Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
ArtieD

No more springs?

Recommended Posts

I recently submitted an EarthCache dealing with a fairly well-known (at least in the area) spring that has a lot of history associated with it. I got a reply back that TPTB are no longer accepting springs as EarthCaches. Did I fall asleep at the wheel and miss the announcement? When did springs become not a valid topic for an EarthCache?

Share this post


Link to post

I've never heard of this and it makes no sense to me. I'm hoping this is some kind of mistake.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes you have fallen asleep. Springs fell out of favor over a year ago...in order to get one published currently it needs to be of unique importance and would likely also need to include additional relevant information about the area.

Share this post


Link to post

It hurts, but I can see the validity of doing that. There are some lame ECs that can "spring" from this subject, lol (see what I did there, harhar). When discussing the educational impact of an EC it becomes hard when you have the same kind of LRs for these caches over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post

KB Article for reference:

 

Limiting some Earthcache types

 

conveniently there is no date when that article was added

 

so many changes and restrictions, makes me wonder why they don't just grandfather the EC all together?

Share this post


Link to post

I managed to get a "waterfall" published after this guideline came down (you can really hardly call it a waterfall, but it illustrates some interesting properties of the local bedrock).

 

I'm planning to set up a "spring" EC this weekend. The spring I'm after is unique to the area had has some cool effects on the local vegetation (and should have a high terrain rating as it'll take a bit of a hike to reach). I doubt it'll be hard to get it published, but I might have to work with a reviewer to get the wording of it just right.

Share this post


Link to post

conveniently there is no date when that article was added

 

Actually, skimming through the general Guidelines in the KB I'm not seeing dates on any document. Is this a problem?

 

so many changes and restrictions, makes me wonder why they don't just grandfather the EC all together?

 

To the best my knowledge, existing EC's that are currently restricted ARE grandfathered. I believe the OP was talking about a new submission. Unless I'm misunderstanding your question :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

KB Article for reference:

 

Limiting some Earthcache types

Thanks for this Touchstone.

 

A question for the reviewers. What about one of these classifications in an area that has no/or very little Earthcaches present?

 

I am thinking of our part of the world in the Middle East - or most parts of Africa? Would you consider these as EC's due to there being almost no other caches (EC or otherwise) anywhere near - and it this is thus a way to promote caching or EC-ing in a new region.

 

A second question - what about an area such as South Africa, where there are now about 100 ECs in the entire country - but none on erratics - due to recent glaciation not being widely present. But some brecciation is present. Would you make an exception if a CO can justify a reason for the placement? Or this a blanket "no"?

 

I feel that it is a little unfair that us "remote" regions would be affected due to a large amount of caches elsewhere in the world.

 

I imagine that there are exceptions - but would just like clarity.

Share this post


Link to post

Each submission is taken on its merits...however, we have been in the past flooded with EC submissions with almost exactly the same logging tasks (cut and paste) for waterfalls, glacial erratics, springs, stream gauges etc etc

 

Some categories are therefore restricted...but if you have strong unique site-specific Earth science related logging tasks and the lesson is unique (not repeated within a short drive away)...go for it!

Share this post


Link to post

Each submission is taken on its merits...however, we have been in the past flooded with EC submissions with almost exactly the same logging tasks (cut and paste) for waterfalls, glacial erratics, springs, stream gauges etc etc

 

Some categories are therefore restricted...but if you have strong unique site-specific Earth science related logging tasks and the lesson is unique (not repeated within a short drive away)...go for it!

We liked the ones where you would have to take a temputre reading and figure what magnitude the rate of flow the spring was. The waterfalls were great also, they took us to some wonderful places of great natural beauty. Now with all the restrictions we just use the Waymarking site.

EarthCaching is just not as fun for us anymore, we are just not into geology that much. We really just enjoyed the WOW factor.

Share this post


Link to post

Each submission is taken on its merits...however, we have been in the past flooded with EC submissions with almost exactly the same logging tasks (cut and paste) for waterfalls, glacial erratics, springs, stream gauges etc etc

 

Some categories are therefore restricted...but if you have strong unique site-specific Earth science related logging tasks and the lesson is unique (not repeated within a short drive away)...go for it!

We liked the ones where you would have to take a temputre reading and figure what magnitude the rate of flow the spring was. The waterfalls were great also, they took us to some wonderful places of great natural beauty. Now with all the restrictions we just use the Waymarking site.

EarthCaching is just not as fun for us anymore, we are just not into geology that much. We really just enjoyed the WOW factor.

 

Sometimes the WOW factor is the lesson....and that you would normally just walk on by if you were not out learning through an EarthCache.

 

I am sorry you feel this way - and to be honest, I really don't understand the 'all the restrictions' comment. The guidelines have had some minor adjustments - but there have always been guidelines. They are there to help ensure that EarthCaches provide a great experience for as many as possible....and for the vast majority of people, that still seems to be the case!

Edited by geoaware

Share this post


Link to post

conveniently there is no date when that article was added

 

Actually, skimming through the general Guidelines in the KB I'm not seeing dates on any document. Is this a problem?

 

so many changes and restrictions, makes me wonder why they don't just grandfather the EC all together?

 

To the best my knowledge, existing EC's that are currently restricted ARE grandfathered. I believe the OP was talking about a new submission. Unless I'm misunderstanding your question :unsure:

 

of course there is a problem with missing dates, why not say it black on white..."effective on "so and so day"..."?

that way people can't turn around and say "but it wasn't there a week ago"

 

i think you did misunderstand my question, i meant just get rid of all of them

 

the recent changes seem to me like someone, somewhere got bored/can't be bothered etc with reviewing all the EC's submitted

 

i can't see any other reasonable explanation for limiting those types of EC's

 

I am sorry you feel this way - and to be honest, I really don't understand the 'all the restrictions' comment. The guidelines have had some minor adjustments - but there have always been guidelines. They are there to help ensure that EarthCaches provide a great experience for as many as possible....and for the vast majority of people, that still seems to be the case!

 

seriously, you call all the changes "minor"?

 

even though i don't own any EC, i do like them and i take my hat down for those creating them, the CO's that is, for all the effort they put into it

i also don't post much in EC forum, but that doesn't mean i don't read....there has been nothing but grief coming from people in regards to those so called "minor" changes

 

so if i live in an area where there is no existing spring EC or Erratic EC sucks to be me, right?

Edited by t4e

Share this post


Link to post

the recent changes seem to me like someone, somewhere got bored/can't be bothered etc with reviewing all the EC's submitted

The EarthCaching reviewer team is one of the hardest working groups of people I have ever worked with. Reviewing the typical EarthCaches submittal requires signficantly more time than the typical physical cache (I know, because I review physical caches as Greatland Reviewer) to assure a consistent level of content and compliance with the guidelines. On average, I go through two or three iterations with an EarthCache developer before his/her EarthCache is ready to publish. These iterations involve much more than rejecting a cache out of hand because I consistently provide suggestions to help get a cache publish, including doing some of my own research. I really do like to click the "Publish" button.

 

so if i live in an area where there is no existing spring EC or Erratic EC sucks to be me, right?

Not at all! If the cacher who develops the EarthCache explains the specific geology that relates to the local spring or provides a true glaciology lesson about the erratic and its relationship to its location, EarthCaches on those topics will still be published. I've published some of those after working with the EarthCache developer to provide site-specific information.

 

On the other hand, it's a non-starter to cut and paste "what magnitude is the spring and what is the water temperature" for a spring EarthCache and "measure the size or estimate the mass of the rock" for a glacial erratic EarthCache.

Edited by GeoawareUSA4

Share this post


Link to post
On the other hand, it's a non-starter to cut and paste "what magnitude is the spring and what is the water temperature" for a spring EarthCache and "measure the size or estimate the mass of the rock" for a glacial erratic EarthCache.

 

Yes, I understand your position, but if there are, say, no other springs in the area, what harm are the more common tasks?

Share this post


Link to post
On the other hand, it's a non-starter to cut and paste "what magnitude is the spring and what is the water temperature" for a spring EarthCache and "measure the size or estimate the mass of the rock" for a glacial erratic EarthCache.

 

Yes, I understand your position, but if there are, say, no other springs in the area, what harm are the more common tasks?

When combined with logging tasks related to the specific locale, the more common tasks would be accepted. As stand alone tasks, they really don't teach anything about the local Earth Science or Geology.

Share this post


Link to post

the recent changes seem to me like someone, somewhere got bored/can't be bothered etc with reviewing all the EC's submitted

The EarthCaching reviewer team is one of the hardest working groups of people I have ever worked with.

Reviewing the typical EarthCaches submittal requires signficantly more time than the typical physical cache

 

I fully agree with you that the review of Earthcaches is far more time consuming than reviewing normal caches.

Regarding trhe hard-working comment, I think that people in other areas like taking care of geriatric patients is certainly be much harder, but that's off topic here.

 

I do not agree, however, with geoaware's statement that there have been only minor changes of the guidelines.

Already the change with respect to the language guideline is a big change in my opinion and I feel it is quite cynic to call this

a minor change. The change of the photo requirement is also not a minor one. Both changes are not related to the topic of this thread, but to the general statement of geoaware in this thread.

 

In any case, I feel that all type of changes with regard to the EC review process are not communicated widely enough and this causes a lot of frustration for cachers and a lot of extra work for the EC reviewers.

 

On average, I go through two or three iterations with an EarthCache developer before his/her EarthCache is ready to publish. These iterations involve much more than rejecting a cache out of hand because I consistently provide suggestions to help get a cache publish, including doing some of my own research.

 

I have come across a few ECs that you published and I noticed that the logging tasks were different than the ones normally used in the area. This made me feel that the way the reviewers influence the logging tasks is quite dependent on the individual reviewer.

I'd would be interested whether 2-3 iterations is the average over all reviewers. (NB: I am just curious. I am not saying that reviewers with more iterations are better reviewers.)

 

so if i live in an area where there is no existing spring EC or Erratic EC sucks to be me, right?

Not at all! If the cacher who develops the EarthCache explains the specific geology that relates to the local spring or provides a true glaciology lesson about the erratic and its relationship to its location, EarthCaches on those topics will still be published. I've published some of those after working with the EarthCache developer to provide site-specific information.

 

On the other hand, it's a non-starter to cut and paste "what magnitude is the spring and what is the water temperature" for a spring EarthCache and "measure the size or estimate the mass of the rock" for a glacial erratic EarthCache.

 

On the one hand, I am on your side as the write up and geological logging tasks are what's really important for me about an Earthcache. The wow factor does not play an essential role for me for Earthcaches (in contrast to caches with a container). On the other hand, it is easier to ask for logging tasks that teach about the local geology than to come up with such questions. Quite often even the information boards at a location (if such boards exist at all) do not tell that much local information, but just provide common knowledge about the type of location (e.g. in case of a former volcano explain the creation process of volcanoes).

In many cases, only people with a high level of knowledge in geology will be able to come along with appropriate logging tasks and the reviewers often come from quite far apart and will often also not be able to help with finding logging tasks of the type you and I would like to see.

 

Maybe you could provide an example of a spring cache that poses questions about the local geology. I need to admit that the measuring tasks are not that bad from my point of view and that I prefer them to answering questions like what is the third word in the fourth line of the sign to the right of the location. I can well imagine that many cachers in my region even would fail with answering such questions as they do not know to measure/estimate the magnitute of a source and have never dealt with such questions. (Such logging tasks might be abundant in other areas, I have never come across them in my area however.)

I quite often come across Earthcaches where the questions that should make sure that one needs to visit the location are not geology-related at all like e.g. counting the number of small stones surrounding a fountain.

 

geoware often writes about strong logging requirement, but like others I have quite some difficulties in understanding how such requirements can look like in concrete examples. (geoaware's own caches do not seem to provide an example in this regard).

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Each submission is taken on its merits...however, we have been in the past flooded with EC submissions with almost exactly the same logging tasks (cut and paste) for waterfalls, glacial erratics, springs, stream gauges etc etc

 

Some categories are therefore restricted...but if you have strong unique site-specific Earth science related logging tasks and the lesson is unique (not repeated within a short drive away)...go for it!

 

Great - thank you - that is a relief and good for development of EC's in new areas.

Share this post


Link to post

Each submission is taken on its merits...however, we have been in the past flooded with EC submissions with almost exactly the same logging tasks (cut and paste) for waterfalls, glacial erratics, springs, stream gauges etc etc

 

Some categories are therefore restricted...but if you have strong unique site-specific Earth science related logging tasks and the lesson is unique (not repeated within a short drive away)...go for it!

We liked the ones where you would have to take a temputre reading and figure what magnitude the rate of flow the spring was. The waterfalls were great also, they took us to some wonderful places of great natural beauty. Now with all the restrictions we just use the Waymarking site.

EarthCaching is just not as fun for us anymore, we are just not into geology that much. We really just enjoyed the WOW factor.

 

Sometimes the WOW factor is the lesson....and that you would normally just walk on by if you were not out learning through an EarthCache.

 

I am sorry you feel this way - and to be honest, I really don't understand the 'all the restrictions' comment. The guidelines have had some minor adjustments - but there have always been guidelines. They are there to help ensure that EarthCaches provide a great experience for as many as possible....and for the vast majority of people, that still seems to be the case!

Maybe ristriction was the wrong term. I just feel that we are limited more now as to what can be published as a EC. I don't know much about geology, and really don't have alot of interest in the subject. I enjoyed some of the cave EC's the most, and those have to be approved first by the NSS, then GSA. Cave EC's can not be listed in my area now because of WNS in brown bats. I really just enjoyed the old listings that allowed springs and water falls. Waymarking has a category for those listings, but the site is not used much. I just don't see any new EC's being listed in my area. We have been working on some, but just have kinda lost interest in trying to submit them.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sorry to see this restriction. We've only logged 54 earthcaches so far, but even with that we've already run across a number of springs. There's only so much I can care about flow rate and magnitude, since that's what most of them appear to deal with. (And most of the rest seem to deal with mineral content; I burned out after four of these in Colorado.)

 

Ditto for the types of waterfalls. When we hid a waterfall EC, I don't know whether it was before the strictions came out or not. It didn't matter because we chose a waterfall that was pretty unique, Falling Spring Falls, and concentrated on those features rather than on what type of a waterfall it was.

 

I think the restrictions force folks to think outside the box and find new lessons to teach. Our two most recent ECs are about dirt. Dirt, you say? Yup, dirt. Not the most exciting ECs in the world, but dangit, you'll learn something you probably never paid attention to before.

Share this post


Link to post

We never saw a springs or waterfall EC that we didn't like! :) Get tired of them? It is hardly possible with us. Yes, some of the educational requirements may be alike, but there are just so many different questions that can be asked with a waterfall or spring EC. Because the questions may be redundant doesn't mean the EC is redundant!

What about rock shelters, sink holes, outcrops, mountains, caves, mines, confluences, faults? Just like waterfalls and springs, there are no two alike! No geological feature ought to be eliminated including those which have already fallen out of favor! :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, some of the educational requirements may be alike, but there are just so many different questions that can be asked with a waterfall or spring EC. Because the questions may be redundant doesn't mean the EC is redundant!

 

I disagree. The earthcache is about two things: the location and the lessons learned there. Show me what's different about this spring or this waterfall, AND teach me a site-specific lesson that's different from other earthcaches at other natural features. But if it's another artesian well, and all you're going to ask me is flow rate, and you can't showcase something unique about that feature and teach me about it, then you've basically created the EC equivalent of a lamp post micro. And maybe you really like lamp post micros. Fair enough, but I don't, and obviously geoaware and the other reviewers don't want just cookie cutter earthcaches diluting the experience.

 

Really, it's not just springs and waterfalls -- those are just the two most abused earthcache subjects. Bottom line is, it's harder to make an earthcache than it used to be in order to inject more quality control into the process.

 

Case in point: I tried submitting one on a glacial lagoon in western Iceland. It's a beautiful spot, and I thought it deserved an earthcache. I knew there was an earthcache at a more popular lagoon, Jökulsárlón about 20 miles away, so I tried to focus on different lessons and avoid copying the other earthcache. My submission was denied, because there wasn't enough difference between the two lagoons themselves, even though I was tring to teach different information to cachers.

 

I wasn't thrilled, but I get it: I had the lesson side of the equation, but I didn't have a unique enough natural feature. I needed both sides of the coin, I only had one.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Case in point: I tried submitting one on a glacial lagoon in western Iceland. It's a beautiful spot, and I thought it deserved an earthcache. I knew there was an earthcache at a more popular lagoon, Jökulsárlón about 20 miles away, so I tried to focus on different lessons and avoid copying the other earthcache. My submission was denied, because there wasn't enough difference between the two lagoons themselves, even though I was tring to teach different information to cachers.

 

I wasn't thrilled, but I get it: I had the lesson side of the equation, but I didn't have a unique enough natural feature. I needed both sides of the coin, I only had one.

 

I guess that I would have enjoyed your EC anyway and I think that 20 miles is not that close and two caches dealing with a similar phenomenon should not be too many. However, it is the geoware team that makes up the rules. This is just another case where I find them hard to understand. I would find it e.g. quite annoying if there existed two comparable caves within 20 miles one very close to my home and the more distant one with an already existing EC and a submission at the location close to my place just rejected due to the existence of that other cache which might be unreachable for me. I appreciate that the review team tries to have a look at the logging tasks and avoid too much duplication in this regard, but if I understand you correctly you tried to come up with a different lesson than the other EC.

 

I am asking myself what is the minimum distance required between two ECs that treat a similar topic? 50 miles? 100 miles? What defines similarity?

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

 

I am asking myself what is the minimum distance required between two ECs that treat a similar topic? 50 miles? 100 miles? What defines similarity?

 

Cezanne

 

How similar? exactly similar? Does it have different science? sort of? and what is the area like? How long does it take to get from one to the other? If you owned the one that exists would the new one too close and too identical to be comfortable? Can you focus on something different to highlight a different aspect? Is it site specific?

 

It really varies from topic to topic, and write up to write up.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, some of the educational requirements may be alike, but there are just so many different questions that can be asked with a waterfall or spring EC. Because the questions may be redundant doesn't mean the EC is redundant!

 

I disagree. The earthcache is about two things: the location and the lessons learned there. Show me what's different about this spring or this waterfall, AND teach me a site-specific lesson that's different from other earthcaches at other natural features. But if it's another artesian well, and all you're going to ask me is flow rate, and you can't showcase something unique about that feature and teach me about it, then you've basically created the EC equivalent of a lamp post micro. And maybe you really like lamp post micros. Fair enough, but I don't, and obviously geoaware and the other reviewers don't want just cookie cutter earthcaches diluting the experience.

 

Really, it's not just springs and waterfalls -- those are just the two most abused earthcache subjects. Bottom line is, it's harder to make an earthcache than it used to be in order to inject more quality control into the process.

 

Case in point: I tried submitting one on a glacial lagoon in western Iceland. It's a beautiful spot, and I thought it deserved an earthcache. I knew there was an earthcache at a more popular lagoon, Jökulsárlón about 20 miles away, so I tried to focus on different lessons and avoid copying the other earthcache. My submission was denied, because there wasn't enough difference between the two lagoons themselves, even though I was tring to teach different information to cachers.

 

I wasn't thrilled, but I get it: I had the lesson side of the equation, but I didn't have a unique enough natural feature. I needed both sides of the coin, I only had one.

 

Thank you! You get it...and said it so well!

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, some of the educational requirements may be alike, but there are just so many different questions that can be asked with a waterfall or spring EC. Because the questions may be redundant doesn't mean the EC is redundant!

 

I disagree. The earthcache is about two things: the location and the lessons learned there. Show me what's different about this spring or this waterfall, AND teach me a site-specific lesson that's different from other earthcaches at other natural features. But if it's another artesian well, and all you're going to ask me is flow rate, and you can't showcase something unique about that feature and teach me about it, then you've basically created the EC equivalent of a lamp post micro. And maybe you really like lamp post micros. Fair enough, but I don't, and obviously geoaware and the other reviewers don't want just cookie cutter earthcaches diluting the experience.

 

Really, it's not just springs and waterfalls -- those are just the two most abused earthcache subjects. Bottom line is, it's harder to make an earthcache than it used to be in order to inject more quality control into the process.

 

Case in point: I tried submitting one on a glacial lagoon in western Iceland. It's a beautiful spot, and I thought it deserved an earthcache. I knew there was an earthcache at a more popular lagoon, Jökulsárlón about 20 miles away, so I tried to focus on different lessons and avoid copying the other earthcache. My submission was denied, because there wasn't enough difference between the two lagoons themselves, even though I was tring to teach different information to cachers.

 

I wasn't thrilled, but I get it: I had the lesson side of the equation, but I didn't have a unique enough natural feature. I needed both sides of the coin, I only had one.

 

Thank you! You get it...and said it so well!

 

I guess that this is what I do not understand about the evolution of EarthCaching. In the beginning, anyone could list almost anything as an EarthCache. And, believe me, I've seen some pretty bad ones. A so-called glacial erratic dumped from a truck, and landed upside-down, with coords 80' off? (As I understand glacial erratic, it is a rock carried by a glacier, but of a different geology than the rock it landed on. Thus, a putple puddingstone boulder carried twenty miles, and deposited on purple puddingstone would not qualify.)

I guess that TPTB were interested in getting many EarthCaches listed, and, umm... had lower requirements??? Now that that quota has been filled, the requirements are far more stringent??? Too many springs, too many glacial erratics. Stop publishing them?? Sorry... "Require unique earth science educational experiences."

I do realize that when EarthCaches move to Waymarking, the move back required re-evaluation of the educational lessons. Many were archived. Most were not. But it seems to me that most of the older ones would not meet the newer stringent requirements. And, yet, then, we see many new ones with little or no earth science lessons. "Which way are the birds flying?" "Which way is the wind blowing?"

If TPTB at EarthCaching want to set more stringent guidelines, then they should be consistent. Not blowing in the wind.

Oh, well. I see a major problem here. And that problem is inconsistency in applying the guidelines. Some EarthCache COs seem to get away with anything. Others cannot get interesting lessons/EarthCaches published "because there are too many of them."

If a spring or waterfall is interesting, and has a lesson to be taught, then it should be acceptable as an EarthCache.

I think TPTB need to rethink what it is that they are trying to accomplish.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, some of the educational requirements may be alike, but there are just so many different questions that can be asked with a waterfall or spring EC. Because the questions may be redundant doesn't mean the EC is redundant!

 

I disagree. The earthcache is about two things: the location and the lessons learned there. Show me what's different about this spring or this waterfall, AND teach me a site-specific lesson that's different from other earthcaches at other natural features. But if it's another artesian well, and all you're going to ask me is flow rate, and you can't showcase something unique about that feature and teach me about it, then you've basically created the EC equivalent of a lamp post micro. And maybe you really like lamp post micros. Fair enough, but I don't, and obviously geoaware and the other reviewers don't want just cookie cutter earthcaches diluting the experience.

 

Really, it's not just springs and waterfalls -- those are just the two most abused earthcache subjects. Bottom line is, it's harder to make an earthcache than it used to be in order to inject more quality control into the process.

 

Case in point: I tried submitting one on a glacial lagoon in western Iceland. It's a beautiful spot, and I thought it deserved an earthcache. I knew there was an earthcache at a more popular lagoon, Jökulsárlón about 20 miles away, so I tried to focus on different lessons and avoid copying the other earthcache. My submission was denied, because there wasn't enough difference between the two lagoons themselves, even though I was tring to teach different information to cachers.

 

I wasn't thrilled, but I get it: I had the lesson side of the equation, but I didn't have a unique enough natural feature. I needed both sides of the coin, I only had one.

 

Thank you! You get it...and said it so well!

 

I guess that this is what I do not understand about the evolution of EarthCaching. In the beginning, anyone could list almost anything as an EarthCache. And, believe me, I've seen some pretty bad ones. A so-called glacial erratic dumped from a truck, and landed upside-down, with coords 80' off? (As I understand glacial erratic, it is a rock carried by a glacier, but of a different geology than the rock it landed on. Thus, a putple puddingstone boulder carried twenty miles, and deposited on purple puddingstone would not qualify.)

I guess that TPTB were interested in getting many EarthCaches listed, and, umm... had lower requirements??? Now that that quota has been filled, the requirements are far more stringent??? Too many springs, too many glacial erratics. Stop publishing them?? Sorry... "Require unique earth science educational experiences."

I do realize that when EarthCaches move to Waymarking, the move back required re-evaluation of the educational lessons. Many were archived. Most were not. But it seems to me that most of the older ones would not meet the newer stringent requirements. And, yet, then, we see many new ones with little or no earth science lessons. "Which way are the birds flying?" "Which way is the wind blowing?"

If TPTB at EarthCaching want to set more stringent guidelines, then they should be consistent. Not blowing in the wind.

Oh, well. I see a major problem here. And that problem is inconsistency in applying the guidelines. Some EarthCache COs seem to get away with anything. Others cannot get interesting lessons/EarthCaches published "because there are too many of them."

If a spring or waterfall is interesting, and has a lesson to be taught, then it should be acceptable as an EarthCache.

I think TPTB need to rethink what it is that they are trying to accomplish.

 

Thank you. You get it..... and said it so well!

My biggest gripe with earthcaching and perhaps the only one is inconsistency!

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, some of the educational requirements may be alike, but there are just so many different questions that can be asked with a waterfall or spring EC. Because the questions may be redundant doesn't mean the EC is redundant!

 

I disagree. The earthcache is about two things: the location and the lessons learned there. Show me what's different about this spring or this waterfall, AND teach me a site-specific lesson that's different from other earthcaches at other natural features. But if it's another artesian well, and all you're going to ask me is flow rate, and you can't showcase something unique about that feature and teach me about it, then you've basically created the EC equivalent of a lamp post micro. And maybe you really like lamp post micros. Fair enough, but I don't, and obviously geoaware and the other reviewers don't want just cookie cutter earthcaches diluting the experience.

 

Really, it's not just springs and waterfalls -- those are just the two most abused earthcache subjects. Bottom line is, it's harder to make an earthcache than it used to be in order to inject more quality control into the process.

 

Case in point: I tried submitting one on a glacial lagoon in western Iceland. It's a beautiful spot, and I thought it deserved an earthcache. I knew there was an earthcache at a more popular lagoon, Jökulsárlón about 20 miles away, so I tried to focus on different lessons and avoid copying the other earthcache. My submission was denied, because there wasn't enough difference between the two lagoons themselves, even though I was tring to teach different information to cachers.

 

I wasn't thrilled, but I get it: I had the lesson side of the equation, but I didn't have a unique enough natural feature. I needed both sides of the coin, I only had one.

 

I wouldn't be thrilled either at the denial.

After all you did mention location as being one of the two things that earthcaches are about and no two locations are the same! When you view a waterfall or a spring, do your really have to be told how they are different from another waterfall or spring? As far as questions go, have you ever seen a two waterfalls that were the same height or width or have the same volume? Yes, some have the same classification, but that's it! Or lets take the other red headed stepson at the family reunion..........springs. Same volume as another , same temperature as another, same pH as another................we think not!

As I said in an earlier post..........consistency, consistency, consistency! :)

Share this post


Link to post

I recently submitted an EC that was a geothermal mineral spring that was denied too. However, I am somewhat confused on the new guidelines as I read them before collecting my data and doing research on the EC in question. In the guidelines 5.1 it states acceptable as:"Geological phenomena - impact craters, geysers, mineral springs, etc." Then in 5.5 it states " Artesian Wells/Springs: A general description of how an artesian well or spring forms will not be accepted. The EarthCache should include details about the geological conditions that caused the specific artesian well/spring to be formed at the selected location." My EC was a geothermal mineral spring and explained in detail about the geological properties at the site and how it was formed. I thought for sure that my EC would get published as I complied by the guidelines. The two sections of the guidelines seem to contradict itself. Am I now to understand that all springs no matter what, will never become a published EC? Just hoping for some clarification on this. Despite being turned down, I really appreciate the efforts of all the reviewers as they do such a great job and don't always get the credit they truly deserve.

Edited by Jedi Cacher

Share this post


Link to post

I recently submitted an EC that was a geothermal mineral spring that was denied too. However, I am somewhat confused on the new guidelines as I read them before collecting my data and doing research on the EC in question. In the guidelines 5.1 it states acceptable as:"Geological phenomena - impact craters, geysers, mineral springs, etc." Then in 5.5 it states " Artesian Wells/Springs: A general description of how an artesian well or spring forms will not be accepted. The EarthCache should include details about the geological conditions that caused the specific artesian well/spring to be formed at the selected location." My EC was a geothermal mineral spring and explained in detail about the geological properties at the site and how it was formed. I thought for sure that my EC would get published as I complied by the guidelines. The two sections of the guidelines seem to contradict itself. Am I now to understand that all springs no matter what, will never become a published EC? Just hoping for some clarification on this. Despite being turned down, I really appreciate the efforts of all the reviewers as they do such a great job and don't always get the credit they truly deserve.

 

If you are turned down by the reviewer, you have the right to appeal to Groundspeak. I know it's a little known fact, but ECs are not exempt from the appeals process. I know because I successfully used it!

Good luck! :)

Share this post


Link to post

I recently submitted an EC that was a geothermal mineral spring that was denied too. However, I am somewhat confused on the new guidelines as I read them before collecting my data and doing research on the EC in question. In the guidelines 5.1 it states acceptable as:"Geological phenomena - impact craters, geysers, mineral springs, etc." Then in 5.5 it states " Artesian Wells/Springs: A general description of how an artesian well or spring forms will not be accepted. The EarthCache should include details about the geological conditions that caused the specific artesian well/spring to be formed at the selected location." My EC was a geothermal mineral spring and explained in detail about the geological properties at the site and how it was formed. I thought for sure that my EC would get published as I complied by the guidelines. The two sections of the guidelines seem to contradict itself. Am I now to understand that all springs no matter what, will never become a published EC? Just hoping for some clarification on this. Despite being turned down, I really appreciate the efforts of all the reviewers as they do such a great job and don't always get the credit they truly deserve.

 

You can easily appeal a decision via the EarthCache team leader (glewis@geosociety.org).

Share this post


Link to post

I recently submitted an EC that was a geothermal mineral spring that was denied too. However, I am somewhat confused on the new guidelines as I read them before collecting my data and doing research on the EC in question. In the guidelines 5.1 it states acceptable as:"Geological phenomena - impact craters, geysers, mineral springs, etc." Then in 5.5 it states " Artesian Wells/Springs: A general description of how an artesian well or spring forms will not be accepted. The EarthCache should include details about the geological conditions that caused the specific artesian well/spring to be formed at the selected location." My EC was a geothermal mineral spring and explained in detail about the geological properties at the site and how it was formed. I thought for sure that my EC would get published as I complied by the guidelines. The two sections of the guidelines seem to contradict itself. Am I now to understand that all springs no matter what, will never become a published EC? Just hoping for some clarification on this. Despite being turned down, I really appreciate the efforts of all the reviewers as they do such a great job and don't always get the credit they truly deserve.

 

You can easily appeal a decision via the EarthCache team leader (glewis@geosociety.org).

I have seen this work just fine...in fact once it worked without me even making an appeal...the ringleader must have been trolling my listing and hit the publish button when I was still working with another reviewer. Each reviewer has a slightly different idea of what is acceptable...it never hurts to get a fresh perspective if you truly feel you have a valid listing. Remember folks, they WANT you to succeed and get your listing published. Unfortunately not every listing is publishable.

Edited by Lostby7

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...