»Nature Geocaches« as a new kind of virtual geocaches?

[+alsterdrache]

Dear friends,

 

I attended a wonderful event weekend in Hamburg, Germany, last Friday and Saturday (including a quite creative CITO, too). Feel free to have a look at the many pictures I uploaded to each of the listings. The location was surrounded by heath and woods; very lovely in fall indeed.

 

Later that Friday night, a fruitful and progressive discussion (I should mention, by the way, without the help of alcohol) came up at the bonfire. We all know about the current situation of grandfathered virtual geocaches. For many of us, Waymarking is just not the same and can't replace them. At the same time, last January, the guidelines for new EarthCaches became stricter by requiring a sole focus on geology. Several colleagues have tried to set up listings for EarthCaches that were, in the end, all rejected since they simply didn't meet those requirements such as a beautiful sea ("not of glacial origin"), a barrow [sometimes called a hill grave]("historic but man-made"), or a group of both rare and old trees ("just nature").

 

That lead us the question if the invention of a new virtual geocache type wouldn't make sense for that! Our working title would be "Nature Geocache," similar to the existing EarthCaches but for all of those wonders in nature that don't have a link to geology. The counter argument was (already at the bonfire discussion) that one could also leave a traditional geocache but sometimes, you just don't want to do that because the location is in a natural reserve area (where geocaching might be forbidden) or you don't want the nature be destroyed by inconsiderate fellow geocachers. Apart from that, it might be greater to let people individually answer question to what they see at those places, similar to the ones in "old EarthCache" listings. Therefore, a new geocache type could be a possible solution.

 

I just wanted to share our little discussion with the broader community. It's just an idea, nothing else, but the more I think about it, the more I like the thought of having "Nature Geocaches." At last, we all enjoy being outside in the nature and embracing its beauty, don't we? Please share your thoughts about it here; I'm really interested to see the various opinions on it.

 

Regards, alsterdrache

[+J Grouchy]

Earth, History...and now Nature...

I'm not even really a fan of the plain old Virtual caches...so I honestly don't think we need any expansion of the containerless caches. If anything, why not just expand the definition of Earthcache?

[+CanadianRockies]

The counter argument was (already at the bonfire discussion) that one could also leave a traditional geocache but sometimes, you just don't want to do that because the location is in a natural reserve area (where geocaching might be forbidden) or you don't want the nature be destroyed by inconsiderate fellow geocachers.

Then there's the multi-cache alternative. The first stage could be the natural area you wish to highlight. Information at that location could provide the coordinates needed to find the final stage, which is hidden in a less environmentally sensitive area.

[cezanne]

If anything, why not just expand the definition of Earthcache?

 

On the contrary the GSA strengthened the concept because they are the Geological Society of America.

 

I'm not even sure if it would help if another scientific society jumped in and offered the same support than the GSA for an extended concept.

It appears to me that GS is not really interested into wider concepts of containerless caches.

 

Cezanne

[+eigengott]

It appears to me that GS is not really interested into wider concepts of containerless caches.

 

Well, actually they sucessfully run a whole site dedicated to containerless things: http://www.Waymarking.com

 

Coincidentally that site even has a top-level category for "nature": http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=49f29818-1df4-4848-80d6-8bc36218d022

[+T.D.M.22]

Whose treview those caches? Lots of times, special nature places are only know by the locals-so how is your average reviewer to know a true cache from one made to just get numbers, with no real "nature" to speak of. What makes a nature cache anyway? Special rock formations? A place that wasn't touche during the last ice age? A tree that wasn't supposed to be able to survive the local climate, but it's over 100 years old? A specific spot where the crop is different due to the specific climate?

 

What I think is worthy, you might not. Who says what is worthy?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It appears to me that GS is not really interested into wider concepts of containerless caches.

 

Well, actually they sucessfully run a whole site dedicated to containerless things: http://www.Waymarking.com

 

Coincidentally that site even has a top-level category for "nature": http://www.Waymarkin...d6-8bc36218d022

 

There are whole web sites dedicated to just about anything you could possibly imagine. That doesn't make any all of the particularly useful. In this case, the OP indicated that they were specifically not satisfied with the Waymarking site as a means to handle "nature caches".

 

The primary issue is, as is the case for the often suggested "history caches" is that there needs to be some official organization that has to step up to the plate to specifically define a "nature cache" and to act as a reviewer body in a similar fashion that the GSA has done for earth caches. Until that happens, any discussion about the merits or development of a new "Nature Cache" type is academic. Personally, I think "Nature cache" is too broad and ambiguous. Earth caches have the requirement that the must be about "earth science" and be educational. What's the criteria for defining a "Nature Cache"?

 

 

[cezanne]

It appears to me that GS is not really interested into wider concepts of containerless caches.

 

Well, actually they sucessfully run a whole site dedicated to containerless things: http://www.Waymarking.com

 

Coincidentally that site even has a top-level category for "nature": http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=49f29818-1df4-4848-80d6-8bc36218d022

 

Containerless caches are something different than Waymarking. Waymarking is also much better suited to show single objects (waypoints).

There exist categories for entire trails, but typically it is about visiting one checkpoint and not about providing e.g. a proof that one hiked along the entire 100 km long distance trail. For a cache designed along such a route, there exist much more options to mainly get logs of those who really have something to share and walked along the entire trail.

 

I'm interested into containerless geocaching, but not in Waymarking, and no, it is not related to find counts as I would prefer that containerless caches are not counted for the find count.

 

Have a look for example at my existing virtual cache or at this cache of mine

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2M4N8_a-trip-between-worlds?guid=928f7922-25d6-4550-a902-044043baf0bb

which has a container, but only because there was no other way to implement the idea.

None of these caches and many others fit into Waymarking.

 

I have done many caches with 20 and more question to answer stages and one container at the end. Leaving out the container and end up with walk which leads you to

20 locations where at each location something needs to be done in order to arrive at some final result, is much closer to the version where a container is hidden than to what Waymarking has to offer.

 

Waymarking is well suited when the focus is only about pointing out locations, but less suited when the educational focus or the puzzle solving focus play a key role.

 

Moreover, there exists no PQ integration of waymarks which is one of the reasons why are they are neglected in my area and thus of no interest to me.

 

Cezanne

Edited October 24, 2013 by cezanne

[+cerberus1]

Similar was asked for here last year.

Envirocache seemed like agenda and Biocache, well, didn't seem to fare much better as the thread kinda died out.

The "volunteer organization" thing was mentioned there a few times and for the historycache idea as well.

Without an organization contacting Groundspeak, these ideas just become another "bring back virtuals" thread.

[+suchanana]

The counter argument was (already at the bonfire discussion) that one could also leave a traditional geocache but sometimes, you just don't want to do that because the location is in a natural reserve area (where geocaching might be forbidden) or you don't want the nature be destroyed by inconsiderate fellow geocachers.

Then there's the multi-cache alternative. The first stage could be the natural area you wish to highlight. Information at that location could provide the coordinates needed to find the final stage, which is hidden in a less environmentally sensitive area.

 

my vote, FWIW, do the multi-cache alternative now... save the discussions for the bonfires - with,or without,alcohol...

[+Sagefox]

...the more I like the thought of having "Nature Geocaches." At last, we all enjoy being outside in the nature and embracing its beauty, don't we? Please share your thoughts about it here; I'm really interested to see the various opinions on it.

 

You are describing a Virtual Cache with ALRs. This idea just limits them to nature.

 

There are many good reasons why Virtual Caches were ended as a cache type and the reasons are still valid. Container geocaches provide the means to get us out into nature.

[+tozainamboku]

Waymarking is well suited when the focus is only about pointing out locations, but less suited when the educational focus or the puzzle solving focus play a key role.

Sadly, the failure of Waymarking has been that both waymaker and geocachers tend to believe this. The fact is that there in nothing in the underlying structure of Waymarking that prevents categories being created that emphsize an educational, problem solving, or game playing focus.

 

It is true that most categories are nothing more than catalogs of locations that fit in that category. However, each category stands alone and is managed by it's own group of officers who set the requirements for that category. Any premium member can start a group to propose and and manage a new category. Each category can define its own category variables, thereby customizing what information is required to be supplied when creating a new waymark in that category. These variable can (and have been used) to set up waymarks with multiple coordinates, ones that have questions to answer, etc. I would bet that Waymarking would be far more popular among Geocachers if there were more categories created for that purpose.

[cezanne]

It is true that most categories are nothing more than catalogs of locations that fit in that category. However, each category stands alone and is managed by it's own group of officers who set the requirements for that category. Any premium member can start a group to propose and and manage a new category.

 

I'm sufficiently familiar with Waymarking to be aware of that, but what you mention above are also two drawbacks from my personal point of view.

 

I do not like the concept of officers that make up rules for the others - this limits individual creativity and ends up with even more rigid restrictions than those of the GSA for Earthcaches which are partly just based on personal preferences (I helped some other cachers with ECs, but decided not to set up one of my own because I do not approve this policy of the GSA).

 

I would like to contribute with a small number of containerless caches (each of a different type - no two would belong to what would I put into the same class if I needed to classify them in whichever manner), but I neither would want to be part of a group manages waymark categories nor would I want to follow the strict rules of others (the geocaching guidelines are something different for me as they are not based on personal preferences).

 

In my opinion the concept of classification is inherent in the concept of Waymarking and I do not want to classify my ideas. Each is different.

 

I agree however that certain types of nature caches as suggested above could in some form be implemented within Waymarking without too much trouble.

As long as waymarks are not integrated into geocaching and do not count as caches, those interested will remain a small group however (and among this small group to which I belong many are turned off by other features of Waymarking).

 

 

Each category can define its own category variables, thereby customizing what information is required to be supplied when creating a new waymark in that category. These variable can (and have been used) to set up waymarks with multiple coordinates, ones that have questions to answer, etc. I would bet that Waymarking would be far more popular among Geocachers if there were more categories created for that purpose.

 

I'm not sure about this. The types of caches (regardless of with or without container) that are most interesting for me are not popular among the masses anyway and will always only target ar minorities. I guess that the majority of geocachers is already turned down because two separate systems need to be used, but that's not my personal reason for disliking Waymarking.

 

 

 

Cezanne

[+alsterdrache]

Well, actually they sucessfully run a whole site dedicated to containerless things: http://www.Waymarking.com

 

Successfully? As I have already written in my first statement, Waymarking is obviously a failure and not really being developed anymore by Groundspeak; just have a look at the ancient web design of Waymarking.com. Additionally, the system of group managing and peer review doesn't work at all. I started to create new waymarks roughly a year ago - and had to wait over FOUR months to get some of them being approved and published. When I finally and frustrated contacted Groundspeak then, the answer was that they focus only an geocaching and that I could alternatively apply to become a group manager myself (which wasn't my aim at all). But I was glad to receive such a clear and unmasked statement as an official answer. Taking all this into consideration, a new geocache type covering all this could be a solution since "the community" focusses on geocaching mainly, too: They just follow the route! So, why should it be a bad idea to merge those two groups? In Hamburg, a major German city with almost two million inhabitants, there are less than 10 active waymarkers. If there were really more, my own waymarks would have been visited more often than two to four times within a year, wouldn't they? To sum it up and to say it once again, Waymarking is no adequate replacement of virtual geocaches.

[JSK-Cacher]

"Natural Geocaches" could be caches with a regular listing but without the need to pass a review process. Correspondingly, the founds of NG will not count in the total number of founds as it is with benchmarks. I think, this could be a good idea.

[+T.D.M.22]

"Natural Geocaches" could be caches with a regular listing but without the need to pass a review process. Correspondingly, the founds of NG will not count in the total number of founds as it is with benchmarks. I think, this could be a good idea.

 

No review? That'll happen when challenges come back. That means I could have a nature cache for each tree in the forest. No review means no way of enforcing guidelines. Nature is a broad term. I could even have one for each blade of grass on my front lawn. How ate we to say what qualifies osma nature cache, or even enforce that if there is not reviewing of them? And then we have the part where it doesn't count for anything. Well that means no people will want to do them. If I want to go visit a nature site ill do it on my own, not for a "find" that's not ven worth a boost on my stats. And I suspect this would be true of most people.

[+alsterdrache]

Once again, I just wanted to share some thoughts from a bonfire chat with you guys. These were led by the leitmotif how we as a community could bring geocaching forward. Interesting to see that others had similar ideas beforehand like inventing "history geocaches" and others.

 

And no, "each leaf of grass" (to be precise ) wouldn't make a "Nature Geocache" since not letting them undergo a review process doesn't mean that one could not also determine in the guidelines what acceptable examples for this new geocache type were.

 

Additionally, two remarks to the aspect: "And then we have the part where it doesn't count for anything. Well that means no people will want to do them." First, I personally enjoyed my attempts of benchmark hunting, searching for this tiny markers, although they don't count to the total of founds. Second, in my personal opinion, statistics is just crap since it's obviously incomparable: Currently, you'll get one point, no matter what kind of geocache you found. It would make much more sense to reward each tradi with one point, each multi with points corresponding to the number of stages, and to set the number of points for puzzle geocaches with relation to the difficulty stars, and so on. Then everything would be comparable. Right now, it's not. That's why I turned off my statistics and don't care for it at all. For me, the overview in my profile is nothing but a list of places that I've been so far. Therefore, "Nature Geocaches" without any points would be fine, too.

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and ideas anyway.