Jump to content

Easy Opt-in/Opt-Out of Military Base Caches


rediguana

Recommended Posts

First Up: This feature request is not in any way meant to be a discussion topic as to the pros/cons of whether caches on military bases outside of the US should exist. It assumes that they will exist. What I am interested in discussing are what changes can be made to the website so that both the US Military cachers, and everyone else is given reasonable tools to manage them. I would ask any forum moderators to delete posts that discuss whether MBC should/shouldn't exist. All I want to discuss is tools that allow the US Military cachers, and those of us that can't, better manage these caches.

 

Some assumptions:

  • Military Base Caches will (MBC) continue to exist and grow in number
  • Tools to manage MBC should rely on free functionality (e.g. Premium membership must not be a requirement)
  • The massive majority of geocachers (we must be talking 98-99%) will never be able to attempt MBCs.

 

Option 1 - Ignore Lists (not practical)

I don't see the Ignore cache functionality being useful. It means that the majority of geocachers have to manually add each and every MBC to their own Ignore list. This may be practical for local geocachers, but it isn't practical for travellers, such as myself, as I may not be aware that the cache is a MBC until I turn up at the gate (remember not every geocacher reads the description before turning up at the listed coordinates) - this could be a very Bad Thing particularly if you're in the Middle East as I currently am. As a traveller, I can't be expected to identify each and every US military base, find all the caches, and add them to my Ignore list before travelling. Ignore lists are just plain inefficient for handling MBCs.

 

Option 2 - MBC attribute (not free)

Another option is to create a MBC attribute (when I looked last week, I couldn't see one). At an absolute minimum, every MBC should have a MBC attribute assigned to it - not only for new listings, but also applied to all existing listings. However, attributes are only really useful to Premium Members, as they are the only ones able to filter PQs based upon them, but it isn't possible to filters standards searches or map views based on attributes. This means that this doesn't present a fee solution to managing MBC caches.

 

Option 3 - a MBC 'membership'

My thought is that Groundspeak should consider adding functionality that is a little like Premium Membership, except it is a US Military 'membership' - it is, of course, free. (Technically it may be based on having an MBC attribute - something for the hamsters to decide on if they decide to implement this feature).

 

All caches have a new MBC flag created. It would probably fall to the reviewers to initially flag relevant caches in their reviewing coverage. All caches being listed in future would need the cache owner to tick a box - 'this cache is being placed on a military base, and significant access restrictions apply' (or similar). At some point a one-off database pass would need to be done - any geocacher that has found a MBC as identified by reviewers, would automatically be assigned to the MBC membership. By default, a geocacher does not have US Military 'membership'. This means that MBCs do not appear in any search, map or pocket queries. Any geocacher that has not done a cache classified as a MBC would not be assigned to the notional 'military membership'.

 

Any geocacher can step into their profile, tick a 'Show me Military Base Cases' box, and become a member of the new group.

Any geocacher with the MBC box ticked, would then be returned the MBCs in addition to normal caches.

Of course the My Finds query would ignore this setting, as a cacher may no longer be able to access MBCs, but has found MBCs in the past during their working career, for example.

 

Then the updated website code would be turned on, and overnight, MBCs would disappear for those that are likely to never be able to find them (remember, this is probably in the high-90%'s), and all those that have found at least 1 MBC would still see MBC's as per normal.

 

Again, I don't want this to be a discussion of whether these caches should exist or not. But I believe that as they are likely to continue to exist, and that they represent a very asymmetrical usage (I have no idea of the figures, but I'm guessing that only a handful of % of geocaching.com accounts would ever be able to access these caches, yet they are displayed to 95%+ geocachers that will never have the opportunity to find them), that there should be functionality create (that is both free and fair in its use) to enable those that are able to hunt them, to do so, and for those that will never be able to hunt them, to have them simply ignored.

 

I'm posting this from Qatar, in the Middle East, and found caches within a few km of military base caches. I was most disappointed that I couldn't go cache that nice little cluster on the map :) It is probably a good thing that I haven't had a rental car, and just decided to drive up to the gates without researching that the caches were on military bases ;) I've talked about this issue with local geocachers that live near one or more of these bases, and there is frustration that it isn't easier to ignore/opt-out of these caches.

 

Again, I'm not wanting to debate whether they should exist or not. However, if they are going to continue to be in place, I think that Groundspeak should at least provide more appropriate tools to Opt-In or Opt-Out of Military Base Caches.

 

Cheers Gav

Edited by rediguana
Link to comment

Not sure we would - if cachers are able to access caches on one country's base, they may be able to access other countries bases as well e.g. coalition bases. If a military cacher was opting in, they would be opting in to seeing all MBCs. But it should remain simple for the majority (all non-military cachers) to opt out of them all, in a single, simplified manner.

Edited by rediguana
Link to comment

Perhaps MBCs should be force-listed as a mystery type to force the seeker to read the description and know the cache is on-base. Perhaps just 'MBC' in the cache title. The attribute WOULD be helpful...if you are paying attention.

 

Personally, I don't see any excuse for not reading the description as things are now, nor do I feel any sympathy for someone who ends up at the base gate without knowing where they were going in the first place.

 

It's not an issues where I live (but even if it were), I would be taking steps of my own to remedy my problem and not expect Geocaching.com to do it for me.

Link to comment
The attribute WOULD be helpful...if you are paying attention.

 

That was my point above - many people don't/won't pay attention to attributes, and you only really get the tools to manage attributes with Premium membership

 

nor do I feel any sympathy for someone who ends up at the base gate without knowing where they were going in the first place.

 

You perhaps forget that sometimes, military bases do not show up on online and on GPS maps - particularly in troublesome regions such as the Middle East. These sort of military bases are quite different from military bases at home. ;)

 

It's not an issues where I live (but even if it were), I would be taking steps of my own to remedy my problem and not expect Geocaching.com to do it for me.

 

Yeah, see if I was to 'remedy my own problem', it would probably involve "Needs Archiving' logs on all the caches with a direct reference to placement guideline 1.6.4: "The cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure, including and not limited to, highway bridges, dams, government buildings, schools, military installations, hospitals, airports and other such locations." They also don't meet guideline 1.1: "This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it. Geocachers must not be required to cross any land with "No Trespassing" signs, or locally-defined markers that prohibit access."

 

Not to mention the extended reading of the Fundamental Placement Guidelines.

 

Geocaches are not placed on school properties or military installations. Generally, schools and the military do not allow geocaching on their property. Further, you should not place geocaches near schools or military installations, as the borders shown on a map may be inaccurate. A cache and geocachers searching for a cache around schools or military installations are likely to arouse suspicion, which may result in a military or local law enforcement response. The costs of any such response are entirely the cache owner's responsibility. See more about other inappropriate placements here.

I would much prefer that if geocaching.com is going to continue to allow reviewers to list caches on military bases, that Groundspeak implement a global system to opt-in/opt-out of them. Unlike many other geocachers, I have no problems asking for caches to be archived if I think they are in contravention of the guidelines, and that option still remains open to me.

Edited by rediguana
Link to comment

In total agreement with you Gavin. The Middle East has many areas that differ from the rest of the world as regard to being a restricted area or purely just a no go area. The knowledge of where these areas are is sometimes only by local knowledge as these areas do not show up on any maps.

 

I would opt for a option of creating separate group with its own unique icon for Military base caches.

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...