opencaching.com new mascot...

[+tozainamboku]

The Groundspeak SBA system doesn't work quite as well as it's perceived. To begin with, the obvious way of reporting a cache is a very public one that can put the reporter at odds not only with the owner of the cache, but other cachers who find the cache "fun" and "okay." The existing system also puts the onus on the reporter to prove there is a violation. In many instances the cache remains active until the cache owner agrees. We reported a cache that was near a 480 volt welding receptacle and another that required stopping on an interstate. It took an inordinate amount of time and multiple communications before they were archived. During this time, new finders will being placed in harm's way. Our most recent experience is a problematic cache that was placed by a seasoned reviewer. Other than writing GS, how do you work that one? (We haven't had much success emailing GS ... can't even get a blooming problem with a travel bug fixed.)

 

Bottom line, the approach used by GS puts pressure on the wrong individual. It should be up to the cache owner, not the reporter, to validate their cache one way or the other. Likewise, that process should be quick and anonymous (if the reporter chooses) and fairly hassle-free for the reporter. To do otherwise, discourages the reporting of bad caches.

 

Given the problems we've experienced, I don't know ... yet ... that the OC version is all that bad.

After the way reaction from this post took off, I'm a bit reluctant to put in my 2 cents.

 

It looks like the problem you had with the two examples you gave was that the caches put finders in harm's way. Unfortunately, this is not a violation of geocaching.com's guidelines, though it is as far as opencaching.com goes.

Keep your fellow geocachers safe

 

Don’t hide your caches on cliffs, down abandoned mines, in trenches or anywhere that might put the safety of geocachers in peril.

If it took a long time to get these caches archived it could be because you didn't provide the information needed to show they were in violation of geocaching.com guidelines. For the cache on the interstate you may have been able to show that stopping on the interstate for a non-emergency is illegal. Caches placement must comply with all applicable laws. For the 480 V receptacle you could had show that it was unlikely that permission was granted. My guess is that the reviewer took some time because they realized that the issues were more likely due to permission and was providing the cache owner the oppotunity to show whether or not they had permission.

 

I tend to disagree with the statement that "It should be up to the cache owner, not the reporter, to validate their cache one way or the other". It should depend on the situation. The reporter needs to provide some evidence to show that the guidelines have been violated. At that point the reviewer (or in the case of opencaching.com, the Garmin lackey) needs to work with the cache owner to rectify the problem or to provide evidence to show the cache is okay. Certainly, in some cases the reviewer can act to immediately disable or archive the cache while the discussion with the cache owner takes place.

 

I can see why someone who feels there should be a safety guidline would want an alleged safety violation to be taken out of play immediately. But since safety is not a geoaching.com guideline, the reviewer decided leave these caches in play while permission and other issues were persued. On opencaching.com I suspect that these caches may have been handled differently.

 

(It seems that during the beta release, Garmin hasn't completely determined the process they will have to handle reported problems. It looks like they currently evalutate the reports and if they look credible they immediately remove the cache from their listings. I'm not sure if the cache owner has any way to appeal the decision.)

Edited December 16, 2010 by tozainamboku

[knowschad]

Since they use the GC code and change it to OX. Right now it's easy enough to check for the 20 or so caches in SC. I see no harm in having an account and occasionally looking for a cache placed on land that prohibits caching. Instead of complaining and doing nothing to make sure SC doesn't try to ban caching again I mine as well be an average Joe cache reviewer.

No... I said, how are you gonna know it was cross-posted if you go to it from this site, not from that site. Also, even over there, I don't think there is any guarantee that the codes will have matching suffixes.

[+tozainamboku]

Opie is the awesome geocaching squirrel.

 

I just did a mouse over and that was what it said. Perhaps now that we know the mascot's name, what animal he is, and just how fierce he can be, pehaps this thread can be closed.

[+Castle Mischief]

Opie is the awesome geocaching squirrel.

 

I just did a mouse over and that was what it said. Perhaps now that we know the mascot's name, what animal he is, and just how fierce he can be, pehaps this thread can be closed.

 

I would have guessed opossum or raccoon long before squirrel. Any idea why he's blue?

[+Ecylram]

Any idea why he's blue?

Because nobody want's to play with him?

[+Castle Mischief]

Any idea why he's blue?

Because nobody want's to play with him?

 

*rimshot*

[+SwineFlew]

Any idea why he's blue?

Because nobody want's to play with him?

 

Thats a good one!

[Mr.Yuck]

Any idea why he's blue?

Because nobody want's to play with him?

 

*rimshot*

 

Oh yes, that was a good one. I think the thread could be closed now actually. But lets talk Geocaching mascots. I happen to think Opie the awesome Blue Squirrel is cooler than Signal the Frog, to be honest. But by far the coolest Geocaching website mascot is the unnamed Mole from the European Geocaching traveler website GeoKrety.org:

 

[+Castle Mischief]

Any idea why he's blue?

Because nobody want's to play with him?

 

*rimshot*

 

Oh yes, that was a good one. I think the thread could be closed now actually. But lets talk Geocaching mascots. I happen to think Opie the awesome Blue Squirrel is cooler than Signal the Frog, to be honest. But by far the coolest Geocaching website mascot is the unnamed Mole from the European Geocaching traveler website GeoKrety.org:

 

 

Clearly you have some sort of anti-amphibian, pro-mammalian agenda.

 

 

...on a scale of 1 to 10 just how awesome would you say Opie is...?

[+tozainamboku]

Any idea why he's blue?

Because nobody want's to play with him?

 

*rimshot*

 

Oh yes, that was a good one. I think the thread could be closed now actually. But lets talk Geocaching mascots. I happen to think Opie the awesome Blue Squirrel is cooler than Signal the Frog, to be honest. But by far the coolest Geocaching website mascot is the unnamed Mole from the European Geocaching traveler website GeoKrety.org:

 

Is he digging with a pointy object?

[Mr.Yuck]

Any idea why he's blue?

Because nobody want's to play with him?

 

*rimshot*

 

Oh yes, that was a good one. I think the thread could be closed now actually. But lets talk Geocaching mascots. I happen to think Opie the awesome Blue Squirrel is cooler than Signal the Frog, to be honest. But by far the coolest Geocaching website mascot is the unnamed Mole from the European Geocaching traveler website GeoKrety.org:

 

 

Clearly you have some sort of anti-amphibian, pro-mammalian agenda.

 

 

...on a scale of 1 to 10 just how awesome would you say Opie is...?

 

Mole a solid 9. Opie the Awesome Squirrel 8. Signal? Maybe a 5. Sorry Groundspeak, he just isn't as cool.

[knowschad]

Any idea why he's blue?

Because nobody want's to play with him?

 

*rimshot*

 

Oh yes, that was a good one. I think the thread could be closed now actually. But lets talk Geocaching mascots. I happen to think Opie the awesome Blue Squirrel is cooler than Signal the Frog, to be honest. But by far the coolest Geocaching website mascot is the unnamed Mole from the European Geocaching traveler website GeoKrety.org:

 

 

Clearly you have some sort of anti-amphibian, pro-mammalian agenda.

 

 

...on a scale of 1 to 10 just how awesome would you say Opie is...?

 

Mole a solid 9. Opie the Awesome Squirrel 8. Signal? Maybe a 5. Sorry Groundspeak, he just isn't as cool.

Opie is Fierce. Signal is Pretty Cool. The mole digs for caches so must be disqualified, but otherwise would be Totally Awesome.

[+Castle Mischief]

Is he digging with a pointy object?

 

Those wacky Germans. What won't they do?

[+dfx]

...on a scale of 1 to 10 just how awesome would you say Opie is...?

sorry but the awesomeness rating scale is only 1 to 5.

[+sTeamTraen]

Those wacky Germans. What won't they do?

Kret (plural: Krety) is the Polish word for mole.

[+Semper Questio]

Those wacky Germans. What won't they do?

Kret (plural: Krety) is the Polish word for mole.

 

So I guess his name in English would be "Digger"? What would that be in Polish?

[+narcissa]

...Anyway, I don't see a parallel between Wikipedia and geocaching...

I think what they were trying to say is:

Opencaching loses landowner trust = loss of available land for all cachers.

Wikipedia article lack of trust = loss of acceptance by scholars.

In both cases the lack of a Reviewer leads to lack of trust.

 

That is all. Carry on.

 

Wikipedia's lack of acceptance by scholars isn't based on cases of inaccuracy or a lack of trust. It's simply not acceptable to use an encyclopedia as source for a paper at the university level, in most cases. An encyclopedia is not a primary source. There are cases where the use of an encyclopedia can be justified, but those cases are the exception, not the norm.

 

On the whole, Wikipedia is remarkably accurate, and studies have shown that it rivals other well-known encyclopedias in this regard.

 

While it's obviously a very different beast than geocaching, there are points of comparison. Like Wikipedia, this Geocaching.com relies on content created by the community. Like Wikipedia, that content is vulnerable to problems and inaccuracy. Groundspeak relies on a top-down reviewer system that has benefits, but it also has problems. Wikipedia's open system also has benefits and problems.

 

I don't think chaos is an inevitability, but I think Opencaching.com needs to be very careful in its approach. A grassroots review system could be a really wonderful thing, if it's designed well.

 

Slashdot has used a community review system for its comments for years. Regular visitors to the site are occasionally awarded moderating points that they can use to promote or demote comments, and all users can meta-moderate the moderators. Obviously a news site is not an exact analog for geocaching either, but it is a good example of a community-based system that works.

[knowschad]

I don't think chaos is an inevitability, but I think Opencaching.com needs to be very careful in its approach. A grassroots review system could be a really wonderful thing, if it's designed well.

Well, considering an email posted on their forum recently by one of the Garmin crew said that they hadn't even considered that a cache owner might like to receive emails of the finders logs on their caches, I think being "very careful in its approach" might be a bit of a reach for those folks. The time to be very careful in their approach has passed.

[+narcissa]

I don't think chaos is an inevitability, but I think Opencaching.com needs to be very careful in its approach. A grassroots review system could be a really wonderful thing, if it's designed well.

Well, considering an email posted on their forum recently by one of the Garmin crew said that they hadn't even considered that a cache owner might like to receive emails of the finders logs on their caches, I think being "very careful in its approach" might be a bit of a reach for those folks. The time to be very careful in their approach has passed.

 

Indeed, the site's been up for a week. No chance to change now.

[+addisonbr]

Well, considering an email posted on their forum recently by one of the Garmin crew said that they hadn't even considered that a cache owner might like to receive emails of the finders logs on their caches, I think being "very careful in its approach" might be a bit of a reach for those folks. The time to be very careful in their approach has passed.

I thought there was a radio button in your profile for "Yes" or "No thanks" for receiving email when someone finds your cache. It may not be working and be yet another example of (fill-in-your-own-blank-here), but I didn't get the sense that they never considered the concept.

[knowschad]

I don't think chaos is an inevitability, but I think Opencaching.com needs to be very careful in its approach. A grassroots review system could be a really wonderful thing, if it's designed well.

Well, considering an email posted on their forum recently by one of the Garmin crew said that they hadn't even considered that a cache owner might like to receive emails of the finders logs on their caches, I think being "very careful in its approach" might be a bit of a reach for those folks. The time to be very careful in their approach has passed.

 

Indeed, the site's been up for a week. No chance to change now.

*IF* they had intended to make this a true beta test, and told people to not hide any real caches yet because they were intending to purge the database before going live... I might agree with you. Still time to change. But that's not how they went about this. They released it as soon as they had a rough skeleton and let people start to hide and list permanent caches before they have that "very careful approach" thought out.

[ZeMartelo]

There's always the option of contacting the reviewer outside the archival process. This is usually the best drama-free solution. We aren't beholden to only hitting the Needs Archived button.

 

Doesnt that goes against the flow here that claim that the hobby is dead without reviewers?

What do we need reviewers for then? Just to make sure we dont put caches in National parks or that the cache is far enough from another one??

[+Ecylram]

Doesnt that goes against the flow here that claim that the hobby is dead without reviewers?

I may have missed it but...who is claiming the hobby is dead without reviewers?

 

The comments I've seen have been to the point that the hobby is better off with reviewers.

[+Castle Mischief]

...on a scale of 1 to 10 just how awesome would you say Opie is...?

sorry but the awesomeness rating scale is only 1 to 5.

 

Mine goes to 10.

[+Castle Mischief]

Those wacky Germans. What won't they do?

Kret (plural: Krety) is the Polish word for mole.

 

Oops. My apologies to the Germans or the Polish, whichever may have been offended.

[+Castle Mischief]

There's always the option of contacting the reviewer outside the archival process. This is usually the best drama-free solution. We aren't beholden to only hitting the Needs Archived button.

 

Doesnt that goes against the flow here that claim that the hobby is dead without reviewers?

What do we need reviewers for then? Just to make sure we dont put caches in National parks or that the cache is far enough from another one??

 

Huh? I'm sure what you're saying. Reporting a cache using the NA log gets the reviewer's attention. Contacting the reviewer privately gets their attention. Same end result. Both use the reviewer. The reviewers are crucial and the second (or third) most important part of a new cache listing, I'd never suggest anything else.

[Ayeaka]

I think that their peer reviewing process could actually work quite well.

 

If there are lots of complaints about something, obviously a halt is going to be put to it; peer reviews mean that caches too close to another cache (whether on another site, or not,) will likely be removed quicker, as well.

 

The simplicity's nice. I think a competitor at this point may be a good thing. It'll keep both sides on their toes, which means more needed changes are likely to occur.

 

The problem with monopolies is stagnation. If it'd be expensive to change something, and there's no need (due to no competition) why change it?

 

But if a new kid's in town? We'll probably see a lot of the things we've been wanting for some time now.

[knowschad]

I think that their peer reviewing process could actually work quite well.

 

If there are lots of complaints about something, obviously a halt is going to be put to it; peer reviews mean that caches too close to another cache (whether on another site, or not,) will likely be removed quicker, as well.

 

The simplicity's nice. I think a competitor at this point may be a good thing. It'll keep both sides on their toes, which means more needed changes are likely to occur.

 

The problem with monopolies is stagnation. If it'd be expensive to change something, and there's no need (due to no competition) why change it?

 

But if a new kid's in town? We'll probably see a lot of the things we've been wanting for some time now.

Competition from the website feature aspect probably will be a good thing. But I think that's where it stops being good for geocaching.

 

Here in the Mpls area, many of our parks, cities, counties, and private park management companies have been requiring cache registration. Our local geocaching group has done an admirable job of reaching out to these groups and guiding them in their geocaching policies, but the bottom line is that many of them are already very hesitant to allow caching.

 

Can you imagine what is going to happen when these parties learn that there is a new kid in town that they also have to now deal with? If I may quote a line from one of those hard-working folks in our local geocaching organization: "While competition is generally a good thing, in this case not so much. Anarchy is not going to make parks comfortable with this game we play. "

[ZeMartelo]

Can you imagine what is going to happen when these parties learn that there is a new kid in town that they also have to now deal with? If I may quote a line from one of those hard-working folks in our local geocaching organization: "While competition is generally a good thing, in this case not so much. Anarchy is not going to make parks comfortable with this game we play. "

Theres that creepy word again... Anarchy... it really is the end of the world isnt it?

 

Why there has to be caches in parks that obviously are making it explicitly difficult to place them? Isnt the planet big enough for caches? Arent there enough caches around to find??

I'd say boycott them. And why are they making it difficult? Is it perhaps because owners are not careful hidding caches, or is it maybe because finders are not careful either?? Is that also the fault of the other site as well?

Myself I would not go thru all the hassle to hide a cache in an unwelcoming place. They dont deserve it.

 

I find it funny that alot of people are all gloom and doom with that other site without realizing that the problems that are being discussed here are already happening here.

 

Instead of all this end of world craziness why not step back and see what the other side is going to do?

Right now they have done nothing.

Edited December 17, 2010 by ZeMartelo

[+Ecylram]

I find it funny that alot of people are all gloom and doom with that other site without realizing that the problems that are being discussed here are already happening here.

The difference is, that with moderation GC manages to keep the number of problem caches down to a tiny percentage. Without moderation the percentage of problem caches would be much higher.

 

We know, because of comments posted here, that a good percentage of cache submissions get kicked back to the CO for clarification or remediation. On OC those would fly through without further examination.

[+narcissa]

The difference is, that with moderation GC manages to keep the number of problem caches down to a tiny percentage.

 

The number of caches placed without permission in my area is not a tiny percentage. The reviewers don't even seem to ask about permission, even when it should be obvious that permission is necessary/unlikely. The only time the reviewers seem to take a hard line about permission is when a cache is placed within the boundaries of lands with sweeping geocaching bans.

 

So, much of the time, if a cache is placed without permission at Geocaching.com, it gets through with no problem, and it requires a complaint to have it taken care of anyway.

 

One of the biggest problems with Geocaching.com is that once a cache is published, there's a substantial amount of peer pressure within the community to keep problems quiet - many people consider it "rude" to get someone else's cache disabled, even when there's a serious issue with it. There are lots of geocachers who don't use "Needs Maintenance" or "Needs Archived" because of a legitimate fear of retaliation from other geocachers.

 

Groundspeak's reviewer system isn't very transparent, and it leaves some cache owners feeling like they have nowhere to turn when there's a conflict. Reviewers don't appear to be subject to any sort of accountability - if they are, regular geocachers certainly aren't privy to it.

 

Under the right circumstances, a new website (not necessarily Opencaching.com) could position itself to create a different culture that fosters a healthier geocaching community and the possibility of a community review system.

[knowschad]

Can you imagine what is going to happen when these parties learn that there is a new kid in town that they also have to now deal with? If I may quote a line from one of those hard-working folks in our local geocaching organization: "While competition is generally a good thing, in this case not so much. Anarchy is not going to make parks comfortable with this game we play. "

Theres that creepy word again... Anarchy... it really is the end of the world isnt it?

Well, anarchy hasn't really worked very well in the past few thousand years, has it? But that isn't the point. In fact, the point isn't even if it is anarchy, or not. The perception of anarchy is all that is necessary to cause some very serious problems with the parks and other government people.

 

There may be room in New Brunswick right now to boycott hiding caches in the parks that regulate caches, but that is not true everywhere, and I seriously doubt that it is really true in New Brunswick. Besides those parks are generally parks because they are the sorts of places that people like to go to (and geocache in). You actually think the parks "don't deserve" our caches? Get over yourself, man.

 

This is not all "gloom and doom", "craziness", and "creepy words". This is a mature and generally intelligent consideration of the implications of what is transpiring and how it may (or may not) affect all of us.

[+dfx]

The perception of anarchy is all that is necessary to cause some very serious problems with the parks and other government people.

anarchy is the absence of rules. but oc.com does have rules, and quite clearly spelled out too. those rules are also enforced. it's just the method of enforcement that's different.

[+Ecylram]

The perception of anarchy is all that is necessary to cause some very serious problems with the parks and other government people.

anarchy is the absence of rules. but oc.com does have rules, and quite clearly spelled out too. those rules are also enforced. it's just the method of enforcement that's different.

Knowshad said "The perception of anarchy".

[+dfx]

Knowshad said "The perception of anarchy".

so what? how could you perceive something as anarchy that has clearly spelled out rules? that's the whole point i was making.

Edited December 17, 2010 by dfx

[+Ecylram]

Knowshad said "The perception of anarchy".

so what? how could you perceive something as anarchy that has clearly spelled out rules? that's the whole point i was making.

Because of the perceived lack of enforcement.

 

A rule that is not enforced is not a rule. or...A rule that is not perceived to be enforced is not perceived as being a 'real' rule.

 

a koan...

 

If there are no rules, can anarchy exist?

[+tozainamboku]

I don't doubt there may be some land managers who will insist on pre-screening of caches. They could simply make a rule that your cache needs to be listed on GC.com. If someone posts a cache on the other site without it first being approved on geocaching.com then it will not be in compliance with that site's guidelines. You must check with the authorit that manages the land before you hide anything. I assume this mean you must comply with their rules for placing caches. (There may be some clarification needed in their guidelines but that doesn't mean there system for enforcing them won't work. Geocaching.com could use some clarification of some guidelines as well).

 

Let's say someone puts a cache in a park with this policy and submits to the other site without getting it published first on GC.com. Well, some geocachers will report the cache is in violation of the other site's guidelines and the listing will be removed. Simple.

 

Now you could have a land manager who is looking for an excuse to ban geocaching. They may say that when they ask for pre-screening they mean that even if the listing is online for a very short time that isn't good enough. So they decide to ban geocaching entirely. If this is the case, Lord help the reviewer who accidentally clicks the publish button. My guess is that most parks will be able to live with the other system as long as they believe that that community will police itself and remove bad listings quickly.

[+FireRef]

I don't see why it is so hard to understand the opencaching.com system for dealing with caches that don't meet the guidelines.

I don't think there is anyone in here that doesn't understand their process. We just find it a bit backwards.

I agree with the logic behind most of the GC guidelines, and most of the OC guidelines. Over here, many of the guideline violations get stopped before they get published, which I see as a good thing, as I believe a cache that is in violation of the guidelines has the potential to hurt this game. Over there, a cache that doesn't meet the guidelines gets published, and stays that way, until somebody reports it. The CCC thread has several examples of caches that violate the GC guidelines, slipping through the reviewer cracks, and getting gobs of found logs, with few mentioning that they might be problematic. This tells me that relying on peer pressure for guideline enforcement is ineffective at best.

 

Or maybe that sometimes, the guidelines are wrong, and someone going ape over a cache which is a very good hide, because it doesn't meet someone's (or some website's) arbitrary idea of what constitutes a legitimate hide isn't a good thing.

[+FireRef]

Letterboxing has been around since, what, 1854? They're all over the place. No Reviewers. No total ban. No end of the game.

 

Just sayin'

 

I would consider this a perfect example of how over-the-top the guidelines/rules have become in terms of protecting... well, are we protecting the game, or someone's legal liability? And who is that someone? No concerns over there.

 

And don't say our problem is because there are more geocaches than letterboxes... that's just not a valid argument.

[+The Jester]

Any idea why he's blue?

Because nobody want's to play with him?

 

*rimshot*

 

Oh yes, that was a good one. I think the thread could be closed now actually. But lets talk Geocaching mascots. I happen to think Opie the awesome Blue Squirrel is cooler than Signal the Frog, to be honest. But by far the coolest Geocaching website mascot is the unnamed Mole from the European Geocaching traveler website GeoKrety.org:

 

 

Clearly you have some sort of anti-amphibian, pro-mammalian agenda.

 

 

...on a scale of 1 to 10 just how awesome would you say Opie is...?

 

Mole a solid 9. Opie the Awesome Squirrel 8. Signal? Maybe a 5. Sorry Groundspeak, he just isn't as cool.

Opie is Fierce. Signal is Pretty Cool. The mole digs for caches so must be disqualified, but otherwise would be Totally Awesome.

There is nothing in the guidelines that prevents carrying a shovel to a cache, you just can't use them to find/hide caches. And I believe that Mole Union rules require them to have the tools of their trade with them.

[+geodarts]

The perception of anarchy is all that is necessary to cause some very serious problems with the parks and other government people.

anarchy is the absence of rules. but oc.com does have rules, and quite clearly spelled out too. those rules are also enforced. it's just the method of enforcement that's different.

 

A minor clarification: Anarchy (at least in some of its forms) is not so much about the absence of rules as it is how rules are made or enforced. But I suppose this isn't the thread to discuss differences between anarcho-syndicalism and individualst approaches.

Edited December 17, 2010 by mulvaney

[Clan Riffster]

Can you imagine what is going to happen when these parties learn that there is a new kid in town that they also have to now deal with?

That's just it. They don't have to deal with them. At GC, there needs to be open lines of communication between the players and the land managers, because we have a team of volunteer reviewers who check our hides prior to publication to ensure that they adhere to the guidelines, and have explicit permission in those places that call for it. Since there is nobody to check your work, you could hide all you wanted, where ever you wanted, and OC would not know anything about it until some one reported you. Heck, the land manager could cover his property boundary with big neon signs screaming "No Geocaching Allowed", and you could still hide all the OC caches you want. Heck, I'm thinking on taking a trip to Yellowstone just to hide a film can in Old Faithful. Or maybe Hawaii? I could rent a helicopter and cover the islands with vacation caches. After all, OC has no idea where I live.

[/sarcasm]

 

The perception of anarchy is all that is necessary to cause some very serious problems with the parks

Exactly. When I was working with Seminole County Natural Lands, helping them develop a geocaching policy, one thing they wanted to see was how the various cache listing sites took care of problem caches. Locally, the issue was between Terracaching .com and Geocaching .com, because Navicaching really had no presence. They looked all over the TC website for their guidelines and were shocked when they found none. I explained to the land managers that the only real control at TC was the people who sponsor an individual cacher. They act as a reviewer in the publication process. If I'm hiding caches in Central Florida, and my sponsors are from the other side of the planet, they may not be aware of local rules governing this hobby. (at least I think that's how it works over there) Those land managers perceived that TC was a horde of lawless cachers, (which they are not), and included a rule forbidding any cache on their property that is not listed at GC. As hard as I tried to explain that TCers were, for the most part, a highly conscientious group, respectful of land manager wishes, since they could not see the rules for TC in black and white, they decided there must not be any.

 

those rules are also enforced.

It sure doesn't look that way from here in the cheap seats. I've got 64 active OC hides. 20 of those hides are on properties that require explicit permission. Do I have permission for those 20? Can you tell which 20 they are? They've been active for a few days now. Why hasn't OC enforced their permission requirement? My guess is because whoever it is that deletes caches from OC has no idea which properties around here require explicit permission. If they had a competent reviewer staff, they would probably know that. Maybe.

 

Let's say someone puts a cache in a park with this policy and submits to the other site without getting it published first on GC.com. Well, some geocachers will report the cache is in violation of the other site's guidelines and the listing will be removed. Simple.

Brother, I think you are living in a dream world. Those of us, (yourself included), who have spent more than 15 seconds perusing these forums know that, in many instances, cachers who find caches that are clearly guideline violations, simply log a find and move on, even though there is a method for reporting them that does not require direct involvement. Thinking that this method of operation is going to suddenly change simply because you remove the reviewers from the equation is a fantasy.

 

Or maybe that sometimes, the guidelines are wrong...

Here we go again.

Does anyone have a beating dead horse icon they can spare?

[+addisonbr]

Thinking that this method of operation is going to suddenly change simply because you remove the reviewers from the equation is a fantasy.

I think it's possible that a different norm could develop in the absence of top-down enforcement. It's possible that, believing it's the reviewer's responsibility to enforce guidelines, people approach their own role in enforcing the guidelines very differently. Publish it 20 feet away from the train tracks? The reviewer must have granted them an exception. Publish it in the middle of a cemetery? Easy to see on a Google Map, so they must have had permission or the reviewer wouldn't have published it. I can't speak for everyone on these boards, but there are times I've had thoughts very similar to the above.

 

I'm not sure that it's necessarily a fantasy to imagine that a group of by and large conscientious people (geocachers as a whole) couldn't do a fine job if they found themselves in a slightly different setup, with no reviewer prescreening the listings.

 

(Standard caveat - I would still prefer for the new site to use a review process.)

[+JL_HSTRE]

A common issue that gets mentioned alot in this thread is the feeling that cachers on geocaching.com assume any listing has been fully approved by Reviewers and therefore is fully within the Guidelines.

 

As well all know, some do slip through for various reasons.

 

Perhaps it's time the GC.com community stepped up its 'community review efforts' and we all start being more vigilant about reporting to Reviewers caches which may violate guidelines?

[knowschad]

The perception of anarchy is all that is necessary to cause some very serious problems with the parks and other government people.

anarchy is the absence of rules. but oc.com does have rules, and quite clearly spelled out too. those rules are also enforced. it's just the method of enforcement that's different.

THE PERCEPTION OF is the key phrase there. And it is referring to the perception that the managing bodies have of the site.

[+BuckeyeClan]

The problem is, relying on cachers to report problems assumes that most cachers actually KNOW what the guidelines are. I'm sure there are plenty of casual cachers that have never read the guidelines, since those guidelines are for HIDING a cache. Some stuff, like no caches on school property, should be fairly obvious. But how far, exactly, from railroad tracks is acceptable probably isn't common knowledge. This website is, and has always been, the default for cachers. You hear about/read about geocaching, decide you want to try, you go to geocaching.com to try it out. I'm guessing that Terracaching didn't have many problems because most of the people who sought out that website were already established cachers, who were looking for something more or different. I doubt that they got too many total newbies. If oc.com becomes the "alternative" site to Groundspeak, then peer review might be enough. But if they want to become the "default" site (as they seem to want to do), then I don't think peer review will be sufficient.

[+Tobias & Petronella]

But if they want to become the "default" site (as they seem to want to do), then I don't think peer review will be sufficient.

 

I like the idea of a peer review site especially if I can kill any cache if it goes against the "rules". Such as the impossible puzzle caches for violating the rule of "good taste". Someone else could kill all of the skirt lifters for violating the rule of "don't be lame" and so on. That way only the best of the best will remain. :laughing:

[+johnsingleton1974]

But if they want to become the "default" site (as they seem to want to do), then I don't think peer review will be sufficient.

 

I like the idea of a peer review site especially if I can kill any cache if it goes against the "rules". Such as the impossible puzzle caches for violating the rule of "good taste". Someone else could kill all of the skirt lifters for violating the rule of "don't be lame" and so on. That way only the best of the best will remain. :laughing:

 

thats the spirit

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

I like the idea of a peer review site especially if I can kill any cache if it goes against the "rules". Such as the impossible puzzle caches for violating the rule of "good taste". Someone else could kill all of the skirt lifters for violating the rule of "don't be lame" and so on. That way only the best of the best will remain. :laughing:

 

That was the intent on another site, but it ended up being a punishment tool for those who voiced opinion that ran contrary to what other forum users wanted to hear. It was also used to punish those who ran afoul of the high scorers (the ones with the most voting power.). A good many of the people on that other site could not separate what type of cache they liked from whether or not a particular cache was well done. They didn't like that type of cache so it got voted poorly regardless of how well it was done.

 

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

John

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The biggest problem I see (among many) is the limitation of downloading to Garmin equipment only. If opencaching.com survives at all we'll have two communities - geocachers and Garmincachers.