Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11
FickFam

opencaching.com new mascot...

Recommended Posts

 

Garmin owns a "patent" on Wherigo .......

 

 

Actually, Groundspeak (Jeremy and Elias) owns the patent.

 

.

Oops, typo, but I think the context of my statements made that clear :(

Share this post


Link to post
My concern is that if they don't have a review process, which is what most of the other competing sites lack, is that it can go back to the open range days of geocaching, which would be the death knell for our sport.

 

Say what you will about the guidelines here, but most of them were developed in response to issues raised by land managers and other authorities.

 

GC.com lackeys, volunteers and users have spent years developing relationships with land managers and all it takes is one irresponsibly placed cache to ruin some of those relationships.

Yep. Several of the parks and open spaces around here have geocaching policies that require caches to be listed on geocaching.com, and the review process here is the reason.

No, the inference that its required that the listing be on gc.com is more of an oversimplification because gc.com is the only "real" listing site out there, at this time.

 

I do not see any reason why that would be enforced, and it could be taken even further to the point of claiming discrimination or support of commercialism, both things that most publicly funded/tax supported organizations (such as your local parks board) are not allowed to do. The fact that gc.com is listed is more a semantics issue, not a requirement.

Share this post


Link to post

Take Wherigo for example, (although not Garmin's game), do you think they would have sold anywhere near the same number of Oregon's without it? A market was created (this new Wherigo game), and devices were sold.

 

wait. wait. did you just said that people bought oregons because they supported Wherigo?

 

:(

BINGO!

Share this post


Link to post
Several of the parks and open spaces around here have geocaching policies that require caches to be listed on geocaching.com, and the review process here is the reason.
No, the inference that its required that the listing be on gc.com is more of an oversimplification because gc.com is the only "real" listing site out there, at this time.

 

I do not see any reason why that would be enforced, and it could be taken even further to the point of claiming discrimination or support of commercialism, both things that most publicly funded/tax supported organizations (such as your local parks board) are not allowed to do. The fact that gc.com is listed is more a semantics issue, not a requirement.

No, listing the cache on geocaching.com is a requirement. You're free to list it on other listing services too, but the other listing services do not have the kind of review process that geocaching.com does. In some cases, the parks and open spaces also require volunteer monitors be assigned to each park, open space, or other facility, and we are required to put all the caches in our assigned area on our watchlist (or on a bookmark list with logs emailed to us, which is essentially the same thing). If we notice problems with any of the geocaches in our assigned areas, then we need to take action.

 

If another listing service wants to establish a similar review process, and demonstrate to the parks and open spaces that that review process will address their concerns, then I'm sure both review processes would be acceptable alternatives. But that hasn't happened yet.

 

And it might create some "commercialism" issue if geocaching.com eliminated free memberships. But that hasn't happened yet either.

 

The alternative to listing your geocache on geocaching.com is to place your geocache somewhere else, somewhere with a different geocaching policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Several of the parks and open spaces around here have geocaching policies that require caches to be listed on geocaching.com, and the review process here is the reason.
No, the inference that its required that the listing be on gc.com is more of an oversimplification because gc.com is the only "real" listing site out there, at this time.

 

I do not see any reason why that would be enforced, and it could be taken even further to the point of claiming discrimination or support of commercialism, both things that most publicly funded/tax supported organizations (such as your local parks board) are not allowed to do. The fact that gc.com is listed is more a semantics issue, not a requirement.

No, listing the cache on geocaching.com is a requirement. You're free to list it on other listing services too, but the other listing services do not have the kind of review process that geocaching.com does. In some cases, the parks and open spaces also require volunteer monitors be assigned to each park, open space, or other facility, and we are required to put all the caches in our assigned area on our watchlist (or on a bookmark list with logs emailed to us, which is essentially the same thing). If we notice problems with any of the geocaches in our assigned areas, then we need to take action.

 

If another listing service wants to establish a similar review process, and demonstrate to the parks and open spaces that that review process will address their concerns, then I'm sure both review processes would be acceptable alternatives. But that hasn't happened yet.

 

And it might create some "commercialism" issue if geocaching.com eliminated free memberships. But that hasn't happened yet either.

 

The alternative to listing your geocache on geocaching.com is to place your geocache somewhere else, somewhere with a different geocaching policy.

I would quickly state that I believe if ever challenged, the parks board, or whoever, would quickly change their policy. If not, they are asking for legal issues.

 

You are also assuming that any real contender to gs won't have some type of guidelines, policies, or reviews, I doubt Garmin is that stupid.

 

In reality, who is better known, gs or Garmin? If Garmin listed a cache, do you think it would really be rejected by most parks boards? I highly doubt it.

 

You seem to be hanging onto some thread of hope to keep Garmin down that really isn't going to matter in the long run.

 

Park policies will be quickly updated, this is a non-issue.

Share this post


Link to post
did you just said that people bought oregons because they supported Wherigo?

I did. I also bought a Colorado. Initially, my search for a new GPSr was to go paperless, which I found to be cumbersome with my 60CSx. The other two contenders in my search were from Delorme and Magellan. During my search, I did my first Wherigo cache, and that sealed the deal for me. The experience was so unique, I knew I had to try it for myself. My wife and I couldn't agree between the Oregon and the Colorado, so I bought both.

Share this post


Link to post
I would quickly state that I believe if ever challenged, the parks board, or whoever, would quickly change their policy. If not, they are asking for legal issues.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But I'd rather they not change their policies to prohibit geocaching altogether.

 

You are also assuming that any real contender to gs won't have some type of guidelines, policies, or reviews, I doubt Garmin is that stupid.
Huh? I have no idea what any "real contender to gs" will do. Right now, Groundspeak is the one listing service with a review process that satisfies the local land managers. As I said before:
If another listing service wants to establish a similar review process, and demonstrate to the parks and open spaces that that review process will address their concerns, then I'm sure both review processes would be acceptable alternatives. But that hasn't happened yet.
You seem to be hanging onto some thread of hope to keep Garmin down that really isn't going to matter in the long run.
Keeping Garmin down? Really? I'm just pointing out that the key for any listing service to be accepted by local land managers is a review process similar to the one Groundspeak has established (in some cases, supplemented by a volunteer monitor process).

Share this post


Link to post

]Huh? I have no idea what any "real contender to gs" will do. Right now, Groundspeak is the one listing service with a review process that satisfies the local land managers. As I said before:

If another listing service wants to establish a similar review process, and demonstrate to the parks and open spaces that that review process will address their concerns, then I'm sure both review processes would be acceptable alternatives. But that hasn't happened yet.

 

That is not accurate. There is another site active currently that has the review process, has stated that all caches listed there must follow all local laws and policies, and any will be shut down immediately if it comes out that they don't. I personally contacted the local park managers who have regulations on caches there and let them know of this site and neither had a problem with caches that met their guidelines on either site.

Edited by jeffbouldin

Share this post


Link to post

I think a lot of this boils down to Groundspeak has the market cornered right now. No other site has developed the cache database or tools to access this database that will draw the number of people to their site that GS has right now.

 

I do know they have worked hard to promote the sport by making sure there are policies and procedures and review process steps and rules (sorry, guidelines) that in some cases are made clear, and in some cases are not as clear. These things have greatly benefited the game.

 

However, they have also done these things to protect their database (which is full of data from the users, not them), and to protect themselves legally. Not that I have a problem with this, just that it doesn't benefit the game or the users as much as it protects them.

 

These other sites - maybe less rules, maybe less users, maybe less caches. Problem is that, regardless of what happens with these sites, when the second and third ones go up, I'm sure the first one will. Welcome to today's world. The game becomes less important than the legal issues involved. I guess that's just the way it is/has to be.

 

I am curious - what site is supposed to get shut down if they don't follow their own rules? I know T-caching is going down, but that seemed more related to the owner deciding not to continue to support it.

Share this post


Link to post

I am curious - what site is supposed to get shut down if they don't follow their own rules? I know T-caching is going down, but that seemed more related to the owner deciding not to continue to support it.

 

The site won't be shut down, the cache will be shut down. Let's say I go to find a cache listed on this site (someone already linked to it, I'm not going to so it doesn't appear I'm promoting it) and find it in a Cemetery (illeagle in TN), or I find it in a city park that requires a permit and it doesn't have one. I will report it to the admin and they will take it down. That is exactly what the reviewers here do.

Share this post


Link to post
Let's say I go to find a cache listed on this site (someone already linked to it, I'm not going to so it doesn't appear I'm promoting it) and find it in a Cemetery (illeagle in TN), or I find it in a city park that requires a permit and it doesn't have one. I will report it to the admin and they will take it down. That is exactly what the reviewers here do.
But that isn't all the reviewers here do.

Share this post


Link to post
Several of the parks and open spaces around here have geocaching policies that require caches to be listed on geocaching.com, and the review process here is the reason.
No, the inference that its required that the listing be on gc.com is more of an oversimplification because gc.com is the only "real" listing site out there, at this time.

 

I do not see any reason why that would be enforced, and it could be taken even further to the point of claiming discrimination or support of commercialism, both things that most publicly funded/tax supported organizations (such as your local parks board) are not allowed to do. The fact that gc.com is listed is more a semantics issue, not a requirement.

I would quickly state that I believe if ever challenged, the parks board, or whoever, would quickly change their policy. If not, they are asking for legal issues.

 

You are also assuming that any real contender to gs won't have some type of guidelines, policies, or reviews, I doubt Garmin is that stupid.

 

In reality, who is better known, gs or Garmin? If Garmin listed a cache, do you think it would really be rejected by most parks boards? I highly doubt it.

 

You seem to be hanging onto some thread of hope to keep Garmin down that really isn't going to matter in the long run.

 

Park policies will be quickly updated, this is a non-issue.

Actually, most states have mandates of who they have do business with and are required by law to deal with only those companies.

 

For instance, the public works department is not able to go say, "We need 3 new lawn mowers this year. Let's get them from the new guy down the street because he seems like a good guy."

 

They have to, by law, purchase the mowers from the company that is the approved vendor for the state, and if they buy it from someone else, they are leaving themselves open for a lawsuit from the person who holds the contract to do business with the state.

 

In the case of caching, if the state has a mandate saying, "We will only deal with Groundspeak" then that's who they have to deal with. If another company wants to be on the list, then they would have to go through the approval process, which usually happens just one time per year or every three or four years, depending on how the contract is written.

Share this post


Link to post

]Huh? I have no idea what any "real contender to gs" will do. Right now, Groundspeak is the one listing service with a review process that satisfies the local land managers. As I said before:

If another listing service wants to establish a similar review process, and demonstrate to the parks and open spaces that that review process will address their concerns, then I'm sure both review processes would be acceptable alternatives. But that hasn't happened yet.

 

That is not accurate. There is another site active currently that has the review process, has stated that all caches listed there must follow all local laws and policies, and any will be shut down immediately if it comes out that they don't. I personally contacted the local park managers who have regulations on caches there and let them know of this site and neither had a problem with caches that met their guidelines on either site.

 

I am a supporter of Geocaching alternatives. They've all been a flop so far, but I'd at least like to see one attain AMD vs. Intel status. :)

 

Jeffbouldin is obviously talking about the newest kid on the block, and they do have a review process. I've heard the arguments over the years about the so-called stringent review process over here, and the tireless work of volunteers helping to establish policies with land managers. These arguments usually go on to bash the policies at Terracaching.com, Navicache.com (or very recently, opencaching.us). But no one ever brings up letterboxing; Forget about how you arrive at the site, and forget about the contents of the containers. Our hobbies are identical to the outside observer, consisting of containers sitting in the woods.

 

Letterboxing.org has been around since 1999. AtlasQuest.com (which has grown to be more popular than the former) since 2004. Terracaching.com, whether they go away next month or not, attained about 10,000 caches in 5 years. I'd dare say there are 10 times that many Letterboxes on the two sites. The two Letterboxing sites basically have no review process!! Doomsday scenario's of the end of Letterboxing have certainly never come to be. Letterboxing is alive and well, and isn't going away.

 

Not that I support "no review process" or anything. :D

Share this post


Link to post
But no one ever brings up letterboxing; Forget about how you arrive at the site, and forget about the contents of the containers. Our hobbies are identical to the outside observer, consisting of containers sitting in the woods.

 

 

Exactly. The public has learned about Letterboxing thru Geocaching (it was a well kept secret for over a hundred years) but just as we ask for Coke, not Cola, Kleenex, not facial tissue - the muggle population sees letterboxing as geocaching.

 

A letterbox IS a geocache to a land manager ... even if the letterboxers and geocachers would come to blows over such a statement, it's all the same to a park superintendant - it's a box, in the woods, that they didn't place and are struggling not to consider litter or illegal dumping.

Share this post


Link to post
Exactly. The public has learned about Letterboxing thru Geocaching (it was a well kept secret for over a hundred years) but just as we ask for Coke, not Cola, Kleenex, not facial tissue - the muggle population sees letterboxing as geocaching.

 

A letterbox IS a geocache to a land manager ... even if the letterboxers and geocachers would come to blows over such a statement, it's all the same to a park superintendant - it's a box, in the woods, that they didn't place and are struggling not to consider litter or illegal dumping.

Yep. And I would wager that a back-and-forth about which listing site is ultimately responsible (gc.com, navi/terra/open/caching, letterboxing, promotional stunts by companies) is just going to exasperate the typical land manager.

 

If I was contacted by a land manager about a letterbox or a terracache for some reason, I would probably say "Thank you sir for bringing this to my attention; I'll get it taken care of" and then try to find the appropriate contact person at the appropriate site.

Share this post


Link to post

Yep. And I would wager that a back-and-forth about which listing site is ultimately responsible (gc.com, navi/terra/open/caching, letterboxing, promotional stunts by companies) is just going to exasperate the typical land manager.

 

If I was contacted by a land manager about a letterbox or a terracache for some reason, I would probably say "Thank you sir for bringing this to my attention; I'll get it taken care of" and then try to find the appropriate contact person at the appropriate site.

 

What's going to be real fun is when we start getting proximity clashes between the listing sites. Wait until there's a Garmin cache on one side of the pretty waterfall, and a Geocaching.com cache four feet downstream.

 

Now picture the land manager that doesn't want either of them there. Oh yeah, and there's that letterbox up the bank too. That's how frustrated land managers arrive at "ban them" as an effective way to manage caches - far less paperwork.

 

I somehow doubt the GC.com and Garmin reviewers will be talking to each other (when approving cache locations), especially if Garmin goes with a peer review system.

Share this post


Link to post

What's going to be real fun is when we start getting proximity clashes between the listing sites. Wait until there's a Garmin cache on one side of the pretty waterfall, and a Geocaching.com cache four feet downstream.

 

Now picture the land manager that doesn't want either of them there. Oh yeah, and there's that letterbox up the bank too. That's how frustrated land managers arrive at "ban them" as an effective way to manage caches - far less paperwork.

 

Start? This already happens.

Share this post


Link to post

What's going to be real fun is when we start getting proximity clashes between the listing sites. Wait until there's a Garmin cache on one side of the pretty waterfall, and a Geocaching.com cache four feet downstream.

 

Now picture the land manager that doesn't want either of them there. Oh yeah, and there's that letterbox up the bank too. That's how frustrated land managers arrive at "ban them" as an effective way to manage caches - far less paperwork.

 

Start? This already happens.

 

Sorry, I live in Ontario, Canada. Both the Terracaching caches have very little traffic :), Opencaching.us doesn't officially support Canada, and navicaching was a colossal flop here. Letterboxing, I've found two containers at a cache final before - one had a stamp in it :D

 

The thing is with an entity like Garmin launching a site, with decent funding and a couple decent web programmers there is an actual threat of the site getting traction, even if the "old guard" here at Geocaching.com ignore the new site - think of how many people who have never been geocaching before buy their first GPS next year and there's a "What's Geocaching? Visit Opencaching.com" flyer in the box.

 

Navicaching/Terracaching have HORRIBLE user interfaces, that tends to drive the listing counts down. 10 boxes with proximity issues in Ontario is one thing. 5,000 caches with proximity issues is quite another. Let's be honest here - there is going to be a land rush on the new site if it takes off and everyone who thinks "all the best spots are taken" are going to have an opportunity to run out and drop a cache where they've been blocked by the 162M radius on Geocaching.com

Share this post


Link to post

What's going to be real fun is when we start getting proximity clashes between the listing sites. Wait until there's a Garmin cache on one side of the pretty waterfall, and a Geocaching.com cache four feet downstream.

 

Now picture the land manager that doesn't want either of them there. Oh yeah, and there's that letterbox up the bank too. That's how frustrated land managers arrive at "ban them" as an effective way to manage caches - far less paperwork.

 

Start? This already happens.

 

Sorry, I live in Ontario, Canada...

 

Actually I was thinking in regard to letterboxes and in global terms.

Share this post


Link to post

Twice now, I have found a letterbox within 10 feet of a geocache.

 

My wife found one of each on opposite sides of the same tree. Right hand was letterboxing, left hand was geocaching. :)

Share this post


Link to post
In the case of caching, if the state has a mandate saying, "We will only deal with Groundspeak" then that's who they have to deal with. If another company wants to be on the list, then they would have to go through the approval process, which usually happens just one time per year or every three or four years, depending on how the contract is written.

I doubt if the state or county parks people have been out to tender for "Official Geocache Information Partner". :) But I can see how they don't want to deal with more than one site. They will have become used to Groundspeak rules like "no more than 1 cache per 0.1 miles" and, even though there is no objective reason to, adopted these listing guidelines as placement guidelines for their own land.

 

As to whether land managers will be able to avoid working with Garmin as a big company: Garmin isn't doing itself any favours, firstly by positioning their site as "Opencaching, nothing to see, no big evil corporation name to see here", and secondly, by using the same 11-letter name as a community-run site. As a park manager who spends 0.1% of my time worry about geocaching, I want to remember "geocaching = Geocaching.com"; I don't want to have to put one of those rock band family tree charts on my wall just so I can remember who is (or, in fact, isn't) in charge of all that Tupperware.

Share this post


Link to post
But no one ever brings up letterboxing; Forget about how you arrive at the site, and forget about the contents of the containers. Our hobbies are identical to the outside observer, consisting of containers sitting in the woods.

 

 

Exactly. The public has learned about Letterboxing thru Geocaching (it was a well kept secret for over a hundred years) but just as we ask for Coke, not Cola, Kleenex, not facial tissue - the muggle population sees letterboxing as geocaching.

 

A letterbox IS a geocache to a land manager ... even if the letterboxers and geocachers would come to blows over such a statement, it's all the same to a park superintendant - it's a box, in the woods, that they didn't place and are struggling not to consider litter or illegal dumping.

 

Generally, I'd agree that the public has learned about Letterboxing because of Geocaching, but I'll tell you what. The first time it ever came up at a family function I was a Geocacher, my sister-in-law had heard of Letterboxing, but not Geocaching. And I had to explain it as being "like letterboxing"!! I guess she knew someone who did it.

 

And just so people don't think that I think Letterboxing was created in 1998, or 1999, yes, I know it was started in 1854. However, for the first 145 or so years of it's existence, it was confined to one National Park in the SW of England. :)

Share this post


Link to post

What's going to be real fun is when we start getting proximity clashes between the listing sites. Wait until there's a Garmin cache on one side of the pretty waterfall, and a Geocaching.com cache four feet downstream.

 

Now picture the land manager that doesn't want either of them there. Oh yeah, and there's that letterbox up the bank too. That's how frustrated land managers arrive at "ban them" as an effective way to manage caches - far less paperwork.

 

Start? This already happens.

 

Around here a few people hopped on the Terracaching bandwagon and most of the geocaches listed on Terracaching were placed a short distance from existing GC.com geocaches.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, most states have mandates of who they have do business with and are required by law to deal with only those companies.

 

For instance, the public works department is not able to go say, "We need 3 new lawn mowers this year. Let's get them from the new guy down the street because he seems like a good guy."

 

They have to, by law, purchase the mowers from the company that is the approved vendor for the state, and if they buy it from someone else, they are leaving themselves open for a lawsuit from the person who holds the contract to do business with the state.

 

In the case of caching, if the state has a mandate saying, "We will only deal with Groundspeak" then that's who they have to deal with. If another company wants to be on the list, then they would have to go through the approval process, which usually happens just one time per year or every three or four years, depending on how the contract is written.

Completely unrelated.

 

GS is NOT a vendor to any of these parks departments (or cities, or whatever), and there are no contracts between GS and any of these groups.

 

I don't get why people are so confident that all of these parks departments will only deal with gs, its simply not going to be the case.

 

In all reality, its like saying the parks departments are only going to allow white people to play, in the absence of clearly identifiable problems from a particular site, it is discrimination, and they won't chance it.

Share this post


Link to post

They will have become used to Groundspeak rules guidelines like "no more than 1 cache per 0.1 miles"

Are you suggesting that gs verifies that there are no caches within .1 miles?

 

If so, that's absolutely a false assumption.

 

Are you suggesting that any other site should verify against gs/gc that there are no other caches within .1 miles?

 

Why should they? GS/GC doesn't give that same respect, when's the last time you heard of gc not publishing a cache because there was one on tc, nc, or some other site?

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, most states have mandates of who they have do business with and are required by law to deal with only those companies.

 

For instance, the public works department is not able to go say, "We need 3 new lawn mowers this year. Let's get them from the new guy down the street because he seems like a good guy."

 

They have to, by law, purchase the mowers from the company that is the approved vendor for the state, and if they buy it from someone else, they are leaving themselves open for a lawsuit from the person who holds the contract to do business with the state.

 

In the case of caching, if the state has a mandate saying, "We will only deal with Groundspeak" then that's who they have to deal with. If another company wants to be on the list, then they would have to go through the approval process, which usually happens just one time per year or every three or four years, depending on how the contract is written.

Completely unrelated.

 

GS is NOT a vendor to any of these parks departments (or cities, or whatever), and there are no contracts between GS and any of these groups.

 

I don't get why people are so confident that all of these parks departments will only deal with gs, its simply not going to be the case.

 

In all reality, its like saying the parks departments are only going to allow white people to play, in the absence of clearly identifiable problems from a particular site, it is discrimination, and they won't chance it.

 

There aren't a lot of parks departments that insist that caches be listed here. Of the ones that do, if OC has reasonable guidelines and a satisfactory (to the park) review process, then maybe they will allow caches to be listed there. If not, it's doubtful.

Share this post


Link to post
its simply not going to be the case.

Actually, oddly enough, sometimes that's exactly the case. After some long talks, a fellow cacher who is a professor at a local university, a local reviewer, and myself sat down with the land managers for Seminole County Natural Lands to help them develop a policy for caching on their properties. We explained what works and what doesn't, and what stuff was already covered by the existing guidelines. At one point, the discussion turned to another cache listing service, and they wondered about their guidelines. I had them log on as me, to that other site, and they were quite shocked to discover those guys had no discernible guidelines. It was at that point that they stated they would only allow caches that were listed on this website.

Share this post


Link to post

There aren't a lot of parks departments that insist that caches be listed here. Of the ones that do, if OC has reasonable guidelines and a satisfactory (to the park) review process, then maybe they will allow caches to be listed there. If not, it's doubtful.

Are there ANY? Can you name them?

 

If you are able to name any, I would question if that parks dept thinks that gc is the only listing site out there and I bet would be quick to update their guidelines upon learning differently.

 

From what I've seen, parks depts could care less what the gc guidelines are, so long as the park issued guidelines are met, and those have nothing to do with gc, the park has the final say on cache placement, not gc.

 

(Note: I'm using the term "parks department" and park generically and it could mean any land manager, park or recreation area, conservation area, etc).

Share this post


Link to post

Are there ANY?

Yes.

 

Can you name them?

Seminole County Natural Lands

 

I would question if that parks dept thinks that gc is the only listing site out there

They know about other listing sites.

 

and I bet would be quick to update their guidelines upon learning differently.

They chose GC specifically because they had their own internal guidelines, and a means to enforce them.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't get why people are so confident that all of these parks departments will only deal with gs, its simply not going to be the case.
Right now, they require caches to be listed on geocaching.com and the reason is pretty much what Clan Riffster described:
After some long talks, [local geocachers] sat down with [local land managers] to help them develop a policy for caching on their properties. We explained what works and what doesn't, and what stuff was already covered by the existing guidelines. At one point, the discussion turned to another cache listing service, and they wondered about their guidelines. I had them log on as me, to that other site, and they were quite shocked to discover those guys had no discernible guidelines. It was at that point that they stated they would only allow caches that were listed on this website.
In the future, who knows? That all depends on whether another listing service establishes guidelines and enforcement mechanisms that satisfy the local land managers, and whether anyone speaks to the local land managers to explain how the other listing service's guidelines and enforcement mechanisms satisfy their concerns.

 

In all reality, its like saying the parks departments are only going to allow white people to play, in the absence of clearly identifiable problems from a particular site, it is discrimination, and they won't chance it.
The last time I checked, anyone (even a dog) could get a free geocaching.com account and list a cache here. It all reality, it isn't the same thing at all, and repeating your hyperbole doesn't make it true.

 

Are there ANY? Can you name them?
To add to the list:

MidPeninsula Open Space District

Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department

and possibly East Bay Regional Parks District (I haven't seen the final policy, but I've read that it was modeled after the other two).

 

If you are able to name any, I would question if that parks dept thinks that gc is the only listing site out there and I bet would be quick to update their guidelines upon learning differently.
As indicated earlier, they are perfectly aware that there are other listing sites. That is why they specify that caches must be listed at geocaching.com, because the other listing sites they are aware of do not have the guidelines and enforcement process that geocaching.com has.

 

Note that they don't prohibit cache owners from also listing a cache on other sites. They just require caches to be listed on geocaching.com to assure that the caches are subject to the guidelines and enforcement process here.

Share this post


Link to post
If a new site allowed ALR's, virtuals or locationless, or icons for cache types such as historical, marine, long walk in the woods, etc. we would be thrilled to heck it out.

Here it is ... enjoy hecking it out.

 

http://opencaching.com leads me to a page that says "Bald auch unter einem Baumstumpf in deiner Nähe: Kostenlos, offen, in deiner Sprache!", with no links. It is registered to Garmin, through Markmonitor.com, which is in the content protection business.

 

http://opencaching.us is registered to Thomas Winegard of Crestview FL. I find no indication that it is related to Garmin, though I have not searched exhaustively. It currently lists 382 caches with a total of 284 finds. I did not investigate whether caches there are cross-posted. They talk about sharing listings with other opencaching sites, and indeed there are some in other ccTLDs, such as jp, se, uk, and eu. I did not look at the others. Just google "opencaching" if you want to look.

 

Geocaching is a natural monopoly, because few of us are interesting in perusing multiple sites for caches. In fact, I believe this is the main reason that Waymarking is so little used. If it were integrated with gc.com so that I only had to do one search, I'd pay it a lot more attention. This natural monopoly pretty much dooms attempts at alternative sites.

 

Edward

Share this post


Link to post

 

http://opencaching.us is registered to Thomas Winegard of Crestview FL. I find no indication that it is related to Garmin, though I have not searched exhaustively. It currently lists 382 caches with a total of 284 finds. I did not investigate whether caches there are cross-posted. They talk about sharing listings with other opencaching sites, and indeed there are some in other ccTLDs, such as jp, se, uk, and eu. I did not look at the others. Just google "opencaching" if you want to look.

 

 

It is not related to Garmin at all. It went online 18 August 2010, and is related to the European (and Australian) family of Opencaching sites. And the volunteers at the mostly Euro Opencaching sites don't seem too happy about the Opencaching name being used. :D

 

They do not prohibit cross-posting, but I can tell you as a hider of a few of those 382 caches, that a screen pops up telling you they don't prohibit cross-posted caches, but would like new listings to be unique. You can do sort of a "pocket query", and, assuming everyone is using the "ocus only" atttibute for the unique listings, about 1/4 of those caches are unique to the site.

 

Terracaching.com of course, prohibited cross-posting, except for events. But I can tell you there are boatloads of cross-posted Terracaches in Ontario, for one.

Share this post


Link to post

They will have become used to Groundspeak rules guidelines like "no more than 1 cache per 0.1 miles"

Are you suggesting that gs verifies that there are no caches within .1 miles?

 

If so, that's absolutely a false assumption.

I'm not sure what you're describing as "false" here.

 

Groundspeak's reviewers verify - to the extent that the information in their database is correct - that there are no other caches listed at Geocaching.com within 0.1 mile. One or two exceptions apply, but that's more or less systematic, in my understanding.

 

It's true that the reviewers do not check that there is not another "geocache listed on another site" within 0.1 miles. However, to a first approximation, that's not necessary. No other listing site - in the US, anyway - has even 1% of the number of caches listed at Geocaching.com, even when you include the cross-posted ones. A land manager can, to within a far higher degree of certainty than most other aspects of his or her job imply, safely say how many geocaches are on their land, by looking only at Geocaching.com.

 

In any case, my point was more general: that most land managers identify "Geocaching" as being equal to "Geocaching.com". They deal with Groundspeak reviewers only, and in one or two cases, they deal with Groundspeak lackeys directly. What was Terracaching's phone number again?

Are you suggesting that any other site should verify against gs/gc that there are no other caches within .1 miles?

 

Why should they? GS/GC doesn't give that same respect, when's the last time you heard of gc not publishing a cache because there was one on tc, nc, or some other site?

I absolutely wasn't suggesting this. In fact, I'm trying to find anything about my post that might have suggested it. I was quoting "0.1 miles between caches" as an example of where Groundspeak's own guidelines for listing a cache, which have only a peripheral relationship with land managers, can rapidly become adopted and/or adapted as land manager "rules", whether or not such rules are even meaningful. I didn't even mention

 

To give another example, I know of a local geocaching association which has tried to make rules/guidelines for "all geocaches in this area, regardless of listing site". Those rules start out with noble things like "do not place caches in <specific architectural feature, commonly found locally>", but then also say things like "no commercial advertising on the cache page", which is nothing to do with placement. People don't always think all of these things through in a top-down, logical way - it's just a hobby, after all - and similarly, land managers, who are frequently salaried public employees who live by rule books, will often make up rules because they feel comfortable that way, not because the rules are all necessary. (Disclosure: I am a salaried public employee and I can barely fit into my office for rule books.) If another, major listing site comes along, these home-made rules will have to be adopted from the case of "1 listing site" to the case of "N listing sites". That's hard, and there's always the danger that these salaried public employees will fall back on the "if in doubt, say No" line of reasoning which sometimes characterises their way of coping with ambiguity.

Share this post


Link to post

 

My concern is that if they don't have a review process, which is what most of the other competing sites lack, is that it can go back to the open range days of geocaching, which would be the death knell for our sport.

 

Say what you will about the guidelines here, but most of them were developed in response to issues raised by land managers and other authorities.

 

GC.com lackeys, volunteers and users have spent years developing relationships with land managers and all it takes is one irresponsibly placed cache to ruin some of those relationships.

 

I only hope they have a stringent review process, but I fear that with the opencaching name, they may follow the opencaching model.

 

Here you can find more screenshots of how is this new page.

 

In one of them we read the following:

 

OCcodes Are unique identifiers for geocaches.

 

All starts with OC and OC codes Are to follow by 1 to 5 letters and numbers. The second part of the code dog Contain Any letters or numbers except letters I, L, O, S, and U. When the first geocache in the open database caching OCZZZZZ What Assigned code, the next OCZZZZY, counting down to OCZZZZ1, Follow OCZZZYZ, OCZZZYY, OCZZZYX and so on.

 

Some caches That Had Already in database ids Other Opencaching Be Launched Before will allow backwards compatibility to Maintain at closing OCcode by Requesting That matches the cache ids Already Had elsewhere.

 

For example, if your cache is XXUI8R Called In Another database, it Can Be Assigned OCUI8R in the open database caching.

 

My question is:

 

Will Geocaching.com allow this duplication of listings?

 

(According to this information, geocaching.com reviewers, indirectly, will

review caches which can be published in opencaching.com after.)

Edited by xaubet

Share this post


Link to post
Will Geocaching.com allow this duplication of listings?

 

An answer in 2 parts.

 

1) you cannot download a .gpx file of a listing from Geocaching.com and republish it elsewhere (see terms of use)

 

2) You may create a .gpx file, or other type of file, of your own data about your own cache, and list or publicize anywhere you want. There's nothing in the terms of use here that limits how you use your own data about your own caches.

 

I'm aware of one listing site that requests no crosslisting. Ie, if you list a cache with them, you're not supposed to list it here too. But Geocaching.com makes no such request.

Share this post


Link to post

Twice now, I have found a letterbox within 10 feet of a geocache.

 

I once found one within 1-2 feet of a geocache. The containers were identical, hidden in the same manner. It was probably one of my least favorite finds since the object they were hidden in was in full view of a Starbucks and the containers were difficult to retrieve. After I located the first container, I probably spent 2-3 minutes wiggling the container back and forth (it was magnetic) before I could extract it from it's hiding spot, only to discover that I'd found the letterbox first. I located the geocache container just a few seconds later then spent a couple of minutes trying to extract that one as well. Fortunately, I found them at about 8:30AM on New Years Day, and the area which normally would have lots of muggles wandering about was like a ghost town.

Share this post


Link to post
I see that the page has another new look.

 

New tagline makes me hopeful they'll ban LPCs. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

I see that the page has another new look.

 

Is The Garmin wheel that is nothing more than a circle consisting of five rings divided into 4 segments.

 

The northern segment (above) is the grandeur.

The eastern segment (right) stands for the area.

The southern segment (below) stands for the size.

The western segment (left) stands for the difficulty.

 

occom-suche.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

I just can not see this working. With over 1 million caches, Groundspeak kind of has a bit of a head start. I guess they are hoping that their GPSr footprint will be enough to get them in the door. What about all the smart phone users that have been massing to Groundspeak. How will Garmin address that.

 

Edit. Just searched my city. There are no GarminCaches in the area. [sarcasm]Wow... I think I will sign up...[/sarcasm]

Edited by Andronicus

Share this post


Link to post

I was noticing that you can get the coordinates without signing up. That alone is sufficient reason for me to not cross list my caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I just can not see this working. With over 1 million caches, Groundspeak kind of has a bit of a head start. I guess they are hoping that their GPSr footprint will be enough to get them in the door. What about all the smart phone users that have been massing to Groundspeak. How will Garmin address that.

 

Edit. Just searched my city. There are no GarminCaches in the area. [sarcasm]Wow... I think I will sign up...[/sarcasm]

 

Geocaching.com started with just a handful of caches too. But I understand your point.

 

I think the factors that would make a difference is how they respond to users, ease of use of their site compared to gc.com, administration of listings, and evolution of features.

 

Only time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post

Edit. Just searched my city. There are no GarminCaches in the area. [sarcasm]Wow... I think I will sign up...[/sarcasm]

 

I doubt I'll use the new Garmin site, but I plan on registering there with my same username. Don't want 2 BuckeyeClans out there!

Share this post


Link to post

Makes one wonder how this has affected the relationship between Groundspeak and Garmin, doesn't it (or what about their relationship may have caused this) ?

Share this post


Link to post

Depends on what they are trying to do with it. If they are trying to create a one stop shop for all geocaching then I am all for it. If Garmin can truly just use this as a tool to influence geocaching yet still leave it up to the community as to where it goes then that sounds wonderful.

 

Could be like google chrome. It is not out there to be the absolute best browser. It is there (opensource) for everyone to see and if google needs something implemented but none of the browsers are listening then they release code themselves and next thing you know either you copy their code, create your own, or be left behind. Just look at how far and fast javascript has become since the release of chrome.

 

So it all boils down to whether or not they listen to the lil peeps.

Edited by jameyp

Share this post


Link to post

Although they have Opie, the fun loving mascot, the awesomeness factor is not there, particularly without any listings in my area. If I were Signal I would not be too worried. And if I used a Magellan, Delorme, smartphone, or other unit I would wonder why I should let garmin define opencaching.

 

Although the press release speaks of garmin's role in caching, wasn't that as groundspeaks partner? So it makes me wonder why they would embark on this particular venture, other than to sell more chirps.

Edited by mulvaney

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11

×
×
  • Create New...