Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12
CacheDrone

Testing in Ontario: Organized Group Hunts

Recommended Posts

Sounds like a great idea. I wonder where a great place to have a group event would be.

 

I have not wanted to make any suggestions since I think it would be best to see a variety of ideas based on the host's wishes. But there are many variations that would work.

 

Decide for yourself what you would want to do if you were going out caching for a period of time, and then include others by hosting it as event. The options are virtually endless.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post

Please note that the last date to submit an "Organized Group Hunt" proposal for this testing period will be December 17th, 2011. There will be NO exceptions to this.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post

Please note that the last date to submit an "Organized Group Hunt" proposal for this testing period will be December 17th, 2011. There will be NO exceptions to this.

 

:cool: CD

 

Working backwards, this is the last day to submit NYE cache hunts. That would be a cool way to bring in the New Year.

 

We are very interested in this project, so get those caches submitted on time!! :)

Share this post


Link to post

Please note that the last date to submit an "Organized Group Hunt" proposal for this testing period will be December 17th, 2011. There will be NO exceptions to this.

 

:cool: CD

 

Working backwards, this is the last day to submit NYE cache hunts. That would be a cool way to bring in the New Year.

 

We are very interested in this project, so get those caches submitted on time!! :)

 

not getting this, could be very well related to the 12 hour days i've been doing for the past two weeks, why today and not on the 17th? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

Please note that the last date to submit an "Organized Group Hunt" proposal for this testing period will be December 17th, 2011. There will be NO exceptions to this.

 

:cool: CD

 

Working backwards, this is the last day to submit NYE cache hunts. That would be a cool way to bring in the New Year.

 

We are very interested in this project, so get those caches submitted on time!! :)

 

not getting this, could be very well related to the 12 hour days i've been doing for the past two weeks, why today and not on the 17th? :unsure:

Sorry, "this" = 17th. I was just reiterating CacheDrone's point that this coming Saturday is the cut-off point. :)

Share this post


Link to post

thanks for the clarification :)

 

would be really cool indeed to do a group hunt on december 1st, and i kind of have something neat in mind, but i'm not sure there will be any takers lol

 

lets see....stay home have a drink or freeze outside caching :lol:

 

we sure chose the latter last year getting this cache, that was some adventure :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

I love the idea and agree with so much of the preceding discussion so I won't bother rehashing any of it here.

 

My thought is that by creating an event on gc.com, you're making it public and you accept what goes along with that. By going this route you need to give all potential attendees sufficient time to discover it, respond to it, and plan for it and you accept that this isn't a private function between a small group of friends. Any event that is intended to be closed only to a group of regulars or friends is by definition not a public gc.com event. Also, any event that doesn't provide sufficient time to others not familiar with any regular outing is a de facto private event. I suppose I'm arguing for these new group hunt events to continue with a 14 day min notice period.

 

Caching will continue to thrive in part by helping the new players get introduced to others who also play, not to mention introducing them to some new or challenging hides (how many people were introduced to night caching because of the BFL events?).

Share this post


Link to post

We really appreciate this type of feedback, so thank you to all who have contributed to this thread. Please keep the feedback coming! We will be checking back intermittently, and especially in the new year.

Share this post


Link to post

After attending some of the test events and hosting one I have a view observations.

 

My understanding is that an event should be a social gathering of cachers. Pub type events serve this perfectly because there is not much else to do except socialize. I find events where caches have been placed for the attenders to find less so. For the most part cachers attending the event will show up and break up into very small groups or even individuals and spend most of the event hunting the caches placed for the event. In some cases, they return briefly for a prize draw and quickly disperse. These types of events to me fall under what an event is not supposed to be. For the most part they are organized cache hunts with the bonus of the extra smiley for showing up on the correct date. I have attended events where the event has been designed to break the attending cachers up resulting in reducing the social aspect of the event. An event such as this is almost an anti-event and the sole purpose seems to be just to have people visit the caches. Again, this I would say is an organized cache hunt and not a social gathering.

 

I hosted one of the test events yesterday and selected a 10km section of trail lined with almost 60 caches. Everyone seemed to have a good time judging by the attended log so far and I thank the cache placers YoungKingKole and JfollowingK for a nice walk with easy to find caches along the way. This kind of setting provided for a lot of socializing along the way. I think for part we broke into two groups and slowly caught up to the other group. Of the two test events I attended one involved around 25km of hiking and the other was mostly driving. Hiking events to me provided a good social experience because cachers are moving around the group and get a chance to participate in the various conversations that are going on and can take part. Events that require a lot of driving tend to break the cachers up into car size groups. This doesn;t lend well to the "group" experience as cachers only interact with other cachers for brief moments and then hop back into the car to drive to the next cache.

 

If this is going to progress to the next step, I would like to see organized cache hunt events be about moving and interacting as a group. Try and take the pub type event and move it outside. Find ways to keep the group together as a whole instead of breaking it up into smaller groups and individuals.

Share this post


Link to post

After attending some of the test events and hosting one I have a view observations.

 

My understanding is that an event should be a social gathering of cachers. Pub type events serve this perfectly because there is not much else to do except socialize. I find events where caches have been placed for the attenders to find less so. For the most part cachers attending the event will show up and break up into very small groups or even individuals and spend most of the event hunting the caches placed for the event. In some cases, they return briefly for a prize draw and quickly disperse. These types of events to me fall under what an event is not supposed to be. For the most part they are organized cache hunts with the bonus of the extra smiley for showing up on the correct date. I have attended events where the event has been designed to break the attending cachers up resulting in reducing the social aspect of the event. An event such as this is almost an anti-event and the sole purpose seems to be just to have people visit the caches. Again, this I would say is an organized cache hunt and not a social gathering.

 

Adding to this, I find that CITO has exactly the same issue. People gather briefly then break off into several small groups that barely socialize. CITO really isn't an event by the definition that it is a social gathering. I also agree that when caches are added into the mix of an event, it detracts from the event itself. Events should be "get-togethers" instead of having a "go-away" element. But based on how I host, I think that is pretty obvious.

 

B) BQ

Edited by The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Adding to this, I find that CITO has exactly the same issue. People gather briefly then break off into several small groups that barely socialize. CITO really isn't an event by the definition that it is a social gathering. I also agree that when caches are added into the mix of an event, it detracts from the event itself. Events should be "get-togethers" instead of having a "go-away" element. But based on how I host, I think that is pretty obvious.

 

B) BQ

 

Isn't that's why CITOs exist as CITOs.. and not just as "Events..... where you bring a garbage bag" ?

 

They have a pre-defined goal which justifies why they are a different cache type; I don't believe the primary goal of a CITO is to be social; it's to clean up.

If you read the CITO FAQ (http://www.geocaching.com/cito/faq.aspx) it says (as as example)

"These events can last for a few hours and even up to several days. Each person can decide for themselves how long they can help. Perhaps there are a couple of shifts of volunteers.".

 

CITOs are not, in my view, intended to be social. (Shift-work isn't social!) CITOs exist because Groundspeak recognize it as a suitable, worldwide "cause" and a defacto exception has been written into the Listing Guidelines for them.

 

Events I believe were intended to be social.

Share this post


Link to post

Adding to this, I find that CITO has exactly the same issue. People gather briefly then break off into several small groups that barely socialize. CITO really isn't an event by the definition that it is a social gathering. I also agree that when caches are added into the mix of an event, it detracts from the event itself. Events should be "get-togethers" instead of having a "go-away" element. But based on how I host, I think that is pretty obvious.

 

B) BQ

 

Isn't that's why CITOs exist as CITOs.. and not just as "Events..... where you bring a garbage bag" ?

 

They have a pre-defined goal which justifies why they are a different cache type; I don't believe the primary goal of a CITO is to be social; it's to clean up.

If you read the CITO FAQ (http://www.geocaching.com/cito/faq.aspx) it says (as as example)

"These events can last for a few hours and even up to several days. Each person can decide for themselves how long they can help. Perhaps there are a couple of shifts of volunteers.".

 

CITOs are not, in my view, intended to be social. (Shift-work isn't social!) CITOs exist because Groundspeak recognize it as a suitable, worldwide "cause" and a defacto exception has been written into the Listing Guidelines for them.

 

Events I believe were intended to be social.

 

Except that our profile pages suggest that CITO is an Event

 

6533533069_970ef4f859.jpg

 

Events can take on many forms. Something needs to be updated regardless of whether OGH's become allowed or not.

 

B) BQ

Share this post


Link to post

It is certainly one of those "word play" things.

 

In my mind, the heading of "All Event Cache Types" refers to cache types that are "scheduled"... e.g. Event Caches, CITO Events and Mega-Events (and L&Fs are so last year...).

 

The topic at hand is the "Organized Group Hunt"; these hunts ARE scheduled and in theory would fall under the "All Event Cache Types" category.

The question I believe is... are they "Event Caches"?

Share this post


Link to post

It is certainly one of those "word play" things.

 

In my mind, the heading of "All Event Cache Types" refers to cache types that are "scheduled"... e.g. Event Caches, CITO Events and Mega-Events (and L&Fs are so last year...).

 

The topic at hand is the "Organized Group Hunt"; these hunts ARE scheduled and in theory would fall under the "All Event Cache Types" category.

The question I believe is... are they "Event Caches"?

 

Well, let's see...

 

All current event types have a fixed date. So would OGH's. Other listing types do not.

All current event involve people getting together to do something. So would OGH's. Other listing types do not.

All current event types exist for a pre-determined limited time. So would OGH's. Other listing types do not.

 

OGH's certainly don't fit the definition of a physical cache, nor do they have any virtual cache components that require validation. (for clarity, Virtuals, Webcams, EarthCaches all require the logger to send 'something' back to the listing owner, be it a picture or an answer). OGH's only fit in as Events. The question is, do they fit in with standard events or should they be their own type, if Groundspeak adds them?

 

B) BQ

Share this post


Link to post

OK, if we're throwing around hypotheticals....

 

In my mind, things with GC codes earn Smileys.

I'd prefer to see "Organized Cache Hunts" being a different different cache type with a different listing code; e.g. such as "GH".... for "Geocache Hunt".

 

Attending a "GH" would provide an opportunity for folks to earn Smileys... so the "GH" itself wouldn't augment the find count, the same as Challenges.

The "GH" listing is a beacon for Players to meet, with a date and a time and with coordinates.

 

They could appear in PQs in the same way as other cache types; they'd also appear on Maps and could also have Notifications generated when published.

Share this post


Link to post

OK, if we're throwing around hypotheticals....

 

In my mind, things with GC codes earn Smileys.

I'd prefer to see "Organized Cache Hunts" being a different different cache type with a different listing code; e.g. such as "GH".... for "Geocache Hunt".

 

Attending a "GH" would provide an opportunity for folks to earn Smileys... so the "GH" itself wouldn't augment the find count, the same as Challenges.

The "GH" listing is a beacon for Players to meet, with a date and a time and with coordinates.

 

They could appear in PQs in the same way as other cache types; they'd also appear on Maps and could also have Notifications generated when published.

 

I don't think that is a very good idea. Everything should count. If you complete the requirements of a listing then your 'score' should increase by one. It feels very wrong to say that somethings count towards your profile stats and others don't.

 

B) BQ

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure that your definition of "should count" is the same as mine.

 

CX = Challenges -> No smiley (Existing situation)

BM = Benchmark -> No smiley (Existing situation)

GH = Group Hunt or Geocache Hunt -> No smiley

GC = Geocache -> Smiley (Existing situation)

 

I'm quite happy with how my "Summary Screen" shows the Benchmark and Challenges I've found even though they don't add to my "Smiley" total; they "count" to me... otherwise I wouldn't have participated.

 

If people wish to compare, they can see I've found X many Benchmarks and I've complete Y many Challenges. In the same way, I've been involved in Z many Geocache Hunts.

 

I agree that it would be nice to have a "prettier" summary screen; sort of a "Career Record".... and it would also be nice if it carried over stats from Waymarking if people chose to display it.

 

Edit: Clarifying acronym and current status of "things that count"...!

Edited by RCA777

Share this post


Link to post

After hosting 2 Organized Group Hunts that were listed on gc.com, I definitely see the benefit of allowing them to be listed as events. Whether or not they are listed as their own event type with their own icon is up to Groundspeak to decide, although I don't really see a benefit for them to have their own icon (ie pub events don't have their own icon, picnics don't have their own icons) except to maybe have them stand out from other event types, but just like any event listed on gc.com, people can just open up and read the listing to see if it is something for them.

 

For the last 2 plus years I have been doing monthly organized group hunts using Facebook, which works great, but of course only Facebook users, and only those that join the group are able to find out about these group cache outings, so that leaves out thousands of people that wouldn't know about it, but yet perhaps would take part if they knew it existed. Listing these types of events on gc.com would open it up for all geocachers to take part as was especially the case in the 2 that I listed these past 2 month during the trial period. I think that Fababoo's log on my December OGH event says it the best especially the 2nd paragraph. Also if you read anyone else's log on any of the OGH events that have taken part in these events during the test period, you will see that everyone has enjoyed these events. I have not seen one negative comment in a log or in this thread as to why OGH shouldn't be allowed to be listed on gc.com.

 

Just like existing events ranging from pub gatherings to picnics to citos and event other activities like curling, there is a lot of variety and from the OGH test events posted during this 2 month test period, there is no and should not be a defined rule on how a OGH should be run. It could be a group of caches where people spend the day hiking too, it could involve driving from cache to cache, or perhaps a combination. It could also involve just finding 1 cache or a small group of caches, or could be a full long day of caching. It is nice that there can be so many variations of OGH. Something also to consider comparing OGH to other types of events. OGH I think fits more the spirit of caching than other events since during OGH people are doing what they enjoy and what the whole purpose of this activity is and that is finding geocaches, whereas in a pub, a gps really isn't needed, no caches are found at pub, they're pretty commercial as the pub stands to take in thousands of $$, people just sit around and talk (nothing in the event guidelines that says an event needs to be social, although 99.9% are).

 

I think that it is clear people want OGH and OGH would be successful and welcomed as the test events have shown. Either way, I will continue to do group caching events for people to enjoy. If Groundspeak allows these new types, then I will list them here where I see fit, otherwise I will continue to organize through Facebook and through email.

 

Whatever transpires with this, I would like to thank Groundspeak for choosing Ontario for the test period.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure that your definition of "should count" is the same as mine.

 

CX = Challenges -> No smiley (Existing situation)

BM = Benchmark -> No smiley (Existing situation)

GH = Group Hunt or Geocache Hunt -> No smiley

GC = Geocache -> Smiley (Existing situation)

Challenges have nothing to do with geocaching. They're a separate game that happens to be hosted on geocaching.com instead of a separate site like Waymarking is. The other issue with challenges is that people can go crazy listing them. The same thing as if Groundspeak would allow people to hold events with 0 days notice. People would just list everything as an event.

 

Group Hunts have everything to do with geocaching. And since they have a minimum listing time they're exactly like events. Yes, exactly. Ever been to a flash mob event? That only lasts for a few minutes before everyone goes their own way. Not too much socializing there. And many people after the flash mob group together to go caching. Sounds exactly like a Group Hunt event except that for a Flash Mob event you can't mention the caching afterwards on the cache page.

 

Benchmarks are US specific. If they were global they might have counted in the total.

Share this post


Link to post

I’m not overly worried whether Challenges (or Waymarks) are/are not "Geocaching related"; I'd simply like a single Overall Summary of all my Groundspeak location based gaming accomplishments.

 

Admittedly, I can do things with HTML myself on the profile page... but I don't want to. :)

 

I agree that Benchmarks are US centric (even though a few US BMs are in Canada) but the Overall Summary page wouldn’t show it for folks that haven't found one, the same way the profile page works today.

Share this post


Link to post

Anyhow, back on topic -- I'm glad that Groundspeak allowed Ontario to pilot this; I didn't get the chance to participate in any of the ones that were held, but I do appreciate that the opportunity was given.

Edited by RCA777

Share this post


Link to post

Question:

 

What happens when an OGH goes Mega? As a cache owner, I become concerned when I hear about the idea that 100 cachers may visit my cache at once. My "event caches" are designed with that in mind but I certainly have caches placed that would not benefit from that kind of foot traffic at once.

 

The Bruce Trail Conservacy used to request that groups of hikers be no more than 12 to avoid damagin the trail, though I can't find that reference in the current guide.

 

Organizers of OGH events must be mindful of what happens when a large amount of people sign up. Pub and Picnic style events usually have no choice but to run that by the Land Manager, though there are exceptions.

 

Not anti-OGH here but want to put that on the discussion table before the event typis finalized

Share this post


Link to post

I think res2100 has made a good point. Geocaching.com is a listing service. Organized cache hunts go on being organized on other sites, through email, and by other means. Why should some organized cache hunts that have been listed as events on geocaching.com be allowed when other group hunts that are honest about what they are and choose not to hide behind a few words stating that the caches are optional not be allowed. If the point of geocaching is to find caches, then listing group hunts would encourage others to join in on finding caches that they may not ave thought about seeking.

Share this post


Link to post

I think res2100 has made a good point. Geocaching.com is a listing service. Organized cache hunts go on being organized on other sites, through email, and by other means. Why should some organized cache hunts that have been listed as events on geocaching.com be allowed when other group hunts that are honest about what they are and choose not to hide behind a few words stating that the caches are optional not be allowed. If the point of geocaching is to find caches, then listing group hunts would encourage others to join in on finding caches that they may not ave thought about seeking.

 

Well for one thing, taking the OGH off Facebook and listing it on GC.com removes the ability for one to selectively block people they don't like from seeing the group (not a specific reference here, just saying on Facebook one could do that). An OGH would have to be open to ALL geocachers.

 

Downside is that moving it to GC.com means thousands more people see it and my nightmare scenario of 1200 people visiting my cache one morning leaving me with the groundskeeper's repair bill is more likely.

Share this post


Link to post

Question:

 

What happens when an OGH goes Mega? As a cache owner, I become concerned when I hear about the idea that 100 cachers may visit my cache at once. My "event caches" are designed with that in mind but I certainly have caches placed that would not benefit from that kind of foot traffic at once.

 

The Bruce Trail Conservacy used to request that groups of hikers be no more than 12 to avoid damagin the trail, though I can't find that reference in the current guide.

 

Organizers of OGH events must be mindful of what happens when a large amount of people sign up. Pub and Picnic style events usually have no choice but to run that by the Land Manager, though there are exceptions.

 

Not anti-OGH here but want to put that on the discussion table before the event typis finalized

 

That sounds like a good reason to limit caches being placed for events that have over a maximum number of attendees and a real good reason to not allow events for the sole purpose of finding specific caches. if an event was held for say around 200 cachers and the plan is for them to visit 8 or nine caches during the event, I can see that creating a problem with geo-trails being created and possible damaging the surrounding area.

Share this post


Link to post

Downside is that moving it to GC.com means thousands more people see it and my nightmare scenario of 1200 people visiting my cache one morning leaving me with the groundskeeper's repair bill is more likely.

 

That is interesting. Have you ever heard that happen as a result of a mega event?

Share this post


Link to post

Downside is that moving it to GC.com means thousands more people see it and my nightmare scenario of 1200 people visiting my cache one morning leaving me with the groundskeeper's repair bill is more likely.

 

That is interesting. Have you ever heard that happen as a result of a mega event?

 

Yes. I can't quote a specific example right now though. Could just be an urban legend.

 

I do remember an Organized Cache Hunt that was accused of wrecking a cemetery north of the city a few years back. Wrongfully accused according to the organizer and I believe him though. I am not going to name names here to keep the discussion on track

Share this post


Link to post

Question:

 

What happens when an OGH goes Mega? As a cache owner, I become concerned when I hear about the idea that 100 cachers may visit my cache at once. My "event caches" are designed with that in mind but I certainly have caches placed that would not benefit from that kind of foot traffic at once.

 

The Bruce Trail Conservacy used to request that groups of hikers be no more than 12 to avoid damagin the trail, though I can't find that reference in the current guide.

 

Organizers of OGH events must be mindful of what happens when a large amount of people sign up. Pub and Picnic style events usually have no choice but to run that by the Land Manager, though there are exceptions.

 

Not anti-OGH here but want to put that on the discussion table before the event typis finalized

 

That sounds like a good reason to limit caches being placed for events that have over a maximum number of attendees and a real good reason to not allow events for the sole purpose of finding specific caches. if an event was held for say around 200 cachers and the plan is for them to visit 8 or nine caches during the event, I can see that creating a problem with geo-trails being created and possible damaging the surrounding area.

 

Which is why you clear it with the land manager first. For example BFL is such an event and since we host late in the season the land manager is less concerned with damage ( things are already shutting down for hibernation at that point )

Share this post


Link to post

By that token, I can't really be worried. It having happened a couple times isn't really a "concern" in my eyes. could it really be worse than 200 cachers running wild in the middle of the night? :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

Well for one thing, taking the OGH off Facebook and listing it on GC.com removes the ability for one to selectively block people they don't like from seeing the group (not a specific reference here, just saying on Facebook one could do that). An OGH would have to be open to ALL geocachers.

 

Downside is that moving it to GC.com means thousands more people see it and my nightmare scenario of 1200 people visiting my cache one morning leaving me with the groundskeeper's repair bill is more likely.

 

I wouldn't dwell on people that chose to block other people. That happens in many forms including private cliques that share over email. That kind of exclusionary behavior has been going on for a while and will continue to go on whether groups hunts are listed on geocaching.comm or not. That kind of behavior is best left outside geocaching.

 

1,200 people visiting a cache in on day is already happening with caches close to mega events. As for 1,200 people visiting your cache one morning, the simple answer would be to disable your cache if a group hunt targets your cache. The group hunts I have been on generaly publish a book mark list on the site to let everyone know what is on the list of caches being visited.

Edited by Keith Watson

Share this post


Link to post

Well for one thing, taking the OGH off Facebook and listing it on GC.com removes the ability for one to selectively block people they don't like from seeing the group (not a specific reference here, just saying on Facebook one could do that). An OGH would have to be open to ALL geocachers.

 

Downside is that moving it to GC.com means thousands more people see it and my nightmare scenario of 1200 people visiting my cache one morning leaving me with the groundskeeper's repair bill is more likely.

 

I wouldn't dwell on people that chose to block other people. That happens in many forms including private cliques that share over email. That kind of exclusionary behavior has been going on for a while and will continue to go on whether groups hunts are listed on geocaching.comm or not. That kind of behavior is best left outside geocaching.

 

1,200 people visiting a cache in on day is already happening with caches close to mega events. As for 1,200 people visiting your cache one morning, the simple answer would be to disable your cache if a group hunt targets your cache. The group hunts I have been on generaly publish a book mark list on the site to let everyone know what is on the list of caches being visited.

 

Good points.

Share this post


Link to post

Well for one thing, taking the OGH off Facebook and listing it on GC.com removes the ability for one to selectively block people they don't like from seeing the group (not a specific reference here, just saying on Facebook one could do that). An OGH would have to be open to ALL geocachers.

 

Downside is that moving it to GC.com means thousands more people see it and my nightmare scenario of 1200 people visiting my cache one morning leaving me with the groundskeeper's repair bill is more likely.

 

I wouldn't dwell on people that chose to block other people. That happens in many forms including private cliques that share over email. That kind of exclusionary behavior has been going on for a while and will continue to go on whether groups hunts are listed on geocaching.comm or not. That kind of behavior is best left outside geocaching.

 

1,200 people visiting a cache in on day is already happening with caches close to mega events. As for 1,200 people visiting your cache one morning, the simple answer would be to disable your cache if a group hunt targets your cache. The group hunts I have been on generaly publish a book mark list on the site to let everyone know what is on the list of caches being visited.

 

Rather than forcing me to scan all events that could potentially or not potentially target my cache - what happens when the event starts in Niagara and ends in Barrie, stopping at mine along the way?

Maybe it should be a notification type that gets added to Geocaching.com - an Organized Cache Hunt is visiting your cache. Please ensure it is in good condition and ready for x (Will Attends) number of visitors.

 

But then again, why should the actions of one player (OGH Organizer) affect the game for another player (CO that's targeted with 1200 visitors).

Share this post


Link to post

what happens when the event starts in Niagara and ends in Barrie, stopping at mine along the way?

 

You find out who is that awesome and tag along!

 

Besides the fact that you are trying to throw lightning bolts in terms of hypothetical situations, I think you can make extreme situations for any event or for any cache for that matter. I have a cache that is prone to more than 1000 visitors/day (not all geocachers although they do the same thing as required by the listing) but my cache isn't subject to it. If you can find a circumstance that would accommodate 1200 people on the Bruce in one spot then that would be unfortunate whether it was geocaching related or not. You have to admit what you are proposing is very unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post

Downside is that moving it to GC.com means thousands more people see it and my nightmare scenario of 1200 people visiting my cache one morning leaving me with the groundskeeper's repair bill is more likely.

 

That is interesting. Have you ever heard that happen as a result of a mega event?

 

Yes. I can't quote a specific example right now though. Could just be an urban legend.

 

I do remember an Organized Cache Hunt that was accused of wrecking a cemetery north of the city a few years back. Wrongfully accused according to the organizer and I believe him though. I am not going to name names here to keep the discussion on track

 

I do know that the first 24 geocaching event was accused of trampling a garden at the end to find a cache. I found that very interesting considering I was there and the cache was not in a garden. Subsequent annual events received were marred by other unfounded accusations that were later found to be false by other cachers not involved in the group hunt but did visit the caches after the group.

 

To continue this, I have been involved in groups hunts where others that were invited and or had full knowledge of what was going on claimed to be excluded. Unfortunately there is an ugly side to people and whether groups hunts are listed on geocaching.com or not will not change this. I don't think continually bringing up the ugly side helps unless you are providing a solution to that problem.

 

I do know that some group hunts I have been on required a small controlled group, like trying to get 150 caches in a day. Inviting 30 or more of my closest friends would have prevented that from happening as there would have been to many people to move along effectively. Keeping it down to 16 allowed us to achieve our goal and four of us finished off with 217 find in one day. I do know that there were others that felt excluded from some of the runs I have taken part in. Unfortunately you can't please everyone.

Share this post


Link to post

Another option would be to allow a way to "cap" an event.

Perhaps even automate that - after "X" number of will-attends, set by the OGH owner, the site makes a waiting list or declines new "will-attends".

 

That way, the group could be limited to, say 50 or 100 and the impact of the event is reduced in some way.

 

Again, I'm just tossing ideas up to see where they stick, and doing it right now from the CO viewpoint. I'm not saying OGH shouldn't happen or shouldn't happen on GC.com, but right now, before the event type is established with the guidelines, is the time to think of mitigating negatives. Before we get into a 6 page "precedent" rant in the forums because someone gets an OGH declined six months from now.

Share this post


Link to post

what happens when the event starts in Niagara and ends in Barrie, stopping at mine along the way?

 

You find out who is that awesome and tag along!

 

Besides the fact that you are trying to throw lightning bolts in terms of hypothetical situations, I think you can make extreme situations for any event or for any cache for that matter. I have a cache that is prone to more than 1000 visitors/day (not all geocachers although they do the same thing as required by the listing) but my cache isn't subject to it. If you can find a circumstance that would accommodate 1200 people on the Bruce in one spot then that would be unfortunate whether it was geocaching related or not. You have to admit what you are proposing is very unlikely.

 

I'm using an extreme example but frankly a group of 50 tromping down the Bruce Trail occurs OFTEN and has a pretty similar geotrail impact. It's one thing for a cache to see 50-100 people over a summer, quite another to get it in one go. That's when we start hearing from outraged land owners.

Share this post


Link to post

Another option would be to allow a way to "cap" an event.

Perhaps even automate that - after "X" number of will-attends, set by the OGH owner, the site makes a waiting list or declines new "will-attends".

 

That way, the group could be limited to, say 50 or 100 and the impact of the event is reduced in some way.

 

Again, I'm just tossing ideas up to see where they stick, and doing it right now from the CO viewpoint. I'm not saying OGH shouldn't happen or shouldn't happen on GC.com, but right now, before the event type is established with the guidelines, is the time to think of mitigating negatives. Before we get into a 6 page "precedent" rant in the forums because someone gets an OGH declined six months from now.

 

That is a fair condition, if it was optional. Just like a pub event that only has enough seating room.

Share this post


Link to post

Another option would be to allow a way to "cap" an event.

Perhaps even automate that - after "X" number of will-attends, set by the OGH owner, the site makes a waiting list or declines new "will-attends".

 

That way, the group could be limited to, say 50 or 100 and the impact of the event is reduced in some way.

 

Again, I'm just tossing ideas up to see where they stick, and doing it right now from the CO viewpoint. I'm not saying OGH shouldn't happen or shouldn't happen on GC.com, but right now, before the event type is established with the guidelines, is the time to think of mitigating negatives. Before we get into a 6 page "precedent" rant in the forums because someone gets an OGH declined six months from now.

 

That is a fair condition, if it was optional. Just like a pub event that only has enough seating room.

 

Oh believe me I'd use it for the pub events I host too smile.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post

Rather than forcing me to scan all events that could potentially or not potentially target my cache - what happens when the event starts in Niagara and ends in Barrie, stopping at mine along the way?

Maybe it should be a notification type that gets added to Geocaching.com - an Organized Cache Hunt is visiting your cache. Please ensure it is in good condition and ready for x (Will Attends) number of visitors.

 

But then again, why should the actions of one player (OGH Organizer) affect the game for another player (CO that's targeted with 1200 visitors).

 

You caches should always be in good shape and ready to accept visits. When we group hunt we use a single group name for the group so we don;t fill up the log book and force the owner to go out after our visit and replace the log.

 

That would be an idea to be notified that your cache has been selected for a group hunt. of course that lends to another problem. What if for personal reasons a cache owner doesn't want the group an individual in the group to find their caches?

 

The argument of too may people visiting an area was covered in the power trail discussions and in the end, Groundspeak removed the ban and they are now not only allowed, but visited by many cachers who like power trails. I have been on a few group power trail hikes and they were a great time.

Share this post


Link to post

 

The argument of too may people visiting an area was covered in the power trail discussions and in the end, Groundspeak removed the ban and they are now not only allowed, but visited by many cachers who like power trails. I have been on a few group power trail hikes and they were a great time.

 

This is a new type of cache, and as such I'm just airing my concerns.

 

Yes, I very much expect those concerns will be steamrolled right over as the numbers game has effectively won out on Geocaching.com. A 1000 cache power trail is more valuable to the caching community than any rare gem of a cache in a unique location. That's a change from when I started caching. But I'm not going to be the one who didn't voice the concerns back when the discussion was started.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm using an extreme example but frankly a group of 50 tromping down the Bruce Trail occurs OFTEN and has a pretty similar geotrail impact. It's one thing for a cache to see 50-100 people over a summer, quite another to get it in one go. That's when we start hearing from outraged land owners.

 

More than that happens right now with events that have been listed on the site. Why should those events be any different and be allowed to promote cachers in the hundreds pound down and area over a group hunt which experience has showed be so far is far less.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm using an extreme example but frankly a group of 50 tromping down the Bruce Trail occurs OFTEN and has a pretty similar geotrail impact. It's one thing for a cache to see 50-100 people over a summer, quite another to get it in one go. That's when we start hearing from outraged land owners.

 

More than that happens right now with events that have been listed on the site. Why should those events be any different and be allowed to promote cachers in the hundreds pound down and area over a group hunt which experience has showed be so far is far less.

 

Well, maybe Organized Group Hunts should get landowner approval first too, in addition to the landowner's permission for the cache placement.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm using an extreme example but frankly a group of 50 tromping down the Bruce Trail occurs OFTEN and has a pretty similar geotrail impact. It's one thing for a cache to see 50-100 people over a summer, quite another to get it in one go. That's when we start hearing from outraged land owners.

 

More than that happens right now with events that have been listed on the site. Why should those events be any different and be allowed to promote cachers in the hundreds pound down and area over a group hunt which experience has showed be so far is far less.

 

Well, maybe Organized Group Hunts should get landowner approval first too, in addition to the landowner's permission for the cache placement.

 

What about event spill over? Bring 500 cachers together for and event and you will most likely have spill over from the event onto local caches. Should any event with more than x amount of people require local cache owners to be notified so that they can get additional permission to account for the extra visitors or should event organizers be required to get additional permission from land owners for caches located near a large event? Again, I see currently accepted large events causing more damage than group hunts. I have yet to see an group hunt with 200 to 500 people.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm using an extreme example but frankly a group of 50 tromping down the Bruce Trail occurs OFTEN and has a pretty similar geotrail impact. It's one thing for a cache to see 50-100 people over a summer, quite another to get it in one go. That's when we start hearing from outraged land owners.

 

More than that happens right now with events that have been listed on the site. Why should those events be any different and be allowed to promote cachers in the hundreds pound down and area over a group hunt which experience has showed be so far is far less.

 

Well, maybe Organized Group Hunts should get landowner approval first too, in addition to the landowner's permission for the cache placement.

 

What about event spill over? Bring 500 cachers together for and event and you will most likely have spill over from the event onto local caches. Should any event with more than x amount of people require local cache owners to be notified so that they can get additional permission to account for the extra visitors or should event organizers be required to get additional permission from land owners for caches located near a large event? Again, I see currently accepted large events causing more damage than group hunts. I have yet to see an group hunt with 200 to 500 people.

 

200 people.... yet. Let the idea get more traction than two months.

 

Event spill over sure, but there's a difference between cachers who MIGHT visit a cache, and cachers who WILL visit a cache.

What I'm saying is landowner approval for the WILL visit crowd, after all - that's a deliberate thing whereas we cannot control the actions of people who may decide to cache near an event.

But sure, if there's a Mega occurring or an event with more than 200 attendees, why not send out a notification to CO's within 5-10 km of the event, as a courtesy. It's just a few processor cycles on the mail server after all.

Share this post


Link to post

Event spill over sure, but there's a difference between cachers who MIGHT visit a cache, and cachers who WILL visit a cache.

What I'm saying is landowner approval for the WILL visit crowd, after all - that's a deliberate thing whereas we cannot control the actions of people who may decide to cache near an event.

But sure, if there's a Mega occurring or an event with more than 200 attendees, why not send out a notification to CO's within 5-10 km of the event, as a courtesy. It's just a few processor cycles on the mail server after all.

 

If a cache is close enough to the event yet not part of the event, I am pretty sure it will get hit just as hard as the caches that are part of the event.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12

×