Jump to content

Earthcaches vs. Waymarking.


Captain America 911

Recommended Posts

Many Earthcache categorys are no longer accepted, but similar listings of the same type exist on the Waymarking site. Which would you rather visit. Some Earthcaches are too much trouble for me to be interested in logging. Also are they not difficult to get approved? I don't get a chance to visit many because they are few, but lots of waymarks in the area. I like listings that take me places interesting.

Link to comment

Many Earthcache categorys are no longer accepted, but similar listings of the same type exist on the Waymarking site. Which would you rather visit. Some Earthcaches are too much trouble for me to be interested in logging. Also are they not difficult to get approved? I don't get a chance to visit many because they are few, but lots of waymarks in the area. I like listings that take me places interesting.

All good reasons to bring back virtuals!!! :smile:

Link to comment

An EarthCache is supposed to help you learn something about geology.

This is supposed to be an integral part of the EarthCache experience.

 

I have no doubt that there are waymarks with similar objectives, and of equally high quality.

 

Sadly, there certainly are EarthCaches that are nothing more than 'go here and take a picture' as the 'requirement'.

Link to comment

No. I was corrected on that. They teach something about 'earth science' not 'geology'. Yes, some of the older ones do not seem to teach much. I'll write that up to 'lets get a number of these things running' combined with a lack of consistency. Though there seem to be a number of new ones that have absolutely no earth science involved. "Why is a tree growing here in the landfill, when so much of it is wet?" "Beause the bulldozers piled the earth higher here?" "Which way does the tree cast its shadow?" "Away from the sun?" And that's only one in a series!

But to answer OP, I'll go for the EarthCache any day!

Link to comment

Many Earthcache categorys are no longer accepted, but similar listings of the same type exist on the Waymarking site. Which would you rather visit. Some Earthcaches are too much trouble for me to be interested in logging. Also are they not difficult to get approved? I don't get a chance to visit many because they are few, but lots of waymarks in the area. I like listings that take me places interesting.

All good reasons to bring back virtuals!!! :smile:

Can hardly wait for the virtuals. I saw one today. I find Waymarking to better suit me for virtuals like springs and water falls that we enjoy visiting. I don't have to log every place that I visit on Waymarking just to get a smiley like a geocacher on a numbers run. :anitongue:

Link to comment

Many Earthcache categorys are no longer accepted, but similar listings of the same type exist on the Waymarking site. Which would you rather visit. Some Earthcaches are too much trouble for me to be interested in logging. Also are they not difficult to get approved? I don't get a chance to visit many because they are few, but lots of waymarks in the area. I like listings that take me places interesting.

 

Not difficult to get approved? Try it sometime!

To answer your question, "Which would you rather visit?" No doubt about it...............earthcaches! Waymarks can be anything from a McDonalds to a monument. I would favor the monument. When virtuals come back and I hope they do, I also hope they do not interfere with ECs. I would not argue that many Waymarks can take you to places that are interesting, but if geological phenomena is your bag, earthcches win hands down! :)

Link to comment

When virtuals come back and I hope they do, I also hope they do not interfere with ECs.

 

I hope we will be free to choose earth science as well as a topic for a virtual cache. That by the way would allow me to implement my earth science related cache ideas.

 

but if geological phenomena is your bag, earthcches win hands down! :)

 

Not necessarily from my point of view. I know quite some traditionals and multi caches that lead to locations with geological phenomena and are educative and where one can learn more than by visiting an EC leading to a fountain in a city.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

When virtuals come back and I hope they do, I also hope they do not interfere with ECs.

 

I hope we will be free to choose earth science as well as a topic for a virtual cache. That by the way would allow me to implement my earth science related cache ideas.

 

but if geological phenomena is your bag, earthcches win hands down! :)

 

Not necessarily from my point of view. I know quite some traditionals and multi caches that lead to locations with geological phenomena and are educative and where one can learn more than by visiting an EC leading to a fountain in a city.

 

Cezanne

 

If you will excuse me, all I was giving was my answer to his either/or question! "Which would you rather visit." This question does not present a right or wrong and the answer is only "point of view"!

No one said that some traditional and/or multi caches do not lead to "geological phenomena, etc". The question was which would rather visit. Again, it was either earthcaches or other types not a comparison of a few of each type. Of course, you are entitled to your point of view, just make sure we are comparing apples to apples! Thank you. :)

Link to comment

When virtuals come back and I hope they do, I also hope they do not interfere with ECs.

 

I hope we will be free to choose earth science as well as a topic for a virtual cache. That by the way would allow me to implement my earth science related cache ideas.

 

but if geological phenomena is your bag, earthcches win hands down! :)

 

Not necessarily from my point of view. I know quite some traditionals and multi caches that lead to locations with geological phenomena and are educative and where one can learn more than by visiting an EC leading to a fountain in a city.

 

Cezanne

 

If you will excuse me, all I was giving was my answer to his either/or question! "Which would you rather visit." This question does not present a right or wrong and the answer is only "point of view"!

No one said that some traditional and/or multi caches do not lead to "geological phenomena, etc". The question was which would rather visit. Again, it was either earthcaches or other types not a comparison of a few of each type. Of course, you are entitled to your point of view, just make sure we are comparing apples to apples! Thank you. :)

 

I am sorry, but I understood your formulation "if geological phenomena is your bag, earthcaches win hands down" in a more general way than just telling about your personal preference. (Your if clause makes a general statement and is not an I statement.) I understood it as recommendation also for others. My intent was just to express that I do not share this recommendation in this general form. For me always the contents and not the packaging is of importance. With respect to caches, waymarks and whatsoever: It is not the type that plays the most important role for me, but what is offered to me. Certainly, the probability of finding a geological pearl among ECs is much, much higher than finding one among other categories, but probabilities are nothing deterministic.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Good grief! I give up. :ph34r:

 

You seem to think that I am involved in a fight/debate with you, but I am not. I just misunderstood what you wrote and commented on it. There is neither any need for debating it further nor for being frustrated. Have a good day.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Many Earthcache categorys are no longer accepted, but similar listings of the same type exist on the Waymarking site. Which would you rather visit. Some Earthcaches are too much trouble for me to be interested in logging. Also are they not difficult to get approved? I don't get a chance to visit many because they are few, but lots of waymarks in the area. I like listings that take me places interesting.

 

Not difficult to get approved? Try it sometime!

To answer your question, "Which would you rather visit?" No doubt about it...............earthcaches! Waymarks can be anything from a McDonalds to a monument. I would favor the monument. When virtuals come back and I hope they do, I also hope they do not interfere with ECs. I would not argue that many Waymarks can take you to places that are interesting, but if geological phenomena is your bag, earthcches win hands down! :)

I strongly dislike lame Waymarking categorys. :surprise: But yes, try to list an EC and get it approved. That's one of the reason that there are so few, and now GSA has limited the categorys more. Springs and waterfalls are no longer accepted. Those are the type waymarks that I enjoy along with historical listings. I don't know that much about geology and some EC's can be difficult to log. :ph34r:

Link to comment

"Springs and waterfalls are no longer accepted."

 

This is actually NOT true. What we don't accept is springs and waterfalls that use the same old 'cut and paste' logging requirements that either not site specific. ie. what is the classification for this water fall or what is the temp of the spring water.

 

EarthCaches on these topics with great local site-specific Earth science logging tasks will be published is they meet all the other guidelines.

Link to comment

Many Earthcache categorys are no longer accepted,

 

True, but there are plenty that are still available!

 

Which would you rather visit.

 

To be absolutely honest, I gave Waymarking a shot and I even made a couple waypoints, I just don't get the same ROI on waymarks as I do with Earthcaching. I find that although most some a few waymarks have been informative. I have yet to find one that really made me think. SO I still feel like ECs are better bang for my buck.

 

Some Earthcaches are too much trouble for me to be interested in logging.

 

I agree that some are, you don't have to do those.

 

Also are they not difficult to get approved?

 

Submitted one last night and after one clarification it was published this morning. I can't do that with traditionals at times.

Link to comment

"Springs and waterfalls are no longer accepted."

 

This is actually NOT true. What we don't accept is springs and waterfalls that use the same old 'cut and paste' logging requirements that either not site specific. ie. what is the classification for this water fall or what is the temp of the spring water.

 

EarthCaches on these topics with great local site-specific Earth science logging tasks will be published is they meet all the other guidelines.

I thought I saw it in the guidelines once that springs, waterfalls, mounds and some other listings were no longer accepted? Could have just got it confused. I visited a waterfall a few days ago that is at a swimming hole on NFS property. It would be great if I could figure out a way to write it up. All I have as examples are the older ones that more about plunge pools, ect.

Link to comment

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...
×
×
  • Create New...