Does Geocaching need a governing body?

[+the4dirtydogs]

I see the competitiveness of it as a downside. For instance....I've seen a geocaching race where cachers team up with each other. One is the driver and the other is the finder.

 

The finder jumps out and stamps the log with his signature stamp (and the driver's stamp, too). Mind you, the driver never even got out of the vehicle or saw the cache, but yet his signature stamp is on it.

 

All this to win a contest. To each his own, I guess.

As long as the driver can see the cache, this system of finding caches is OK. As long as his stamp is on there, nevermind I heard you can just see the cache and claim a find and no signature required.

Edited December 11, 2012 by the4dirtydogs

[knowschad]

I don't know why I even bother to make this reply because I know the answer - but it just amuses me to see someone post a topic, mainly benign but worthy of a discussion, and it is the same people time and time again who come back here with arrogant, rude and condescending responses.

 

I'm sorry, but I have to speak against that. People are people. This forum is made up of people. It is not just some computer algorithm that spews out responses. If a lot of the same people respond, it is because a lot of the same people participate. If a lot of the responses seem to agree that the post is silly... that is going to be the common response. Nothing nefarious there. Sometimes people start well thought-out threads, and most of the responses are positive.

 

But even more important... if you don't like the way the forums work, change it by example.

[+ArcherDragoon]

With all the discussion on FTF records, most finds in a day, Virtual caches, challenges, etc I wonder if geocaching needs a governing body that defines what a cache is, what a find is, etc GC.com and the other sites have stated they are just listing sites but they also appear to make rules that fit their site. For example GC.com says that Wherigo are caches but other sites don't, other sites say virtual are caches this site doesn't. GC.com has a proximity rule (not sure of other sites). GC.com doesn't recognize FTF others might.

 

I could see this governing body being made up of representatives from listing sites and cachers from different areas of the country and world. To have valid records (most finds, most FTF, etc)the site of the finds would have to conform to the geocaching governing board. For example if QR code scans were not a recognized cache type, I could not say I have the world record for most caches in a day by scanning and recording 3000 QR codes.

I don't think we will ever see one such governing body...

 

The reason there are so many sites for geocaching (and yes...some more popular than others) is there are many different ideas. I don't think there really is much of a chance of people from each of these sites getting together and forming one such organization...afterall...once done...what would be the purpose of having other sites (notice...I did not say "those other sites"...use the site you like...)

 

Each site has their own process...

[+JJG10101]

In response to the original question, I quote from "Top Gun": Negative, Ghost Rider.

[+Don_J]

I don't think that the hobby itself needs a governing body, but it looks like it's leader could use an advisory committee.

[hoosier guy]

No it does not. Everyone plays the way they want to and for the most part everyone plays by the agreed on rules. This is not a competition, no one is winning, let it be what it is.

[hoosier guy]

I don't know why I even bother to make this reply because I know the answer - but it just amuses me to see someone post a topic, mainly benign but worthy of a discussion, and it is the same people time and time again who come back here with arrogant, rude and condescending responses.

 

That is just the way it is on any forum. Shift the wheat from the chaff and don't let it bother you.

[knowschad]

I don't know why I even bother to make this reply because I know the answer - but it just amuses me to see someone post a topic, mainly benign but worthy of a discussion, and it is the same people time and time again who come back here with arrogant, rude and condescending responses.

 

That is just the way it is on any forum. Shift the wheat from the chaff and don't let it bother you.

Maybe the forum needs a governing body. Oh, wait...

[Keystone]

Maybe the forum needs a governing body. Oh, wait...

 

[+ArcherDragoon]

Keystone made a funny!!!

(and made me spill my coffee...D'Oh)

[Clan Riffster]

No.

Exactly this.

I don't need bureaucrats telling me when I found a cache.

[+fbingha]

With all the discussion on FTF records, most finds in a day, Virtual caches, challenges, etc I wonder if geocaching needs a governing body that defines what a cache is, what a find is, etc GC.com and the other sites have stated they are just listing sites but they also appear to make rules that fit their site. For example GC.com says that Wherigo are caches but other sites don't, other sites say virtual are caches this site doesn't. GC.com has a proximity rule (not sure of other sites). GC.com doesn't recognize FTF others might.

 

I could see this governing body being made up of representatives from listing sites and cachers from different areas of the country and world. To have valid records (most finds, most FTF, etc)the site of the finds would have to conform to the geocaching governing board. For example if QR code scans were not a recognized cache type, I could not say I have the world record for most caches in a day by scanning and recording 3000 QR codes.

 

What's the point of any of this? If there is not a referee station at every cache, 24 hours a day, then all records are meaningless. There is not verifiable peer review of every FTF, every find, there never will be, so all attempts at making a competition out of geocaching are silly at best.

[+Fiver1]

If you really want to mess something up, form a committee or a "governing" agency. I like things just the way they are and I don't see any value in having a group define how I should pursue my hobby as long as things generally stay within Groundspeak's guidlines.

[+Castle Mischief]

No.

Exactly this.

I don't need bureaucrats telling me when I found a cache.

 

Ditto. We don't need to give Clan Riffster another reason to complain about bureaucrats.

[4wheelin_fool]

I'd like to nominate Lara Croft to be the governing body of geocaching.

[+Glenn]

Interesting idea. However geocaching is a non-competitive hobby. It needs a governing body as much as other non-competitive hobbies like model train building, stamp collecting, doing crossword puzzles, soap carving, trainspotting, or collecting naval fluff.

[knowschad]

Interesting idea. However geocaching is a non-competitive hobby. It needs a governing body as much as other non-competitive hobbies like model train building, stamp collecting, doing crossword puzzles, soap carving, trainspotting, or collecting naval fluff.

 

LOL!!!

[+Understandblue]

I've been wondering what's been missing from my geocaching experience - it's definitely governmental oversight. Having just read The Secret Race, I'm most concerned about doping in our sport. I think the FTFs should be tested.

[+The_Incredibles_]

After the latest shenanigans, YES.

 

One of the jobs of the governing body should be to create attractive icons that all caching sites are required to use. A variety of icons should be created and the final ones chosen by voting members.

Edited December 13, 2012 by The_Incredibles_

[+maxx borchovski]

Geocaching.com does have a governing body, Groundspeak. OpenCaching has it's own called Garmin. You can play either site's game by their rules and I'm sure there are other sites too. The thing to remember is that its a game, and as such there is no winner, no loser. The right way to play the game is to follow the rules set in place by the creator of the game, or their variant of the rules.

 

I own a Playstation 3 and am very happy with how it works, how the games work, I don't care if XBox does things differently, I certainly don't want a governing body making Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft adhere to a bunch of rules that could possibly stifle their creativity.

 

I like the rules that Groundspeak have for their version of the game, I understand that the game will evolve and their rules will change. Once I reach the point where I am no longer having fun, I will vote with my GPS and navigate to a different version of the game.

[+niraD]

OpenCaching has it's own called Garmin.

Just a quibble: opencaching.COM has Garmin as its governing body. OpenCaching is supported by various groups of volunteers, who effectively are its governing body.

[+DragonsWest]

Geocaching.com does have a governing body, Groundspeak. OpenCaching has it's own called Garmin. You can play either site's game by their rules and I'm sure there are other sites too. The thing to remember is that its a game, and as such there is no winner, no loser. The right way to play the game is to follow the rules set in place by the creator of the game, or their variant of the rules.

 

I own a Playstation 3 and am very happy with how it works, how the games work, I don't care if XBox does things differently, I certainly don't want a governing body making Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft adhere to a bunch of rules that could possibly stifle their creativity.

 

I like the rules that Groundspeak have for their version of the game, I understand that the game will evolve and their rules will change. Once I reach the point where I am no longer having fun, I will vote with my GPS and navigate to a different version of the game.

 

Geocaching has a governing body. He has a name. At one point he was a regular poster in these forums. Probably stopped when he got tired of hearing complaints.

 

Before anyone seriously thinks Geocaching needs a governing body, please keep in mind it's still in pretty good shape, despite a misstep here or there. Were Groundspeak listed on the NYSE, NASDAQ or held by a bunch of mindless goofballs, such as run Facebook, you could expect far worse.

 

Be thankful for the good things we have.

[+baloo&bd]

With all the discussion on FTF records, most finds in a day, Virtual caches, challenges, etc I wonder if geocaching needs a governing body that defines what a cache is, what a find is, etc GC.com and the other sites have stated they are just listing sites but they also appear to make rules that fit their site. For example GC.com says that Wherigo are caches but other sites don't, other sites say virtual are caches this site doesn't. GC.com has a proximity rule (not sure of other sites). GC.com doesn't recognize FTF others might.

 

I could see this governing body being made up of representatives from listing sites and cachers from different areas of the country and world. To have valid records (most finds, most FTF, etc)the site of the finds would have to conform to the geocaching governing board. For example if QR code scans were not a recognized cache type, I could not say I have the world record for most caches in a day by scanning and recording 3000 QR codes.

 

The current caching sites, of which GC is the dominant, are businesses and their model is that of a listing service. Nothing more, nothing less. They have a business model that apparently works quite well as other sites have come and gone and even the current competition that has a major manufacturer backing it has yet to make any real inroads into GS's customer base.

 

On geocaching, we already have a governing body that decides what a cache is and isn't. The management of GS. It would also appear that having FTF recognized, most finds in a day and other items have been given equal attention and TPTB have decided that it would not be in the best interest of their business model or their users to have functionality on the site that acknowledges these items.

 

It would appear the users agree since the site keeps growing. Do not mistake these forums as representative of all the users. Those of us here are the vocal minority with entirely too much time on our hands. I disagree with GC's decion to do away with Virtuals, locationless and challenges, but for some reason keeps allocating resources for waypoints which died almost before the site went live. Yet for the foreseeable future they will still get my $30 because as on a whole, the site still serves it's purpose for me and the others do not. It would appear that a significant enough portion of the current 1,958,363 users agree since enough of them are still paying dues sufficient to keep the site going.

 

A governing body means that a business would be voluntarily letting someone else control the way their business makes money. I just don't see that happening.