New Cache Type

[+Dr. Who and K-9]

I have been thinking about this for a while and finally wrote Grounspeak about it. They replied politely that it was a viable idea and will pass it on to the powers-that-be and suggested I create a thread in the Forums and see what the reaction is. I suggested having an "Historical" cache type with no container hidden in the vein of Earthcaches. The location should be of historical significance and the "finders" should answer some pre-set questions by the CO also in the vein of Earthcaches. Perhaps the Historical caches could have their own set of voluteer reviewers similar to, once again, earthcaches.

 

I feel that this could help satisfy the thirst of cachers wishing for the return of Virtuals but keep the locations from being "lame" as most blame for the loss of Virtuals. The spots would be educational and have some meaning.

 

I know some will just point to Waymarking saying the locations can be visited via Waymarking as well already. While this is true, many cachers (me included), feel this could be a good compromise for those that also wish to be rewarded with a "find" on their caching stats for visiting a spot while not having to play two different games.

 

I also believe this could be attractive to cities, parks, and historical societies by setting up geo-tours but without the need of placing containers and maintaining those containers.

 

What does everyone think of this idea. I realize certain details and logistics would have to go into implementing a cache type such as this but I feel it is realistic and educational option for a new cache type.

[+MartyBartfast]

Sounds good to me, so I hope it takes off.

 

I thought it had been suggested in the past and dismissed, so interesting to see that GS are (possibly) considering it this time.

[Space*Cadet]

Great idea! I like it!

[+cheech gang]

Discussed Here

[+redsox_mark]

It is an idea which has been discussed here before.. but I think it is a good one.

 

Geography is divided into two main branches: human geography and physical geography. We have Earthcaches as special virtuals relating to interesting physical geography. The Historical caches would be relating to interesting "human geography". I'm probably slightly misusing these definitions.. but basically what I'm saying is a location is generally interesting because of something physical or something human related. At least a subset of the physical features are covered by Earthcaches; the Historical caches could add the human/historical side.

[+cheech gang]

A. It has been discussed in several threads here and the consensus was that it is a good idea.

 

B. Keystone pointed out that it would need sponsorship from an established Historical entity.

 

C. It has been discussed here and we already know what the reaction is. I wonder why you were advised to bring it up here AGAIN in the Black Hole of good ideas?

[+Dr. Who and K-9]

I just read the replies and the thread already on this subject. I admit I do not get on the Forums alot so did not know this had been approached already. That said, I think my thread may have some points not brought up before, such as dedicated reviewers of this cache type only and "historical" geo-tours without containers to maintain.

 

For those of you on the Forums constantly, I apologise for the repetitiveness of the thread. That still doesn't count out the value of the thread.

[+Dr. Who and K-9]

A. It has been discussed in several threads here and the consensus was that it is a good idea.

 

B. Keystone pointed out that it would need sponsorship from an established Historical entity.

 

C. It has been discussed here and we already know what the reaction is. I wonder why you were advised to bring it up here AGAIN in the Black Hole of good ideas?

 

A. That is good to know.

B. Not sure why it would "need" to have to have a sponsorship forman Historical entity as long as there is a dedicated set of reviewers to insure the validity of a locale and placement.

C. Maybe Groundspeak saw some different ideas in my idea that was not necessarily covered in some previous suggestions.

 

I admit I don't have the time to cover every topic and thread ever written in the forums so this may be old news to alot of you but many just occasionally get on the forums and find this as new.

[Clan Riffster]

I wonder why you were advised to bring it up here AGAIN in the Black Hole of good ideas?

Groundspeak is a very polite corporate entity.

I think it's safe to say, based on past history, if they do give it a go, and us users put a bunch of time and effort creating, as well as finding them, that Groundspeak will make some pithy comment about better mistakes, and erase our efforts as if they never happened. Since an historic cache would likely not be a power trail, don't look for too much support from on high.

[+cheech gang]

My comments were not critical of you. My point was that it has been discussed and deemed to be a good idea. But there is little evidence that the discussion is monitored by TPTB and that the concept is actually being considered. This was reinforced by the recommendation for you to bring it up in the forums. It appears that TPTB do not realize it was already being discussed in the forums. Read into that what you may.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Can someone please refresh my memory: did the Geological Society of America approach Groundspeak about Earthcaches or was it the otother way around? Were there geocachers in the GSA? I'm trying to brainstorm how we could/should approach the American Historical Society or some ssimilar organization.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I think it's safe to say, based on past history, if they do give it a go, and us users put a bunch of time and effort creating, as well as finding them, that Groundspeak will make some pithy comment about better mistakes, and erase our efforts as if they never happened. Since an historic cache would likely not be a power trail, don't look for too much support from on high.

 

Groundspeak Challenges had ALOT of problems from the moment they were released and made few people really happy.

 

Historicaches as a companion to Earthcaches (and done in a similiar style) have been long rrequested.

[+Dr. Who and K-9]

My comments were not critical of you. My point was that it has been discussed and deemed to be a good idea. But there is little evidence that the discussion is monitored by TPTB and that the concept is actually being considered. This was reinforced by the recommendation for you to bring it up in the forums. It appears that TPTB do not realize it was already being discussed in the forums. Read into that what you may.

 

Hey no offense taken at all. I was just regarding each comment you made in order. I'm glad you are replying and stating opinions.

 

All I am trying to do is following their suggestions on how to proceed. If it is Groundspeaks idea of giving me the brush-off, then I am out little except the time to create the thread. All I can do is make an attempt and go from there.

[+El Pollo Loco Gang]

I really like the idea of Historical Caches. I'm sure if GS wants to kill the idea, they'll just point back to Waymarking, which I often wonder if they look back and shake their heads and ask "What were we thinking?" with that one. I've never understood the thought process that ended up with a conclusion to create a new "game" that's not linked with your current, income-generating game, thus diverting and confusing your audience.

 

It would be nice if they put some effort into adding to the game instead of taking away, which seems to happen more frequently than the opposite. I'm trying to think of what new has been added with significant value. All that comes to mind are Wherigos and souvenirs, neither of which seem to have added much, IMHO.

 

I hope you have some luck with this idea, but I fear that consigning it to the forums is the corporate way of hitting the "ignore" button.

[+redsox_mark]

B. Not sure why it would "need" to have to have a sponsorship forman Historical entity as long as there is a dedicated set of reviewers to insure the validity of a locale and placement.

 

 

The key point is for it to work it would need a specialized set of reviewers who amongst other things would assess if the cache was "worthy" and had enough educational content etc. Similar to what happens for Earthcaches. Earthcaches are managed by The Geological Society of America's (GSA) Education and Outreach program. Yes in theory Groundspeak could find their own special historical reviewers but I don't see that happening.

[+redsox_mark]

Can someone please refresh my memory: did the Geological Society of America approach Groundspeak about Earthcaches or was it the otother way around? Were there geocachers in the GSA? I'm trying to brainstorm how we could/should approach the American Historical Society or some ssimilar organization.

 

Reference http://www.earthcache.org/

 

A little history....

In 2003 at a GSA conference, a GSA members suggested that the Society become involved in geocaching. A meeting was then held with Geocaching.com along with some land manager partners, such as the US National Park Service to consider a program that would meet land manager issues as well as develop a way to teach the geocaching community something about Earth science. Based on those discussions, a set of basic guidelines were developed which form the core of the current EarthCache publishing guidelines.

[Clan Riffster]

Groundspeak Challenges had ALOT of problems from the moment they were released and made few people really happy.

Do tell? What problems did you notice with them?

 

The mindless horde kept screaming for the return of virtuals, without a wow factor. With the exception of the name change, challenges were exactly what they asked for. With a traditional virtual, you went to a set of posted coords, found something that the owner wanted you to see, and took a picture. With user created challenges, you did the same thing. With the old locationless cache type, the creator determined what you would hunt, and the seeker provided the location. Not much different from the Groundspeak created challenges.

 

At the point of inception, I'm not seeing many problems.

 

Like the lovers of lame micros blurt out, if you didn't like them, they were easy to avoid.

 

Groundspeak initially allowed these to count toward your total cache finds, just like virtuals. Then the mindless horde shouted to the heavens, and this was changed. Folks still enjoyed creating them, and finding them, so this change didn't have the impact that the mindless horde hoped for. At that point, the mindless horde changed tactics. Rather than shouting at the heavens, they went to every challenge page they became aware of, and voted it down. Again, Groundspeak caved to this vocal minority, and erased all the hard work the creators and seekers had done.

 

As best I can tell, the only problems with challenges, when they first came out, is that the interface was hard to use when searching outside your geographic region. That's an easy fix, not worthy of how Groundspeak treated their customers when they erased our efforts. The other problems came later, when Groundspeak caved to the horde.

 

Historicaches as a companion to Earthcaches (and done in a similiar style) have been long rrequested.

Yet another slightly reworded request to bring back virtuals by another name. We saw how well Groundspeak treated us the last time we supported them with our time and efforts. If Groundspeak decides this in another 'mistake', do you think they'll treat the creators and seekers any differently than they did with challenges? Past experience teaches us otherwise. Groundspeak could have shut down challenges, while letting us keep all the documented memories of what we created and sought out. Just like the owners and seekers of locationless caches got to keep them. But they elected to flush all our efforts down the toilet, as if we, the customer, meant nothing.

[4wheelin_fool]

Its a good idea, but you need to get a historical society involved to promote it.

[Keystone]

Thank you to redsox mark for the last two posts - they are very helpful.

 

To recap why I felt it important to have a History equivalent of the GSA before a HistoryCache type could be launched successfully: Earthcaches are significantly more time-consuming to review. The average cycle time is longer than for geocaches and the percentage that are published with no changes is significantly lower than for geocaches. I expect the same would be true for HistoryCaches. Just like every waterfall, glacial erratic and artesian well got submitted as an earthcache, we can expect that every historical marker and every house where Queen Victoria / George Washington / Martin Luther spent the night would be submitted as a HistoryCache. Likewise, everyone who wants a virtual cache tries today to make it fit into an earthcache and in the future would try to make it fit into a HistoryCache. The GSA responded to the glut of "ordinary" earthcaches and "virtuals disguised as earthcaches" by tightening its guidelines and providing leadership and appeals support for the Earthcache reviewer team. Nobody likes to hear that their baby is ugly, whether that baby is a glacial erratic or a roadside marker, so they will argue and appeal any attempt to limit the volume and promote quality. All this work takes time and resources, which are precious commodities for Groundspeak. Geocaching HQ should focus their efforts on improving geocaching - leaving the details of running the Earthcache program to the GSA and the HistoryCache program to the ______________.

 

The above are my personal opinions as a volunteer cache reviewer and as someone who would be interested in becoming a HistoryCache reviewer. In order to add HistoryCache duties to my plate, I'd need to scale back on my geocaching review work. I see what my colleagues go through in reviewing earthcaches.

[+tozainamboku]

Since an historic cache would likely not be a power trail,...

How could you know this. Aside from the example of the LPC I often give that had a writeup of the historic structure that was moved in order to make room for the parking lot, I could imagine some historic route like the Oregon Trail being marked by a Historic Cache every .1 miles or so where their is a trail marker or plaque of some sort.

 

There is no guarantee that just because a location has some historic significance that it is all that interesting to visit and there is little doubt in my mind that if someone can avoid the expense of a film can and the need to do maintenance that people would find ways to make their "lame" caches into history caches.

 

I already find most EarthCaches are not very "wow" places. Sometimes the geology lesson is interesting but usually one can find a better site for the same lesson. Assuming there is an educational requirement for history caches, I suspect you will see much the same. You might find out something interesting you didn't know about George Washington, but mostly what you'll discover is where he slept.

[Moun10Bike]

My comments were not critical of you. My point was that it has been discussed and deemed to be a good idea. But there is little evidence that the discussion is monitored by TPTB and that the concept is actually being considered. This was reinforced by the recommendation for you to bring it up in the forums. It appears that TPTB do not realize it was already being discussed in the forums. Read into that what you may.

 

The kind (and overworked) folks who answer emails and requests at Groundspeak have limited experience with the forums in general, let alone deep knowledge of the various recurring threads and ideas. Others of us at the company that do, however, have already entered this idea in our backlog for consideration when the time is right. As others have mentioned - including Keystone - that time will depend on a history-based society similar to the GSA who approaches Groundspeak with the desire, willingness, and commitment to starting and maintaining a History Cache program in partnership with us. The geocaching community can help with this by contacting any such societies out there and encouraging them to start up such a program.

[Pup Patrol]

All I am trying to do is following their suggestions on how to proceed. If it is Groundspeaks idea of giving me the brush-off, then I am out little except the time to create the thread. All I can do is make an attempt and go from there.

 

Groundspeak often tells folks to go to the forums with their ideas.

 

It's unfortunate that they don't direct folks to the correct subforum, or to the Guidelines, or suggest using the search function on the forums (which does work just fine, to those folks who complain that it doesn't).

 

A recent thread was posted about a proposed cache hide idea that got the same brush-off from Groundspeak. Instead of suggesting that the person post in the forums, Groundspeak could have directed the person to the relevant section of the Guidelines.

 

I think that a thread requesting something with 400 replies saying "yes, please" might be more effective than 400 threads with little or no support.

 

Not really, though, as Groundspeak doesn't take suggestions seriously. Nonetheless, a thread with a lot of support is a good background should they ever want to actually listen to their members.

 

 

B.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Pup Patrol

[Clan Riffster]

Since an historic cache would likely not be a power trail,...

How could you know this.

Because I am capable of reasoned deduction?

[+dprovan]

B. Keystone pointed out that it would need sponsorship from an established Historical entity.

B. Not sure why it would "need" to have to have a sponsorship forman Historical entity as long as there is a dedicated set of reviewers to insure the validity of a locale and placement.

Conceptually, I think the idea is that there's one entity that owns the feature. I don't think this would work without standards as high as EarthCaches, so some group recognized as authoritative needs to set and maintain them. I think that's why EarthCaches work.

 

Practically, it needs a respected historical entity to push for it before it will happen. I love the idea, and obviously a lot of other people do, too. It's clear to me that this idea doesn't need popular support. What it needs is a patron.

[Clan Riffster]

I could imagine some historic route like the Oregon Trail being marked by a Historic Cache every .1 miles or so where their is a trail marker or plaque of some sort.

You could be right. It's been a long time since I was up that way. I don't recall seeing markers and/or plaques every 529' back then. Have things changed? Whilst I lack the technical expertise of folks like Joshism or Keystone, history still holds great interest to me. Off the top of my head I can't think of any historical region which has 100+ sites, in close proximity to one another, historically valid enough to make it through a process as stringent as earthcaches currently go through. If you know of some, could you share these with us, less enlightened readers?

Edited September 13, 2013 by Clan Riffster

[Pup Patrol]

Here in Canada, Parks Canada has created a geotour, which is historical in theme.

 

Heritage Hide’n’Seek GeoTour

http://www.geocaching.com/adventures/geotours/hhs

 

Other geotours can be found here:

http://www.geocaching.com/adventures/geotours?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=geocachingcomgeotours&utm_campaign=10-3-12

 

Found under

 

Help Center → Business Partnerships → GeoTours: Create Your Own

3.4. Geocaching Vacation Destinations

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=352

 

 

B.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

B. Not sure why it would "need" to have to have a sponsorship forman Historical entity as long as there is a dedicated set of reviewers to insure the validity of a locale and placement.

 

 

The key point is for it to work it would need a specialized set of reviewers who amongst other things would assess if the cache was "worthy" and had enough educational content etc. Similar to what happens for Earthcaches. Earthcaches are managed by The Geological Society of America's (GSA) Education and Outreach program. Yes in theory Groundspeak could find their own special historical reviewers but I don't see that happening.

 

Neither do I. Keystone mentioned this earlier and I've mentioned it at least a couple of times in the past. There have been suggestions for a History cache type many, many times in the past and so far nobody has identified an organization that is willing to step up to the plate and server the same function that the GSA provides for Earthcaches. Until that happens, I don't ever see GS agreeing to start development work for implementing a History cache type.

 

 

[+briansnat]

I don't think there is a need for another cache type, but I'd love to see an historic site attribute. They seem to have an attribute for nearly everything else these days.

[+Poker70]

Just a thought, but has anyone contacted the "National Trust for Historic Preservation"? That might be a first step...

[+Don_J]

 

For those of you on the Forums constantly, I apologise for the repetitiveness of the thread. That still doesn't count out the value of the thread.

 

A. It has been discussed in several threads here and the consensus was that it is a good idea.

 

B. Keystone pointed out that it would need sponsorship from an established Historical entity.

 

C. It has been discussed here and we already know what the reaction is. I wonder why you were advised to bring it up here AGAIN in the Black Hole of good ideas?

 

A. That is good to know.

B. Not sure why it would "need" to have to have a sponsorship forman Historical entity as long as there is a dedicated set of reviewers to insure the validity of a locale and placement.

C. Maybe Groundspeak saw some different ideas in my idea that was not necessarily covered in some previous suggestions.

 

I admit I don't have the time to cover every topic and thread ever written in the forums so this may be old news to alot of you but many just occasionally get on the forums and find this as new.

 

Repeating the thread does not dismiss it's value as Groundspeak has always contended that the more an idea is brought up by different people, the more likely that are to consider that idea. In the past, this was the way that new ideas got implemented. We're not too sure of how true that is currently because practically no new idea has been implemented in over two years, and they have changed their policy to not publicly acknowledge any new ideas.

 

Also understand that most people on the forum consider Groundspeak sending you here as their way of dismissing you without actually dismissing you.

 

As far as the suggestion, I see no reason why it couldn't work as long as it is modeled as closely as possible to the Earthcaches. One thing that is unique to the Earthcache is that each one requires explicit permission from the land owner and the CO is required to provide the contact information for the person that granted that permission during the review process. It take quite a bit of time and effort to set up an Earthcache so as a result, they don't end up every 528' down the highway.

 

If one is driving down a Nevada state highway, the chances are that they can't go 15 miles before they run into the next "Historical Site" sign, most of which already have a mint tin stuck to them. Do we need a Historical virtual cache on every one as well? Make the potential cache owner do the extra work and that probably won't happen

[+The_Incredibles_]

I agree this is a good idea and there is alot of positive support for it. Hopefully the right person will come along who will take the bull by the horns and gets this off the ground.

[+Don_J]

My comments were not critical of you. My point was that it has been discussed and deemed to be a good idea. But there is little evidence that the discussion is monitored by TPTB and that the concept is actually being considered. This was reinforced by the recommendation for you to bring it up in the forums. It appears that TPTB do not realize it was already being discussed in the forums. Read into that what you may.

 

Hey no offense taken at all. I was just regarding each comment you made in order. I'm glad you are replying and stating opinions.

 

All I am trying to do is following their suggestions on how to proceed. If it is Groundspeaks idea of giving me the brush-off, then I am out little except the time to create the thread. All I can do is make an attempt and go from there.

 

What a great, refreshing attitude. The last person we delivered that news too threatened Geocide and to withhold their premium membership fees.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Don_J

[+tozainamboku]

Repeating the thread does not dismiss it's value as Groundspeak has always contended that the more an idea is brought up by different people, the more likely that are to consider that idea. In the past, this was the way that new ideas got implemented. We're not too sure of how true that is currently because practically no new idea has been implemented in over two years, and they have changed their policy to not publicly acknowledge any new ideas.

Lots of new ideas have been implemented in the past two years. Perhaps the issue is that nothing was implemented that began as suggestion on the forum. However we know that "Challenges" were created in response to the continuing request to provide caching experience that didn't require a physical cache.

 

TPTB have acknowledge that the ability to do something akin to virtual caches is the most often requested feature. Perhaps in learning from the mistakes they have made with other attempts to find a solution for this, they understand that you need some kind of "wow" factor to limit the numbers of the these caches and ensure that have at least some appeal to geocachers.

 

EarthCaches solved these issues by

1. limiting the location to places of geological interest
   
2. requiring them to provide a bonifide educational experience
   
3. having an outside group responsible for defining what this means and enforcing it
   

 

It could be that TPTB now believe the same can be done with History caches and are willing to entertain proposals from history societies to define a new cache type. Or it could be that they send people to the forum because the discussion might point out the differences between history and geology that might make a History cache be less workable.

 

EarthCaches already suffer from an issue of people who want a broader definition of Earth science than EarthCache.org uses. EarthCache.org now limits EarthCaches on certain topics (like waterfalls) because these became too common and were often not providing any new lesson that wasn't alresdy avaliable in the area. EarthCache.org has also tightened the educational requirements, making it much harder to get an EarthCache approved as well as turning off some people who now find EarthCaches to be too pedantic.

 

I have little doubt that these issues will be even more of problem for History caches. People will argue of the significance of historic site and many will have problems researching their cache to provide a reasonable lesson.

 

With EarthCaches you can often ask the finder to make an observation at the cache site - for example "Estimate how thick the stratum with the fossils is" or "What colors do you see in the rock". These observation can be tied into the lesson on the cache, teaching the finder what geologist might look for and what that tells them. Direct observation at an historic site might be possible some of the time, but I suspect this rarer that with geological sites. I believe that most history caches will end up asking you to get some information of a plaque or historic marker. In most cases the same information could be found online. There really isn't a reason to visit the site and that may lead to abuse.

[+Manville Possum]

Thank you to redsox mark for the last two posts - they are very helpful.

 

To recap why I felt it important to have a History equivalent of the GSA before a HistoryCache type could be launched successfully: Earthcaches are significantly more time-consuming to review. The average cycle time is longer than for geocaches and the percentage that are published with no changes is significantly lower than for geocaches. I expect the same would be true for HistoryCaches. Just like every waterfall, glacial erratic and artesian well got submitted as an earthcache, we can expect that every historical marker and every house where Queen Victoria / George Washington / Martin Luther spent the night would be submitted as a HistoryCache. Likewise, everyone who wants a virtual cache tries today to make it fit into an earthcache and in the future would try to make it fit into a HistoryCache. The GSA responded to the glut of "ordinary" earthcaches and "virtuals disguised as earthcaches" by tightening its guidelines and providing leadership and appeals support for the Earthcache reviewer team. Nobody likes to hear that their baby is ugly, whether that baby is a glacial erratic or a roadside marker, so they will argue and appeal any attempt to limit the volume and promote quality. All this work takes time and resources, which are precious commodities for Groundspeak. Geocaching HQ should focus their efforts on improving geocaching - leaving the details of running the Earthcache program to the GSA and the HistoryCache program to the ______________.

 

The above are my personal opinions as a volunteer cache reviewer and as someone who would be interested in becoming a HistoryCache reviewer. In order to add HistoryCache duties to my plate, I'd need to scale back on my geocaching review work. I see what my colleagues go through in reviewing earthcaches.

Mr. Keystone I understand that you are a busy man and devote a lot of your time to this site. I love history caches, and I just wanted to say thanks for offering to be a history cache reviewer. I think there is enough interest in history caches that Groundspeak could use a new cache type. The only problem I see with just adding a history cache attribute is would it be properly used? How many LPC's have scuba gear required or livestock present in the parking lot? I just see too much potential for abuse and misuse of a history cache attribute when running a PQ. Thank you for your time, sir. If anyone can help, you da man.

[+sialis]

I think that this is a wonderful idea. I live in an area that is rich in history. Many of the the historic spots are in areas where it isn't feasible to place physical containers and this would be a great alternative.

[+Manville Possum]

I think that this is a wonderful idea. I live in an area that is rich in history. Many of the the historic spots are in areas where it isn't feasible to place physical containers and this would be a great alternative.

I have been creating history caches that require a code phrase to log, very similar to Waymarking. They are containerless, and I would love to see that cache type here on Groundspeak's site.