Jump to content

New forest Caches an Idea


GerritS
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

OK Lets start with the first thing I AM NOT SAYING THERE ARE to many caches in the forest..

 

Just that the way they will get removed from the list is not necessarily the best way....

 

"2. There will be no more than 150 caches in place in the New Forest.

3. When 140 caches have been placed any cache which is older than 3 years will be archived.

4. When 150 caches have been placed and there are no more to archive, any new caches will not be published. "

 

This never struck me as the best solution, what would happen if the rules where changed to some thing like:

"3. When the cache 140 Caches have been reached the oldest cache that is greater than 3 years old and has least favorites per year* will be archived.

4. When 150 caches have been placed and there are no more to archive, any new caches will not be published."

 

* or some other similar formula: favorites per find? I am sure there are lots of others...

 

In this manner we can promote caches that cacher's enjoy and cache setters will have a reason to place better caches.

 

I believe that the people who set the agreements read these forums or it will get to there attention.

 

I know not every one likes all types of caches but in this manner in areas where agreements have to be made, the community can decide which caches are worth keeping.

 

Its only an idea it may of been discussed before, it will not be perfect (my local supermarket magnetic micro stuck to a trolley bay has 2 favorites!) it would be a way to promote quality caches.

 

Just an idea hope its not been hammered before...

 

Gerrit

Link to comment

OK Lets start with the first thing I AM NOT SAYING THERE ARE to many caches in the forest..

 

Just that the way they will get removed from the list is not necessarily the best way....

 

"2. There will be no more than 150 caches in place in the New Forest.

3. When 140 caches have been placed any cache which is older than 3 years will be archived.

4. When 150 caches have been placed and there are no more to archive, any new caches will not be published. "

 

This never struck me as the best solution, what would happen if the rules where changed to some thing like:

"3. When the cache 140 Caches have been reached the oldest cache that is greater than 3 years old and has least favorites per year* will be archived.

4. When 150 caches have been placed and there are no more to archive, any new caches will not be published."

 

* or some other similar formula: favorites per find? I am sure there are lots of others...

 

In this manner we can promote caches that cacher's enjoy and cache setters will have a reason to place better caches.

 

I believe that the people who set the agreements read these forums or it will get to there attention.

 

I know not every one likes all types of caches but in this manner in areas where agreements have to be made, the community can decide which caches are worth keeping.

 

Its only an idea it may of been discussed before, it will not be perfect (my local supermarket magnetic micro stuck to a trolley bay has 2 favorites!) it would be a way to promote quality caches.

 

Just an idea hope its not been hammered before...

 

Gerrit

I think the system is pretty good... Not sure it's been implemented as I don't live there these days. The sad thing is there will be no old classics there... But they could be reboot I guess... Keep the best by replacing them. The guidelines are open to abuse there... Thankfully that didn't happen.

Link to comment

The New Forest Agreement covers 5 Geocache Listing Sites, not just Geocaching.com. Any solution apart from the New Forest Authorities, removing the fixed number of caches. Has to be one which can easily be applied over All 5 Geocache Listing Sites.

 

The best place for this to be discussed is the GAGB forum as that is Listing Site Neutral, as is the Agreement with the New Forest Authorities

 

Please Note! Whilst you have to be a Member of the GAGB Forums to post on there, you do not have to be a Member of the GAGB. If you are a Member of the GAGB, you are automatically a member of the GAGB Forums. However there is a separate Forum Only Membership available (Membership of the forum, is required to help block spammers posting to the forum)

 

Deci

Link to comment

I wouldn't want to judge a cache by the number of favourites. Some caches are classics but only get a couple of visits per year (because they take a bit more effort than the average).

 

Bearing in mind that Favourites haven't existed for very long it could be that some of the best caches in an area have none, or only one or two. Some of the others may have had a hundred visits since Favourites started and yet only been "Favourited" three times so will survive.

 

As the New Forest officials are trying to discourage visitors to the area, it might actually be best to archive the most popular caches!

Link to comment

I wouldn't want to judge a cache by the number of favourites. Some caches are classics but only get a couple of visits per year (because they take a bit more effort than the average).

 

Bearing in mind that Favourites haven't existed for very long it could be that some of the best caches in an area have none, or only one or two. Some of the others may have had a hundred visits since Favourites started and yet only been "Favourited" three times so will survive.

 

As the New Forest officials are trying to discourage visitors to the area, it might actually be best to archive the most popular caches!

There's the issue... 150 caches is not many, in one of the best areas of the country... But they don't want too many visitors.

 

As a cacher and part time resident of the Peak District (the rest of the time I live nearby) I can hold my hands up and say sometimes there are too many visitors.

 

There used to be a letterbox under the bar inthe Royal Oak in Fritham... A great find if the box is still there... Stamped it a few times!

 

The people incharge of the new forest know what they are doing... Work with them. 150 caches with built in movement beats 1500 crap ones.

Link to comment

Gosh - you mean there are some caches in the New Forest already?

 

Went for a week's hols there a couple of weeks ago - hardly any caches anywhere near where I was staying. Only managed 5 all week - and they were in towns, not the Forest itself.

 

Maybe they're clumped together somewhere else.

Link to comment

Gosh - you mean there are some caches in the New Forest already?

 

Went for a week's hols there a couple of weeks ago - hardly any caches anywhere near where I was staying. Only managed 5 all week - and they were in towns, not the Forest itself.

 

Maybe they're clumped together somewhere else.

 

Looks like you were staying in the wrong place.

 

There are 124 geocaches in the New Forest.

Link to comment

Having read peoples comments as I understand:

 

The biggest issue is other cache types I can think of:

Geocaching,

Open Caching,

Terra Caching,

That's 3 what are the other 2?

 

Those 3 all have rating systems of some form so that it could be possible to make a system that works.

 

As for how to rate a cache that is an old chestnut, not one will be perfect but improvement should be possible.

 

Yes initially the system would struggle to keep the old caches pre-favorites but they would be among the first to be archived, give or take a bit.

 

There is certain unfairness in the present rules, 3 users (or user accounts) on all 5 cache type could monopolize caches in the forest... Although I am sure at this point GAGB Would step up???

 

As it is the system works, but I think there is an opportunity to promote better caches. If its not possible in the forest maybe in other areas...

 

I have not posted this to GAGB (I cannot remember my user name and password). IF some one feels this thread is worth bringing to the attention of folks on there please feel free...

 

As for quantity of caches that's for greater minds than mine to decide.

 

"150 caches with built in movement beats 1500 crap ones." I fully agree here but how do we get 150 better ones??

Link to comment

The biggest issue is other cache types I can think of:

Geocaching,

Open Caching,

Terra Caching,

That's 3 what are the other 2?

There are two opencaching sites - the original opencaching.org.uk and the more recent Garmin opencaching. This is a pretty unfortunate state of affairs, but it's entirely Garmin's fault. And just to clarify, it's not just confused matters in the UK, there were already opencaching sites in the USA, Germany, Australia, Poland and many more prior to Garmin starting up with the same name.

 

The fifth one is NaviCaching.

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to comment

I'm a newbie, but what about listing all 150 0n all 5 sites as there is a limit so nobody misses out

 

Or is cross posting caches bad ?

Cross-listing conveys no real benefits. It is permitted on most sites, but on the whole is discouraged.

 

On TerraCaching it is very strongly discouraged.

On opencaching.org.uk is strongly discouraged.

As far as I can tell, Groundspeak don't really voice an opinion on the subject.

NaviCache neither encourage or discourage it, but very much acknowkedge that it happens.

Garmin opencaching actively encourage it (in particular they encourage listing Groundspeak caches on their site).

 

One major reason for discouraging it is that cache owners almost invariably forget to maintain the listings on all the sites - they will do one and forget about the others.

 

My qualifications for making these comments are:

 

3953 Groundspeak finds

277 opencaching.org.uk finds

95 TerraCaching finds

57 NaviCache finds

57 Garmin opencaching finds

 

though a number of these are cross listed.

 

:-)

 

Rgds, Andy

Edited by Amberel
Link to comment

Thanks Andy

 

Are these all free sites and do they have many New Forest Caches. May have to join them all just to do the forest ones.

 

I know the new garmin site opencache.com only had 3 and I have done these.

They are all free. TerraCaching has a two level membership for paying and non-paying members, same as Groundspeak. The others have all their facilities available without payment.

 

But don't get too excited :) . The other sites list only the tiniest fraction of the number of caches listed on Groundspeak.

 

TerraCaching has 1 in the New Forest

opencaching.org.uk and NaviCache have none

 

Sorry to disappoint you :( .

 

NaviCaching is pretty moribund, especially in the UK. TerraCaching is represented in East Anglia but VERY thin elsewhere in the UK. opencaching.org.uk is very "patchy". Strongest in Devon/Cornwall, and just to the west of London, but large areas of nothing.

 

Rgds, Andy

Edited by Amberel
Link to comment

To clarify things.

 

The GAGB has an agreement with the Forestry Commission with regard to caches placed on FC land within the New Forest. The agreement is for a maximum of 150 caches (physical containers) to be placed at any one time.

 

This agreement covers all listing sites, not just geocaching.com.

 

We manage the practical side of things within the agreement and also maintain a ‘Waiting List’ of people who want to place a cache in the New Forest.

 

Today, there are 149 containers in position. I use the word 'containers' because there are some multi-caches that use several Stages, and therefore several 'containers'.

146 are listed on geocaching.com and 3 are listed on Garmin opencaching.com

The ‘terracache’ was removed several months ago, and was archived yesterday or today.

 

The 150th space has been allocated to the next on the waiting list and their cache should be published shortly.

 

There is one other person on the waiting list.

Link to comment

As a regular visitor to the New Forest I've been really impressed with the caches there....

 

The caches I've done so far have been well thought out, of a decent size, good quality lock and lock boxes, well maintained, and more importantly, show off the countryside to it's best.

 

There ARE a few easy drive by caches, but most are on great walks and I believe this high standard IS due to the agreement in place.

 

Yes, you have to really plan your caching trips out because there aren't caches chucked out every 528ft, but The Forest is hardly the kind of place you moan about having a decent walk in...

 

It's hardly suprising that when Matt comes up to Wirral he's loathe to cache here, the caches (nor the countryside) are a patch on The New Forest! :ph34r: :ph34r:

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...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...