Jump to content

Why are Earth Caches So Special


klipsch49er

Recommended Posts

Don’t jump to conclusions! I absolutely love Earth Caches!

 

I know I am probably beating a dead horse here but…..

 

I have never understood why they hold such a special status as the only “Virtual” hides that can be created within Geocaching.

 

Many times I have fond historic “Virtual” caches that are grandfathered into Geocaching. Many of them are just as enjoyable as any Earth Cache.

 

When I stumble upon an interesting historic spot I lament that I can’t make a “Virtual” there.

 

Are there others that share my feelings?

 

Yah, yah, no I don’t WayMark. Perhaps I would if the finds showed in the cache stats.

Link to comment

Many times I have fond historic “Virtual” caches that are grandfathered into Geocaching. Many of them are just as enjoyable as any Earth Cache.

 

When I stumble upon an interesting historic spot I lament that I can’t make a “Virtual” there.

 

Are there others that share my feelings?

 

I agree however the Lilly Pad has made it very clear that Virtuals aren't coming back. :( I believe that the reviewers were overwelmed by the "WOW" factor when it came to virtuals. Earthcaches have another group who approve them so there isn't a reviewer revolt.

Link to comment

EarthCaches are an historic anomaly. The following is my understanding based on what I saw happen and what I can glean from some posts by Groundspeak Lackeys. (This disclaimer is because undoubtedly someone will challenge what I say).

 

When the Geographic Society of America approached Groundspeak with the idea for EarthCaches, virtuals were still an active cache type. Although Groundspeak was already looking at a new way to handle virtuals (what became Waymarking), they decided to accept EarthCaches and list them on Geocaching.com. Unlike virtuals, the EarthCaches would be submitted to EarthCache.org who would review and publish these listing. Thus the issue of having Groundspeak volunteer reviewer spend time on determining which EarthCaches were truly "wow" enough to merit a cache was thereby avoided.

 

When Waymarking was beta released, EarthCache.org initially indicated that EarthCaches would become a category on Waymarking. They stopped accepting EarthCaches and instead had new EarthCaches submitted as waymarks. Plans were in place to move the existing EarthCaches to Waymarking.com. The owners of these EarthCaches revolted. They pointed out that while EarthCaches on Geocaching.com were popular, the Waymarking EarthCaches were seldom visited. They demanded that EarthCaches remain on Geocaching.com.

 

I have speculated (and it has never been denied) that the original agreement between Groundspeak and the GSA was to list EarthCaches on Geocaching.com. Groundspeak could not unilaterally force EarthCaches to Waymarking. When the EarthCache owners objected, the GSA (EarthCache.org) insisted on EarthCaches remain on Geocaching.com per the original agreement. There did seem to be some negotiation as the guidelines for EarthCaches were tightened to emphasize the educational aspects and ultimately some logging requirements that were seen as not being educational were disallowed.

 

Since the advent of EarthCaches, much has changed on Geocaching.com. Waymarking now exists as a site that can be used for sharing interesting locations in a wide variety of categories. Waymarking replaces one of the original arguments for virtual caches. However, some individuals seem unable to function on more than one website, and they wanted a way to use Geocaching to share locations where a cache could not be placed. Groundspeak introduced Geocaching Challenges as a way for people to share locations on Geocaching.com without having to place a physical cache.

 

Those who want to share and interesting historic location where a physical cache cannot be placed have three options:

 

1) Use information gathered at the historic location to find an offset cache place nearby.

2) Create a Waymark in the appropriated category.

3) Create a Geocaching Challenge to take a photo (or answer question for a Discover challenge).

 

Given these options, there is no reason to create an new History Cache type. My guess is that if an outside organization were to approach Groundspeak today with a proposal like EarthCaches, they would be directed to implement this using one or more of the options above rather than having a new cache type added.

Link to comment

 

I have speculated (and it has never been denied) that the original agreement between Groundspeak and the GSA was to list EarthCaches on Geocaching.com. Groundspeak could not unilaterally force EarthCaches to Waymarking. When the EarthCache owners objected, the GSA (EarthCache.org) insisted on EarthCaches remain on Geocaching.com per the original agreement. There did seem to be some negotiation as the guidelines for EarthCaches were tightened to emphasize the educational aspects and ultimately some logging requirements that were seen as not being educational were disallowed.

 

 

And before anyone brings it up, with the whole idea of Earthcaches being accepted on Geocaching.com, I was once told by a prominent Canadian reviewer that No money changed hands. Because there's always that conspiracy theory going around. :laughing:

 

I'll go with Mr. T's basic premise that Waymarking was in the works, Geocaching.com saw the GSA's proposal as a way to still allow some type of virtuals, and they came to an agreement.

Link to comment
Waymarking replaces one of the original arguments for virtual caches. However, some individuals seem unable to function on more than one website, and they wanted a way to use Geocaching to share locations where a cache could not be placed.
Thanks for the history lesson.

 

I've enjoyed Virtuals, too, so I've looked at Waymarking.com. It's useless. No standards. Most of the waymarks near me have never been visited, and almost none of them have been visited more than once. Nearest waymark? Taco Bell. First waymark in a search of SF? McDonald's.

 

Don't try to tell me people don't use it because they're incapable of using multiple websites.

 

I think this demonstrates exactly why Virtuals were eliminated. While I'm sure you're correct about the origin of EarthCaches, they're successful because they're good.

Link to comment

Don't try to tell me people don't use it because they're incapable of using multiple websites.

All right, then it's because they can't be bothered to learn that you can filter waymarks by category. You can specify categories to ignore. You can also specify your favorite categories.

I think this demonstrates exactly why Virtuals were eliminated. While I'm sure you're correct about the origin of EarthCaches, they're successful because they're good.

Lots of people can't stand EarthCaches. Some feel the educational aspect makes finding them too much like school or work. Others simple wonder why you took them to look at a bunch of rocks. Some often wonder about EarthCaches placed where you could've have placed a physical cache.

 

You may have an interest in geology, or perhaps you don't mind having to answer some questions and find satisfaction in learning some new facts. Perhaps you're in a area where a EarthCache was placed where physical caches truly are not allowed and appreciate that you could "do some geocaching" on your visit. I'd argue that that is not a typical geocacher. Most people do EarthCaches because they show up in searches and pocket queries along with ordinary caches and they count for the same smiley (for those who find the count important - even if they say they don't).

 

Perhaps this is the real reason why Waymarking has trouble getting traction with typical geocachers as well. I suppose that that geocachers are capable of learning to use another site, but they don't want to. Since Waymarks don't show up in their Pocket Queries or online searches for geocaches they don't see them. And even if they took the time to click the link on the cache page to see nearby Waymarks, there is extra effort involved in loading the interesting ones on to their GPSr and remembering to log them when they visit. And of course, no smiley.

 

There is a fairly good sized community of people using Waymarking.com. Many people do actually visit waymarks. They may not always log online, since after all the point is to find interesting places, not to score imaginary points for writing online logs. On the other hand, people submit waymarks, gathering the required information, taking photos, and writing up a description. For many categories, the information on Waymarking.com is often used more like Wikipedia, for doing research about these places rather than as game of lets visit and score points for logging online.

 

Given the educational emphasis of EarthCaches, one wonders if Waymarking isn't the more natural fit. Instead we have threads in the EarthCache forums complaining of couch potato logs and not being able to do anything about it since you can't require a photo to prove the finder went to the cache.

Link to comment

I guess I have to hope some all encompassing organization with extensive historic knowlege steps forward and provides reviewers for "History Caches".

 

I went and looked atethe Waymark site and the first location nearest to my RV is a "Boat Ramp". If that were not enough to turn me off McDonnalds and Taco Bell were also there. Not my idea of fun. I also did not see a way to download the Waymarks I might want into my GPSr. I did not spend a great deal of effort although I did try to open the forum to see how to(s) but my log in didn't work.

 

Pehaps I'll try later.

Link to comment
I guess I have to hope some all encompassing organization with extensive historic knowlege steps forward and provides reviewers for "History Caches".

This isn't the first time this has been floated out there, and I agree that it could make for a good solution. I think the introduction of Challenges will be an impediment though.

Link to comment

I went and looked atethe Waymark site and the first location nearest to my RV is a "Boat Ramp". If that were not enough to turn me off McDonnalds and Taco Bell were also there. Not my idea of fun.

That makes as much sense as someone saying that they don't geocache because they don't like earth caches.

Link to comment

I went and looked atethe Waymark site and the first location nearest to my RV is a "Boat Ramp". If that were not enough to turn me off McDonnalds and Taco Bell were also there. Not my idea of fun.

That makes as much sense as someone saying that they don't geocache because they don't like earth caches.

Not really. EarthCaches are relatively few. It would be more like someone not liking micros and claiming there was no way to filter the micros out so caching was no fun.

 

With Waymarking it is fairly easy to add categories to your ignore list so they won't show up in your searches. The problem may not be the commercial categories that are fairly east to ignore, but the numerous other categories that a person may not find interesting. I'd like to ignore historic markers, converted fountains, and llama farms; but that's just me.

Link to comment

When I stumble upon an interesting historic spot I lament that I can’t make a “Virtual” there.

 

Offset Caches are your friend.

 

Create a 2 stage multicache. First stage (posted coords) is the "interesting historic spot" and is a virtual stage. Second/Final stage is the physical cache and is somewhere reasonably nearby. To get the coords for the physical cache, some information must be gathered at the posted coords.

 

Here's a great example I found last year:

http://coord.info/GCVW0K

Link to comment

Didn't you get the memo? Virtuals are back: http://www.geocaching.com/my/challenges.aspx

yeah if you like "taco bell at 58th ave and thomas, take picture of yourself in front of the restaurant holding a double stuffed cheesey burrito"

 

No worse than many of the virtuals that used to exist. There were lame virtuals (we're largely seeing the cream of the crop remaining), there are lame caches and there are lame challenges. There are also great examples of each.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I love EarthCaches. But I usually don't complete the needed logging requirements. So, even though I visit the spots, I don't typically log them on-line.

 

The solution to the problem is to use the Geocaching Challenges portion of the Geocaching.com site.

 

The Waymarking site is potentially a very powerful site, but yes, there is a lot of "undesirable" marks there. For my Waymarking site, I've set my default filters to hide all Commercial sites. This removed all of the fast food establishments. I've also hand picked categories that I'm interested in, and I can filter on that. Admittedly, the Waymarking site isn't a "plug and play" site, you kind of need to hand cook your filters, but once set it's pretty cool. I don't know if it's a premium feature or not, but I can check the Waymarks I'm interested in and download them in a GPX lite format. I even import them to my GSAK data base.

 

Finally, FWIW, the nearest three caches to my home coordinates are parking lot micros, one on a handicap parking sign, one on a stop sigh and one under a lamp post skirt. This doesn't make me very happy. The three closest Waymarks to me are The Freehold Carnegie Library, The General Von Steuben at Monmouth Battlefield, and the oldest school house in the county, The Georgia Road Schoolhouse.

 

If adding +1 to your smilie find is not all that important, you might want to also check out The Historical Marker Database

 

To answer the topic's question. I really don't know. I guess it's the rarity of Earthcaches and that most go the extra yard to be a little special or interesting. They also do a good job and not posting redundant Earth Caches in the same geographic area.

Link to comment

Didn't you get the memo? Virtuals are back: http://www.geocaching.com/my/challenges.aspx

yeah if you like "taco bell at 58th ave and thomas, take picture of yourself in front of the restaurant holding a double stuffed cheesey burrito"

 

No worse than many of the virtuals that used to exist. There were lame virtuals (we're largely seeing the cream of the crop remaining), there are lame caches and there are lame challenges. There are also great examples of each.

I don't think anyone is asking for virtuals to be brought back as they were originally, or even once the "wow" requirement was in place. People are looking at the EarthCache model, where "wowness" is defined as providing a educational Earth science experience. Reviewers with expertise in Earth science education review the submissions against fairly specific guidelines. People seem to believe the same can be done with History.

 

When there were too many waterfall EarthCaches, the guidelines were changed to restrict waterrfalls. When EarthCaches had logging requirements that were seen as not being educational, these requirements were no longer allowed. I think History caches will be more prone to same sorts of problems seen with EarthCaches.

 

Waymarking deals with the "wow" requirement in a different way. It allows premium members to start groups. The group proposes it's category and after a peer review that category is added to Waymarking. Then the group leaders become the "reviewers" for waymarks submitted to the group. The fact that a group was formed shows some "interest" in the category. Not everyone is going to like every category, and even if you like a category you may disagree with the managers about the waymarks they accept or reject in that category.

 

Challenges drop the pretense of "Wow" altogether. They instead emphasize a challenge to accomplish at the location. Groundspeak has dropped the generic Action challenge because many were just silly. They seem to be planning some new kinds of challenges. My guess is that this is an attempt to bring back "wow" without having to have a reviewer decide what is "wow". It won't work, but there may eventually be ways to ignore lame challenge or even vote them off the list.

Link to comment

All right, then it's because they can't be bothered to learn that you can filter waymarks by category. You can specify categories to ignore. You can also specify your favorite categories.

It's true that most people faced with a pile of junk won't be interested in learning special techniques to find the occasional gem. In my area, it doesn't make much difference, as the waymarks are universally boring, even when they mark an interesting place.
Lots of people can't stand EarthCaches.
Lots of people can't stand puzzle caches and lots of people can't stand waymarks. What's your point?

 

Perhaps this is the real reason why Waymarking has trouble getting traction with typical geocachers as well. I suppose that that geocachers are capable of learning to use another site, but they don't want to. Since Waymarks don't show up in their Pocket Queries or online searches for geocaches they don't see them. And even if they took the time to click the link on the cache page to see nearby Waymarks, there is extra effort involved in loading the interesting ones on to their GPSr and remembering to log them when they visit. And of course, no smiley.
Well, yes, it's certainly true that there's no motivation for geocachers to seek waymarks. One has to seek waymarks for reasons other than being a geocacher. And one has to do it by downloading something other than a pocket query.

 

There is a fairly good sized community of people using Waymarking.com.
I'll have to take your word for it. 99% of the waymarks in my area are by one individual, and most of them have no logged visits. Perhaps the community isn't quite so imaginary in your area.

 

Many people do actually visit waymarks. They may not always log online, since after all the point is to find interesting places, not to score imaginary points for writing online logs.
I hope that's not true because that would just be rude. To me, the main point of an on-line Waymarking community would be to give feedback to others that this place really is worth visiting and to thank the poster for pointing it out. It would be sad to learn that they can't be bothered with those things because they don't want to appear to be scoring points.

 

On the other hand, people submit waymarks, gathering the required information, taking photos, and writing up a description. For many categories, the information on Waymarking.com is often used more like Wikipedia, for doing research about these places rather than as game of lets visit and score points for logging online.
They do that? OK, I've looked at about 30 waymarks of various categories now, and I never saw anything remotely like that. So I guess my problem is that no one around here does it right.

 

Which is, again, the point: no standards. I'm happy to learn that you have found better waymarks than I can. I'll leave you to them.

Link to comment

All right, then it's because they can't be bothered to learn that you can filter waymarks by category. You can specify categories to ignore. You can also specify your favorite categories.

It's true that most people faced with a pile of junk won't be interested in learning special techniques to find the occasional gem. In my area, it doesn't make much difference, as the waymarks are universally boring, even when they mark an interesting place.
Lots of people can't stand EarthCaches.
Lots of people can't stand puzzle caches and lots of people can't stand waymarks. What's your point?

You're comparing apple and oranges. Earth Caches are a subcategory of caches. Waymarking isn't a subcategory of anything. Equal comparisons would be Geocaching to Waymarking (site to site) or Cache Type to Waymarking Category (type to type). But not Waymarking to Cache Type (site to type).

 

Perhaps this is the real reason why Waymarking has trouble getting traction with typical geocachers as well. I suppose that that geocachers are capable of learning to use another site, but they don't want to. Since Waymarks don't show up in their Pocket Queries or online searches for geocaches they don't see them. And even if they took the time to click the link on the cache page to see nearby Waymarks, there is extra effort involved in loading the interesting ones on to their GPSr and remembering to log them when they visit. And of course, no smiley.
Well, yes, it's certainly true that there's no motivation for geocachers to seek waymarks. One has to seek waymarks for reasons other than being a geocacher. And one has to do it by downloading something other than a pocket query.

 

I feel ya. I use Facebook instead of Google+ because with Facebook I get to Like other peoples posts but with Google+ all can do is +1 their posts. It just isn't the same. I might use Google+ sometime in the future if they ever add the option of letting me Like other peoples posts instead of +1ing them.

Link to comment

All right, then it's because they can't be bothered to learn that you can filter waymarks by category. You can specify categories to ignore. You can also specify your favorite categories.

It's true that most people faced with a pile of junk won't be interested in learning special techniques to find the occasional gem. In my area, it doesn't make much difference, as the waymarks are universally boring, even when they mark an interesting place.

I'll accept that people who were used to virutal caches coming along for free with goecaching might not want to learn a new website to find interesting places. What I don't accept it the view that all waymarks are universally boring. Even if a majority are commercial locations, it is still possible to ignore of all of these and other categories that don't interest you.

 

I'm not sure what you find boring when you say they mark an interesting place. They seem to be well written and provide good information. Perhaps you are missing the "challenge" of a virtual cache. Only a few categories have the challenge of finding a specific object to get answers to questions or to take a photo of. Some people have also made the claim that virtuals had a element of surprise, because you might find something unexpected when you went to the site. As it turns out, there is nothing that prevents someone from creating Waymarking categories that have challenges and surprises. I'll agree that if your are looking for challenges and surprises that there are too few categories that provide this.

 

Look at the Best Kept Secrets category and see if it doesn't seem more interesting. I wish we had more Best Kept Secrets and other categories like it. But all the geocachers who say they have great ideas for vitual caches are so anti-Waymarking that it hasn't gotten the traction I had hoped for. Instead the closest Best Kept Secret to you is in San Francisco.

 

Lots of people can't stand EarthCaches.
Lots of people can't stand puzzle caches and lots of people can't stand waymarks. What's your point?
That is my point. The OP asks why EarthCaches are special. They are not any more special than any other cacheless location. But some people enjoy them so we have them. Other people enjoy Waymarking, no matter how much you want to trash them.

 

There is a fairly good sized community of people using Waymarking.com.
I'll have to take your word for it. 99% of the waymarks in my area are by one individual, and most of them have no logged visits. Perhaps the community isn't quite so imaginary in your area.

You do have one of those individuals who really enjoys Waymarking and submits lots of waymarks in many different categories, including the Best Kept Secret mentioned above. In a way this is no different from areas with prolific geocache hiders or high number finders. There seem to be a number of other participants in your area, including some who are primarily geocachers and just do an occasional waymark. For many categories it's going to be the case that few visits will be logged. Categories of more touristy locations tend to get logged more frequently. I haven't looked, but I would guess there are a few places in San Fransisco that are regularly logged by Waymarkers (though sadly the Best Kept Secret one hasn't been).

 

Many people do actually visit waymarks. They may not always log online, since after all the point is to find interesting places, not to score imaginary points for writing online logs.
I hope that's not true because that would just be rude. To me, the main point of an on-line Waymarking community would be to give feedback to others that this place really is worth visiting and to thank the poster for pointing it out. It would be sad to learn that they can't be bothered with those things because they don't want to appear to be scoring points.
:rolleyes: For someone who has so rejected that anyone might enjoy Waymarking, you have a log of nerve telling them what's proper etiquette. I have some news for you. Lots of people find geocaches, some even signing the physical log, who never log their find online. The online part of geocaching, like Waymarking, is entirely optional (and don't go quoting the "so-called" rules - they're not enforceable and they're really more suggestions than rules). It turns out that Waymarking attracts some people who like lists. Simply having categorized lists of places has value. Some use the list of fast food restaurants to find fast food restaurants when traveling. (Or the list of independent burger joints to find an alternative to the same old fast food). The point isn't to thank people for pointing out a place, though many waymarks have stories of people sending emails thanking them for the information they posted about some waymark. While the tools could use some work to be be more user friendly, Waymarking has groups associated with each category and many of these groups have open enrollment. Essentially each category can be thought of as social network of individuals with a common interest in that category. There can be extensive communication in the group (though again the current tools leave something to be desired).

 

On the other hand, people submit waymarks, gathering the required information, taking photos, and writing up a description. For many categories, the information on Waymarking.com is often used more like Wikipedia, for doing research about these places rather than as game of lets visit and score points for logging online.
They do that? OK, I've looked at about 30 waymarks of various categories now, and I never saw anything remotely like that. So I guess my problem is that no one around here does it right.

 

Which is, again, the point: no standards. I'm happy to learn that you have found better waymarks than I can. I'll leave you to them.

On the Waymarking forums there are discussion of whether they should even bother respond to attacks on Waymarking from geocachers. People have made up their minds that all waymarks are crappy. If you're convinced that nothing meet your standard of what a waymark should be, nothing I say here is likely to change your mind.

 

Early on I realized that Waymarking is not geocaching. It's not meant to be geocaching. So I accepted the differences. And I also complained that it really didn't serve as a substitute for virtual caches. However, instead of rejecting Waymarking, I saw it as an opportunity to develop my ideas of that made a good virtual. For me, what made a good virtual cache was not the "wow" but instead the challenge of finding something along with the surprise of just what it was you found. I saw that Waymarking categories did not have to be just lists of locations. One could create categories that were based on challenges and that didn't reveal surprises till you actually visited the site. We developed the Best Kept Secrets category with the hope that it would be discovered by those with similar interests in virtual caches. However, the geocaching community was so quick to reject the Waymrking site, that no one seemed to notice what we were trying to do. Groundspeak probably recognized this when they created geocaching challenges and put them as a section on the Geocaching site. Challenges are exactly the sort of thing I thought could be used to improve Waymarking. Instead of expanding Waymarking's appeal, we have a new section on Geocaching.com in the hope it will catch on with geocachers.

Link to comment

When I first saw the topic of this thread my reaction was "They aren't special -- every glacial erratic in our area became an Earthcache when people were going through a phase of trying to get a different icon on their Hides list."

 

And, as off topic as it may be, I like using the Waymarking site when I am traveling to different areas but I never bother with it at home. I like it.

Link to comment

Many times I have fond historic “Virtual” caches that are grandfathered into Geocaching. Many of them are just as enjoyable as any Earth Cache.

 

When I stumble upon an interesting historic spot I lament that I can’t make a “Virtual” there.

 

Are there others that share my feelings?

 

I agree however the Lilly Pad has made it very clear that Virtuals aren't coming back. :( I believe that the reviewers were overwelmed by the "WOW" factor when it came to virtuals. Earthcaches have another group who approve them so there isn't a reviewer revolt.

HA

Not true.

I disputed something on an Earthcache and a GC reviewer said it was okay but geoware asked the CO to change it because it was against their guidelines.

Link to comment

Many times I have fond historic “Virtual” caches that are grandfathered into Geocaching. Many of them are just as enjoyable as any Earth Cache.

 

When I stumble upon an interesting historic spot I lament that I can’t make a “Virtual” there.

 

Are there others that share my feelings?

 

I agree however the Lilly Pad has made it very clear that Virtuals aren't coming back. :( I believe that the reviewers were overwelmed by the "WOW" factor when it came to virtuals. Earthcaches have another group who approve them so there isn't a reviewer revolt.

HA

Not completely true.

I disputed something on an Earthcache and a GC reviewer said it was okay but geoware asked the CO to change it because it was against their guidelines.

Link to comment
Earthcaches have another group who approve them so there isn't a reviewer revolt.

HA

Not completely true.

I disputed something on an Earthcache and a GC reviewer said it was okay but geoware asked the CO to change it because it was against their guidelines.

I don't understand. How did you dispute the EarthCache? Did you contact a local reviewer or post a needs archive? Possibly GC reviewers may be the first to see a problem reported depending on how you do so. You indicate that geoaware made the final decision and had the CO fix the issue, so this seems like proof that ultimately there is a separate group that takes care of EarthCaches. If the GC reviewer gave you an initial answer that was wrong, it may have been their opinion rather than an official ruling.

 

Of course in Waymarking, each category is managed by its own group and waymarks are reviewed by the group's officers; and challenges can be flagged by anyone and perhaps even removed without any reviewer. So having an outside review group so "there isn't a reviewer revolt" is no longer the deciding issue as to whether virtuals come back or new history cache types get added. Groundspeak is likely, at least for now, to argue that you can use Waymarking or Challenges to share historic locations (or make a offset cache).

Link to comment

Given the educational emphasis of EarthCaches, one wonders if Waymarking isn't the more natural fit.

 

That might be true from the point of view of those who would like to be able to ask for compulsory photos, but I do not agree from a more general point of view.

The essential part in my eyes is the involvement of the GSA and of special reviewers which read the write-up and try to suggest more educative questions if the original ones were too weak. This requires knowledge about Earth sciences and is much more than a formality as the review process for physical caches and the process for getting published a typical waymark.

 

Whether ECs appear on site A or on site B only influences the number of visits they get, but not their educational quality. This mainly depends on who is involved in the review process. This also implies that challenges are not well suited for educational goals as their exists no review process at all.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Groundspeak is likely, at least for now, to argue that you can use Waymarking or Challenges to share historic locations (or make a offset cache).

 

If the goal is to share historic locations and not knowledge about the locations that can best learnt directly at the location, I agree with you.

The history caches I would be interested into do not have as primary goal to share or categorize locations of historical importance, but to teach something.

Neither Waymarking nor challenges are well-suited for this purpose and there is also no competent authority there to weed out completely unfitting submissions

from the educative/scientific point of view.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
Other people enjoy Waymarking, no matter how much you want to trash them.
I'm sorry you got the impression I was trashing Waymarking. By recounting my experience, I'm explaining why I think EarthCaches have been given a special place in geocaching.com rather than being relegated to Waymarking.com: I really like Virtuals, I was really excited to discovered Waymarking.com, and I was very, very disappointed. I understand that that was a personal reaction, and I've been very clear that I've only looked at a handful of waymarks, so I couldn't possibly be able to claim they are universally boring. Nevertheless, I'm quite sure my experience isn't unique, and I assume that's why some people are willing to go to a lot of effort to keep EartchCaches out of Waymarking.com.

 

You do have one of those individuals who really enjoys Waymarking and submits lots of waymarks in many different categories, including the Best Kept Secret mentioned above. In a way this is no different from areas with prolific geocache hiders or high number finders.
I pointed out the single source of my local waymarks as counter evidence to the "lots of people are doing it" claim. I did not mean to suggest it was inherently good or bad. The fact that the best waymark you can find in my area -- some 40 miles away, by the way -- is also by that same person really unscores my point: it really looks like only one person is doing it in the entire SF bay area. I'm sorry if that's not really true, and there are really hidden hordes Waymarking through the area, but I can't help but role my eyes at the claim of large numbers when I look at what I can see.

 

Again, the point isn't to judge Waymarking based on the number of participants, but only to point out why someone that likes EarthCaches might not be too excited about Waymarking.com.

 

:rolleyes: For someone who has so rejected that anyone might enjoy Waymarking, you have a log of nerve telling them what's proper etiquette.
It's just common sense: if you like a waymark, I'd expect you to want to let others know about it instead of keeping its quality to yourself. But I'll take your word for it that I'm wrong and that correct ettiquette for Waymarking is to keep anything you find secret. :rolleyes: back at you.

 

On the Waymarking forums there are discussion of whether they should even bother respond to attacks on Waymarking from geocachers. People have made up their minds that all waymarks are crappy. If you're convinced that nothing meet your standard of what a waymark should be, nothing I say here is likely to change your mind.
Alas, your arguments are overwhelmed by the evidence right there in front of me: nothing here interests me even though the idea interests me a lot. That doesn't mean I think it shouldn't interest you or anyone else.

 

However, the geocaching community was so quick to reject the Waymrking site, that no one seemed to notice what we were trying to do.
I wasn't here, so I can't speak to the beginnings, I can only tell you what I see now. I was disappointed, you sound disappointed, and I'm sure lots of other people are disappointed. It's fine if you want to blame that disappointment on me, but you might do better to try and understand way an enthusiastic newbie was turned off if you really want it to thrive.

 

Thanks for the tip about Best Kept Secrets. Yes, very cool, and I'll keep an eye on it. But I'm not sure how excited I can get about it when I live in the SF Bay Area and there are only 4 Best Kept Secrets in a 100 mile radius. But those do seem to be high quality, at least as good as any Virtual I've found. And one of those was posted within the last year; one thing I haven't mentioned is that the waymarks I've see all seem to be from 2008, leaving the impression there was initial excitement about waymarks which has since died off.

Edited by dprovan
Link to comment

When I stumble upon an interesting historic spot I lament that I can’t make a “Virtual” there.

 

Offset Caches are your friend.

 

Create a 2 stage multicache. First stage (posted coords) is the "interesting historic spot" and is a virtual stage. Second/Final stage is the physical cache and is somewhere reasonably nearby. To get the coords for the physical cache, some information must be gathered at the posted coords.

 

Here's a great example I found last year:

http://coord.info/GCVW0K

 

We have a great cache here in NC called "The Lynching og Eugene Daniels" which is a offset cache. The container is the very first thing you find, SL and take a piece of paper with coords on it to the two other significant historic sites - basically following the path the lynch mob took the boy from his house (where the first cache was) to the where the old jailhouse location was then a hard hike to the site the mob hung the boy. You can get pretty creative using these types of spots in offset multis.

Wherigo is another great cahce type to move people around to different places too. GW7 in Bellbuckle, TN has a Wherigo that takes you through the little town then to the final which is GZ for the GW7 event and stage.

Link to comment

Given the educational emphasis of EarthCaches, one wonders if Waymarking isn't the more natural fit.

 

That might be true from the point of view of those who would like to be able to ask for compulsory photos, but I do not agree from a more general point of view.

The essential part in my eyes is the involvement of the GSA and of special reviewers which read the write-up and try to suggest more educative questions if the original ones were too weak. This requires knowledge about Earth sciences and is much more than a formality as the review process for physical caches and the process for getting published a typical waymark.

 

Whether ECs appear on site A or on site B only influences the number of visits they get, but not their educational quality. This mainly depends on who is involved in the review process. This also implies that challenges are not well suited for educational goals as their exists no review process at all.

 

Cezanne

 

Groundspeak is likely, at least for now, to argue that you can use Waymarking or Challenges to share historic locations (or make a offset cache).

 

If the goal is to share historic locations and not knowledge about the locations that can best learnt directly at the location, I agree with you.

The history caches I would be interested into do not have as primary goal to share or categorize locations of historical importance, but to teach something.

Neither Waymarking nor challenges are well-suited for this purpose and there is also no competent authority there to weed out completely unfitting submissions

from the educative/scientific point of view.

 

Cezanne

I think you miss something about Waymarking if you look at typical categories and apply their guidelines across the board. Each category on Waymarking is managed by a group and by the officers of that group. The group determines the guideline for waymarks in the group and officers review submissions and publish waymarks that meet those guidelines. The guideline generally include a section of the requirement for logging visits to the waymark as well.

 

There are some waymarkers who want to force generic rules so that all waymarks have the same rules for a visit and roughly the same guidelines for submission. They have had some success on the categories that I refer to as inventory lists. If you just want to list all the historic markers or all the statues of famous people, you are probably right. But I'm confident that there will always be a place for Waymarking groups who do things differently.

 

A while back, Groundspeak created a section in Waymarking called Waymarking University. Nothing every came of it. There are still no waymarks list there. I like to think that the idea was to create a number of categories following the EarthCache model. Here the groups would be people with expertise in the category who would review submissions to ensure the educational quality. Guidelines for logging these waymarks would include some educational activity at the location and perhaps some questions to answers (a test). I don't know if this is what Grounspeak had in mind or not. But even without the Waymarking University section, it would be possible for a group to establish such a category.

 

Even those categories that are inventory lists still seem to provide a reference or learning component. Here it is not important that you visit the site. Instead the aggregation of information about locations in a particular category has proven useful for people doing research on that category. Many waymarkers report that they have received email thanking them for their listing of a particular building, monument, or feature that they may not have found had it not been on Waymarking. While there are many categories where there is already a website listing places in that category, many others categories have no website (or a website no longer exists). The fact is that the very nature of Waymarking is to collect and share information, and isn't that what education is about?

Link to comment

I think you miss something about Waymarking if you look at typical categories and apply their guidelines across the board. Each category on Waymarking is managed by a group and by the officers of that group.

 

No, I did not miss this. If the GSA would act as officer of such a group, then of course the result would be very similar as for ECs on gc.com from the quality point of view, but yet lacking things like D/T rating, cache attributes etc which are not available at Waymarking.

 

What I wrote referred to a Waymarking category where no organization is behind the management, but some arbitrary volunteers.

 

But I'm confident that there will always be a place for Waymarking groups who do things differently.

 

That might well be, but see what I wrote above. I agree that ECs or history caches could in principle be embedded into Waymarking. In order for them to work as I would like them to work the essential element is however the involvement of an organization like the GSA and not the site where these caches or waymarks or whatever are offered.

 

But even without the Waymarking University section, it would be possible for a group to establish such a category.

 

Agreed, but the group needs to exist and needs to want to invest a lot of work and effort. That was the point I wanted to stress when I wrote that the GSA is the essential part of why ECs are special.

 

While I'd like to see history caches implemented, I would not be willing to help in reviewing them and I would not be satisfied with arbitary volunteers doing the job either.

 

The fact is that the very nature of Waymarking is to collect and share information, and isn't that what education is about?

 

Not from my personal point of view. Information is needed as a kind of basis requirement, but aspects like understanding, analysing, coming up with one's own answers etc are much more important from my point of view. For example, I like the Ecs that make me think about why something has happened and come up with my own answers, not go to a place and read a sign and write down what it is written on the sign.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

I've enjoyed Virtuals, too, so I've looked at Waymarking.com. It's useless. No standards. Most of the waymarks near me have never been visited, and almost none of them have been visited more than once. Nearest waymark? Taco Bell. First waymark in a search of SF? McDonald's.

 

Don't try to tell me people don't use it because they're incapable of using multiple websites.

 

I think this demonstrates exactly why Virtuals were eliminated. While I'm sure you're correct about the origin of EarthCaches, they're successful because they're good.

Like most games where you're unfamiliar with the layout, you're making some elementary mistakes with Waymarking. There is some effort required before you master the interface, probably on a similar level to geocaching.com.

 

Firstly, you can eliminate categories you're never going to be interested in. Get rid of all the Macdonalds etc. You never need to see them again.

 

Secondly, whilst some categories lend themselves to having waymarks that you'd visit and log, others don't. So the number of logs isn't a measure of success.

Link to comment
Firstly, you can eliminate categories you're never going to be interested in. Get rid of all the Macdonalds etc. You never need to see them again.
While I'm sure you're right, my initial attempts to weed out uninteresting categories left me with 4 waymarks within a hundred miles. Again, I'm sure I'm not doing it right, but I'm still a good example of someone interested who was turned off by what I found. Now I fully admit that it could be my problem, but the arguments here all seem to concede that there's a lot of trash, but make it my fault because I don't know how to deal with it. I'm fine with that, but I'm not sure you, as an advocate, should be.

 

Secondly, whilst some categories lend themselves to having waymarks that you'd visit and log, others don't. So the number of logs isn't a measure of success.
My observation isn't that there are few logs, it's that there are no logs. And I'm not using that to measure success, I'm only using it to measure participation. So, tell me, how should I gauge the number of people visiting these waymarks?
Link to comment
Firstly, you can eliminate categories you're never going to be interested in. Get rid of all the Macdonalds etc. You never need to see them again.
While I'm sure you're right, my initial attempts to weed out uninteresting categories left me with 4 waymarks within a hundred miles. Again, I'm sure I'm not doing it right, but I'm still a good example of someone interested who was turned off by what I found. Now I fully admit that it could be my problem, but the arguments here all seem to concede that there's a lot of trash, but make it my fault because I don't know how to deal with it. I'm fine with that, but I'm not sure you, as an advocate, should be.

 

No, it is definitely not your problem. What you wrote is also true in my area and I am well aware of what can be done with the Waymarking site.

The interface neither can bring along interesting waymarks in your area if they do not exist nor can it bring along interesting logs of visitors if none exist.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Don’t jump to conclusions! I absolutely love Earth Caches!

 

I know I am probably beating a dead horse here but…..

 

I have never understood why they hold such a special status as the only “Virtual” hides that can be created within Geocaching.

 

Many times I have fond historic “Virtual” caches that are grandfathered into Geocaching. Many of them are just as enjoyable as any Earth Cache.

 

When I stumble upon an interesting historic spot I lament that I can’t make a “Virtual” there.

 

Are there others that share my feelings?

 

Yah, yah, no I don’t WayMark. Perhaps I would if the finds showed in the cache stats.

 

What a small group of us was trying to suggest a while back, but didn't seem to garner enough support, was a NEW cache type...

 

HISTORICAL CACHE...

 

This would be a virtual cache, and be the COMPANION cache to an "Earthcache". The Historical cache would be of historical importance. Just like the Earthcache relates directly to mother earth. The Historical Cache would relate to something that is of historical importance.

 

The OTHER requirment to a Historical Cache, would be that it would have to be at a location where the placement of a PHYSICAL cache would be impossible, or would be illegal, or otherwise not allowed.

 

Currently... Some get around this by using the "Mystery/puzzle/unknown" cache type, or even a "Multi" cache type, where a STAGE of the the cache is located at the historical location.

 

The problem of this is, that a cacher would STILL have to go to ANOTHER location & find the physical final to sign the log and grab this as a smiley. THIS isn't always possible, or logical depending on the historical location. Alot of cachers wouldn't find such a cache because the distance they might have to travel to get to the final, or the time it would take to get to & find the final isn't something that they would wish to do, or have the time to do.

 

Examples of this... are currently where Grandfathered Virtuals are located. Such as in Washington D.C. Where there are virtuals all over that area, & NOT anywhere closeby that one could place a physical that many people would want to get.

 

So... Why don't we just try to gather support for a "Historical Cache Type" to be the "sister" type to Earthcaches. Simple guidelines.

 

1. Must be historical in nature.

 

2. Must be in a location where a physical cache can't be placed within .05 miles (279')

 

3. Can't be located within .1 mile of any other grandfathered Virtual.

 

As far as logging requirments go...

 

1. If questions are to be answered, must have an automated system to verify that the answers were given correctly.

 

2. Photos that include the cacher in the photo should ALWAYS be Optional & never required. Other photos that DON'T include the cacher can be required by the CO if desired. Photos should never require that the GPS be in the photo, because a cacher could be using his "Smartphone" as his GPS and phone, or be using one of the newer GPS's that have a built in camera.

 

That should be rather simple and straight forward....

 

Just an idea...

 

TGC

Link to comment

but the arguments here all seem to concede that there's a lot of trash,

 

I don't concede there is a lot of trash. I concede that not everyone is going to find every waymark or every Waymarking category interesting; just as not everyone finds every geocache interesting. The difference is that Waymarking has some tools for ignoring wholesale the categories you don't find interesting. Try to find where you can ignore LPCs on Geocaching.

 

I will also concede that those who view this from a geocaching perspective may find many of the Waymarking categories lacking. Virtual caches were placed by people hoping not just to share the location coordinate, but to have people actually go and visit just as they would go out and find caches. And since virtual caches counted in the find count and were easily loaded into a GPS along with physical caches they did get visited and logged. But what also happened is that some people decided they could log couch potato finds on virtual caches. The complaint from this was part of the reason that virtual caches are no longer published. Perhaps the word "visit" that is used in Waymarking translates better and people understand that they have to visit it to log it.

 

Of course since most categories don't have a confirmation question or even require a photo, visiting a waymark lacks the challenge that corresponds to finding a geocache. The dynamic of having a challenge, even it is is easy, encourages visits. A few categories do have this, like asking for a photo that replicates the view in an old photo or postcard. Finding categories like this is not easy however. Geocaching challenges recognize this and put the challenge back, but they are only marginally more successful in attracting visitors than waymarks.

 

As far as logging requirments go...

 

1. If questions are to be answered, must have an automated system to verify that the answers were given correctly.

This is what encouraged couch potato logging of virtuals. Cache owners provided a certificate of accomplishment that could be unlocked by entering the answer to a question. People found the answer online (or just guessed it) and then felt they should be able to log a find. I'd have no problem with this if the community would accept couch potato logs, but someone would point out that then it isn't geocaching.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
Firstly, you can eliminate categories you're never going to be interested in. Get rid of all the Macdonalds etc. You never need to see them again.
While I'm sure you're right, my initial attempts to weed out uninteresting categories left me with 4 waymarks within a hundred miles. Again, I'm sure I'm not doing it right, but I'm still a good example of someone interested who was turned off by what I found. Now I fully admit that it could be my problem, but the arguments here all seem to concede that there's a lot of trash, but make it my fault because I don't know how to deal with it. I'm fine with that, but I'm not sure you, as an advocate, should be.

 

No, it is definitely not your problem. What you wrote is also true in my area and I am well aware of what can be done with the Waymarking site.

The interface neither can bring along interesting waymarks in your area if they do not exist nor can it bring along interesting logs of visitors if none exist.

 

Cezanne

It must be a dull area indeed if you not only don't have any waymarks already listed anywhere near, but also there is nothing for you to list yourself! Surely there has to be a windmill somewhere, or a historic building, or a rock that looks like an animal, or an ancient tree? Or some sort of milestone or interesting historic marker?

No? Perhaps it's time to move house. Or maybe you just don't find much in the world interesting, in which case you're at a disadvantage.

Link to comment

It must be a dull area indeed if you not only don't have any waymarks already listed anywhere near, but also there is nothing for you to list yourself! Surely there has to be a windmill somewhere, or a historic building, or a rock that looks like an animal, or an ancient tree? Or some sort of milestone or interesting historic marker?

No? Perhaps it's time to move house. Or maybe you just don't find much in the world interesting, in which case you're at a disadvantage.

 

I guess you misunderstood something. I did not say that there do not exist interesting objects. I said that they exist hardly any waymarks and those which exist do hardly receive any visits (many no visits at all). When I hide a cache, I enjoy receiving logs of visitors. I do not enjoy listing some objects in a list just to have them there or for being visited without me getting feedback/reports on/about the visits. Also for caches hidden by other people, I enjoy reading the logs. Waymarking simply does not have a logging culture at all. If there are logs, they are typically very short and hardly tell any stories or interesting experiences. Waymarking is more a catalogue of objects one may want to visit - it is quite different from what I like in caching (regardless of with or without containers). Waymarking much more reminds me of a guide book (city guide or a hiking guide or whatever). Typically, people buy these books, visit some of the suggested places, but hardly report about their experiences in the public and do not get into touch with the author of the guide (neither directly nor indirectly via leaving messages somewhere on the internet).

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
Firstly, you can eliminate categories you're never going to be interested in. Get rid of all the Macdonalds etc. You never need to see them again.
While I'm sure you're right, my initial attempts to weed out uninteresting categories left me with 4 waymarks within a hundred miles. Again, I'm sure I'm not doing it right, but I'm still a good example of someone interested who was turned off by what I found. Now I fully admit that it could be my problem, but the arguments here all seem to concede that there's a lot of trash, but make it my fault because I don't know how to deal with it. I'm fine with that, but I'm not sure you, as an advocate, should be.

 

Secondly, whilst some categories lend themselves to having waymarks that you'd visit and log, others don't. So the number of logs isn't a measure of success.
My observation isn't that there are few logs, it's that there are no logs. And I'm not using that to measure success, I'm only using it to measure participation. So, tell me, how should I gauge the number of people visiting these waymarks?

You can see how many visits there are too each waymark listing.

Link to comment

It must be a dull area indeed if you not only don't have any waymarks already listed anywhere near, but also there is nothing for you to list yourself! Surely there has to be a windmill somewhere, or a historic building, or a rock that looks like an animal, or an ancient tree? Or some sort of milestone or interesting historic marker?

No? Perhaps it's time to move house. Or maybe you just don't find much in the world interesting, in which case you're at a disadvantage.

 

I guess you misunderstood something. I did not say that there do not exist interesting objects. I said that they exist hardly any waymarks and those which exist do hardly receive any visits (many no visits at all). When I hide a cache, I enjoy receiving logs of visitors. I do not enjoy listing some objects in a list just to have them there or for being visited without me getting feedback/reports on/about the visits. Also for caches hidden by other people, I enjoy reading the logs. Waymarking simply does not have a logging culture at all. If there are logs, they are typically very short and hardly tell any stories or interesting experiences. Waymarking is more a catalogue of objects one may want to visit - it is quite different from what I like in caching (regardless of with or without containers). Waymarking much more reminds me of a guide book (city guide or a hiking guide or whatever). Typically, people buy these books, visit some of the suggested places, but hardly report about their experiences in the public and do not get into touch with the author of the guide (neither directly nor indirectly via leaving messages somewhere on the internet).

 

Cezanne

Sorry about the delayed reply.

Waymarks are out there for you to find (they aren't necessarily listed already), and in addition there are many that other people have already found and listed. I just find it hard to accept that there is nothing out there that you might find good to waymark. Normally when you list a waymark you do write quite a bit about it, although not necessarily from a "personal experience" point of view.

Of course, if people then log your waymarks it would be nice if they add a few comments. But it depends on the type of waymark. It doesn't seem appropriate if the waymark is just a collectible type, such as a benchmark, but I tend to write more when I have to go out of my way and it's somewhere that has a bit of a "wow" factor.

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...