Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Schnitzle

Redeveloping archived EarthCaches

Recommended Posts

Recently some EC listings were archived and opened up some nice places, I am a 14 year old student, and with the help of a parent we are attempting to develop some EC's that are of the same or similar subject matter. We used the old listings and other sources for our reasearch. We first obtained permission from the land manager, we have visited the sites ( we were last there around thanksgiven), the coordinates have been rechecked more than a few times, dad even has a waymark listed nearby that was listed on 09/26/2010, and a few more in the area. Now I am being told that the listings must be in MY own words. We changed the cache names and logging requirements, removed alot, and added our own words. We can't find anything in the guidelines that say a listing MUST be published in our own words. From the letter I recieved from the reviewer, many people must be having this same issue. I knew that developing a good EarthCache would be difficult, but are we as EarthCacher being treated fairly in this matter? :huh:

 

You are receiving this email because you are the owner of this listing.

 

Location: Virginia, United States

geoawareCA temporarily disabled Cumberland Gap Spring (Not Published) (Earthcache) at 12/9/2010

 

Log Date: 12/9/2010

Thank you for the EarthCache submission. This EarthCache appears to be replacing an EarthCache which was recently archived. As there are quite a number of these appearing in the queue lately, please note the following conditions, and ensure that your EarthCache submission meets all of them. This will help speed up the review process.

 

Please note that all new EarthCache submissions must meet the current Submittal Guidelines found here: http://www.geosociety.org/earthcache/guidelines.htm

 

In particular, the follow is a list of items that we are specifically looking at for submissions where another EarthCache was recently archived.

 

* All EarthCache sites developed must have prior approval of the landowners before submission

 

You must obtain permission for this EarthCache before it can be published. Please post a Reviewer Note with the name, title, and contact info of the person that grants permission for this EarthCache. Please note that if the EarthCache is located within a National Park, then the permission must be in email format and should be forwarded to geoawareCA@gmail.com

 

* You must have visited the site recently (within two months), checked the site is safe and taken multiple GPS readings to ensure accuracy of coordinates.

 

Please indicate in a Reviewer Note when you last visited this site.

 

* EarthCaches should highlight a unique feature. EarthCaches that duplicate existing EarthCache information about the site or related sites may be rejected. EarthCaches should be developed to provide a unique experience to the visitor to the region.

 

The logging tasks cannot be exactly the same as the previous EarthCache at this location. You will need to provide new and unique logging tasks to ensure that cachers actually visit the site to log your EarthCache and not just resubmit the answers they sent to the previous owner.

 

* Requests for specific content in the photograph (must include the visitor's face, for example) will be considered an additional logging requirement and must be optional.

 

You must ensure that your new EarthCache submission meets the current requirements regarding photographs as quoted above.

 

* Avoid direct plagiarism from web sources and quote sources of information where appropriate.

 

From the geocaching.com Terms of Use: http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx#Claims

 

* Groundspeak respects the intellectual property rights of others, and Groundspeak asks that all users of the Site do the same.

 

The new EarthCache should not be directly copied from the listing that the previous owner had. Instead, you must provide the listing in your own words.

 

I have temporarily disabled the listing to allow you to make any necessary changes. When you are finished, you can post an "Enable Listing" log and it will again appear in the review queue. If there have been no changes in the next month or so it may be archived to keep it from blocking future cache placements.

 

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me through the link in my profile.

 

Thank you,

 

geoawareCA

EarthCache Reviewer for Canada and NE USA

Share this post


Link to post

I'm thrilled to hear that Groundspeak has taken a stand on plagiarism...particularity when it pertains to a fellow cacher's work. That said, I'm equally if not more thrilled that you have an interest in the sites and hope you can create some really great listings. There is very little that is easy about creating an EarthCache so you will need to do your best and try not to be discouraged...even for college grads this process is no walk in the park.

 

As for the treatment of EarthCachers, I'll not touch that topic.

Edited by Lostby7

Share this post


Link to post

It says right in the submission guidelines for Earthcaches:

 

"Avoid direct plagiarism from web sources and quote sources of information where appropriate."

 

Paraphrasing, or doing minor edits to someone else's work, i.e. an archived Earthcache page, is plagiarism.

Share this post


Link to post

It says right in the submission guidelines for Earthcaches:

 

"Avoid direct plagiarism from web sources and quote sources of information where appropriate."

 

Paraphrasing, or doing minor edits to someone else's work, i.e. an archived Earthcache page, is plagiarism.

I have to agree with the minor edit as being plagiariasm, and the direct quotes from web sources. But is using information from an archived cache, and putting that into your own wording, is that still plagiarism. If we are discribing the same object, and geological facts must be included, there is a very limited way to explain things. Let's just say it is a large sandstone rock with little white pebbles in it, if you know anything about geology, you know that there is a term for this type of rock. It also says to quote sources, but what if the source is a topic that is not to be discussed anymore in this forum? Could it just be said that the source of information came from a archived cache at the same location? Really, some of us have no business even trying to create an EarthCache, all we have is web related information, we can view similar caches and get ideas, but we can not develop a EC that would be worth visiting for nothing more than the WOW factor. Maybe this EarthCaching is best left up to the experts? I can make a good waymark, but I'm no geologist, and EarthCaching is just far too restrictive and getting more complacated. In my last news letter from Groundspeak it ask that we vote to reconnect people with nature by promoting geocaching on public lands in the United States. Well, we are trying to develop some EC's in the Cumberland Gap National Historic Park, which only virtual caches are allowed, we already have permission, but hit a big snag with a large word "plagiarism" that we did not quite understand.

Share this post


Link to post

It's only fair to the former cache owner that you not plagiarize his cache even though the cache has been archived. But you can easily rewrite the cache by using your own words, adding some original material and updating the logging requirements. That makes it your own. Minor edits aren't good enough.

Writing an earthcache, especially your first one, can be a time-consuming task. But it's a great learning experience for you and your fellow cachers. Hang in there. You're on the right track.

Share this post


Link to post

It's only fair to the former cache owner that you not plagiarize his cache even though the cache has been archived. But you can easily rewrite the cache by using your own words, adding some original material and updating the logging requirements. That makes it your own. Minor edits aren't good enough.

Writing an earthcache, especially your first one, can be a time-consuming task. But it's a great learning experience for you and your fellow cachers. Hang in there. You're on the right track.

Thank you, it does not seem fair to the other user to me either now that I think more about it. The archived caches are the best source of information. Now for me to try and put it into my words. My listing will not be worth publishing without some of the geology lesson that I gained from the archived cache, but dad has a EarthCache listed at a Spring, he said it was hard to get published, that when he first submitted it, it had alot of web related stuff and no local geology. It too was a similar EC that he found in Damascus, Va but these type caches that envolve Springs are no longer accepted. I'm not real sure which way to turn, can I run and hide onder the bed now? :D

Share this post


Link to post
I knew that developing a good EarthCache would be difficult, but are we as EarthCacher being treated fairly in this matter?

 

Yes, we are, just as the cache owner of the previous Listing is being treated fairly in regards to their intellectual property. Tell me this, how would you feel if one of your classmates stole your science project, took credit for it, and received an A+ for it?

 

Your best course of action would be to acknowledge the Reviewers Note, point by point, with the corrective actions that you've taken. I believe the Reviewer would appreciate the good faith effort given to be sensitive to the Communities concerns, and make further recommendations if needed.

Share this post


Link to post

It's only fair to the former cache owner that you not plagiarize his cache even though the cache has been archived. But you can easily rewrite the cache by using your own words, adding some original material and updating the logging requirements. That makes it your own. Minor edits aren't good enough.

Writing an earthcache, especially your first one, can be a time-consuming task. But it's a great learning experience for you and your fellow cachers. Hang in there. You're on the right track.

Thank you, it does not seem fair to the other user to me either now that I think more about it. The archived caches are the best source of information. Now for me to try and put it into my words. My listing will not be worth publishing without some of the geology lesson that I gained from the archived cache......

I do see where this is a difficult task for you. The original EC owner has done the work and gathered the information....this is hard work and once done an EarthCache is born. By his gathering the information and placing it in one nice package (the cache page) he has created possibly the best resource about the feature. Yep that's going to be hard to ignore. Can you use some of this information, yep you sure can but you will also need to do some research on your own. Where was the listing lacking information, what could you do better or differently? In many ways recreating the EC is tougher than creating it in the first place as now you have all the information in front of you and cannot fully use it. I think if you take your time and really try, you will be able to pull it all together. Doing so will be a great accomplishment. I don't know of any 14 year olds who have written a listing....I'm really excited to see how you do. Impress us.

Share this post


Link to post
I knew that developing a good EarthCache would be difficult, but are we as EarthCacher being treated fairly in this matter?

 

Yes, we are, just as the cache owner of the previous Listing is being treated fairly in regards to their intellectual property. Tell me this, how would you feel if one of your classmates stole your science project, took credit for it, and received an A+ for it?

 

Your best course of action would be to acknowledge the Reviewers Note, point by point, with the corrective actions that you've taken. I believe the Reviewer would appreciate the good faith effort given to be sensitive to the Communities concerns, and make further recommendations if needed.

Dad and I are dicucssing the issue now. We think that EarthCaching is too contraversial for me. We think that it is best that we just step aside, and leave EarthCache develpoemt to the experts. Dad says that is is a waste of our time, and our contrubition is not needed or wanted. We will just likely encounter more problems with our caches because of the archived ones. I think that dad is right, developing a EarthCache IS like fighting with a Skunk. :D Now, back to playing Xbox!!!

Share this post


Link to post
I knew that developing a good EarthCache would be difficult, but are we as EarthCacher being treated fairly in this matter?

 

Yes, we are, just as the cache owner of the previous Listing is being treated fairly in regards to their intellectual property. Tell me this, how would you feel if one of your classmates stole your science project, took credit for it, and received an A+ for it?

 

Your best course of action would be to acknowledge the Reviewers Note, point by point, with the corrective actions that you've taken. I believe the Reviewer would appreciate the good faith effort given to be sensitive to the Communities concerns, and make further recommendations if needed.

Dad and I are dicucssing the issue now. We think that EarthCaching is too contraversial for me. We think that it is best that we just step aside, and leave EarthCache develpoemt to the experts. Dad says that is is a waste of our time, and our contrubition is not needed or wanted. We will just likely encounter more problems with our caches because of the archived ones. I think that dad is right, developing a EarthCache IS like fighting with a Skunk. :D Now, back to playing Xbox!!!

Well there you go, we archived our listings. The Park really hated to lose the original EarthCaches, maybe someone else can try and develop some nice ones. All the sites and more are listed on the Waymarking site anyway. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

It says right in the submission guidelines for Earthcaches:

 

"Avoid direct plagiarism from web sources and quote sources of information where appropriate."

 

Paraphrasing, or doing minor edits to someone else's work, i.e. an archived Earthcache page, is plagiarism.

I have to agree with the minor edit as being plagiariasm, and the direct quotes from web sources. But is using information from an archived cache, and putting that into your own wording, is that still plagiarism. If we are discribing the same object, and geological facts must be included, there is a very limited way to explain things. Let's just say it is a large sandstone rock with little white pebbles in it, if you know anything about geology, you know that there is a term for this type of rock. It also says to quote sources, but what if the source is a topic that is not to be discussed anymore in this forum? Could it just be said that the source of information came from a archived cache at the same location? Really, some of us have no business even trying to create an EarthCache, all we have is web related information, we can view similar caches and get ideas, but we can not develop a EC that would be worth visiting for nothing more than the WOW factor. Maybe this EarthCaching is best left up to the experts? I can make a good waymark, but I'm no geologist, and EarthCaching is just far too restrictive and getting more complacated. In my last news letter from Groundspeak it ask that we vote to reconnect people with nature by promoting geocaching on public lands in the United States. Well, we are trying to develop some EC's in the Cumberland Gap National Historic Park, which only virtual caches are allowed, we already have permission, but hit a big snag with a large word "plagiarism" that we did not quite understand.

 

Avoiding plagiarism doesn't mean you can't use the information at all. It means you can't take credit for work that isn't yours, either explicitly or implicitly. Plagiarism can easily be avoided by citing your sources, whether they're academic sources, a pamphlet from a park, or an old Earthcache page.

 

Plagiarism isn't just discourteous - it's against the law (whether or not it was intentional). I'm not surprised to see Earthcaching take a hard line on this.

Share this post


Link to post
I knew that developing a good EarthCache would be difficult, but are we as EarthCacher being treated fairly in this matter?

 

Yes, we are, just as the cache owner of the previous Listing is being treated fairly in regards to their intellectual property. Tell me this, how would you feel if one of your classmates stole your science project, took credit for it, and received an A+ for it?

 

Your best course of action would be to acknowledge the Reviewers Note, point by point, with the corrective actions that you've taken. I believe the Reviewer would appreciate the good faith effort given to be sensitive to the Communities concerns, and make further recommendations if needed.

Dad and I are dicucssing the issue now. We think that EarthCaching is too contraversial for me. We think that it is best that we just step aside, and leave EarthCache develpoemt to the experts. Dad says that is is a waste of our time, and our contrubition is not needed or wanted. We will just likely encounter more problems with our caches because of the archived ones. I think that dad is right, developing a EarthCache IS like fighting with a Skunk. :D Now, back to playing Xbox!!!

 

This is an odd response - what's the controversy? It looks like the reviewer was very clear about what your Earthcache needed, and it doesn't seem like any of the things he/she is looking for are insurmountable obstacles.

 

Many people get sent back to the drawing board a couple of times before their Earthcache gets published. It's not a matter of being an "expert," it's a matter of working with the reviewer to make your Earthcache meets the stated requirements.

Share this post


Link to post

In an earlier thread which referred to the archiving of the caches someone said it would be easy to cut and paste and re submit. Ha!

Now for a simple solution: 1. contact the former EC owner, 2. get permission to use his work, 3. cut and paste all you want using quote marks, 4. create a footnote at the bottom of the page which sites the original author and permission received! Maybe if you want, add some of your own words.

Maybe some of you purists will not like this approach, but it avoids that (illegal?) problem of plagiarism!

Did everyone forget about adoption? The cache becomes yours, no requirement to cite the original owner, your name goes on it. That's it! Maybe that's illegal too!

If I remember correctly, there was a significant plea from many folks to be allowed to adopt the caches. Too bad that didn't occur, but let's try to make the best of a terrible situation. :D

Share this post


Link to post

It appears the reviewer was bring fair to all by sending a "form letter" asking people to check their proposed listings for various issues that have arisen with the archived caches. None of these things are particularly controversial, but everything needs to be in order.

 

As to plagarism, it is a matter of being clear on our sources and using your own words - or using a brief quotation from a recognized authority with appropriate citations. Is there an earth science teacher at school who could look over your submission and make suggestions? Is there anything on the web that would give you further information that would allow you to take a slightly different approach? Does the park have any information that you could use to understand the geology of the area. Then it is simply a matter of writing the page as if you are explaining that to your friend.

 

The previous listing can serve as a guide, making "fair use" of it like you might do for a school paper. If you were telling somebody about what you learned from that page you might not simply quote it, but add what you learned about the area. As a student you are in a particularly good position to submit an earthcache because they should be written in a way that you can understand. But with that said, your father, teacher, or others in this community could also read your submission to make sure it is accurate and there are no typos. Who knows, if you can contact the former owner you might get some help or permission to use some of his material.

 

For those of us who are not geologists, earthcaching can be a challenge. But they are fun to do and it is interesting to receive emails from people who have visited your site. Earthcaches are appreciated by those who visit. If I were in the area I would visit that spot because I learned about it through your earthcache. It can be a great way to help others better understand this world.

 

So think about giving it another go - or if you are not ready to take it on, then appreciate what you learned there and visit other earthcaches. Either way, you will have gained something.

Edited by mulvaney

Share this post


Link to post

“I think that dad is right, developing a EarthCache IS like fighting with a Skunk. Now, back to playing Xbox!!!”

BTW… I like you Dads analogy…Perhaps the best way to beat a Shunk is to walk around and not confront it?

 

“Plagiarism can easily be avoided by citing your sources, whether they're academic sources, a pamphlet from a park, or an old Earthcache page.”

 

Plagiarism is and always will be a matter of interpretation.

Perhaps the best way to address the issue of “plagiarism” would be to site the previous EC and it’s author. The EC is in fact a published document!. Please note the term used to “officially” open the EC for use.

 

 

October 12 by geoawareCA

 

Published[/color]

Share this post


Link to post

It appears the reviewer was bring fair to all by sending a "form letter" asking people to check their proposed listings for various issues that have arisen with the archived caches. None of these things are particularly controversial, but everything needs to be in order.

 

As to plagarism, it is a matter of being clear on our sources and using your own words - or using a brief quotation from a recognized authority with appropriate citations. Is there an earth science teacher at school who could look over your submission and make suggestions? Is there anything on the web that would give you further information that would allow you to take a slightly different approach? Does the park have any information that you could use to understand the geology of the area. Then it is simply a matter of writing the page as if you are explaining that to your friend.

 

The previous listing can serve as a guide. If you were telling somebody about what you learned from that page you might not simply quote it, but add what you learned about the area. As a student you are in a particularly good position to submit an earthcache because they should be written in a way that you can understand. But with that said, your father, teacher, or others in this community could also read your submission to make sure it is accurate and there are no typos.

 

For those of us who are not geologists, earthcaching can be a challenge. But they are fun to do and it is interesting to receive emails from people who have visited your site. It can be a great way to help others better understand this world.

Well the archived EC's were Park approved, the Park assisted with the information, at least that is posted on the archived listings, which seems to be true. We just find it more challanging, if not impossable to list another EC at these geographic features that we have permission to from the land manager. We feel that the archived caches are too conflicting to proceed with any new EC developement at the same sites. We feel this is better left to experts in the field, and not some kid and his dad that are not geologists.

I agree with KK about we should have asked permission from the owner of the archived caches first, but we do not have a contact for him. Sorry to be a problem, we are not blaming anyone other than ourselves in this issue.

 

Thanks,

Manville & Schnitzle.

Share this post


Link to post

I would not be able to get my 16 year old daughter to take on an earthcache. But I hope that learning about the Spring was worthwhile. And thank you for posting the reviewer's note since it might clarify things for others

Share this post


Link to post

“I think that dad is right, developing a EarthCache IS like fighting with a Skunk. Now, back to playing Xbox!!!”

BTW… I like you Dads analogy…Perhaps the best way to beat a Shunk is to walk around and not confront it?

 

“Plagiarism can easily be avoided by citing your sources, whether they're academic sources, a pamphlet from a park, or an old Earthcache page.”

 

Plagiarism is and always will be a matter of interpretation.

Perhaps the best way to address the issue of “plagiarism” would be to site the previous EC and it’s author. The EC is in fact a published document!. Please note the term used to “officially” open the EC for use.

 

 

October 12 by geoawareCA

 

Published[/color]

Yes, I agree. See how quickly we backed away and stopped?

Dad said that citing our source in this forum would just get this thread locked. :D

Share this post


Link to post

I would not be able to get my 16 year old daughter to take on an earthcache. But I hope that learning about the Spring was worthwhile. And thank you for posting the reviewer's note since it might clarify things for others

Really this was one of my least vavorite caches in the area, but it does flow from Gap Cave. We got to go on a cave tour last year when we came here for a EC event in the Gap. We tourd Cudjos cave that is also called Gap Cave, it comes out above in soilders cave. The soilders wrote their names in the cave with candle smoke and some are chizled in the rock. I like the balance rock at the pennicle near chimney rock best but the cave tour is awsome.

Share this post


Link to post
I knew that developing a good EarthCache would be difficult, but are we as EarthCacher being treated fairly in this matter?

 

Yes, we are, just as the cache owner of the previous Listing is being treated fairly in regards to their intellectual property. Tell me this, how would you feel if one of your classmates stole your science project, took credit for it, and received an A+ for it?

 

Your best course of action would be to acknowledge the Reviewers Note, point by point, with the corrective actions that you've taken. I believe the Reviewer would appreciate the good faith effort given to be sensitive to the Communities concerns, and make further recommendations if needed.

Dad and I are dicucssing the issue now. We think that EarthCaching is too contraversial for me. We think that it is best that we just step aside, and leave EarthCache develpoemt to the experts. Dad says that is is a waste of our time, and our contrubition is not needed or wanted. We will just likely encounter more problems with our caches because of the archived ones. I think that dad is right, developing a EarthCache IS like fighting with a Skunk. :D Now, back to playing Xbox!!!

 

This is an odd response - what's the controversy? It looks like the reviewer was very clear about what your Earthcache needed, and it doesn't seem like any of the things he/she is looking for are insurmountable obstacles.

 

Many people get sent back to the drawing board a couple of times before their Earthcache gets published. It's not a matter of being an "expert," it's a matter of working with the reviewer to make your Earthcache meets the stated requirements.

Sorry, roll-over and beg are just not on this dog's list of tricks. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm... Guess this shows how little I really know... I thought that the really good EarthCaches were there to show you a particular interesting geological site. Assuming the original to be well done, it discussed all you needed to know about the site. What does that leave the follow up EarthCacher to discuss? Everything has already been covered. At least, all of the useful and informative material. If the cache has been archived, we can no longer discuss the reasons for the formation of the rocks??? What else is there to say. This would seem to put the kibosh on some unique locations. And unique locations (or at least very interesting locations) is what it's all about.

I can understand the reasons to avoid direct copying of archived listings, but to insist on something completely new, with new requirements, pretty much kills the reason for bringing someone to some sites.

Share this post


Link to post

I can understand the reasons to avoid direct copying of archived listings, but to insist on something completely new, with new requirements, pretty much kills the reason for bringing someone to some sites.

 

I basically agree with this. The requirements for the archived caches may have to be changed because of the current guidelines regarding photos, but what do you do if the basic information was presented in a thorough and thoughtful manner?

 

So while walking the dog I began to wonder if the previous owner gave blanket permission for anyone to use the earthcache descriptions in making a new earthcache (with appropriate citation, of course), I would not call it plagiarism. But would the reviewers accept this if you visited the site, got new permission, and otherwise met the guidelines? I suppose its only speculation unless such permission is actually granted.

Edited by mulvaney

Share this post


Link to post

I can understand the reasons to avoid direct copying of archived listings, but to insist on something completely new, with new requirements, pretty much kills the reason for bringing someone to some sites.

 

I basically agree with this. The requirements for the archived caches may have to be changed because of the current guidelines regarding photos, but what do you do if the basic information was presented in a thorough and thoughtful manner?

 

So while walking the dog I began to wonder if the previous owner gave blanket permission for anyone to use the earthcache descriptions in making a new earthcache (with appropriate citation, of course), I would not call it plagiarism. But would the reviewers accept this if you visited the site, got new permission, and otherwise met the guidelines? I suppose its only speculation unless such permission is actually granted.

 

You and Harry are absolutely right. With permission and quotation marks..........it's not plagiarism! To Manville, CS's email can be obtained if your want it.

Back to an earlier point. What about adoptions? Do TPTB see any difference between an EC being adopted out and what we are discussing? Adoption = permission from cache owner. Cut and paste with proper citations and permission = same thing! Pray tell, what is the difference? Oh yes, with the latter, you need to get a new permission from the land manager. Why not the same on adoptions? After all, the land manager didn't give permission to the adoptive parent!

If further barriers and obstacles are thrown up one cannot conclude that someone doesn't want the archived ECs renewed! Too bad if true.

Thanks and throw away...............stones that is! No I didn't say throw up!

How about it, can someone with authority answer mulvaney's question? "would the reviewers accept this if you visited the site, got new permission, and otherwise met the guidelines? Sorry mulvaney, personally I think the new permission part can be skipped.

Thanks. :D

Share this post


Link to post

I can understand the reasons to avoid direct copying of archived listings, but to insist on something completely new, with new requirements, pretty much kills the reason for bringing someone to some sites.

 

I basically agree with this. The requirements for the archived caches may have to be changed because of the current guidelines regarding photos, but what do you do if the basic information was presented in a thorough and thoughtful manner?

 

So while walking the dog I began to wonder if the previous owner gave blanket permission for anyone to use the earthcache descriptions in making a new earthcache (with appropriate citation, of course), I would not call it plagiarism. But would the reviewers accept this if you visited the site, got new permission, and otherwise met the guidelines? I suppose its only speculation unless such permission is actually granted.

 

You and Harry are absolutely right. With permission and quotation marks..........it's not plagiarism! To Manville, CS's email can be obtained if your want it.

Back to an earlier point. What about adoptions? Do TPTB see any difference between an EC being adopted out and what we are discussing? Adoption = permission from cache owner. Cut and paste with proper citations and permission = same thing! Pray tell, what is the difference? Oh yes, with the latter, you need to get a new permission from the land manager. Why not the same on adoptions? After all, the land manager didn't give permission to the adoptive parent!

If further barriers and obstacles are thrown up one cannot conclude that someone doesn't want the archived ECs renewed! Too bad if true.

Thanks and throw away...............stones that is! No I didn't say throw up!

How about it, can someone with authority answer mulvaney's question? "would the reviewers accept this if you visited the site, got new permission, and otherwise met the guidelines? Sorry mulvaney, personally I think the new permission part can be skipped.

Thanks. ;)

 

KK, I don't think that we wolud have any problems with the Park, as they have given us their blessings, wishing us well with our efforts to help develop Virtual EarthCaches at Balanced Rock, Chimney Rock, the Pennical Overlook, and other sites that were listed in the request. Alot of time from the Park went into these archived caches from more than the CO. The Park staff helped, it's their loss too. I just don't think that Scnit & me could do a very good job at creating a EC that would be worth visiting. I hope that someone qualifyed lists one in the Park soon. Virtual caching is most welcome in CGNHP, these are the some of the nicest people to work with. Most Parks are geocache friendly, I have listings in Parks in Va. Tn. Ky.

 

Sorry posted on wrong account.

Manville, not Shnitzle :D

Edited by Schnitzle

Share this post


Link to post

All we can say is thank you GS for turning your back on people that was willing to adopt those well written up ECs. Now we have people logging boggus logs on ECs that they have not been to. One even read:

 

Log Date: 12/9/2010

Awesome spot! I must try to visit when it's warmer!

 

What is that all about. I must visit it when it gets warmer. But I still got my smiley. That is just bottom feeding at its best.

 

Thanks again GS. I offered to adopt and it was oked by the owner just too bad we could not do the best thing for the earth cachers.

Share this post


Link to post

All we can say is thank you GS for turning your back on people that was willing to adopt those well written up ECs. Now we have people logging boggus logs on ECs that they have not been to. One even read:

 

Log Date: 12/9/2010

Awesome spot! I must try to visit when it's warmer!

 

What is that all about. I must visit it when it gets warmer. But I still got my smiley. That is just bottom feeding at its best.

 

Thanks again GS. I offered to adopt and it was oked by the owner just too bad we could not do the best thing for the earth cachers.

We tryed too, my friend. We made mistakes, but we tryed. The owner of those archived caches is the best, I have logged, hiked and visited many of his listings. Many of them on the Stone Mtn trail near what is now called the Wild River area, not far from the cliffs of the White Rocks, near the Rock Church, which is not listed. It is a over-hang cave on top of the Mtn from Sand Cave, no use trying to get a listing published there with WNS in the area. I know this area, have caches and waymarks listed here, this all fall on deaf ears it seems.

Share this post


Link to post

All we can say is thank you....

 

Wow! Did we just take a 90 degree turn into off topic land or what? :D

 

At any rate, I just wanted to apologize to the young OP (or the person posing as a young OP, as the case may be), if I sounded discouraging in my earlier post. I sincerely think there is a good chance that you could get your Listing Published, and with not as much effort as you might think.

 

Best of luck to you if you end up pursuing the idea, and thanks for considering contributing ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Keep your head up, Schnitzle. I know it seems daunting, but you can rewrite the cache page to make it your own. I have two of the archived Earthcaches already submitted...with fresh pictures, coordinates and text.

 

Don't get discouraged...you no doubt have the ability to get those Earthcaches going again. :D

Share this post


Link to post

All we can say is thank you....

 

Wow! Did we just take a 90 degree turn into off topic land or what? :D

 

At any rate, I just wanted to apologize to the young OP (or the person posing as a young OP, as the case may be), if I sounded discouraging in my earlier post. I sincerely think there is a good chance that you could get your Listing Published, and with not as much effort as you might think.

 

Best of luck to you if you end up pursuing the idea, and thanks for considering contributing ;)

I'm sorry, no need to apologize to the, as you say the young OP. But that simply means that you are saying that I'm a "poser". No need for that. But, yes you did contribute to Schnitz's dismissel of earthcaching. We are not gone from geocaching by any means, we can make an earthcache at the sites that we have permission for, but they will suck. We can get around the reviewers, and not confront them as suggested in a earlier post. The cache that was posted as denied is a prennieal mountain spring, located on the Wilderness Road/Warriors Path. This is the gap that linked the Shawnee to the north in Ohio, with the Cherokee in the south, in Tennessee and Georgia. The spring is part of _____________ . Which are from the other users EC that is no longer listed. You just don't get it, I know the area. Privacy issues are a concern for us.

Share this post


Link to post

You just don't get it...

 

You are positively correct. Thanks for pointing out the errors of my ways. I'm deeply in your debt.

 

A&T: That sounds terrific. I can't wait to hear of your success in getting them Published soon :D

Share this post


Link to post

Keep your head up, Schnitzle. I know it seems daunting, but you can rewrite the cache page to make it your own. I have two of the archived Earthcaches already submitted...with fresh pictures, coordinates and text.

 

Don't get discouraged...you no doubt have the ability to get those Earthcaches going again. :D

Thank you for the encouragement, we feel that we can make a decent EC in the area. Schnitzle is not the one at fault here, it was my idea to recreate the EC's that we lost here at the Park. We can recreate them in our own words, but not like a good earthcacher could. We don't want to mess up something that could be done better by a more educated person, but fact is, we are here often and have visited the sites with GPS in hand. I have logged EC's, waymarks, and listed waymarks in less than .1 mile of some of the listed coordinates of this one cache in question in the last few months, think the last one was 09/26/2010.

Another EC listed nearby in the town of Cumberland Gap, Tn. is a PMO EarthCache in a National Historic District/National Park, which I started a topic in the feedback forum about some time ago. If EC's are educational earth science related virtual geocaches, then why have to pay to view a otherwise free service?

For those of you that got GroundSpeaks last letter asking you to vote to keep geocaching on public lands avalible, remember that it is not our Park systems, virtual caches are welcome, as well as traditionals in some States.

We are really looking forward to what the new reinstated virtual caches will be like. First we were against them, but now with Waymarking being unused in our area and EC's, well............., who know's with them anymore, they don't seem very popular in our area either unlike other caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I can understand the reasons to avoid direct copying of archived listings, but to insist on something completely new, with new requirements, pretty much kills the reason for bringing someone to some sites.

 

I basically agree with this. The requirements for the archived caches may have to be changed because of the current guidelines regarding photos, but what do you do if the basic information was presented in a thorough and thoughtful manner?

 

So while walking the dog I began to wonder if the previous owner gave blanket permission for anyone to use the earthcache descriptions in making a new earthcache (with appropriate citation, of course), I would not call it plagiarism. But would the reviewers accept this if you visited the site, got new permission, and otherwise met the guidelines? I suppose its only speculation unless such permission is actually granted.

 

While asking permission is courteous, it's a slightly different issue. With or without permission, it's generally acceptable quote a source or to use information from a published source as long as it's cited. The thing to be avoided is accidently implying that the work is original when it isn't.

 

It's acceptable to cite a web site, and there are different ways to do so. Archived cache listings are still accessible on the web. An Earthcache listing by he-who-shall-remain-nameless could be cited without much problem, I think. The reasons that threads about that cacher are discouraged mostly have to do with his privacy.

 

In the case of cache adoption, it's very clear that the original author has given direct permission for his/her work to be used. I imagine this is at least partly why Geocaching.com no longer allows the adoption of caches by absent owners.

 

I suppose the issue of plagiarism might seem tricky to someone who hasn't dealt with it at length before, but copyright law isn't a matter of interpretation at all. I think 14 years old is a good age to learn the essentials of avoiding plagiarism. With high school and possibly college or university in the imminent future, I can't think of a better time to learn how to cite a source.

 

I imagine the Earthcache reviewers are far nicer to deal with than a university department chair. If you hand in plagiarized work in an academic setting, you don't get an extensive list of necessary corrections. You just get an F.

Share this post


Link to post

While asking permission is courteous, it's a slightly different issue. With or without permission, it's generally acceptable quote a source or to use information from a published source as long as it's cited. The thing to be avoided is accidently implying that the work is original when it isn't.

 

The line between what constitutes "fair use" and what constitutes plagiarism is always blurred. Several years ago, a person took an entire section of a web site that I used to do and simply cut and paste it into his site. That crossed the line. As a matter of copyright there is no strict boundary. But as the government defines it, citation does not replace permission. Yet it is important to know that copyright is not unlimited: "it protects the particular way an author has expressed himself. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work." The office states that permission is always the safest course. Indeed, in some situations it may be more than a matter of courtesy.

 

As I understand academic standards, acknowledging the source and proper citation is very important. Certainly, you can use an author's theme, convey information obtained through a source, include brief quotations and the like, but you should cite to the original source at all times. If you do that, as a way of expressing yourself, no permission is needed.

 

So I am not sure what the ec reviewers would consider "plagiarism." It is an interesting question. My previous post intended to ask whether the reviewers would accept copy and paste if the original author gave permission. To me, copy and paste of an entire section would require permission, but taking the information conveyed and expressing it in your own words, or using particular quotes, would not.

 

I doubt that if I were a 14 year old that I would want to enter into this particular fray and create an earthcache meant for public use. He seems very intelligent and thoughtful, but the role of the school is to help you to learn how to use original sources -- I would probably seek the help of a science teacher if I wanted to take on an earthcache. But I am glad that Schnitzle and his father have taken an interest in earthcaches and hope that with whatever they decide to do it will be a positive experience. Ultimately, it is about both education and fun.

 

And I am sure that they are not alone in facing these questions. So it is good that it is being discussed. A lot of the discussion is not aimed at anything personal. It is simply a matter of trying to figure out what people can do in a difficult situation -- and it goes beyond any one person.

Edited by mulvaney

Share this post


Link to post

In Reference To Post #15:

 

Plagiarize:

To put forth as original to oneself the ideas or words of another.

 

Copyright:

The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.

 

 

I feel the issue of plagiarism can be avoided by citing the original Earthcache and its author as a reference. This would place credit, both in text and concept, where credit is due.

 

When references are required, most folks reference an informational source. This case is no different. Now given the fact that all ECs are, in fact published, and this “document” becomes unarguably a document that can be referenced, without the fear of plagiarism. So a fair mix of original text and cited previous text should suffice.

 

How many of us have referenced information in a paper, to avoid plagiarism, without actually speaking w/the author?

 

Has any of us applied for a copyright on our ECs? Has CS done this on his material?

 

I guess the real question here is just how willing are GS and GSA to allow for a resurrection of the “Fabled 203 ECs”? There seems be an interest on our end.

Edited by GEO WALKER

Share this post


Link to post

I can understand the reasons to avoid direct copying of archived listings, but to insist on something completely new, with new requirements, pretty much kills the reason for bringing someone to some sites.

 

I basically agree with this. The requirements for the archived caches may have to be changed because of the current guidelines regarding photos, but what do you do if the basic information was presented in a thorough and thoughtful manner?

 

So while walking the dog I began to wonder if the previous owner gave blanket permission for anyone to use the earthcache descriptions in making a new earthcache (with appropriate citation, of course), I would not call it plagiarism. But would the reviewers accept this if you visited the site, got new permission, and otherwise met the guidelines? I suppose its only speculation unless such permission is actually granted.

 

While asking permission is courteous, it's a slightly different issue. With or without permission, it's generally acceptable quote a source or to use information from a published source as long as it's cited. The thing to be avoided is accidently implying that the work is original when it isn't.

 

It's acceptable to cite a web site, and there are different ways to do so. Archived cache listings are still accessible on the web. An Earthcache listing by he-who-shall-remain-nameless could be cited without much problem, I think. The reasons that threads about that cacher are discouraged mostly have to do with his privacy.

 

In the case of cache adoption, it's very clear that the original author has given direct permission for his/her work to be used. I imagine this is at least partly why Geocaching.com no longer allows the adoption of caches by absent owners.

 

I suppose the issue of plagiarism might seem tricky to someone who hasn't dealt with it at length before, but copyright law isn't a matter of interpretation at all. I think 14 years old is a good age to learn the essentials of avoiding plagiarism. With high school and possibly college or university in the imminent future, I can't think of a better time to learn how to cite a source.

 

I imagine the Earthcache reviewers are far nicer to deal with than a university department chair. If you hand in plagiarized work in an academic setting, you don't get an extensive list of necessary corrections. You just get an F.

We know that in the real world that copying someone else work and claiming it to be your own is wrong. We thought that it would be different in this game of geocaching. Geocaching is not really a sport, but a hobby. We were just trying to develop a really good EC that people would enjoy, and the best source of information happened to be the research of the CO that had his caches arvhived. The letter that we got said to " Avoid direct plagiarism from web sources and quote sources of information where appropriate". I like to avoid web sources also, but if we listed the source, we were afraid of what might happen to us from GS if we mention you-know-who was the source. I have 3 EC listings, and my logging questions would be near impossiable to google, but we have never had a "Arm chair logger" try to fake a log. Geocaching is mostly unknown about in our area, we have about 3-5 active users in 50 miles that create cache placements, and 2 or 3 EC developers. The caches that I maintain that get logged the most are guard rail hides, but they are based on true history, and the caches are placed with historic accuracy. I started in Kingsport, Tn. at the Long Island of the Holston River, and have placed historic caches (and waymarks) along Daniel Boone's route all the way to the Cumberland Gap. I won't just hide tupperware in the woods anymore, and I will never post a lame waymark, and there are many really silly categorys on the site. I have standards too, I am not going to waste your time to visit something that I would not find interesting.

Let's all keep in mind that geocaching is a hobby, and many young familys enjoy getting outdoors with their children and play this game. But many adults seem to take this hobby too far, we get mad at each other, trash-talk each other in the forums, and just plain act childish, and this includes me. I have met other geocachers, and have made a few friends, but I have also saw that geocaching can bring out the worst in a person too.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it would be really cool if you guys were able to get your earth cache together and appropriately quote some information. Even if it's not as complete of information as the previous cache was or as in depth I would still visit it.

 

My feeling is that if earth caches are supposed to written in a way that people that age can comprehend them who better to write an earth cache that someone that age? And how exciting would it be to go to an earth cache by someone of that age group and look at the work they put into it.

 

I see comments about how it's very difficult to make an earth cache page and not being able to do it without higher education in geology. I like my hobby to be accessible to lay people. I like earth caching and really like the earth caches made by lay people. And would totally love to see a cache written by a younger person and get to see first person what they learned.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it would be really cool if you guys were able to get your earth cache together and appropriately quote some information. Even if it's not as complete of information as the previous cache was or as in depth I would still visit it.

 

My feeling is that if earth caches are supposed to written in a way that people that age can comprehend them who better to write an earth cache that someone that age? And how exciting would it be to go to an earth cache by someone of that age group and look at the work they put into it.

 

I see comments about how it's very difficult to make an earth cache page and not being able to do it without higher education in geology. I like my hobby to be accessible to lay people. I like earth caching and really like the earth caches made by lay people. And would totally love to see a cache written by a younger person and get to see first person what they learned.

 

+1

 

Excellent points :D

Share this post


Link to post

I think it would be really cool if you guys were able to get your earth cache together and appropriately quote some information. Even if it's not as complete of information as the previous cache was or as in depth I would still visit it.

 

My feeling is that if earth caches are supposed to written in a way that people that age can comprehend them who better to write an earth cache that someone that age? And how exciting would it be to go to an earth cache by someone of that age group and look at the work they put into it.

 

I see comments about how it's very difficult to make an earth cache page and not being able to do it without higher education in geology. I like my hobby to be accessible to lay people. I like earth caching and really like the earth caches made by lay people. And would totally love to see a cache written by a younger person and get to see first person what they learned.

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post

In Reference To Post #15:

 

Plagiarize:

To put forth as original to oneself the ideas or words of another.

 

Copyright:

The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.

 

 

I feel the issue of plagiarism can be avoided by citing the original Earthcache and its author as a reference. This would place credit, both in text and concept, where credit is due.

 

When references are required, most folks reference an informational source. This case is no different. Now given the fact that all ECs are, in fact published, and this “document” becomes unarguably a document that can be referenced, without the fear of plagiarism. So a fair mix of original text and cited previous text should suffice.

 

How many of us have referenced information in a paper, to avoid plagiarism, without actually speaking w/the author?

 

Has any of us applied for a copyright on our ECs? Has CS done this on his material?

 

I guess the real question here is just how willing are GS and GSA to allow for a resurrection of the “Fabled 203 ECs”? There seems be an interest on our end.

 

As usual, you make excellent points. You said what I was trying to get at in far fewer words. Unless TPTB have some sort of vendetta and I believe they do not, what you are suggesting should get the job done.

If the ECs will not be unarchived then we should do our best to resubmit them. Maybe not all because even CS can do a ho hum EC, but most are excellent. If some of you folks want it, I think I can find Cav Scout's email address and if he will allow me to publish it, I will do so. I suggest touching base with him on a particular EC and get his blessing to go ahead.

Please, please reviewers, yes, keep everything within guidelines, but don't make this harder than necessary and I thank you for that. :rolleyes:

Let's not do this just to add to our EC owned list, but do it to help preserve some really nice ECs. All of the blood, sweat and tears that went into developing the ECs should not be for naught! Thanks. :rolleyes:

P.S. Geo Walker, I especially liked your pointing out the difference between to plagiarize and to violate copyright. Not all plagiarism is violating a copyright hence illegal, but all copyright violations are plagiarisms. Lord, if every plagiarism was illegal, the jails would be filled by students caught in the act! Once, I had to give a grad student an 'F' because he wrote a paper for one of my classes which was word for word from one of my favorite books! His bad luck choosing that book! :)

Share this post


Link to post

We know that in the real world that copying someone else work and claiming it to be your own is wrong. We thought that it would be different in this game of geocaching. Geocaching is not really a sport, but a hobby. We were just trying to develop a really good EC that people would enjoy, and the best source of information happened to be the research of the CO that had his caches arvhived. The letter that we got said to " Avoid direct plagiarism from web sources and quote sources of information where appropriate". I like to avoid web sources also, but if we listed the source, we were afraid of what might happen to us from GS if we mention you-know-who was the source.

 

I find this a little odd. Yes, geocaching is a hobby. That doesn't make it okay to plagiarize. Plagiarism is wrong, no matter what the end product is for. Groundspeak could find itself in hot water if it knowingly publishes plagiarized material. I have been asked about my source material for a puzzle cache in the past, and I'm glad it's something reviewers know to look out for.

 

The note you received didn't tell you to avoid web sources, it told you to avoid plagiarizing web sources. An archived cache listing counts as a web source. You can use the source - just make sure you give credit.

 

I sincerely doubt that Groundspeak is going to persecute you for using an archived Earthcache as a source for a new one. Again, the reason discussion of individuals gets shut down in the forums is mostly due to privacy. This paranoia about Groundspeak coming to get you for using the old Earthcaches as a starting point is just bizarre, or worse, disingenuous.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it would be really cool if you guys were able to get your earth cache together and appropriately quote some information. Even if it's not as complete of information as the previous cache was or as in depth I would still visit it.

 

My feeling is that if earth caches are supposed to written in a way that people that age can comprehend them who better to write an earth cache that someone that age? And how exciting would it be to go to an earth cache by someone of that age group and look at the work they put into it.

 

I see comments about how it's very difficult to make an earth cache page and not being able to do it without higher education in geology. I like my hobby to be accessible to lay people. I like earth caching and really like the earth caches made by lay people. And would totally love to see a cache written by a younger person and get to see first person what they learned.

I told schnitzle that the Park is quite large, and there are many interesting features. The one EC that we were most interested in is listed on Waymarking as WM4DRP, and we know the location of some more of these. This one is at the overlook where Va, Ky, & Tn meet in the Cumberland Gap, it is a tourist attraction, and we wanted to make it avalaible as an EC that is easy to access. There are plenty of the balanced rocks in the area, but most people will not hike 8 miles to see them. We have learned alot from the archived caches about things like this type of rock, we had no idea what these sandstone rocks with the white quartz in them were called. I know where a simialr, but different one is located in a nearby National Forest that is about 100 ft across, by 75 ft wide, and it is around 50 ft high. It's HUGE, just sitting there along a hiking trail at about 3200 feet elevation, the higest point in the County is around 4100 ft.

We had planned on going to Middlesboro, Ky. and up to the overlook to do some more Waymarking, but is is raining again today and a stormfront is approaching, that area gets more snow than we normally do, so good photo's may have to wait. That may give me some time to rethink matters, but the main issue seems to be that there was another EC here before. That is our most challanging hurtle. I have a good working relation with local land managers, so permission is never a problem. Schnitzle and I do care about the quality of what we contribute to geocaching and Waymarking, we feel that a more educated person could do a better job, so we are going to leave the archived sites alone.

But keep in mind, virtuals are being reinstated soon. I may not be a good EarthCache developer, but I can waymark, and I may just like this new virtual geocaching.

I would like to see Schnitzle develop an EC on his own, he is at the age that these type of virtual caches are directed at, but really, how many 14 year olds have ever submitted an EC and had it published? Schnitzle is a Bronze level EC master, and I am at the Gold level, I just need one more find in another State to get to Platinum level. Our plan was to develop at least three EC's for him. He is not like the other kids that geocache with us, he don't look for the box of goodies to muggle, and in the words of Georgia Bull Dogs Fan (the kid does not have his own account), EarthCaches suck. There is nothing here but this Spring! Schnitzle likes EC's. I told him before we started to try and develop an EC, that it is like a pee fight with a Skunk, that it would more than likely be rejected the first time, then the reviewer would tell us what it lacked and what is needed. But the archived caches became an issue, and I suggested that we move to another location, and stay out of the middle of a losing battle that we are no part of.

Share this post


Link to post

We know that in the real world that copying someone else work and claiming it to be your own is wrong. We thought that it would be different in this game of geocaching. Geocaching is not really a sport, but a hobby. We were just trying to develop a really good EC that people would enjoy, and the best source of information happened to be the research of the CO that had his caches arvhived. The letter that we got said to " Avoid direct plagiarism from web sources and quote sources of information where appropriate". I like to avoid web sources also, but if we listed the source, we were afraid of what might happen to us from GS if we mention you-know-who was the source.

 

I find this a little odd. Yes, geocaching is a hobby. That doesn't make it okay to plagiarize. Plagiarism is wrong, no matter what the end product is for. Groundspeak could find itself in hot water if it knowingly publishes plagiarized material. I have been asked about my source material for a puzzle cache in the past, and I'm glad it's something reviewers know to look out for.

 

The note you received didn't tell you to avoid web sources, it told you to avoid plagiarizing web sources. An archived cache listing counts as a web source. You can use the source - just make sure you give credit.

 

I sincerely doubt that Groundspeak is going to persecute you for using an archived Earthcache as a source for a new one. Again, the reason discussion of individuals gets shut down in the forums is mostly due to privacy. This paranoia about Groundspeak coming to get you for using the old Earthcaches as a starting point is just bizarre, or worse, disingenuous.

What if we did have permission from Cav Scout to use his archived listing in the Park? Do you think that GC would have allowed us to publish them knowing that? The EC community pleaded with GC not to archive these educational virtuals, many of us enjoyed them alot. When those 203 EC's were archived, it told me that GC don't really care about EarthCaching, and us that do, tryed recreating them. Now you insest on debating plagiarism? We removed all of the ALR's and changed some logging requirements, but did alot of copy and paste. When we were explained that this was not allowed, we stopped and archived the listings. And just where do you get that I'm paranoid, bizarre, and disingenous, and that Groundspeak is coming to get me? That is a very narcissistic point of view. The topic here is how do you redevelop archived EC's, which seems to be pretty well covered here. You just follow the guidelines, and resubmit them in your own words. With Earth Trek, Waymarking, Geocaching, and EarthCaching all being one of my hobbies, understanding all of the guidelines can be confusing at times. This is why topics are posted in these forums, so we can advise each other, not dwell on a repeted issue that has been properly addressed. :)

Share this post


Link to post

 

What if we did have permission from Cav Scout to use his archived listing in the Park? Do you think that GC would have allowed us to publish them knowing that? The EC community pleaded with GC not to archive these educational virtuals, many of us enjoyed them alot. When those 203 EC's were archived, it told me that GC don't really care about EarthCaching, and us that do, tryed recreating them. Now you insest on debating plagiarism? We removed all of the ALR's and changed some logging requirements, but did alot of copy and paste. When we were explained that this was not allowed, we stopped and archived the listings. And just where do you get that I'm paranoid, bizarre, and disingenous, and that Groundspeak is coming to get me? That is a very narcissistic point of view. The topic here is how do you redevelop archived EC's, which seems to be pretty well covered here. You just follow the guidelines, and resubmit them in your own words. With Earth Trek, Waymarking, Geocaching, and EarthCaching all being one of my hobbies, understanding all of the guidelines can be confusing at times. This is why topics are posted in these forums, so we can advise each other, not dwell on a repeted issue that has been properly addressed. :rolleyes:

 

Do you have permission from CavScout to use his original work verbatim? If so, was that explained to the reviewer?

 

I'm just not understanding why putting the caches into his own words is an insurmountable hurdle. Schnitzle seems perfectly capable of expressing himself. Certainly, far less articulate individuals seems to have no qualms about publishing Earthcaches.

 

You keep claiming that Groundspeak is going to get you in trouble if you so much as mention the original owner of these Earthcaches. There is absolutely no evidence to support that. They seem to want to protect his privacy and his intellectual property, but I see no reason why, with appropriate credit, you couldn't cite his archived cache listing as a source.

 

You'll have to explain how me questioning your characterization of Groundspeak is "narcissistic." I don't work for or represent Groundspeak in any way, so I am in no way referring to myself when I talk about Groundspeak. :)

Share this post


Link to post

What if we did have permission from Cav Scout to use his archived listing in the Park?

 

Just my personal opinion, but I suspect that would be a question for either Geoaware or Groundspeak directly. Somewhat like the Adoption question of an apparently abandoned Listing (and no, I'm not calling CS's Listings abandoned), what level of "proof of permission" is entirely up to TPTB. It doesn't sound like a totally hopeless case, but there's only one way to find out (i.e. contact@geocaching.com).

 

There is nothing here but this Spring! Schnitzle likes EC's.

 

Encouraging to hear that your son has an interest in EC's :rolleyes: Same with my family. They'd much rather do a load of EC's when we're on vacation than hunting up tuppperwares in most cases.

 

But on the Spring question, it sounds similar to the argument given for glacial erratics (i.e. there's sooooo many of them...), that it sounds like the issue is not so much the Spring itself, but that the same topic is written up over and over and over. Recent history has shown that even a glacial erratic can be written up under the guise of some other "Earth Science Lesson", other than the boulder moved from point A to point B, with "educational tasks" that reinforce this *new* lesson.

 

I sincerely wish Schnitzle the best of luck. I'm sure he can do an awesome job :)

 

Edit spelling

Edited by Touchstone

Share this post


Link to post

 

What if we did have permission from Cav Scout to use his archived listing in the Park? Do you think that GC would have allowed us to publish them knowing that? The EC community pleaded with GC not to archive these educational virtuals, many of us enjoyed them alot. When those 203 EC's were archived, it told me that GC don't really care about EarthCaching, and us that do, tryed recreating them. Now you insest on debating plagiarism? We removed all of the ALR's and changed some logging requirements, but did alot of copy and paste. When we were explained that this was not allowed, we stopped and archived the listings. And just where do you get that I'm paranoid, bizarre, and disingenous, and that Groundspeak is coming to get me? That is a very narcissistic point of view. The topic here is how do you redevelop archived EC's, which seems to be pretty well covered here. You just follow the guidelines, and resubmit them in your own words. With Earth Trek, Waymarking, Geocaching, and EarthCaching all being one of my hobbies, understanding all of the guidelines can be confusing at times. This is why topics are posted in these forums, so we can advise each other, not dwell on a repeted issue that has been properly addressed. :rolleyes:

 

Do you have permission from CavScout to use his original work verbatim? If so, was that explained to the reviewer?

 

I'm just not understanding why putting the caches into his own words is an insurmountable hurdle. Schnitzle seems perfectly capable of expressing himself. Certainly, far less articulate individuals seems to have no qualms about publishing Earthcaches.

 

You keep claiming that Groundspeak is going to get you in trouble if you so much as mention the original owner of these Earthcaches. There is absolutely no evidence to support that. They seem to want to protect his privacy and his intellectual property, but I see no reason why, with appropriate credit, you couldn't cite his archived cache listing as a source.

 

You'll have to explain how me questioning your characterization of Groundspeak is "narcissistic." I don't work for or represent Groundspeak in any way, so I am in no way referring to myself when I talk about Groundspeak. :)

Sorry, but all of our questions in this thread have been answered, and your imput is not being productive, you are simply misleading this topic off subject. I have made no claims that Groundspeak is going to cause me any trouble, I was simply trying to avoid using Cav Scouts name for his privacy, as 3 other threads in the EC forum are locked for this reason, or so YOU say. I think that you are a well educated, professional social networker, but you seem to find your opinions infalliable, which I simply disagree with. You can be a great source of information at times, but you seem to seek out users to flame, more than you try to be productive to the topics in these forums.

 

Thanks to all for your help, Schnitzle and I better understand the topic now.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it would be really cool if you guys were able to get your earth cache together and appropriately quote some information. Even if it's not as complete of information as the previous cache was or as in depth I would still visit it.

 

My feeling is that if earth caches are supposed to written in a way that people that age can comprehend them who better to write an earth cache that someone that age? And how exciting would it be to go to an earth cache by someone of that age group and look at the work they put into it.

 

I see comments about how it's very difficult to make an earth cache page and not being able to do it without higher education in geology. I like my hobby to be accessible to lay people. I like earth caching and really like the earth caches made by lay people. And would totally love to see a cache written by a younger person and get to see first person what they learned.

I told schnitzle that the Park is quite large, and there are many interesting features. The one EC that we were most interested in is listed on Waymarking as WM4DRP, and we know the location of some more of these. This one is at the overlook where Va, Ky, & Tn meet in the Cumberland Gap, it is a tourist attraction, and we wanted to make it avalaible as an EC that is easy to access. There are plenty of the balanced rocks in the area, but most people will not hike 8 miles to see them. We have learned alot from the archived caches about things like this type of rock, we had no idea what these sandstone rocks with the white quartz in them were called. I know where a simialr, but different one is located in a nearby National Forest that is about 100 ft across, by 75 ft wide, and it is around 50 ft high. It's HUGE, just sitting there along a hiking trail at about 3200 feet elevation, the higest point in the County is around 4100 ft.

We had planned on going to Middlesboro, Ky. and up to the overlook to do some more Waymarking, but is is raining again today and a stormfront is approaching, that area gets more snow than we normally do, so good photo's may have to wait. That may give me some time to rethink matters, but the main issue seems to be that there was another EC here before. That is our most challanging hurtle. I have a good working relation with local land managers, so permission is never a problem. Schnitzle and I do care about the quality of what we contribute to geocaching and Waymarking, we feel that a more educated person could do a better job, so we are going to leave the archived sites alone.

But keep in mind, virtuals are being reinstated soon. I may not be a good EarthCache developer, but I can waymark, and I may just like this new virtual geocaching.

I would like to see Schnitzle develop an EC on his own, he is at the age that these type of virtual caches are directed at, but really, how many 14 year olds have ever submitted an EC and had it published? Schnitzle is a Bronze level EC master, and I am at the Gold level, I just need one more find in another State to get to Platinum level. Our plan was to develop at least three EC's for him. He is not like the other kids that geocache with us, he don't look for the box of goodies to muggle, and in the words of Georgia Bull Dogs Fan (the kid does not have his own account), EarthCaches suck. There is nothing here but this Spring! Schnitzle likes EC's. I told him before we started to try and develop an EC, that it is like a pee fight with a Skunk, that it would more than likely be rejected the first time, then the reviewer would tell us what it lacked and what is needed. But the archived caches became an issue, and I suggested that we move to another location, and stay out of the middle of a losing battle that we are no part of.

 

I would say if a 14 year old can't get an earth cache in his own words published then where the bar is set for earth caching needs to be re-evaluated since that is the line that they drew in the sand for who should be able to comprehend an earth cache. I understand that the reviewers have made submitting any earth caches at times very difficult with many demands.... perhaps then they have lost sight of what comprehension level they are dealing with and who better to bring it back to that level than someone in that age group? That would be my argument there.

 

Setting the bar so high that you are trying to replicate or put as much information as the previous hider had is going to lead to frustration and disappointment. No average 14 year old is going to have that knowledge base. But an average 14 year old has the ability to do some minimal surface level research and give out some very basic information on what is going on with the geology in that area. Again if that is not good enough for the reviewers then there should be some sort of adjustment to the guidelines indicating that age group is no longer the level at which things are to be written for.

 

Just because an earth cache does not inundate you with all the intricacies of the area does not mean it is a bad earth cache. Personally I think you should set the bar a little lower, dig out an encyclopedia or do some general web research and throw together a much less comprehensive cache page than what was there before representative of the age of the person writing that cache page.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I think you should set the bar a little lower, dig out an encyclopedia or do some general web research and throw together a much less comprehensive cache page than what was there before representative of the age of the person writing that cache page.

 

This is actually a very intriguing question. Since the original topic was mainly centered around plagiarism, perhaps this approach would bear fruit. I'm almost positive that I would never be able to get my son to submit an Earthcache based on the perception I have of the high standards for submissions (at least without some major help). It seems logical that if the Guidelines state that the level of education should be written for a 14 year old, then a submission from a 14 year old would be a good test of the system :)

Share this post


Link to post

After reading all the junk posted over at the new caching site by original owner and friends, my advice would be to leave these sites alone. The original owner is already working on getting them listed over there, if he can convince them to steal the earthcaching idea, and it would just cause confusion by duplication.

 

Never thought I'd say it, but I'm swinging round to Arthur & Trillian's POV on this, after reading on that other site. I also need some coffee.

Share this post


Link to post

...my advice would be to leave these sites alone.

 

Sorry, but I disagree with this approach. I don't believe such "balkanization" of the sport is healthy or worth the time to police.

 

IMO, what happens on other Listing services is irrelevant. Groundspeak has always taken the stance that it won't police crosslisting of caches, whether it's on Bookcrossing, Letterboxing, etc., and I see no need to change that Policy.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I think you should set the bar a little lower, dig out an encyclopedia or do some general web research and throw together a much less comprehensive cache page than what was there before representative of the age of the person writing that cache page.

 

This is actually a very intriguing question. Since the original topic was mainly centered around plagiarism, perhaps this approach would bear fruit. I'm almost positive that I would never be able to get my son to submit an Earthcache based on the perception I have of the high standards for submissions (at least without some major help). It seems logical that if the Guidelines state that the level of education should be written for a 14 year old, then a submission from a 14 year old would be a good test of the system :)

 

That's my feeling about testing the system. I've seen numerous earth cache pages with great design and much information and graphics. For those highly comprehensive pages I would question if they are written at the level that is mentioned in the guidelines.

 

If an average 14 year old (I'll even do 14 with some help from a parent) cannot get an earth cache published in their own words then I question if the reviewers are actually in line with those guidelines or if the guidelines need to be changed to reflect that in actuality the reviewers are looking for information that is not at that level.

 

But I so want to see any 14 year old do a little research at a 14 year old level and put out an earth cache representative of that level. Reality is this will likely not be a lot of academic journal research but rather simple research out of text books from that grade level, encyclopedias, and some very basic web research.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...