some thought instead of flippant replies.

 

Are you annoyed? The seriousness of all this is still to be determined. So flippant? - nope. I have always said that geocaching rests on a very slippery slope and is very fragile. When a monopoly runs it - that is a even bigger concern. Attitudes aside, attack mode aside - competition will be good for the game/hobby/ sport/compulsion/"life" for some :P .

 

Sorry, but I did take the bolded part as sounding flippant. If that was not your intention, I was wrong. But as I pointed out to you when you said that, seeking permission is not the issue here.
Link to comment

I think the competition is great! I've never been in favour of monopolies or virtual monopolies no matter how benevolent they may seem. It's obvious their site and process are not yet optimal, but neither was this site in their first several months of operation. GreySmirk.gif

 

Unless you are a complete, hardcore frogaphile, I think we should all be supporting new ventures such as this one to ensure that they succeed. Predicting doom and gloom and the downfall of geocaching simply because there is a new kid on the block is just so much hyperbole. If you truly believe that geocaching, as a pastime, is in jeopardy because of Garmin's entry into the marketplace then you should be working with them to ensure their success instead of boycotting them or working against them. I would bet that Garmin has much deeper pockets than GS and are probably willing to buy their way into this marketplace, so I doubt that they are going to fail and disappear anytime soon.

 

I, for one, will be doing what I can to support them. When I get home this evening I plan on cross-posting all of my caches on OX and I'm even considering posting my next few new caches on OX exclusively for the first few weeks. I'll be offering brand new, in the box, unlocked smartphones for the FTF of those caches (I have 4 devices on my desk as we speak) and promoting them on the local caching association site to ensure local cachers know where to find the listings. GreySmile.gif

 

GreySquint.gif

Link to comment

I'm curious if the proximity limit is automatic. If you try to submit a cache that is too close to one already listed, will your cache be denied because of it, or will somebody have to report that it is in violation?

Try it! List a new test cache on opencaching.com at N33° 32.013 W086° 42.625.

 

That's about 40' from my Irondale Pit Stop TB Hotel.

 

It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

Just delete the test cache when done playing with it.

Link to comment
Competition will be good in some ways, sure, particularly when it comes to features and performance. But it will not be good in this case when it comes to actual caches out in the wild... that is the part I am referring to. It will be a mess if that site really takes off.

i don't think so, it's no different than any of the other competing listing sites. i would've starting using some of them long time ago if it wasn't for some things about each of them that put me off.

 

when and if oc.com gets their act together and the site actually starts working as it should, i will most likely start pulling caches from their DB and integrate them into what i'm loading onto the GPSr, simply because it's so easy to do. as for crosslisting my own caches, the lack of a "members only" switch kinda puts me off so far.

Link to comment
EDIT: Of course now I just found that you can import your finds and hides from other sites, haha, it all makes sense now... Now I'm worried that with enough users importing their hides and finds, this site could eventually become a mirror of geocaching.com.

at which point gc.com would be doomed, as all the 3rd party developers would cease to support gc.com and would use the oc.com API only (as it's much easier to do so), which in turn would mean that cachers would have no reason left to list their caches on gc.com (other than trying to support an "alternative site" as they do with TC and NC etc today...)

 

Alternatively, it could just make oc.com moot. If people log on to oc.com looking for new and exciting caches, and just find an incomplete list of what's already on gc.com, then why bother? Oh, maybe check in every once in while, since it's free and all. I wonder if encouraging people to cross list their gc.com caches is a bad idea (for them), especially in cache-saturated areas. And how will people respond if they try to cross-list, but their existing gc cache is blocked because somebody already placed an exclusive oc cache? Will they cross-list their other caches, or just stick with gc.com? It'll be interesting to see how people react, and how it all plays out.

Link to comment
Try it! List a new test cache on opencaching.com at N33° 32.013 W086° 42.625.

http://www.opencaching.com/#geocache/OXZTY0P

So it let you put a cache right next to mine. Bummer. There's a link labeled "Report a violation of geocaching guidelines" which links to geocaching@garmin.com but it doesn't work.

 

All of the problems I see should have been discovered in development... this software is so far from being ready to Beta test that I wonder if it's not actually a negotiating ploy of some sort with Groundspeak.

Link to comment

Has anyone uploaded their finds yet? I am curious if that automatically lists those finds for others to see and find. If so that is both neat and disturbing.

I uploaded mine. It lost a couple hundred finds and the sort mechanism is broken, but it did upload 2200 or so. When I go to my profile it takes almost a full minute for the list of finds to appear.

 

I also uploaded my hides. It lost about half, and of the ones that did upload it copied just two logs - the first and last logs only.

 

This site is no threat to Groundspeak anytime soon!

Link to comment

So here's a twist. My son is 7 and he placed a cache about a week ago. I decided to upload it last night to OC under my caching name just for curiosity. When you list the cache, you are asked if the cache is listed on other sites. I checked 'yes'. Perhaps only amazingly to me, the cache was listed on OC with me as the cache owner! Not that big a deal since it's all in the family for this cache, but what is to stop someone from "adopting" current GC.com caches owned by someone else and placing it under thier own name on OC?

 

GC2JTBK on GC.com

OX2JTBK on OC.com

 

I see this as a potentially huge problem :P

Link to comment

Uh oh, This isn't good. I just checked Philadelphia, and there is a total of 1 caches in philly. The issue is that this geocache does not exist on geocaching.com only on openCaching. I really hope more people don't go exlusive to OpenCaching, because then I might have to geocache within two sites and that would be a lot of hassel.

Link to comment

So here's a twist. My son is 7 and he placed a cache about a week ago. I decided to upload it last night to OC under my caching name just for curiosity. When you list the cache, you are asked if the cache is listed on other sites. I checked 'yes'. Perhaps only amazingly to me, the cache was listed on OC with me as the cache owner! Not that big a deal since it's all in the family for this cache, but what is to stop someone from "adopting" current GC.com caches owned by someone else and placing it under thier own name on OC?

 

GC2JTBK on GC.com

OX2JTBK on OC.com

 

I see this as a potentially huge problem :P

 

Yep. Some prankster could publish the entire E.T. power trail on opencaching.com. The containers and log books are already out there. :ph34r:

 

Now you know why we need reviewers.

Link to comment
Has anyone uploaded their finds yet? I am curious if that automatically lists those finds for others to see and find. If so that is both neat and disturbing.
As I posted a while back, someone near me has, and all you see is the name of the caches and their find date. There is not even a GC# or a link to the cache page. And it takes a long time to load if they have very many. I don't see Alamogul using the OC site any time soon. :P
Link to comment

I plan to place a cache exclusively on OC that was denied for listing on GC.com due to cache saturation restrictions.

 

This is precisely why opencaching.com holds little interest for me. But does opencaching.com have any guidelines for placing caches - saturation, physical containers, permission, restrictions on certain areas? I can't imagine that our local national park areas - where the superintendent forbids traditional caching - would be thrilled if opencaches started to pop up.

 

Darn! I somehow managed to miss that OC also has a .1 mile saturation guideline. I will seek clarification from them about whether that rule pertains to both GC and OC listings. As a practical matter, I wonder whether GC will respect .1 mile separation from caches listed exclusively on OC and whether GC reviewers will start checking for proximity to OC caches? (I bet they won't)

Link to comment

This is from the OC.com site:

 

"Caches should be placed at least 0.1 miles from each other so there’s no confusion about which cache someone has found."

 

It says caches should be place at least .1 miles from each other, not that they have too.

 

If you show that there is "no confusion about which cache someone has found" then you should be able to place caches side by side. Just write the cache number on the logbook so the finder knows which cache they found.

Link to comment

I plan to place a cache exclusively on OC that was denied for listing on GC.com due to cache saturation restrictions.

 

This is precisely why opencaching.com holds little interest for me. But does opencaching.com have any guidelines for placing caches - saturation, physical containers, permission, restrictions on certain areas? I can't imagine that our local national park areas - where the superintendent forbids traditional caching - would be thrilled if opencaches started to pop up.

 

Darn! I somehow managed to miss that OC also has a .1 mile saturation guideline. I will seek clarification from them about whether that rule pertains to both GC and OC listings. As a practical matter, I wonder whether GC will respect .1 mile separation from caches listed exclusively on OC and whether GC reviewers will start checking for proximity to OC caches? (I bet they won't)

 

OC does not know where GS caches are located, so they can't enforce a saturation rule that includes them.

Link to comment

Uh oh, This isn't good. I just checked Philadelphia, and there is a total of 1 caches in philly. The issue is that this geocache does not exist on geocaching.com only on openCaching. I really hope more people don't go exlusive to OpenCaching, because then I might have to geocache within two sites and that would be a lot of hassel.

 

There have been other sites with exclusive cache listings for years and apparently that hasn't been an issue for you. Why all of a sudden?

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Try it! List a new test cache on opencaching.com at N33° 32.013 W086° 42.625.

http://www.opencaching.com/#geocache/OXZTY0P

 

Hmmm I dont think its going to work because the other cache is not listed on OC...

For the test to work the two caches need to be posted on OC... I dont think OC can come into GC and see whats going on right?

 

The other cache IS listed on OC. TheAlabamaRambler uploaded his gc.com caches to oc.com.

Link to comment

Uh oh, This isn't good. I just checked Philadelphia, and there is a total of 1 caches in philly. The issue is that this geocache does not exist on geocaching.com only on openCaching. I really hope more people don't go exlusive to OpenCaching, because then I might have to geocache within two sites and that would be a lot of hassel.

 

There have been other sites with exclusive cache listings for years and apparently that hasn't been an issue for you. Why all of a sudden?

Because no other website had google/bing maps integration, which is how I plan/find out where I want to go when ever I go geocaching.

Link to comment

Ok. I made an account. The site won't let me log in using my user name. It INSISTS on using my email address. NOT GOOD!!! I don't want to have my email address plainly visible to anybody who goes to the site. That's what a USER NAME is for. They asked for a user name during account creation but won't allow me to log in using it. WTF?

 

I was also peeved to find that I have a magically created account using my login from my.garmin.com. I don't cache under that name and I don't want an opencaching account under that name.

 

I tried to complain to the site but couldn't find where to complain. If I navigate to another page on the site it says I'm not logged in even though it clearly shows me logged in on other pages. I need to find a way to delete the dadgum account to get my email address OFF of the pages.

Edited by Thrak
Link to comment
Try it! List a new test cache on opencaching.com at N33° 32.013 W086° 42.625.

http://www.opencaching.com/#geocache/OXZTY0P

Hmmm I dont think its going to work because the other cache is not listed on OC...

For the test to work the two caches need to be posted on OC... I dont think OC can come into GC and see whats going on right?

i don't know what happened over there, but the cache i submitted/published is gone now. it's disappeared from my profile and i don't know why. :P

Link to comment

I sent a nastygram to the site via their email address.

 

Having them display my email address to everybody in the world without my consent is nasty.

 

Having them automagically create another account using my real name (since I log onto my.garmin.com with that name), again without my consent, is also nasty.

 

I'M NOT FREAKING HAPPY WITH THESE PEOPLE!

Link to comment
Try it! List a new test cache on opencaching.com at N33° 32.013 W086° 42.625.

http://www.opencaching.com/#geocache/OXZTY0P

Hmmm I dont think its going to work because the other cache is not listed on OC...

For the test to work the two caches need to be posted on OC... I dont think OC can come into GC and see whats going on right?

i don't know what happened over there, but the cache i submitted/published is gone now. it's disappeared from my profile and i don't know why. :P

 

OK I'm really confused is opencaching.com and opencaching.us totally different ??

Edited by FunnyNose
Link to comment
I sent a nastygram to the site via their email address.

 

Having them display my email address to everybody in the world without my consent is nasty.

 

Having them automagically create another account using my real name (since I log onto my.garmin.com with that name), again without my consent, is also nasty.

 

I'M NOT FREAKING HAPPY WITH THESE PEOPLE!

Thrak... it is a beta site. That means that you use it at your own risk. I agree that it is extremely rough for a public beta, but you can't expect it to be without issues... that is why they opened it up.
Link to comment

Meh... there aren't any in my area any way. I'm fine with geocaching.com and Groundspeak, no complaints on my end.

 

Okay, once I zoom out there are some listed, but they're all ones I've found before on GC.com... meh, still not interested.

Edited by nymphnsatyr
Link to comment

Ok. I made an account. The site won't let me log in using my user name. It INSISTS on using my email address. NOT GOOD!!! I don't want to have my email address plainly visible to anybody who goes to the site. That's what a USER NAME is for. They asked for a user name during account creation but won't allow me to log in using it. WTF?

You can change it in your user profile. Worked for me.

 

I was also peeved to find that I have a magically created account using my login from my.garmin.com. I don't cache under that name and I don't want an opencaching account under that name.

Found the same thing. I just created a new account using a new name and email address. No big deal.

 

GreySquint.gif

Link to comment

Ok. I made an account. The site won't let me log in using my user name. It INSISTS on using my email address. NOT GOOD!!! I don't want to have my email address plainly visible to anybody who goes to the site. That's what a USER NAME is for. They asked for a user name during account creation but won't allow me to log in using it. WTF?

You can change it in your user profile. Worked for me.

 

Can you provide step by step directions? I have the same problem, but couldn't find anywhere to change it.

 

edit to fix quotes

Edited by BuckeyeClan
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...